Haringey Council (202117782)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117782

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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety works at her property.
    2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. In October 2019, the landlord informed the resident of a boroughwide fire safety improvement programme. A general specification of works was drawn up following the survey of a sample of properties and leaseholders were told they would be consulted and receive an estimate of costs. The resident was sent a formal notice under section 20, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, describing the works as, ‘installation of fire detection system and associated safety works.’ She was informed that her estimated contribution to the works would be £6,544.
  3. The resident highlighted that she had previously installed a fire door and Automatic Fire Detection system (AFD) in her flat, with the landlord’s knowledge, therefore she did not believe that further upgrade works were required within her property. She subsequently expressed frustration with the landlord’s communication about the works, including that no clear timetable or information about final costs had been provided.
  4. Following appointment of the successful contractor, the resident’s flat and the building’s communal areas were surveyed. Asbestos was identified in the basement of the resident’s property and encapsulation was advised. The landlord informed the resident that this work would be completed and recharged via her annual service charge, although the asbestos would not be disturbed by the fire safety work. The resident maintained that the landlord should pay for the encapsulation, as it was responsible for maintaining the structure of the building under the terms of her lease.
  5. The resident continued to raise concerns about the time taken to complete the works and the lack of information about final costs. She also queried how the communal areas would be supplied with electricity and who would pay for it. The resident indicated that she believed that her neighbour had refused access to complete works within their property, which was delaying the completion of works to the communal hallway. The resident stressed that the lack of certainty was having a detrimental impact on her health.
  6. The landlord noted in its complaint responses that it would be unable to confirm the final cost until all works had been completed. It referred the resident to the estimate of costs provided in the section 20 notice. The landlord maintained that it had been advised by its contractor that all works were necessary, although it would not charge for the replacement of the resident’s front door as it had failed to obtain the correct certification from her when the door was installed in 2014. It found that although there were occasions where its standard of service fell below what would be expected, overall, it had maintained ‘sufficient contact’ with the resident regarding the works.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the cost of the fire safety works, whether some items of work were necessary, and the fact that she will be recharged for the works to encapsulate asbestos in her basement. Under the terms of the resident’s lease, the cost of any works that the landlord is responsible for completing will be recovered from the resident via her annual service charge payments, or via demands for additional service charge contributions.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to investigate the aspects of the resident’s complaint relating to individual charges. The resident would need to seek independent legal advice on making a challenge via an application to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT).
  3. This investigation is focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the nature, necessity, and timeframe for the works, including whether its communication with her and the actions it took to investigate was reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances.

