Haringey Council (202102332)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102332

Haringey Council

3 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports about a bathroom ‘pod’ extension to the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a local authority. The resident sublets the property, which is a Victorian conversion. The property is one of over 200 owned by the landlord which have a 1970s ‘pod’ extension to accommodate a bathroom, constructed from a timber-frame enclosure; external timber panels; internal plasterboard panels; and asbestos insulation board ‘sandwiched’ in between.
The landlord has an asset management strategy under which it is carrying out a programme of major works between 2020 and 2025, and it informed residents in February 2017 that it was working on a plan to replace the pods and ‘phase’ the works over a number of years, starting in summer 2018, due to their complex nature. It advised it would consult residents separately about the works; provide updates over the next few years; and would work with affected leaseholders, to ensure they had sufficient information for maintaining their homes over the coming years.
The landlord’s website advises a final stage is being planned whereby tenanted dwellings are done first, and then dwellings occupied by both tenants and leaseholders, and works include installation of a new bathroom at no extra cost to leaseholders. The landlord has acknowledged estimated leasehold contributions are very high in some cases, and it has provided different payment and buyback options. It has also acknowledged that some communications about estimated bills for the works were inadequate, and its website explains improvements in information and engagement that have been made.
The landlord’s website advises that it has a programme to periodically check the pods, check the asbestos condition and maintain the external cladding, so that the structure remains watertight until replacement occurs as part of the major works programme. The landlord’s website advises that it continues to carry out remedial repairs to maintain residents’ safety as far as reasonably practicable; its asbestos contractor has not identified any situation which has been serious enough to require it to be reported as a potential risk of exposure in their inspections; and where works have been identified, works have been completed by the next inspection where reasonably practicable to do so.
The lease and the landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for the property structure and that it aims to attend for ‘emergency repairs’ such as dangerous structures within 24 hours; to attend for ‘agreed appointments’ such as roof leaks within 28 days; and to inspect for ‘planned repairs’ such as larger works within 28 days, after which it will advise when the job will be carried out. The policy encourages residents to take out insurance for damage to possessions and to let insurers agree any liability.
After an initial informal stage, the landlord operates a two stage formal complaints procedure with an optional third stage. It aims to respond at stage one within 10 working days and at stage two within 25 working days; after which a complaint may be referred to a residents’ panel or to this Service. The landlord does not investigate complaints about something that happened more than 12 months ago, or complaints about liability claims that could be dealt with by legal proceedings or direct with insurers.
The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme, which advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were brought to the landlord or this Service in a timely manner.
The resident raises dissatisfaction with works from 2017, supplies historic correspondence and refers to historic complaints made in 2018. Whilst this information provides important background and context to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord, the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted, and this investigation therefore focuses on events from around January 2020, nine months before the resident made a formal complaint in November 2020, up until the landlord’s final response in March 2021. Events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure are referenced for contextual purposes only.

Summary of events

In September 2017, the resident advises that pod panels fell off. She subsequently raised concern about works carried out the same month, and was informed that the landlord was satisfied with the quality of work done.
In February 2018, the landlord was provided with a quote by contractors for asbestos and reinstatement work to pods that included the resident’s, where it was planned to form a new external lining to the existing timber framework. The works were estimated to cost £22,000 per property, although it is unclear what any final total to the resident would have been. In May 2018, the landlord was provided with a further quote that excluded works to the resident’s pod and noted these were on hold until further notice. The landlord informs this Service that this was due to access issues with the resident.
Information provided advises that the resident corresponded with the landlord in June 2018 and made a complaint around this time, about ‘botched’ repairs the previous year. She stated that the landlord’s lack of repair of the pod had led her to spend £15,000 ‘to make good the rotten pod.’ Information provided advises that, in response to this, the landlord scheduled some asbestos works to commence in July 2018 and take three days. The correspondence the resident supplies for these refer to access issues with a neighbour, although the landlord appeared to successfully liaise with the neighbour to schedule scaffolding erection and removal. It is unclear if the asbestos works were completed, however on 6 August 2018, an internal and external inspection of the pod’s asbestos insulation board found the condition of these to be ‘good’ and “slight weathering to timber panels” externally.
