Haringey Council (202011998)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011998

Haringey Council

2 September 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The resident’s liability to pay service charges for works which she is dissatisfied with.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s guttering, roof and windowsill.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s liability to pay service charges for works which she is dissatisfied with.
Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. This Service is therefore unable to investigate the resident’s dispute concerning her liability to pay service charges for works which she is dissatisfied with in the way that a court or tribunal might, since this concerns the level of service charge or the amount of service charge increase, and so a determination will not be made on this aspect of her complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder of the property, which is a one-bedroom flat.
The roof, guttering and windows of the resident’s property were renewed by the landlord in 2017.
On 5 August 2020, the resident’s local councillor made an enquiry with the landlord on her behalf, in which they relayed to it that, since the works it had carried out in 2017, she had experienced water penetration into the front of the property from the guttering, which had caused damp and damage. The councillor said that photographs of the guttering indicated that this had been repaired in a “crude fashion”, which led to a leak being “inevitable”.
The resident’s local councillor contended that the replacement of the window in 2017 had led to her windowsill becoming cracked. They questioned the quality of the repair work to the windowsill and suggested that this was potentially unsafe, as this could possibly lead to masonry falling from the window onto pedestrian areas below. The councillor requested details about the repair work, asked which parties had carried this out, and queried who would be responsible for the internal and external repairs, and the damage caused by the damp.
The landlord provided a response to the resident’s local councillor on 19 August 2020, acknowledging the matter as a complaint, in which it provided the repair details and documents as requested. It advised that no issues were reported to its contractor during the original installation works, and that it appeared that the subsequent issues with the leaking guttering and cracked windowsill were reported to its repairs service. The landlord confirmed that a job with a completion date for 22 June 2020 had been raised to address the guttering, but that this had not been completed due to this requiring scaffolding to be erected. It advised that this would be rearranged.
The landlord enclosed certification to show that all of the above works were signed off as satisfactory at the time of completion in 2017. It asserted that any damage to the windowsill would have been identified at the time of completion, otherwise the works would not have been certified. Regarding the damage to the resident’s property’s interior, the landlord referred her to her home insurers. It directed her to its leasehold department to determine who would be responsible for the cost of the repairs.
On 9 December 2020, in response to a subsequent enquiry from the resident’s MP, the landlord confirmed that a job had been raised to inspect the windowsill, brick pointing, structural issues, and a crack in the kitchen of the property on 16 December 2020. It said that the resident had been “fully” informed about the works. The landlord relayed that it had spoken to her, who had advised it that, since it had carried out work to the roof and guttering, the water penetration that she had reported was not from ceiling height, and therefore it concluded that this was not coming from the roof or guttering.
The landlord noted that the resident felt that she should not be charged for past work which did not resolve the issues, and it referred her to its leasehold department to discuss this.
The resident corresponded with her MP again on 20 December 2020, which was relayed to the landlord on 22 December 2020. She disputed its point that the leak that she had reported was not from the guttering as, in her conversation with it, she had said that she could not confirm this until her walls dried out. The resident said that recent rain had shown that the water was still dripping down the external walls and was not being carried away by the guttering. She highlighted that the brickwork had been inspected by an operative on 16 December 2020, who noted that the damage was “extensive”.
The resident said that she had since been in contact with the landlord’s leasehold department, to which she had sent pictures of her property’s internal damage. To date, she advised it that she had not received a response from it.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s above comments on 23 December 2020, advising that it would respond to her by 13 January 2021.
The resident contacted this Service on 15 January 2021 to express her concerns about the standard of the landlord’s repair work, which she said she had been reporting since February 2020. We wrote to it on 28 January 2021 to request that it contact her to resolve her complaint, and to provide a final response to her within 20 working days. The resident’s desired resolutions were for the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs and not to charge her, through the service charge, for this work.
The resident informed this Service on 26 February 2021 that the landlord had yet to respond to her complaint, although it had contacted her about the repairs and had attempted to arrange a surveyor’s appointment for these. We wrote to it later that day to request that it provide a final response to the resident’s complaint within five working days.
The landlord advised this Service on 17 March 2021 that it had acknowledged the complaint at the final stage of its complaint procedure, and that it would be contacting the resident to discuss the complaint. After receiving further contact from us, it advised that it would seek to issue its final stage complaint response within 25 working days.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 29 April 2021, in which it apologised for the delays to repairs to her windowsill and guttering, and it confirmed that appointments for these had been arranged for within “the next few weeks”. It noted that she had reported the leaking gutter in February 2020, and that it had a raised a job to address this by 22 June 2020. The landlord relayed that it had made appointments for 17 March and 18 September 2020 to repair the guttering, which had not been completed due to a lack of scaffolding to access the area. The repair was then completed in November 2020, but it acknowledged that this had not rectified the issue.