Response to concerns about fire safety works

  1. The landlord is responsible for ensuring that the resident’s building meets current fire safety standards. Prior to formal consultation, leaseholders were advised of the landlord’s intention to complete fire safety works and that the final costs would vary according to the work required for each building. The Ombudsman acknowledges the uncertainty that this process can create, however, the landlord is obliged to complete any required works and residents commit to meeting the cost of such works via their service charge, under the terms of their lease.
  2. A statutory process is in place to ensure that leaseholders are consulted about major works and to provide an estimated cost. As the landlord has explained, it is not in a position to provide details of the final cost until works are completed. The landlord followed the section 20 process to inform leaseholders of the nature of the works and their right to make observations, which is a legal requirement. The landlord provided an update on the appointment of the successful contractor and described the works that may be required, subject to survey. The landlord took appropriate steps, in line with its legal obligations, to keep the resident informed at the beginning of the process.
  3. The landlord has communicated with the resident about the works via newsletters, phone, and email. The landlord has provided an example of a newsletter sent to residents on 15 September 2020, updating on progress. Residents were provided with contact details for staff within the landlord’s organisation and for the appointed contractor. Both the landlord and the contractor offered to meet with residents to discuss any concerns. The landlord has provided adequate opportunity for residents to ask questions about the works and to raise any concerns, demonstrating a willingness to listen and to treat residents fairly.
  4. The resident involved her Local Councillor and MP and obtained advice and assistance from legal representatives, who corresponded with the landlord on her behalf. The landlord’s letter to the resident of 17 December 2020 listed 15 responses sent to her or her representatives between 1 October 2020 and 7 December 2020, although not all correspondence has been copied to this investigation. Responses were also provided within a reasonable time to queries raised in February and March 2021. The landlord provided an update on the works in April 2021 and kept the resident informed when works to the communal area were delayed. The landlord dedicated significant effort to keeping the resident informed and responding to her enquiries.
  5. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord responding to correspondence sent on behalf of the resident in May and June 2021, for which it has apologised. An apology was a proportionate means of addressing the poor standard of service and the landlord did then provide a comprehensive response addressing each of the issues raised.
  6. The landlord has made clear its position that it is entitled to recharge the cost of communal electricity and the asbestos encapsulation via the resident’s service charge. Should the resident disagree, she would need to seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman is satisfied that, overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident about the works.
  7. Works to the communal area and to the inside of the resident’s flat were completed, however, the resident complained about the standard of workmanship in the communal areas and that unsightly trunking had been installed in her property. The landlord has confirmed to the resident that it would not undertake works to install the trunking differently. This Service is unable to determine the standards of works or how trunking should be installed, thus, will not comment on further on this issue.
  8. In response to the resident’s concerns about whether some works were necessary, the landlord sought advice from its contractor, noting that the resident had installed a new door and similar AFD system some years prior. On the advice of its contractor, the landlord concluded that works to replace the front door and the AFDs within her property were necessary to comply with current fire regulations and due to the age of the equipment. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its contractor to conclude that the works were necessary, and should the resident wish to challenge this, she would need to seek independent legal advice and consider referring the matter to the FTT.
  9. The landlord took a reasonable approach to investigating and resolving the resident’s complaint about the replacement of her front door. Its commitment to replace the door free of charge is fair, as it is responsible for ensuring that the building complies with current fire safety standards. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to allow the current door to be left in situ, as it cannot evidence that it is compliant.
  10. Regarding the timing of the works, a survey of the resident’s property took place on 5 November 2020, as planned, and the resident was advised in the landlord’s letter of 17 December 2020 that works to her building were likely to commence in Spring 2021 and could last for up to 33 weeks. Works within the resident’s property were completed on 10 May 2021, which was within the timescale originally advised. By the date of the landlord’s final complaint response some works to the communal areas and works to interlink the system with the heat detectors in individual properties were outstanding, together with the replacement of the resident’s front door.
  11. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s frustration that the landlord was not able to provide and adhere to a clear timetable for completion of the works at the outset. However, it has provided regular updates and it did indicate that works could take up to 33 weeks. As works began in May 2021, completion could be anticipated to take until December 2021. Whilst some works were outstanding by the landlord’s final response of 3 September 2021, it is understood that the majority been completed by that date. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there had not been an unreasonable delay in the completion of the works at the date of the landlord’s final complaint response.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has not provided evidence that it formally acknowledged either the resident’s complaint or her escalation request, as required under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and the landlord’s Customer Feedback Policy. The landlord’s response of 17 December 2020 appears to be a stage 1 response to the complaint, although it is not clearly described as such, as it referred to the resident’s right to have her complaint reviewed.
  2. The landlord received further correspondence from the resident’s legal advisers clearly expressing dissatisfaction with its response. The landlord failed to confirm whether the resident was seeking to escalate her complaint and so the complaint was not escalated until the resident’s representative made a formal request on 8 August 2021. The landlord missed several opportunities to escalate the complaint, resulting in an unreasonable delay in providing the resident with a final response.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling and that a proportionate award of compensation is due, in line with the limits set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, to reflect the time and trouble the resident and her representatives took to pursue the complaint. The landlord is also encouraged to review its complaints handling procedures to ensure that it has a clear process for escalating and responding to complaints where it is engaged in correspondence with both residents and other representatives on their behalf.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £75 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.
    2. Review its complaints handling procedure to ensure clear processes are in place for escalating and responding to complaints where the landlord is in communication with both the resident and other parties on their behalf.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to arrange the replacement of the front door to ensure that it is compliant with the requirements for fire safety.