On 6 December 2019, the landlord received reports that the pod roof was leaking, and the landlord’s contractors carried out an inspection on 27 January 2020. They noted that they could not see any roof leak, but there was a bad damp and mould issue which, as per a phone call, needed “to go to surveyor.”
On 21 September 2020, this investigation understands that the landlord issued a Section 20 notice of intention for pod major works, estimated to total £108,000 for the resident.
Around 9 November 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord.
1. She complained about the pod condition since 2017. She said it had been agreed repairs would be done by January 2018, which were not done; nothing had happened after she had made a complaint in 2018; and in January 2020, she had raised another repair.
2. She said the pod’s disrepair had caused serious damage to the property which would be detrimental if not fixed immediately; the issue was adversely affecting the health of everyone living in the property, due to “excessive drought [sic] and dampness;” and that she had previously completed internal refurbishment that cost £15,000.
3. She asked the landlord to ‘spot the difference’ between photos of the pod in 2017 and 2020, and asked for outstanding repairs to be treated urgently.
The landlord’s contractor inspected on 11 November 2020, and reported it was not possible to carry out repairs to damaged areas of the pod. They noted that some plywood sheeting was completely rotted through and it was not possible to fix new plywood; noted there was evidence of some damp to the walls and ceiling in the resident’s bathroom; and supplied photos which showed internal damage. The same day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it could not escalate the previous complaint, as escalation requests needed to be within six months of the response date.
On 24 November 2020, the landlord carried out a structural inspection; carried out an asbestos inspection; and issued a stage one response to the complaint.
The structural inspection noted that there were wet patches to the resident’s bathroom, and ceiling and cladding appeared to have failed. It noted that timber cladding panels and finishes had deteriorated and damage had been accelerated by weathering and defective rainwater goods, and recommended for the flat roof and rainwater goods to be checked and repaired accordingly. It also recommended a ground investigation to establish a feasible solution to temporarily extend the life of the pod.
The asbestos inspection assessed the condition of the asbestos insulation board, and found the internal condition to be good and the external condition to be poor, with timber panels weathered, rotting and warped. A recommendation was made to carry out works to encapsulate these.
The landlord’s stage one response to the complaint said:
1. The resident raised a number of issues and it would provide a view on temporary solutions it could offer until the pods were replaced as part of a major works programme in the near future.
2. Having reviewed emails and discussed the issue internally, there were multiple reasons for delays that occurred, such as access issues with the resident and a neighbour, third party builder damage, and having to consult with multiple departments to carry out the works.
3. A structural engineer had visited who would provide a report which would be used to review a request to make the structure watertight and prevent internal damage. The next steps would take a few weeks so time was required to establish how it could progress temporary repairs, following which it would advise of dates works could commence.
4. It acknowledged examples of service were provided that it needed to work on, such as a lack of call back on 27 January 2020 and updates, which would be used to improve service.
The resident subsequently queried what would be done and when and stated the type of approach to the works she wanted, such as use of a capable builder and use of alternatives to scaffold.
The landlord verbally updated the resident about the findings from the asbestos and structural inspections, then specialists carried out the recommended ground investigation in December 2020 and supplied a report in January 2021. The landlord’s building control used this to summarise its views in an internal memorandum dated 29 January 2021. It stated that as footings were unable to take additional heavy loading, installation of a lightweight rainscreen cladding appeared to be the only option to make the pod weathertight before planned redevelopment. It also recommended, as temporary measures, for a CCTV drain survey and checks of the flat roof and rainwater goods to be carried out; repair of any defects; and clearance of any blocked gullies.
