Haringey London Borough Council (202431563)

Decision
Case ID	202431563
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Haringey London Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident reported a draught coming from the front door to the property. The landlord confirmed it needed replacing following an inspection. The resident sought an explanation for the delayed work and compensation for the distress and costs incurred while trying to keep the property warm.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords:

1. Handling of reports of repairs to a door.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:

1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s management of the door repair.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Door repair

4. The landlord and resident agree the repair work was delayed. The landlord acknowledged a lack of oversight of its contractor and a backlog of outstanding repair work. The door has since been repaired and compensation paid.

Complaint handling

5. The stage 1 and 2 responses acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident but did not provide an explanation for the delays caused by the landlord. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request at stage 2 and provided its response outside the expected timescale.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 28 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 June 2024	The resident raised her complaint due to lack of updates about the door repair she had reported on 20 January 2024.
25 June 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response said: It’s operative attended on 14 February 2024 and confirmed a repair wasn’t possible. The issue was referred to a specialist contractor to replace the door. The contractor would contact the resident to confirm the schedule of works. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused.
30 August 2024	The resident requested for the complaint to be escalated. She said a contractor had visited the property on 27 June 2024 to measure the door, but she had heard nothing since from the contractor or landlord.
7 October 2024	The landlord’s stage 2 response said: It could not explain the delays in getting the contractor involved following the initial assessment of the door in February 2024. It could not explain why the contractors hadn’t completed the work yet. It apologised and told the resident it had increased its contractor resources and restructured its teams to help improve oversight of repair works and help to reduce wait times. There was a backlog of outstanding repairs and acknowledged there had been delays. Offered £150 compensation to the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted the Ombudsman to request our involvement in resolving the complaint. The resident had requested more compensation after stage 2 but received no response.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The management of the door repair
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. The resident reported that the front door to the property was letting in a draught on 20 January 2024. The landlord attended on 14 February 2024 and confirmed the repair would need specialist contractors to replace the front door. This is in line with its policy.
7. The landlord failed to refer the repair to the contractor until 4 April 2024. This was a two month delay. The resident mentioned the lack of contact or actions taken in the stage 1 complaint, sent on 7 June 2024.
8. The contractor attended to measure the door on 27 June 2024, but the resident then reported no further contact with the contractor and escalated the complaint.
9. The landlord accepted a lack of oversight with its contractors in its stage 2 response and told the resident it had improved its resources and restructured the teams dealing with repair work to try and reduce waiting times.
10. While these improvements are noted, the landlord could not offer an explanation why it had delayed referring the door repair to the contractor or why it took so long to replace the door following the initial visit to measure. This reflects poorly on the landlord’s oversight of its contractors.
11. The landlord’s contractor replaced the door on 24 October 2024. The delayed repair meant the resident was caused inconvenience over a long period, and she says she had to use her heating more to keep the property warm, which led to increased energy costs.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specifically provide a timescale for repairs involving specialist contractors, but the errors it made caused further delays to the resident. The door repair took a long time to complete and the resident wasn’t kept up to date on progress.
13. On 2 December 2024 the landlord paid £450 to the resident following the completion of the repair. The landlord recognised its failures and updated its award for compensation. This response was reasonable.
14. Since referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has reported new issues with the replacement door and patio area. We have no right to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the more recent repair issues have been through and exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, we have no power to investigate them.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

15. The landlord uses a 2-stage complaints process, which complies with the Complaint Handling Code.
16. The resident raised the complaint on 7 June 2024, and the landlord sent a stage 1 acknowledgement on 11 June 2024. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 25 June 2024, which met the requirement to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
17. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 by email on 30 August 2024. The landlord has not shared evidence that it acknowledged the stage 2 escalation. It sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 7 October 2024.
18. No acknowledgement or extension sent to the resident means the stage 2 response took longer than 20 working days. The landlord failed to follow its own Feedback policy and the Complaint Handling Code when dealing with the stage 2 complaint.
19. As the landlord made some errors in its handling of the complaint, an order to apologise to the resident has been made.

Learning

20. The landlord acknowledged the need to improve its management of contractors and associated repairs, to reduce waiting times and detriment to residents. Our spotlight report Repairing Trust highlights the benefits of strengthening contractor relationships and providing clear and comprehensive communication in response to complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records were detailed enough to allow for the investigation into complaint handling. The landlord was able to provide job reports and repair logs that supported the investigation and our finding.

Communication

22. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation and was late in providing its response. The resident had to chase the landlord and escalate the complaint due to lack of updates regarding the repair. The landlord has an opportunity to review how it keeps residents informed about repair works, to ensure it meets its repair obligations and communication timescales.