Haringey Council (202016546)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016546

Haringey Council

29 October 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

1. The complaint is about:

1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from the flat below.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a refund of rent for the time that he was living away from his property.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a refund of council tax for the time that he was living away from his property.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water leaks from the roof and the bathroom of his property.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in his property and the flat below.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints and its record keeping.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(a), (g) and (m) of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from the flat below.

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a refund of rent for the time that he was living away from the property.

3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a refund of council tax for the time that he was living away from the property.

4. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
5. As part of his complaint to this Service, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour from the flat below, including following his attempt to complain to it about this on 18 March 2021. As there is no evidence that his antisocial behaviour exhausted its complaints procedure, however, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.
6. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate a 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”.
7. The resident has also complained about the landlord’s response to his request for a refund of rent for the time that he was living away from the property. Nevertheless, this Service is unable to consider complaints concerning the level or the amount of the increase of his rent, and so a determination will additionally not be made on this aspect of his complaint.
8. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
9. As the resident has complained about the landlord’s response to his request for a refund of council tax for the time that he was living away from the property, and complaints about council tax fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and not this Service, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.
10. The remainder of the resident’s above complaints are considered to be within this Service’s jurisdiction to investigate, and so these are addressed below.

Background and summary of events

11. The resident is a tenant of the landlord at the property. He lives in a block of similar properties.
12. The resident reported to the landlord on 18 March 2021 that he had experienced water leaks from the roof of the property for approximately 12 years. Although it is unclear from its records when this was first reported to the landlord by him during that period, as it first recorded a report of a leak from him on 31 October 2018.
13. The resident’s local MP emailed this Service on 14 June 2021, saying that she had been assisting the resident with repair and rodent infestation issues at the property since November 2020, and advising that he was unhappy that a rat infestation that he had reported would not be treated by it for some months. The MP therefore requested that this be treated as a matter of urgency.
14. The landlord previously carried out a survey of the resident’s property on 3 February 2021, and it confirmed that this had found that the flat was habitable. Although it was accepted that work to rectify the bathroom and roof leak needed to be undertaken.
15. The earliest correspondence that was provided to the Ombudsman about the present complaint was an email from the resident’s MP to the resident on 17 February 2021, copying him in to an email from the landlord to the MP from the previous day. This outlined that its repairs surveyor inspected the property to determine what repairs were required on 15 February 2021, and that its repairs team would be making further visits to progress these. The landlord added that it was escalating its pest control team to take urgent action to fully address the rat infestation at the property, as they had missed their previously scheduled treatment for this there and at a neighbouring property in December 2020 to January 2021.
16. Other subsequent correspondence from the landlord to the resident’s MP and from the resident confirmed that a surveyor also previously visited the property on 8 February 2021, and that a roofing contractor attended there on 17 February 2021, and that necessary remedial works were identified. The landlord’s pest control contractor additionally visited the property on 25 February 2021 to lay down some rat poison, as well as agreeing to return to inspect this each week for three weeks and to attend a neighbouring property.
17. The resident’s MP then emailed the resident on 15 March 2021, in response to his report of the same date that there had been water leaking into the property from rain again and that the landlord’s pest control contractor had not returned there after agreeing to do so. He explained that he had therefore been unable to stay in the property for “nearly 4 months”, and that his insurance company would not accept his claim for his damaged belongings as he had not been there, with the MP suggesting that he make a formal complaint to the landlord and request compensation for this.
18. The resident emailed the landlord to make a stage one complaint to it on 18 March 2021 because he reported that the roof repair had not been carried out at the property, the resulting water leak there had caused damage to his furniture, and the pest control contractor had failed to carry out promised follow-up visits after 25 February 2021. He also stated that this had damaged his mental health, and he advised it that he had not lived in the flat for the previous four months because of the water leaks affecting the roof and bathroom. The resident additionally felt unsafe because he explained that the flat below his was not secure, which allowed intruders to enter his building.
19. The resident added that the landlord had previously visited the resident’s flat, and that it had advised him that the water leak was not coming from there, but that it did not say whether any further investigations would be carried out to find the source of the leak.
20. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 6 April 2021, which upheld the resident’s complaint, offering him £200 compensation which was later increased by its repairs team to £400. This was originally calculated using its discretionary compensation scheme in recognition of the slow response to the roof leak repair at the rate of £50 per month for the four months that he had reported dealing with the problem.
21. The repair delay was described as having been caused by the need to gain access from its tenancy management team to the empty basement flat below the resident’s property, in order to carry out necessary remedial works and to erect scaffolding to resolve the roofing issue. The landlord also provided the resident with the contact details of its insurance team to enable him to make a claim for the damage to his personal possessions arising from the leak.
22. The resident replied to the landlord’s above email on the same day, and it is understood that it considered this to be the resident’s intention to escalate the complaint to the final stage two of its complaints procedure. He believed that his flat was “uninhabitable” because of the unrepaired leaks in the bathroom and roof and because of the rat infestation there.
23. The landlord issued its stage two final complaint response to the resident on 9 June 2021 upholding its original offer to him of £400 compensation. It apologised that the roof and bathroom leak repairs at his property had taken longer than expected to complete, but it stated that this compensation offer was in line with its discretionary compensation guidelines, and that it would ask that this be applied to his rent account.
24. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s suggestion that the communication between the landlord and the resident had often been poor, leading to the resident having to send avoidable emails and causing him a considerable degree of stress, with him reporting that it had made appointments at short notice causing him to take time off work for to allow it access. It nevertheless explained that, when appointments were made, it sent initial text messages followed by text message reminders on the day before and the day of the appointment, with there being no evidence that it had made these at extremely short notice, other than when they were moved forward following cancellations that could be rearranged.
25. The landlord also advised the resident that the survey that it had carried out on 3 February 2021 did not find the property to be “uninhabitable”, and that it was unaware that the resident had moved out. It also confirmed that arrangements had been made for the landlord’s pest control contractors to treat the flat below when access had been arranged for this, following their previous treatment at the resident’s property on 6 May 2021.
26. The landlord subsequently emailed the resident on 10 June 2021 to confirm that the roof repair had been completed at his property the previous day, and that it was in the process of removing the scaffolding there, but no mention was made by it that the pest control activity had finished and whether this was successful. He also told this Service on 28 June 2021 that the rat infestation at the property had still not stopped.
27. The resident then emailed the landlord on 13 July 2021 to advise that the scaffolding used for the roof repair had still not been dismantled and taken away.
28. The resident’s MP went on to refer his complaint to this Service to consider in the capacity of his designated person due to the above issues, and he explained that he would accept £3,000 compensation to resolve his complaint to cover the upheaval and loss of earnings caused by him being unable to live in suitable accommodation. He stated that this was due to reasons including the flooding and rat infestation of his property that meant that he could not stay at his property for six months.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water leaks