Following this, the resident contacted the landlord on 1 February 2021 after a contractor had attended. She raised concern the operative informed her they were not going to do anything different to what was done in 2017, and advised she wanted clarification and a decision on what would happen if external panels could not be fixed. The landlord responded on 2 February 2021 that the contractor attended to evaluate if a repair was feasible, separate to proposals being discussed with its structural engineering team. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration but raised concern the operative was verbally abused at the visit. The landlord said the matter would need to be formally investigated, and until this was concluded the contractor had refused to attend the property, which would impact its ability to carry out repairs. The landlord informs this Service that the recommendations in the internal memorandum on 29 January 2020 (a CCTV drain survey, checks of the flat roof and rainwater goods, repair of any defects, and clearance of any blocked gullies) were unable to be carried out because of this incident.
The resident contacted her MP on 17 February 2021. She said she had experienced serious leaks for over four years in the toilet and kitchen, due to rotten external wall panels. She had carried out refurbishments in 2017 which had got ruined in 2020, due to mould and rotting walls, ceilings and floors. She had tried to get the landlord to fulfil its obligation for external maintenance, and nothing constructive had happened. There was exposed asbestos possibly flying everywhere and endangering residents’ health. The structure was dangerously weak, and could disintegrate and collapse at any time and cause serious harm. This investigation understands that the MP wrote to the landlord around 1 March 2021, and on 16 March 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint. It said:
1. It understood the complaint was about a lack of long term repairs to address the pod’s future stability, health and safety concerns about asbestos exposure, and water seepage into the property.
2. The resident had advised the pod disrepair had been ongoing for a considerable period and had not progressed after the stage one response. The resident submitted photographs of the pod disrepair and requested a timeline for interim and permanent works.
3. It understood from the stage one response that a temporary solution was being sought, to make pod panels more weathertight until a major works programme. A temporary ‘wrap around’ solution was considered not to be feasible due to concerns about ground conditions, shallow foundations and structural support. A lightweight rainscreen, fixed to timber studwork to protect the external fabric of the pod, was also not considered feasible due to the condition of the timber studwork. Alternatives were being sought, such as scaffolding with an enclosure, or painting to seal asbestos panels, and an alternative solution was expected to be in place before major works commenced in October 2021.
4. It acknowledged concerns and correspondence about the pod dated from 2017, but it was unable to respond to repairs prior to the recent complaint.
5. The poor condition had been noted by its asbestos surveyor in 2020, and it also understood the pod damage was caused by works the resident had carried out to her bathroom as well as natural deterioration.
6. It understood repairs had not been pursued in a speedy manner, but it was not believed delays were deliberate, and access issues had been a major issue.
7. It concluded that permanent repairs to the structure would be carried out once the major works programme commenced in October 2021, and in the meantime it would continue toward identifying a short-term solution which would meet immediate needs.
The resident raised dissatisfaction to her MP on 17 March 2021. The landlord had not provided suggestions or advice about making the structure stable and water tight; had not addressed health and safety concerns about asbestos and water ingress; and had not considered damage caused to works she had carried out in 2017 and 2020 or acknowledged negligence. It had declined to comment about repairs prior to the complaint, but she believed historic repairs informed the present complaint. It had not provided a timeframe to expect a temporary solution to be identified or given her any expectation that anything would be done.
On 7 April 2021, the resident advises this Service that the landlord emailed her the internal memorandum dated 29 January 2021, informed her that a paint solution was being explored, and informed her that it would update her when a temporary solution was finalised. The resident informed this Service in August 2021 that there had been no further action or correspondence from the landlord about a temporary solution or the recommendations in the internal memorandum.
On 23 April 2021 the resident’s MP referred the complaint to this Service, and stated that the resident’s desired outcomes were for the landlord to immediately carry out the recommendations in the internal memorandum, and for the landlord to be made liable for the cost of internal repairs caused by the disrepair of the structure and its negligence.