The landlord stated that its surveyor had inspected the property on 9 March 2021, and that they had identified the works needed to repair the windowsill and the guttering, which had now been booked for 12 and 14 May 2021, with a target date of 19 July 2021 for completion.
The landlord acknowledged that, although it had attempted to carry out a repair in November 2020, it had failed to complete the repairs within its target timescale and had not communicated effectively with the resident. It attributed this to the effect of the corona virus pandemic on its resources and that it was only attending emergency repairs as a result. The landlord offered £160 total compensation to the resident, made up of £135 for its failure to progress her repairs effectively and £25 for her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report that the water leak had caused damage to her property, and it advised her that this was a liability matter for its insurance team and would not be dealt with through its complaints process. It noted that she had already been in contact with its insurance team about this.
The resident advised this Service on 29 April 2021 that she had been contacted by the landlord about a repair to her windowsill but not about the guttering, nor the brickwork which was crumbling and mouldy. She relayed that its surveyor had inspected the reported damage on 9 March 2021, and that they had said that cracks present on the outside stairs of the building were a result of the scaffolding erected in October 2020.
The resident asserted that she would not be financially responsible for paying for the “poor workmanship” of the landlord’s major works through her service charge, and that she wanted it to confirm this to her in writing. She added that it had not provided her with its insurance details to enable her to arrange remedial work for the damage in her property. The resident was further dissatisfied with the delayed repairs preventing her from selling her property and taking advantage of the freeze on stamp duty at the time.
Regarding the landlord’s handling of her complaint, the resident highlighted that it “did not want to hear” about her concerns stemming from when the works commenced in 2018, as these events were from more than a year ago. She therefore felt that it had not considered her complaint fully.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s lease agreement with the landlord confirms that it is responsible for the repair, maintenance, redecoration and renewal of the exterior of the property. This includes the windows, window frames and windowsills.
The landlord’s repairs handbook for residents defines emergency repairs as those which put a person or property at risk. This states that, for non-emergency repairs, it will agree an appointment for within 28 days with the resident for it to carry out the repair.
The landlord’s complaints, suggestions and compliments webpage provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure with a written response due within ten working days at stage one. No timeframe is specified for a written response at the final stage. This webpage also confirms that the landlord will not consider complaints about events which occurred more than 12 months ago.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation procedure confirms that, if the resident claims to have experienced a financial loss because of its actions or inaction, then the matter will be referred to its risk and insurance team. This procedure also states that discretionary compensation may be offered in instances where the resident was adversely affected by its delays in acting. For an unresolved repair that is the fault of the landlord, this procedure provides for a one–off payment of £10 plus £2 per day for three weeks. After this period weekly payments of £10, £7.50, and £5 are payable until the repair is resolved, for category A, B and C repairs respectively. This procedure does not specify which repairs are included in these categories but does provide for compensation of £5 to £10 per week for time and trouble.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s guttering, roof and windowsill

The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the standard of the work carried out by the landlord in 2017 to renew the windows, roof and guttering, which she has said led to her windowsill becoming cracked and her experiencing water penetration into her property. The Ombudsman would expect a complaint to be raised over any dissatisfaction with the landlord’s work within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters occurring. Therefore, this investigation has focused on events from February 2020 onwards, which is six months prior to her raising her concerns about this to the landlord through her local councillor on 5 August 2020.
As confirmed by the resident’s lease agreement, above at paragraph 26, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the exterior of the property. Therefore, it was responsible for carrying out repairs to the roof, windowsill and guttering, and it was appropriate for it to make appointments to carry out these repairs on 17 March, 22 June, 18 September and in November 2020 and subsequently on 12 and 14 May and 19 July 2021.
However, the landlord delayed unreasonably in carrying out these repairs. It is not disputed that the resident reported the repairs to the roof, windowsill and guttering to it in February 2020, and that it did not speak to her about the issues until intervention from her local councillor on 5 August 2020, who it replied to on 19 August 2020. It is unclear if she had been made aware of the incomplete job to carry out the repairs by 22 June 2020 at the time. The landlord did apparently then speak to the resident about the repairs at some time between 5 August and 9 December 2020, but it is unclear when. There was nevertheless no evidence of it carrying out an inspection of the reported issues until 16 December 2020.