29. The landlord’s repairs handbook for residents states that it is responsible for repairs to and the maintenance of the structure and outside parts of the resident’s property, such as roofs. It is required to offer repair appointments or inspections for non-emergency repairs, including roof leaks, within 28 days and, if a repair cannot be completed on the first visit, the resident should be contacted by it within the next 10 working days to confirm the next steps. The resident is strongly encouraged to take out contents insurance against damage to his possessions due to unforeseen events such as leaks, and to help to resolve such claims against the landlord.
30. The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy and procedure permit it to consider compensating its residents for experiencing adverse effects, loss or suffering from its delays and service failures. It is recommended to make a one-off payment of £10 plus £2 per day for up to three weeks and then either £2, £7.50 or £10 per week until the matter is resolved, for repairs that it or its contractor are at fault for being unresolved outside of its normal timescales. The landlord is also suggested to make a one-off payment of £10 plus a percentage refund of the weekly rent until the situation is resolved, for tenants who have lost the use of essential rooms for more than one week.
31. The landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the damage from the roof and bathroom leaks at the resident’s property on 3, 8 and 15 February 2021, as well as sending its roofing contractor to do so on 17 February 2021, further to his MP’s correspondence with it about this from prior to 16 February 2021. It subsequently acknowledged, in its stage one complaint response of 6 April 2021 and its final stage complaint response of 9 June 2021, that there was a delay in it carrying out these repairs, as it needed to gain access to the empty basement flat below his from the landlord’s tenancy management team.
32. The fact that the landlord’s repairs for the roof and bathroom leaks at the resident’s property were delayed by it having to seek access to an empty property from one of its own departments, and that it did not provide the resident with assistance with this in the meantime such as with alternative accommodation, was inappropriate. That this also took it from at least 3 February until 9 June 2021 to complete was also an unacceptable delay, and this was contrary to its above repairs handbook for residents’ timescales of 28 days for such repairs and of 10 working days to confirm the next steps to him when they were incomplete.
33. The landlord’s above stage one and final stage complaint responses therefore recognised this by offering the resident £400 compensation for its repair delay, for which £200 was originally awarded at the rate of £50 per month for the four months that he had reported dealing with the problem before this was increased by it to £400. This was in line with its discretionary compensation policy and procedure’s above recommendation that it compensate him for such delays with £202, this being the total of £10, £42 and £150. This was broken down under the policy and procedure into a one-off payment of £10, £42 at the rate of £2 per day for the 21 days from 3 to 24 February 2021, and £150 at the rate of £10 per week for the 15 weeks from 24 February to 9 June 2021, which was reasonable.
34. As the discretionary policy and procedure also suggested above that the landlord award the resident £10 plus a percentage of his weekly rent until the situation with the leaks at his property was resolved, it additionally acted appropriately by then offering him a further £198 for this to reach the above total of £400 compensation that it awarded him. This is because this amounted to a further offer under the policy and procedure of a £10 one-off payment plus £188, which could be broken down into the rate of approximately £10.44 per week for the 18 weeks from 3 February to 9 June 2021 for his loss of essential rooms at the property. While the resident requested £3,000 compensation for the upheaval and loss of earnings caused to him by this, the landlord’s above compensation award to him accorded with the policy and procedure, and so it was not required to increase this.
35. This is also because the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance considers awards of £250 to £700 where there may have been failures to address repair issues over a considerable amount of time, and serious failures that have been recognised by the landlord, for which redress has been offered.
36. The resident complained about the landlord’s repair appointments being arranged by it with him at short notice, which he then had to take time off work to attend causing loss of earnings. In line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, however, residents are expected to allow access to the landlord’s operatives to carry out repairs. This will inevitably cause some level of inconvenience, as residents may need to take time off work to be present for appointments.
