Haringey London Borough Council (202112349)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112349

Haringey Council

29 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 a leak that occurred during works to the resident’s kitchen.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings.
   3. The landlord’s response to the original works to the kitchen.
   4. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom, ground-floor flat. It should be noted that English is not the first language of the resident, and therefore the resident requires the help of a translator for correspondence. The resident also states that she is disabled and living by herself. The landlord’s records support that the resident has several vulnerabilities.
3. On 9 March 2021 contractors of the landlord attended the property to carry out repairs to the kitchen. In the process of the work, a water pipe was accidentally damaged by the contractor, resulting in a leak. It is not disputed that this was the cause of the leak. The resident expressed that, as a result of this, several possessions suffered water damage such as a number of white goods and personal belongings. An emergency plumber was sent by the landlord to the property that day to turn off the water and to clear up the flooded water. The following day, the damaged pipe was fixed, and the water was turned back on.
4. The resident’s formal complaint was submitted to the landlord on 16 March 2021 and expressed the resident’s concerns that due to the damage to the white goods, she had been left without working cooking and washing machine facilities. Additionally, the original repair job that the contractor had been sent to carry out had not been finished. In the landlord’s formal stage one complaint response on 1 April 2021, it apologised for the works not being finished and confirmed that a surveyor had attended the property in the meantime to identify areas for works to take place. The landlord also explained that in order for the resident to claim compensation for the damaged goods, she would need to contact the landlord’s insurance team. The contact details for the insurers were also included in the stage one response.
5. There is no evidence of further contact between the resident and landlord until 8 July 2021. On this date, the resident sent an email to the landlord expressing that ‘promises were given’ yet not carried out. It is not disputed that the remaining work had not been finished. The resident explained that the scheduled repairs had not been completed and that the damaged appliances had not been replaced. The resident stressed that she had been without the use of a cooker, fridge and washing appliances for four months.
6. The complaint was escalated to stage two on 15 July 2021. The resident confirmed that she wanted the initial repair job to be completed, the damaged items to be replaced and that she wanted £10,000 compensation. The resident also suggested that, in her opinion, the landlord was being discriminatory, racist and it was deliberately ignoring her correspondence and contact. In later correspondence, the resident also suggested that she had been caused ‘substantial mental distress’, her ‘depression [had] severely deteriorated’ and that she was feeling suicidal.
7. The final response was issued on 23 August 2021. In the response, it was acknowledged by the landlord that the resident was left without water for almost 24 hours following the incident and that works to the kitchen remained unfinished. Regarding this, the landlord noted that the resident had told it that she had tried to contact it on multiple occasions, yet the landlord confirmed that it had no record of this. The landlord did, however, apologise for the lack of communication and delay in managing the works. The landlord also stated that it found it was at fault for ‘all aspects’ of the complaint and awarded the resident £351 compensation. The landlord again signposted the resident towards its insurance team in order for her to make a claim for her damaged goods.
8. The landlord’s records confirm that the initial works that had been planned were carried out on the kitchen between 7 September and 10 September 2021. The resident also contacted the landlord’s insurance team to claim for the damaged goods. On 10 November 2021 the insurance team confirmed in a response to the resident that it was reviewing the matter and that they acknowledge the delay. On that day they also confirmed that the case had been referred to public liability insurers as the damage was a result of the actions from an operative of the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

9. The landlord has provided a copy of its ‘Repairs Handbook for Residents’ and also it’s ‘Discretionary Compensation Procedure.’ These will be referenced throughout the report.
10. The repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to water pipes (page 4). It also categorises the types of repairs that can be made and how long these repairs are expected to take in regards to whichever category they fall in (pages 9 to 10). It states that the landlord must attempt to resolve emergency repairs within 24 hours of the initial report. Planned repairs (which the initial work falls under) are to be inspected within 28 days, and the landlord is to give the date of the planned repair on that visit.
11. The compensation procedure outlines how compensation will be calculated and which damages the landlord is liable for. The appendix is where the amount to be paid in regard to the relevant issue can be found.

Scope of Investigation

12. Throughout the complaints process, the resident brought forward the concern that she was facing discrimination, racism, and purposefully being ignored by the landlord. In accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters where it is considered quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and to the corresponding complaint handling.
13. The resident did also raise with the landlord that she had been caused ‘substantial mental distress’, that her ‘depression had severely deteriorated’ and that she had ‘become more suicidal than ever’ because of the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Unfortunately, this Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on mental health and wellbeing. Similar to the above, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, it would therefore be more appropriate for matters such as this to be dealt with via the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. This Service has subsequently not commented on any alleged deterioration of the resident’s wellbeing within this report. Consideration has, however, been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Landlord’s response to a leak that occurred during works to the resident’s kitchen.

