Haringey London Borough Council (202120299)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120299

Haringey Council

14 March 2023


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 concerns:
    1. The landlord’s handling of remedial works to the resident’s property following a leak.
    2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives in a two-bedroom first floor flat. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 April 2021 and made a complaint. The landlord noted that the resident is disabled and had experienced a heavy leak in November 2020. The resident was unhappy as she believed that it had ignored her repairs, despite seeing to her neighbour’s. The full scope of the outstanding repairs was not apparent from this record, but the landlord noted that the resident had reported that piles of wood were left by contractors in her communal hallway, which prevented her from using her handrail. It also noted that the resident’s toilet was “still leaking and loose.” In addition, the resident wished to sue the landlord for negligence and discrimination, as she had had a fall, implying this was caused by the materials left behind by the landlord’s operatives.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one response on 29 April 2021. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delays and the quality of remedial works undertaken at her home following the leak. The full scope of the remedial works that were undertaken up to that point, and those that remained outstanding, were not apparent from this response. The landlord said that the toilet had been repaired on 21 April 2021 and the outstanding repairs would commence on 6 May 2021. In relation to the materials left behind by workmen, it said a member of its surveying team visited the property 21 April 2021 to see evidence of the items and assess progression of the remaining works. The landlord did not explain what action, if any, was taken in relation to removing the materials that caused an obstruction, but it did say that its contractor had reminded operatives to remove materials from site daily to ensure safe working conditions. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken to resolve the repairs and the standard of work that had been undertaken since the landlord’s initial response. She said that operatives had once again left work materials in her house and garden; this was an issue because she had young children and she had a disability, which impacted her mobility, dexterity and balance. She believed that the landlord had disregarded her time and safety, and that its actions in that regard had been racially motivated.
  5. Following intervention from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued its final response on 24 March 2022. It said that following the resident’s stage one response, works were completed which included renewal of the bathroom suite, tiling and flooring, and the treatment of mould and decoration works. It said that following a subsequent inspection, snagging works were then carried out which included the installation of a bath panel and “boxing with sealant”. It said it was unable to confirm the date when the building materials were cleared, as it no longer had a contract with that contractor. It apologised for the delay in resolving this issue. It said as a point of learning, it would raise the resident’s experience with senior management and ask that consideration be given as to how it could improve contracted repair work in future.
  6. The resident subsequently referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said that the landlord had failed to adequately address her complaint or to offer any redress for its failings.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the remedial works