As per the landlord’s repairs handbook for residents, above at paragraph 27, it should have attended an agreed appointment with the resident within 28 days to carry out this work. As she reported the repairs in February 2020, and it did not carry out any works until November 2020, this was excessive delay of approximately nine months. There was a further delay of three months between 20 December 2020, when the resident’s MP informed the landlord that the problems persisted, and when its surveyor carried out an inspection of the reported repairs on 9 March 2021.
The landlord did acknowledge, in its final stage complaint response to the resident on 29 April 2021, that it did not carry out these repairs in a timely manner. There was approximately a 13-month delay after she reported the repairs to it and its above surveyor’s inspection, which was extremely excessive, and it is noted that there is no evidence that it made attempts during this time to identify the source of the leak reported by her to be coming from the roof. Moreover, there was a further delay of over four months from the inspection until the scheduled completion of its works to finally resolve the repairs on 19 July 2021, which was unreasonable.
For its acknowledged failure to complete the repairs reported by the resident, the landlord offered her compensation of £135 for the delay. This amount was not proportionate to recognise this, however, considering the length of the delay, the level of distress and inconvenience that this is likely to have caused her, and the requirements of its discretionary compensation procedure above at paragraph 29. While the landlord did state in its final stage complaint response that it had been impacted by the corona virus pandemic, this should have been communicated to the resident. It did acknowledge that it had not communicated effectively with her.
For the 17-month delay in attending to resolve the resident’s reported repairs, further compensation of £647 should have been paid to her by the landlord in accordance with its discretionary compensation procedure. This is based on a 76-week delay in resolving the repairs from February 2020 to 19 July 2021. This is awarded at the rate of a one-off payment of £10 plus £2 per day for three weeks, i.e. £52, and £10 per week for the following 73 weeks for the internal repair, the reported leak, and the external repairs of the windowsill and guttering, i.e. £730, less the £135 compensation already offered by it to her for this.
Moreover, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not also recognise the distress and inconvenience that the above 17-month repair delay was likely to have caused the resident with an additional award of proportionate compensation to her. This is recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance as being compensation from £250 for failures over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy to address repairs.
Regarding the resident’s request for consideration of the internal damage to her property resulting from the leak, however, it was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s compensation procedure, above at point 29, for it to refer her to its insurance department to make a claim. It has therefore been recommended below to liaise with her to complete this.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint response to the resident’s local councillor on 19 August 2020 was issued within the timeframe specified on its complaints, suggestions and compliments webpage, above at paragraph 28, ten working days after the councillor’s contact on 5 August 2020. However, following the involvement of her MP and despite intervention from this Service on 28 January 2021, requesting that it provide her with a final stage complaint response within 20 working days, and on 26 February 2021 requesting that it respond to her with this within five working days, it did not issue a final stage complaint response to her until 29 April 2021.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident 63 working days after intervention from Service on 28 January 2021, which was an unreasonably excessive delay, and the £25 compensation that it offered to her for her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint was not proportionate to recognise this. This is because she is likely to have incurred much more extensive time and trouble in doing so than was reflected by this from having to involve her MP and this Service in her case in order to obtain its final stage complaint response, as well as from the delay.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation procedure also provided for compensation of £5 to £10 per week for time and trouble, for which its above award was not proportionate to recognise the above approximately 12-and-a-half-week delay. It should therefore have paid her further compensation of £100 in order recognise this, i.e. £10 per week for its above delay less the £25 that it had already offered her for this, in accordance with the discretionary compensation procedure. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its policies and procedures on repairs, complaints and compensation to seek to prevent a recurrence of the above failings in the resident’s case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s guttering, roof and windowsill.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed excessively over 17 months in dealing with the resident’s reported repairs, and there was no evidence that it communicated effectively with her during this time.
The landlord also unreasonably delayed responding to the resident’s complaint at the final stage of its complaint procedure, despite intervention from her MP and this Service.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the £160 compensation that it previously awarded her within four weeks, if she has not received this already.
2. Pay the resident further compensation totalling £997 within four weeks, which is broken down into additional compensation of £647 for its repair delays, £250 for her resulting distress and inconvenience, and £100 for its poor complaint handling.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contact the resident to liaise with her to enable her to complete her claim to its insurance department for the internal damage to her property resulting from the leak, if this has not been completed already.
2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its policies and procedures on repairs, complaints and compensation to seek to prevent a recurrence of the above failings in the resident’s case. This should include the completion of this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently, and consideration of our remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.