On 7 May 2021, the landlord issued a further Section 20 notice of intention, replacing the notice issued in September 2020, for pod major works estimated to total £107,000 for the resident. It explained that the pod was beyond economical repair and that it intended to carry out works, which included to replace the existing pod with a modular extension housing a new bathroom; remove asbestos; replace the roof and do associated works such as rainwater goods; and drainage works.
The landlord informs this Service that planning approval is awaited for the major works project that includes the pod, with approval for works related to the resident’s pod anticipated to be given in Summer 2022. It advises that the pod has been identified as requiring safe asbestos removal and so has been included in an asbestos removal works programme. It advises that the resident has been consulted about this and there had been a needs assessment to identify appropriate facilities for her tenants. It advised that the asbestos works would start on 14 March 2022 and would be confirmed in a letter to the resident.

Assessment and findings

In accordance with the lease, the landlord is responsible for the structure of the resident’s property, including the ‘pod.’
Following the resident’s complaint, which included dissatisfaction with historic delays, the landlord carried out asbestos, property, structural and ground surveys. In its complaint responses, the landlord set out that previous repairs were delayed for a number of reasons such as access issues with the resident and a neighbour, and having to liaise with other departments. It acknowledged there had been issues which it was using for lessons learned, such as a lack of call back in January 2020 for a previous repair report. It confirmed that permanent repairs would be carried out under the major works programme, but that it would try to identify short-term solutions to make the structure weathertight before major works commenced in October 2021.
The landlord’s approach to permanent repairs to the pod appears to reflect advertised information since 2017, that it would start to phase the works in 2018 over a number of years. The landlord took appropriate steps on receipt of the complaint to carry out appropriate inspections, review matters, and respond to the complaint in a timely manner at each stage. The landlord was reasonable not to investigate events in 2018, since it noted that the period for escalation is six months, and the period that it considers complaints about is twelve months from incidents complained about. It was also reasonable that the landlord did not address issues of negligence and responsibility for internal repairs, as this does not appear to have been a subject of the original complaint, and liability for the internal damage is an insurance or legal matter and not something the complaints procedure or the Ombudsman would definitively decide on (as indicated at paragraph 7 of this report). This investigation notes that as part of the major works, the landlord is installing bathrooms at no extra costs to leaseholders, but recognises the resident still faces paying a very substantial amount.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion however, the landlord’s response was unsatisfactory in a number of areas.
This investigation notes that one aspect the resident raised was the response to a roof leak in January 2020, nine months prior to the complaint, which the landlord’s records note had led to bad damp and mould and needed to be referred to a surveyor after a contractor inspection. While the landlord took appropriate steps to initially respond, and there is no evidence of further reports of water ingress, the apparent nine month delay in surveyor involvement is not appropriate. It is unsatisfactory that this was not addressed more in the complaint responses, apart from reference to a lack of call back, considering this fell within the twelve month timeframe in which the landlord investigates complaints. The landlord could also have considered if compensation was applicable.
The landlord clearly considered some options to make the pod weathertight, and in its final response it provided appropriate explanation about why some were not feasible; committed to seek alternatives; and said it expected a solution to be in place by October 2021 when the pod major works commenced (a six month timeframe now exceeded). This investigation notes that the November 2020 external asbestos assessment confirmed the condition to be ‘poor’ and internal inspections confirmed presence of water ingress. The landlord advises this Service that its risk and condition based approach was informed by inspections, however in its complaint responses it would be expected to be clearer about how the approaches and timeframes for interim repairs / planned major works took into account the inspection findings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, considering the landlord’s legal obligation and commitment on its website to ensure the structure remains watertight until replacement occurs, its complaint response was unnecessarily vague and non-committal.
The resident advises that in early April 2021, she was informed she would be updated when a temporary solution was found, but by late August 2021 there had been no further action or correspondence; a period of almost five months. The landlord may have been unable to make definitive commitments about interim solutions, however it would have been appropriate to make commitments to provide updates about the solutions being explored to make the pod weathertight, and communicate outcomes to these in a timely way. The landlord’s approach will have resulted in an ongoing lack of reassurance to the resident, which was unreasonable.