14. Following the damage to the pipe, the landlord sent an emergency plumber to attend the property to turn off the water and to remove the excess water that had flooded the kitchen. This was achieved and the following day the water was turned back on, and the pipe was fixed. The resident did however, report extensive damage to several personal items and white goods which, according to the resident, left her without access to cooking and washing facilities.
15. The landlord’s immediate response to the broken pipe was appropriate and carried out within a timely manner. By attending the property, stopping the leak, and fixing the damaged pipe within 24 hours, the landlord acted in accordance with its emergency repair guidelines. It is written in the ‘emergency repairs’ section on page 10 of the landlord’s ‘Repairs Handbook for Residents’, that the landlord will attend within 24 hours of the resident reporting the issue, and that it will attempt to complete the repair on the first visit. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its immediate response to the leak.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings.

16. The resident’s request for the landlord to replace her damaged goods was acknowledged in the landlord’s stage one response. The landlord advised that the resident needed to contact its insurance team for assistance in making a claim for the loss/damage of personal goods. The landlord also provided the details for the resident in order to do so. The landlord’s compensation policy supports this action as it stipulates that the landlord would not award compensation for insurance claims and that the resident is to refer to the insurance team (appendix, Discretionary Compensation Procedure).
17. In the landlord’s stage two response, it would have been reasonable for it to have explicitly acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction that she had been without the use of a cooker, fridge and washing appliances for four months. This Service appreciates that the damage resulted from no fault of her own. It is noted, however, that despite the landlord’s advice (two weeks after her initial report – within its stage one response), the matter was not raised with the insurer until several months later. This inevitably would have delayed any progress in replacing these goods. Had the resident raised this at an earlier time, soon after the landlord’s advice, this matter may have been resolved significantly sooner. This Service is therefore unable to hold the landlord responsible for this period, given that the correct advise was provided but not immediately pursued.
18. What’s more, as the resident has since placed an insurance claim for her personal possessions that had been damaged during the leak, this Service is unable to comment on the replacement of, or compensation for the goods as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurers. Nevertheless, as noted by the landlord in its stage one response, it is the resident’s responsibility to ensure that she has insurance on personal items. This is confirmed on page 20 of the landlord’s repairs handbook for residents. The landlord would not be expected to pay the cost or replace the damaged items and its advice to refer the matter to insurers was therefore correct in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the original works to the kitchen.

19. The resident, in her initial complaint, raised her concerns to the landlord that the original works to the worktop in the kitchen had not been completed following the leak. It should be noted that it is difficult to determine the details of the work required to the worktop, however it is not in dispute that the work needed to be completed. She noted that she was ‘under the impression’ that these works were to be carried out on 10 March 2021 following the repair of the damaged pipe. The landlord acknowledged in its stage one response that the work had not been finished and noted that the contractors have ‘extended their sincerest apologies’ for not arranging further inspection after the repair of the pipe. The landlord also stated that the contractors agreed to remind their operatives to ‘provide full feedback for any outstanding works even if not their trade’. Additionally, the landlord confirmed that it had sent a surveyor to the property on 29 March 2021 to identify what work and repair needed to be done. The landlord advised the resident to make contact if an appointment had not been made within ten working days following the surveyor’s visit.
20. The landlord’s confirmation that the contractor had recognised its failing and had since agreed to change how it would approach possible works in the future is promising, and it is in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It is mentioned in these principles that a landlord should; ‘review lessons identified from complaints and inform the complainant of changes made as a result of them to demonstrate commitment to resolving disputes’. The landlord has done this by communicating to the resident that the contractors have changed how feedback of outstanding works will be carried out in the future. This shows a willingness to learn from mistakes which will help to improve the resident/landlord relationship.
21. According to the evidence provided to this Service, following the stage one response there was a large gap in correspondence between the resident and the landlord. The resident suggests that she had made attempts to contact the landlord as the work to the kitchen had still not been done by the time of the stage two complaint on 15 July 2021. The landlord asserted that it had no record of the resident attempting to contact it during this time. The landlord did, however, apologise for the lack of communication with the resident and for the fact that the kitchen work had still not been completed. It confirmed that an operative would be in touch with the resident to provide an update on when the work will be completed. The landlord’s repair logs confirm that the work to the kitchen was scheduled from 7 to 10 September 2021 and in an email from the landlord to this Service on 14 February 2022, it confirmed that the work to the kitchen had been completed.
22. Although the landlord acted within its obligations, it would have been beneficial for the landlord to go beyond its obligations in order to ensure that works had been carried out. The resident had been asked to contact the landlord if an appointment had not been booked after ten working days. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the fact that English is not her first language, it would have been appropriate and fair for the landlord to follow up in communications with the resident, to assure that the works had been booked and completed. This would have prevented this issue reaching a stage where the works had not been completed for several months. If this had been done, the work may have been carried out within a reasonable time.
23. The landlord acknowledged in both the stage one and two responses that there had been significant delay in carrying out the identified kitchen works; however, the landlord did not acknowledge the impracticality that this imposed upon the resident. As a result of the original work not being carried out, and the loss of important amenities, the resident claimed that it had left her without the full use of her kitchen for several months. While this would have certainly hindered the resident’s use of the kitchen, the Ombudsman is unable to determine the extent. In any case, upon raising this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded. This aspect of the complaint was not recognised by the landlord in the complaint response, however.
24. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing her of the lessons it had learned from her complaint. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor, and that the actions it took to remedy this were, with one exception, reasonable and appropriate. The exception being the level of compensation it offered to the resident. That was in line with its compensation guidance, but it was disproportionately low when the length of these repair delays is considered and the failure to consider the impact this would have had on the use of the kitchen. Accordingly, the omission of a fair and reasonable consideration of compensation was a service failure.

