Haringey London Borough Council (202429149)

Background

1. Following an order made in our previous determination (202115547) to move the resident’s cooker, the resident complained that operatives kept attending her property without prior notice. The landlord has recorded that the resident has various physical and mental health related vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of unannounced visits by its heating contractor to reposition her cooker.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of unannounced visits by its heating contractor to reposition her cooker.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Unannounced visits

5. The landlord made repeated visits to the property without prior arrangement with the resident. It failed to follow its repairs policy by not notifying the resident when repairs would take place.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not meet the requirements of its own complaints policy or the Code. It delayed sending a stage 1 response and failed to address all aspects of the complaint.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The landlord’s heating contractor attended the property on 13 June 2023 to move the resident’s cooker. It noted it could not move it within the kitchen’s current layout. This was within 6 weeks of receiving our determination (202115547). The contractor returned on 4 July 2023 and explained that it would not be able to move the cooker until the kitchen had been redesigned as part of the planned major works. This was appropriate.
8. The contractor did not attend the property again until 14 June 2024. The landlord accepts it failed to give the resident prior notice of this appointment. This was not in line with its responsive repairs policy, which requires it to notify residents when repair work will take place.
9. The resident complained that the contractor had carried out 4 “surveys” of her property since our previous determination. The landlord disputed this and said its records showed only 3 visits. However, the evidence shows visits on 13 June 2023, 4 July 2023, 12 December 2023, and 14 June 2024. The records suggest the first 2 visits related to the relocation of the cooker and the latter 2 were for repairs. There is no evidence the landlord gave the resident advance notice of any of these visits or explained the reasons for them. This likely caused avoidable disruption and confusion.
10. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to agree appointment times with the resident and failed to explain the purpose of the visits. It demonstrated learning from the complaint and gave assurances that it would keep the resident better informed about future appointments.
11. While the landlord took some steps to resolve the complaint in line with our dispute resolution principles, these did not fully address the impact of its failings. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the repeated lack of communication would have likely caused her distress and inconvenience. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident redress that is in line with our remedies guidance. This is because, although it attempted to put things right, it did not sufficiently address the detriment caused.

12. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how landlords should handle complaints. The landlord’s published policy (April 2024 version) meets the Code’s timescale requirements.
13. The landlord took 60 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. There is no evidence it provided updates or holding responses, explained the delays, or gave revised timescales. It also failed to provide our contact details when the delay exceeded its policy timescales. This did not comply with the Code’s requirements.
14. At stage 2, the resident raised concerns about operatives being sent to emergency appointments in error. The landlord did not address this as part of its response. This was not in line with the Code, which requires landlords to investigate complaints thoroughly and address all issues raised.
15. In her stage 2 complaint the resident asked the landlord to make a reasonable adjustment in the way it set out its response. There is no evidence it had considered her request. The landlord did not meet the requirement of its complaints policy, which states it will endeavour to make reasonable adjustments to simplify the complaints process.
16. The landlord took some steps to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay at stage 1 and offered £25 compensation. However, this was not proportionate to the failings identified. This is because the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns or set out what it had learned from the complaint. We have therefore ordered additional redress, in line with our remedies guidance, to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

17. The landlord incorrectly stated in its response that its heating contractor had made 3 visits, when its records show it made 4. It should carefully check information it provides before issuing responses to ensure it is accurate.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s repair records were sometimes unclear about the purpose of the visits by its contractor. The landlord may consider how it records, retains and makes this information available with reference to our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).

Communication

19. It was appropriate that the landlord gave assurances in its response that, in future, it would prearrange appointments with the resident and explain what they are for. This demonstrates it had taken learning after identifying its poor communication.