37. The landlord would nevertheless be expected to give reasonable notice of any appointments to the resident, except in the case of emergency repairs where it may not be possible to give notice. In this case, however, the landlord explained, in its final stage complaint response of 9 June 2021, the process that it followed for notifying the resident of repair appointments via a text message in advance when the appointment was made, with a reminder being sent via further text messages on the day before and the day of the appointment.
38. The resident reported that he did not receive some of the landlord’s above text messages. The landlord said, however, that it sent the above text messages to him, although the resident did not receive all of these. Both sides have given a different account of what happened, and there is insufficient evidence to confirm which account is correct. In this situation it is not possible for the Ombudsman to establish what happened, nor is it within our authority or expertise to do so, and therefore we cannot conclude that the landlord was at fault for arranging an appointment at short notice on this occasion.
39. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments concerning the effect that the state of his property had on his health, it is also outside the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether there was a link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and his health and wellbeing, in the way that a court or insurer might, or to award damages for this. However, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience which the resident has experienced as a result of the landlord’s actions, as well as the way in which the landlord responded to his reports about his health.
40. There is no evidence that the landlord responded directly to the resident’s concerns about the effect that the state of the property was having on his mental health, which he reported to it from at least 18 March 2021. This was not appropriate, although it is noted that, by referring him to its insurance team to enable him to make a claim for his damaged personal possessions in its stage one complaint response to him of 6 April 2021, it gave him details that he could also have used to make a claim for damages to his health and wellbeing.
41. The Ombudsman cannot assess whether, as reported by the resident in this case, a property was “uninhabitable” in a legal sense, as only a court can decide this. However, we have looked at the landlord’s response to the resident’s above reports of roof and bathroom leak repairs, and there is insufficient evidence to show that it would have been unsafe for the resident to stay in the property, although this was in need of repair. The surveyor who attended the property on 3, 8 and 15 February 2021 did not report that the property was unfit to live in.
42. Also, the landlord was entitled to rely on its surveyor’s professional opinion concerning the state of the property, as they would be regarded as an expert in this area, particularly in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary. The Ombudsman has additionally not seen any evidence to show that the resident told the landlord that he was moving out during the repairs to the property, or that he had informed it that he had been unable to stay there until his stage one complaint to it of 18 March 2021. If he had told the landlord this sooner, then it may have been able to consider other options for him at an earlier date, such as temporary repairs or alternative accommodation.
43. The resident also mentioned that some of his personal possessions had been damaged by water from the roof and bathroom leaks while he was not living at the property, and that his insurance company would not compensate him for this. The landlord’s repairs handbook for residents recommended above that he take out contents insurance to cover such damage to his personal possessions caused by leaks, and so the landlord would not normally be expected to compensate him for such damage, unless a court or insurer found that it was responsible for this.
44. As the resident suggested that he might have such a claim against the landlord for damage to his personal possessions on the grounds that the above delay on its part in repairing the leaks at his property amounted to responsibility for this, it provided him with its insurance team’s contact details to make a claim. The landlord therefore treated the resident fairly in this respect, as this enabled him to seek a determination to this effect and damages from its insurers when he was unable to do so from his own.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation

45. The landlord’s website states that it will treat rat infestations free of charge in the houses, flats, and maisonettes that it manages, and therefore the resident’s property would be covered by this, as well as the rest of his block that the website confirmed could be treated if this was also affected.
46. The landlord and the resident’s MP confirmed in their correspondence of 16 February and 14 June 2021, that he had brought the rat infestation at his property to the landlord’s attention via the MP in November 2020, but that he was told that that the property would not be treated for this until December 2020 to January 2021. This did not happen, and the resident therefore escalated the matter via his MP again in February 2021. The landlord confirmed on 16 February 2021 that it was escalating its pest control team to take urgent action to fully address the rat infestation, as they had missed the above previously scheduled treatment for this at the resident’s and a neighbouring property.
47. One pest control visit to the property did take place on 25 February 2021, and the resident was told that return visits would be made in each of the three subsequent weeks, but this also did not happen. The landlord therefore acted unreasonably in first delaying the above pest control works, and then by not ensuring that all of the subsequently promised work was carried out.
48. Following a later pest control visit to the property on 6 May 2021, the landlord later advised the resident on 9 June 2021 that it had arranged to carry out pest control treatment in the flat below, but he told this Service on 28 June 2021 that the rat infestation at his property had still not been stopped by it.
49. The landlord’s above pest control delays at the resident’s property were unacceptable, particularly as the matter was first raised with the landlord in November 2020, it subsequently agreed to address this urgently after its initial delays, and the resident was clearly covered by its website’s above pest control policy. This matter should have instead been dealt with it as a matter of urgency, as it had agreed with his MP on 16 February 2021.
50. It is also of concern that the resident subsequently reported to this Service that the rat infestation at his property was still outstanding, as well as that the landlord did not offer him proportionate compensation for its pest control delays in a similar way to its above repair delays. It has therefore been ordered below to compensate him for its pest control failings, in accordance with its discretionary compensation policy and procedure and our remedies guidance as outlined above, as well as to return to his property and block to complete any pest control treatment still necessary there, if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints and its record keeping

