Haringey Council (202101108)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101108

Haringey Council

10 June 2022


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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Various repairs to the resident’s property including repairs to the bathroom, kitchen, bedroom and balcony following a leak.
    2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She moved into the property in March 2021.
  2. The landlord’s records show it attended the resident’s property in May 2021 to investigate a leak which had resulted in a “black sludge puddle” forming in the bathroom. It completed work on 27 May 2021 but it is unclear from its records what it actually did. A surveyor inspected the property on 11 June 2021 and made recommendations for various follow on works. The landlord decanted (temporarily moved) the resident from 14 June 2021 until 10 September 2021 whilst it completed work to the bathroom, living room, and kitchen.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord in June 2021. She said the landlord bullied her into signing the tenancy agreement. She advised she was not given the opportunity to view the property before signing the agreement. She highlighted various repair issues (damp walls and rusty pipes). She questioned why the landlord had arranged a decant for 2 June 2021, and then cancelled it meaning she had to wait two weeks for the decant to go ahead. She said she had been without use of a toilet or bath (it is unclear from the complaint exactly how long she was without the use of these facilities).
  4. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it said the resident had refused a decant which had delayed the progress of work. The landlord’s records suggest that the resident refused the decant because she was concerned the chemicals used to clean the property may affect her health conditions. In her escalation the resident disputed that she had refused a decant. She provided evidence to show the decant had been arranged for 2 June 2021. She said she was advised the landlord would install a new bathroom and kitchen before she moved in. She also reported that the contractors had disconnected her freezer meaning that she had to throw away food which had spoiled. The landlord later agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of the food.
  5. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said it had completed all necessary repairs except to the balcony which required scaffolding and had therefore been delayed while awaiting the scaffolding to become available. It offered the resident £125 compensation for her time and trouble and the inconvenience caused from the situation.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service she said the work remained incomplete as there was damp in her bedroom, and her balcony was full of water, the Front door and bathroom flooring, also required repairs and several rooms needed redecoration. She also referred to two leaks occurred on 20 and 25 September 2021 affecting the kitchen and bedroom and damaging her belongings.
  7. In the landlord’s correspondence with this Service it has advised that it would arrange an inspection of the property to ensure repair works had been completed, and if not, it would provide a remedial plan for the outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service she has referred to two leaks which occurred on 20 and 25 September 2021, and her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled these incidents. These incidents occurred after the landlord completed its complaint investigation in August 2021. It is not clear from the available evidence whether the more recent leaks were directly related to the previous leak and repairs carried out after this or if they were caused by separate issues. In line with paragraph 39(a), these issues will not be considered in this investigation. This is because the landlord needs an opportunity to investigate matters itself through its complaints process before the Ombudsman becomes involved. The resident should raise her concerns about the more recent leaks with the landlord in the first instance. If the resident remains dissatisfied once the issues have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process, she may be able to raise the matter to the Ombudsman as a new complaint.

The landlord’s handling of various repair works at the resident’s property.

  1. The landlord’s website states that it is responsible for repairs to the structure, sanitary installations (sinks and baths), heating and hot water supply installations, and any drains in the property. Its repairs handbook states it will carry out emergency repairs (major leaks, or total loss of heating) within 24 hours. It will carry out agreed appointments within 28 days. Agreed appointments are for work which can be completed within a single visit. It aims to inspect for planned repairs within 28 days and then advise the resident when work will be carried out. Planned repairs are for work that requires a pre inspection or may take several days to complete.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards between £50 and £250 for cases where there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses (such as repair delays) but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
  3. The resident raised concerns with the landlord that her property was not habitable, and had not been habitable since she moved in. The landlord attended in late May 2021 to inspect a leak. It is understood that it stopped the leak during this visit. A surveyor reattended on 11 June 2021, and recommended several works (repair hallway plaster, renew bathroom flooring, replace extractor fan, replace a kitchen door, carry out mould treatment, repair balcony floor). The landlord then decanted the resident from 14 June 2021 until 10 September 2021 whilst the works were underway.
  4. The landlord advised the resident in its stage two complaint response that all work had been completed, except to the balcony. The resident has disputed this, and claimed that the works were incomplete. For example, she claimed that the extractor fan had not been replaced, and that it had not removed the bedroom wallpaper, which was damaged by damp and repainted the affected area.
  5. The landlord’s repair records are not entirely clear. The landlord acknowledged to this Service that its records for this case were inconsistent. The records show the resident reported issues with her bathroom on 9 April 2021. But it is unclear when or if the landlord attended to inspect the repair issues. The resident then reported a leak on 24 May 2021, the landlord attended on 27 May 2021. The records show it completed all remedial work on 10 September 2021, but they do not show what specific work was completed and when. It is therefore unclear whether the landlord was correct in its stage two complaint response, as its records do not corroborate its findings, or provide any clarity. Landlords are expected to keep clear, coherent, and up to date repair records. This allows the landlord and this Service to conclude whether work was completed within a reasonable timeframe, in line with the landlord’s policy when investigating complaints. In the absence of such records, we cannot accurately conclude whether the landlord’s actions in the circumstances of this complaint were reasonable.
  6. The landlord offered the resident £125 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble, and the inconvenience caused from the situation. In light of the lack of clarity surrounding when issues were first reported, and when work was carried out, and the resident’s argument that work was not completed as the landlord said it was, the landlord should pay the resident further compensation. The landlord should pay the resident £75 more compensation which will bring the overall amount in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (as explained above). The landlord advised this Service that it would carry out an inspection to ensure all work has been completed. The landlord needs to ensure that it has completed all work to a satisfactory standard in order to fully resolve the resident’s complaint. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord carries out the property inspection that it said it would in its correspondence with this Service, unless this has been done already.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that we expect landlords to respond to every aspect of a complaint. In this case it is evident that the landlord failed to address several points that the resident raised in her complaints. For example, the resident explained that she felt the landlord had forced her into signing her tenancy agreement. She said she had been advised before she moved in that the landlord would install and new bathroom and kitchen. The resident also explained that her bath and toilet had been out of use for a period of time before she was decanted (she did not specify how long for but indicated it was for at least one day). In the landlord’s complaint responses it mainly referred to the outstanding repairs and it made no mention of the above points raised by the resident.
  2. The resident was also dissatisfied that the landlord had arranged a decant from 2 June 2021, and the cancelled it. The landlord’s internal correspondence show it said it spoke with the resident about a decant on 2 June 2021, but never agreed the booking would commence that evening. However, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord clearly explaining its understanding of the situation to the resident. It should have clarified what it believed had happened in its complaint responses as this was an important aspect of her complaint.
  3. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to give the entirety of resident’s complaint due consideration. It should have responded to all of the points she raised, clarified any misunderstandings, and justified any of its actions or lack of actions. Its failure to do so was a failing in terms of complaint handling. 
  4. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it said it would decant the resident but she had initially refused to be decanted and this delayed the progress of works. This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence of the resident’s refusal. It said it had no such evidence. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to blame the resident for the delay, if it did not have evidence to support this assertion. The landlord should have taken ownership of any delays and apologised for them rather than blaming the resident without evidence. This was a further failing by the landlord in terms of complaint handling.
  5. Given the failings identified in terms of the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused from its handling of various repairs in her property. This is in addition to the £125 already offered, which the landlord should pay, if it has not done so already.
    2. Pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused from the failing identified with its complaint handling.
  2. These payments should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payments have been made.  

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord carries out the property inspection that it said it would in its correspondence with this Service, unless this has been done already. The landlord should arrange for any repairs identified as necessary following the inspection in line with the timescales given in its repairs policy.