Landlord’s complaint handling

25. Although this Service, as outlined in the Scope of Investigation, cannot draw a conclusion as to whether the resident has suffered discrimination or a deterioration in mental health at the hands of the landlord, it can consider how the landlord has responded to these claims and whether the landlord has acted and responded appropriately to this part of the resident’s complaint.
26. Throughout the communications with the resident, the landlord did not respond to the allegations of misconduct in any of the correspondence or complaint responses. The resident, on multiple occasions, brought this concern to the landlord, and as it was a clear concern of the resident, it is something that the landlord should have addressed. The resident was clearly troubled by this, as she had brought forward these allegations consistently.
27. There was subsequently a service failure resulting from the landlord’s omission in addressing the resident’s clear concerns of discrimination and racism. Although it is not for this service to decide whether the landlord had been discriminatory or racist, where accusations are made, this Service would expect a landlord to consider and address such concerns. In this instance, however, the landlord failed to respond to this aspect of the complaint. The landlord failed to demonstrate to the resident that it had taken her concerns into consideration or that these allegations were being treated with the appropriate seriousness.
28. Additionally, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s repeated claims of a deterioration in her mental health. This Service would have expected the landlord to have acknowledged this, and to have advised the resident of or made a referral to any available support services, to offer some assistance. It does not appear that the landlord did this, however, and this was inappropriate.
29. To put things right, the landlord should subsequently write to the resident to offer an apology in recognition of these omissions. An order of compensation has also been made to account for the landlord’s failure to address all aspects of the complaint, as best practice guidance suggests it should.
30. For completeness, putting the landlord’s oversights aside, this Service does note that the landlord did respond to the complaints within a reasonable timescale. As per its policy, where there was to be a delay in response due to investigative needs, the landlord gave a clear explanation as to why, and offered a date to the resident for when it’s response would be issued. This was reasonable.

Compensation

31. Although the landlord did offer compensation to the resident for its acknowledged service failures, it is the opinion of this service that the compensation awarded is not fully representative of the failures and nor is it clear to the resident as to how the compensation can be broken down.. The landlord suggests that the compensation awarded was in recognition of the resident’s difficulties in pursuing the complaint, however, it does not detail exactly what the compensation is representative of. This Service would expect a breakdown of the compensation so that it is clear to the resident which aspects of their complaint have been taken into account and remedied.
32. Additionally, it is the opinion of this Service that the compensation offered does not consider each of the service failures in which the landlord is at fault. Further redress is needed in order to address its complaint handling failures where certain aspects of the resident’s complaint have been overlooked. These include not recognizing the resident’s concerns of discrimination and adverse effects on her mental health, which the landlord is expected to have considered.
33. This Service recognises that the resident’s desired outcome, with regards to compensation, is an amount of £10,000. It is worth noting, however, that this greatly exceeds what this service would consider reasonable, on review of all circumstances of this case. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order of compensation which is considered to be more proportionate to the service failure, the adverse impact, and is in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the leak that occurred during works to the resident’s kitchen.
    2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings.
    3. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the original works to the kitchen.
    4. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £300 compensation. This can be broken down into:
    1. £200 for the unfinished kitchen works which would have impacted the resident’s ability to fully use her kitchen for several months.
    2. £100 to account for the landlord’s handling of the complaint, and failure to acknowledge all of the resident’s concerns.
    3. The landlord should also write to the resident to provide an apology for its failure to acknowledge her concerns of discrimination, racism, and deteriorating mental health.

2. The landlord should comply with the above orders within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

36. In future cases, the landlord should ensure that it offers a breakdown of any compensation awarded, outlining exactly which aspects of the resident’s complaint are being addressed with the compensation.