The resident raised concerns about internal disrepair, the risk of further damage and health and safety. Information provided advises that reports of issues such as water ingress have been infrequent and while an encapsulation recommendation was made in November 2020, there is no specific evidence that the asbestos was considered to pose a health and safety risk, which the landlord had appropriate opportunity to establish through inspection.
However, while the landlord acknowledged some of the resident’s concerns, it does not demonstrate it clearly set out its position on them, to give reassurance to her, or provide advice about how to mitigate issues experienced as a result of the disrepair until the major works were done. This was not reasonable or in line with a stated commitment, referenced at paragraph 5 of this report, to work with the resident to ensure she has sufficient information to maintain her home. The evidence suggests there has been no alternative but to leave the pod potentially vulnerable to water ingress, however this appears unsatisfactory without more effective explanation to the resident.
The landlord advises that recommendations in an internal memorandum on 29 January 2020 were unable to be carried out because of an incident between the contractor and the resident, and the landlord said in February 2021 that contractors would not return to the property until an investigation had concluded. While it is reasonable to expect residents to treat staff courteously at all times, the landlord’s explanation for not carrying out the recommendations is not entirely satisfactory, and based on the evidence available it is unclear to what extent the landlord sought to consider or progress the recommendations in an effective way.
There is no evidence that the resident was effectively informed that a purpose of the appointment was to follow up the recommendations. There is no information provided about the outcome to the incident investigation, which might have been expected since this affected progress of the recommendations. Finally, it would have been appropriate for the recommendations and position on these to have been specifically addressed in the landlord’s final response, as they related to investigations about the issues.
Overall, while the landlord acted appropriately to carry out inspections and assess initial temporary solutions to make the pod weathertight prior to major work, the landlord did not address important concerns in its responses. It did not more fully address an apparent nine month delay in assessment of a roof leak by a surveyor. It did not demonstrate it considered if compensation was applicable for service issues, as would have been reasonable. It did not provide, or commit to provide, timely updates about the temporary solutions to make the pod weathertight, as would have been reasonable and given commitments on its website to ensure pod structures remain weathertight. It also has not demonstrated it sought to consider or progress some inspection recommendations in a reasonable way, including after any investigation into the resident’s behaviour; and it did not set out its position on the recommendations in its final response as would have been appropriate. This will have resulted in an ongoing lack of certainty and concern on the part of the resident, and this Service therefore considers it appropriate to make a finding of maladministration, due to the cumulative failings and the protracted resolution of matters for her.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports about a bathroom ‘pod’ extension to the property.

Reasons

While the landlord carried out appropriate inspection and assessed temporary solutions to make the pod weathertight prior to major work, it did not address important concerns in its responses; did not more fully address an apparent nine month delay in assessment of a roof leak by a surveyor; did not provide, or commit to provide, timely updates about the temporary solutions to make the pod weathertight, as would have been reasonable; and has not demonstrated it responded to some inspection recommendations in a reasonable way.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings identified in this report.
The landlord to:
1. Review interim solutions to make the pod weathertight that could be implemented after the March 2022 asbestos removal works, and before the pod replacement works commence, if weathertight works do not already form part of the asbestos removal works.
2. Review if it is appropriate to carry out outstanding recommendations from the internal memorandum dated 29 January 2021.
3. Review any steps the resident can take to mitigate any current water ingress affecting the pod.
The landlord should inform the resident and this Service of the outcomes to the above within four weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its repairs and complaint handling, to ensure:
1. It considers how it manages the wider major works programme, in particular how it prioritises properties for pod replacement and communicates with affected residents.
2. It investigates issues which are within the timeframe of its complaints procedure and addresses the substantive issues in a detailed way.
3. It considers making, or arranging, relevant commitments where issues merit, to minimise protracted resolutions to these.
4. It considers and progresses inspection recommendations in a timely manner.
5. It communicates effectively about repairs appointments.