  1. The landlord has provided very limited repair records during this investigation, and it is not entirely clear from its complaint responses where the leak originated from, and the remedial works required to the resident’s property. The landlord has clarified to the Ombudsman that the leak originated from the resident’s property and was affecting the property below, and repairs to the resident’s bathroom were raised to resolve the leak, which included replacement of the bathroom suite.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that a surveyor inspection was raised on 26 January 2021 and completed on 13 February 2021. The repair records do not confirm the repairs that were raised following this, but the landlord has stated that the bathroom repairs were raised on 19 February 2021 with a target completion date of 21 May 2021, and were completed on 9 June 2021. Correspondence between the landlord and its contractor indicates that the majority of the bathroom repairs had been completed by 26 May 2021 and that snagging works, including the replacement of the bath panel, were completed following this. The repair records also confirm that the resident’s toilet was reported as leaking on 15 April and repaired on 21 April 2021.
  3. The timescale to complete the toilet repair appears reasonable. This is because the landlord’s repairs handbook confirms that repairs such as leaks (aside from major leaks) will be completed within 28 days, and the available evidence indicates the repair was completed within 6 days. Planned repairs such as bathroom replacement works will be inspected within 28 days, and during the inspection the resident will be informed when the repairs will be completed. It is not known what the resident was told about when the bathroom repairs would commence as the landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm this, and therefore there is no evidence to show that the resident’s expectations were adequately managed in this regard.
  4. It is also not known if the condition of the bathroom had any impact on the resident while she was awaiting the repairs. The remedial repairs to the bathroom included treatment of mould and it is therefore possible that this aspect of the repairs required a quicker response time, given the potential health and safety concerns. It is of concern that the landlord has not provided a record of the surveyor findings from February 2021, which could have clarified the extent of the mould growth in the bathroom.
  5. Neither has the landlord provided evidence (such as the relevant repair records) confirming when the bathroom repairs were raised and completed, or any further detail relating to the events that took place while the bathroom repairs were being carried out. Correspondence from the landlord’s contractor indicates that a second leak was discovered which took time to resolve. The resident also referred to contractors failing to turn up as scheduled. As no further detail has been provided, it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to robustly assess whether there were any failings in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs.
  6. Good record keeping is one of the fundamental aspects of housing management, and without it a landlord is often unable to support any claims it has made about the actions it has taken or provide evidence that it is meeting its obligations fairly and consistently. The landlord’s poor record keeping in this case has impacted on the Ombudsman’s ability to robustly assess the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs and amounts to maladministration.
  7. To put things right the landlord has been ordered to pay £200 compensation to the resident in recognition of this. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has also been ordered to review its record keeping practice and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure that it keeps robust repair and inspection records going forward.
  8. A significant aspect of the resident’s complaint was her concern with building materials left behind by operatives, which she described as causing an obstruction and trip hazard. In its stage one response, the landlord said it had carried out an inspection of the property to assess the situation and the contractor had extended its “sincerest apologies”, as well as confirming that operatives had been reminded to ensure safe working conditions and to remove materials from site daily.
  9. While this was appropriate action to take, the landlord has not provided any contemporaneous evidence to show it took such action or that the building materials were removed at this time. The landlord has also told the Ombudsman that a surveyor did attend on 21 April 2021 but did not take any notes, providing further evidence of poor record keeping.
  10. Following the resident’s complaint in May 2021 about more building materials being left in her property and garden, the landlord raised the matter with the contractor. On 26 May 2021 the contractor confirmed to the landlord that it would attend that day and clear the remaining items from the garden. However, there are no further records to confirm if this was done at this time.
  11. In its final response, the landlord said that it was unable to clarify when the building materials were removed because it no longer worked with the relevant contractor. This was not a reasonable explanation as a landlord would still be expected to keep records of its actions, and is further evidence of the landlord’s poor record keeping.
  12. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the building materials was poor, particularly in light of the resident’s disability and that she had reported in her initial complaint that she had had a fall. The complaint responses failed to put this right. Therefore, a finding of maladministration has been made for this aspect of the complaint and the landlord has been ordered to pay £200 compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience she has been caused in relation to this matter.
  13. It should also be noted that the landlord has failed to provide information requested by the Ombudsman during this investigation within a reasonable timeframe. This resulted in the Ombudsman issuing the landlord with a Complaint Handling Failure Order, requiring the landlord to provide the information requested by a final deadline. This was also missed and so the Complaint Handling Failure Order has been recorded as non-complied with, which is a significant failing.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlords must respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. At stage two, landlords must respond to the complaint within twenty working days.
  2. The landlord issued its final response eleven months after the resident contacted it in May 2021, when she expressed dissatisfaction with its stage one response. While the resident did not explicitly ask for her complaint to be escalated at that time, she raised further issues with the ongoing remedial works, expressed dissatisfaction with the written stage one response, and requested compensation. In addition, she made reference to taking the matter to the Ombudsman. As such, the landlord should have treated this as an escalation request.
  3. The resident subsequently sought assistance from the Ombudsman with escalating her complaint and the landlord unreasonably delayed in progressing the complaint following this. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident by 17 December 2021, but the landlord did not contact the resident until 26 January 2022. In addition, the landlord did not apologise to the resident or offer any redress for the considerable overall delay in providing a final response, which was unreasonable and a failing.
  4. The landlord’s complaint responses were inadequate as they contained no assessment of how the repairs had been handled, aside from offering an apology for the delays and quality of the remedial works. Therefore, the landlord failed to meet the requirements of the Code which requires complaint responses to provide clear reasons for the decision.
  5. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s belief that the landlord and its contractor had racially discriminated against her. This was a failing as the Code confirms that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. Furthermore, the Ombudsman expects landlords to investigate concerns about bias through their complaints procedure. While no evidence has been seen in the information provided to suggest the landlord treated the resident differently based on her personal characteristics, as noted above, only limited information has been provided by the landlord for this investigation. Ultimately, the landlord should have investigated this matter further and provided a formal response to the resident. This was a significant failing.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was poor and compensation is due to the resident for the inconvenience, distress, and time and trouble she will have likely experienced as a result of the landlord’s failings. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a further £200 compensation for its complaint handling, and to review its complaint handling in this case and implement the necessary remedial action to improve its complaint handling going forward.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of remedial works to the resident’s property following a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £600 compensation broken down as follows:
      1. £200 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about discarded building materials.
      2. £200 for its record keeping.
      3. £200 for its complaint handling.
    3. Carry out a review of its record keeping practices and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure that it keeps robust repair and inspection records going forward.
    4. Carry out a review of its complaint handling in this case and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure it complies with the Complaint Handling Code going forward.