51. The landlord’s website states that it will respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days, and to a final stage two complaint within 25 working days of the complaint escalation.
52. The resident’s stage one complaint was submitted to the landlord on 18 March 2021, and this was responded to by it on 6 April 2021, which was almost within its website’s above 10–working–day commitment for stage one responses. This being issued within an acceptable 11 working days of the resident’s stage one complaint.
53. The resident then escalated his complaint to the final stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 6 April 2021. The landlord did not respond to the final stage two complaint until 9 June 2021, however, which was outside of the above 25-working-day timeframe for such responses promised in the landlord’s website, being issued 19 working days later than this. The landlord therefore acted unreasonably by not responding to the resident’s complaint within the timescale promised on its website.
54. Moreover, with regard to the landlord’s record keeping in the resident’s case, no mention was made in the records that it provided to this Service as to whether the pest control work at his property was either complete, or if this was successful, which was a further service failure on the part of the landlord. This was in addition to the absence of any logs or reports provided by it for any of its pest control activities, as well as the lack of any such logs or reports for its roof and bathroom leak repairs at the property, other than for historic issues that occurred before the period of the present complaint.
55. This Service’s investigation was therefore impeded by the above poor and incomplete record keeping on the landlord’s part. This meant that it was not possible for us to see if the resident’s pest control and repair requests were appropriately logged, responded to, and carried through to a conclusion and there was no record of the progress of the repair and pest control activities, other than via the parties’ correspondence. There were also some references in the correspondence to the resident having made telephone calls, but no logs of these were provided to this Service. This meant that the landlord additionally acted unreasonably by failing to provide the resident with progress reports of the pest control and the repairs that he had requested from it.
56. As a consequence, the landlord has also been ordered below to compensate the resident for its complaints handling and record keeping failings in his case, in line with its discretionary compensation policy and procedure and our remedies guidance as outlined above, as well as having been recommended to review its monitoring practices and record keeping processes.

Determination (decision)

57. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord had offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint in respect of its handling of his reports of water leaks from the roof and the bathroom of his property satisfactorily.
58. This decision is dependent on the resident having received the redress offered by the landlord.
59. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in his property and the flat below.
60. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s associated complaints and its record keeping.

Reasons

61. The £400 compensation already offered to the resident by the landlord in respect of the delays in carrying out the necessary work, and for its poor communication with the resident regarding the leaking roof and bathroom of his property, was in line with its discretionary compensation policy and procedure, and this Service’s remedies guidance.

62. The landlord repeatedly delayed its agreed pest control works at the resident’s property, and at the flat below, over a number of months, as well as failing to confirm that the rat infestation there was resolved or to offer him any compensation for these failures.
63. The landlord unreasonably delayed responding to the resident’s final stage complaint outside of its website’s promised timescales, failed to keep appropriate records in his case, and it did not resolve these failings by awarding him any compensation for them or taking action to prevent them from occurring again in the future.

Orders and recommendations

64. The landlord is ordered to:

1. Pay the resident the £400 compensation that it previously offered him within four weeks, if he has not received this already.

2. Pay the resident an additional £250 compensation within four weeks for its poor handling of the rat infestation complaint, the resident’s time and trouble in repeatedly asking the landlord carry out pest control works, and the distress and inconvenience caused to him by this.
3. Pay the resident further compensation of £100 within four weeks for any time and trouble incurred by him from its complaint handling delays and poor record keeping in his case.
4. Return to the resident’s property and block to complete any pest control treatment still necessary there within four weeks, if it has not already done so.

65. It is recommended that the landlord:

1. Review its monitoring practices of the work of its staff and contractors in relation to ongoing leak repairs and pest control to ensure that the requested works for these are carried out as soon as possible. 

2. Review its record keeping processes to ensure that complete records are kept of repair and pest control reports, inspections, works and other activities from the outset through to their conclusion, and by keeping logs of telephone calls between the landlord and residents in relation to these, to ensure that a complete picture of their reports are maintained.

66. 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.
67. 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.