Haringey London Borough Council (202121817)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121817

Haringey Council

13 May 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 reports about a leak in the property.
The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

On 5 February 2021, the resident (who is a leaseholder) reported a leak to the landlord. Contractors attended to identify the cause of the leak and attempt to fix it. On 16 March 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord, explaining that nothing had been done about the reported leak. He suggested that it was coming from a broken pipe that he had seen, or either the roof or flat above. The resident asked for it to be fixed or for the landlord to grant permission for him to do it himself.
The landlord issued its formal response on 31 March 2021 in which it apologised for the issues that the resident had been experiencing. It explained that on 14 January 2021 a contractor had fixed a pipe in the property and that a contractor had also attended on 9 February 2021, but no leak was found. The landlord encouraged the resident to contact its insurance team in order to claim for damages caused by said leak.
Throughout correspondence over the following months, the resident explained that the leak was persisting, and that the property was unsuitable to live in. As a result he said that he had paid rent to live in a different property. The landlord sent contractors to identify and fix the leak, but these steps were delayed in being completed. Scaffolding was erected on 30 June 2021, but the leak remained unresolved.
On 23 September 2021 the resident requested escalation of his complaint. He explained that he had been complaining about the issue for almost six months and that the leak was still present. The landlord’s final response was issued on 29 October 2021. It apologised and acknowledged that the work still had not been completed. It confirmed that the repair to resolve the leak required major works that would involve demolishing a wall in order to re-run a broken pipe through the property. It acknowledged that it had missed an opportunity to fix the issue earlier and offered £97 compensation..
Through the following months, correspondence between the landlord, the resident, and this Service confirmed that the work had still not started. On 18 February 2022, an email from the landlord to this Service confirmed that the works were still ongoing. The resident explained to this Service that, as an outcome, he wanted the work to be completed and for the landlord to reconsider the compensation that it had offered.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

The discretionary compensation procedure’s appendix states that a ‘Priority A’ repair is worthy of:

A £10 one-off payment.
£2 per day up to three weeks.
After that, £10 per week until resolved.

Sections 2(a) and (b) of the lease agreement identify the structure of the building, external and internal walls, roof, rainwater pipes and water pipes as under the responsibility of the landlord to maintain and repair.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak in the property

The resident submitted his complaint to the landlord on 16 March 2021, in which he said that he had been reporting the leak since 5 February 2021. The landlord’s work orders support this and show that a job was raised on 5 February 2021. The landlord’s stage one response was issued on 31 March 2021 and noted that the property was attended on 9 February 2021, but no leak was found in the property at that time. It is evident that the landlord attended to the resident’s initial complaint of a leak within a reasonable timeframe and, additionally, it offered its formal response within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s stage one response apologised for the issues that the resident had been experiencing and included contact information for the insurance team so that the resident could make a claim for any damages that the leak may have caused to his property. It also advised that the resident should take out home contents insurance to cover any damage to personal items in the future.
Although the landlord apologised and offered contact information for relevant services, there is no evidence of it having made proactive efforts to investigate the resident’s further reports of the leak. It acknowledged that its contractor attended the property on 9 February 2021 and found no leak; but given that the resident had said that the leak was ongoing in his complaint, it would be expected that the landlord should have taken appropriate actions through its repairs service. Instead, the landlord only focused on the previous visits that it had made to the property. The landlord did suggest that it had attempted to call the resident in this respect, but this alone would not have amounted to the landlord taking reasonable steps to address the situation.
This Service’s dispute resolution principles aim for a landlord to ‘put things right’ and this includes ensuring that the resident is placed in a position that it was in before the complaint had to be made. This would mean making sure that either there was no leak by investigating the property, or by identifying the leak and raising a job to fix it. The landlord’s failure to take a proactive stance on the matter by sending a qualified operative to identify and address the resident’s leak report amounts to a service failure.
On 4 April 2021, the resident advised the landlord that the property was unsuitable to live in and that the leak was still ongoing. He also said that the property was unoccupied as he was out of the country at the time. The resident explained that the landlord would have to gain access from a local estate agent, providing the relevant contact information for the landlord. The landlord said that all the relevant information had been passed on to the contractor and that a new job had been raised for 11 May 2021. This would be a joint visit from a roofer and a plumber to investigate the leak.
Although there is no evidence to suggest that the property was unsuitable to live in, such a serious claim by the resident should warrant a visit and investigation, together with a response outlining the landlord’s position, including its view as to whether it considered the property as in a suitable condition. The landlord did not do this and failed to address this in any responses it gave to the resident.
Although there has been no evidence provided to confirm that the visit happened on 11 May 2021, it is reasonable to assume it proceeded as scheduled as the resident had been made aware that scaffolding was required to repair the leak when he emailed the landlord on 23 June 2021. This email included the resident reminding ‘the [landlord] that [it] promised to complete the job [it] began by putting up scaffolding so the leaking can be repaired’. The landlord responded the following day to confirm that the scaffolding had been ordered and that it was due to be erected on 30 June 2021.
Here, the landlord has also shown that its communication with the resident is unsatisfactory. The landlord should inform the resident of all scheduled work to the property. It is imperative that a landlord keeps a resident informed for several reasons. Firstly, by informing the resident of its intentions, it manages expectations and gives the resident a level of understanding as to when he can expect the work to be done, thus providing reassurance. Secondly, by giving the resident an expected date for planned works, it allows the landlord to complete work within a reasonable time and gives it an opportunity to notify the resident and justify any delays that may arise. Additionally, where there is good communication between the two parties, it helps to improve the resident and landlord relationship.
On 13 July 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the insurance team had requested a reference from the landlord to ensure that the roof had been fixed in order for the insurance team to fix the flat inside. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it would pass on the request to the roofing team leader. This was followed by a series of emails between 13 July 2021 and 17 August 2021 in which the resident asked for clarification as to what work was scheduled and the landlord said it was waiting for the contractor to respond.
On 17 August 2021 the landlord apologised that the resident had not been updated and that it would ask the contractor for an update. It was then confirmed that the contractor would be attending the property that day. However, the landlord later confirmed that the visit was only a scaffolding inspection and not to carry out the repair.
The time between 13 July and 17 August 2021 is a key example of the landlord’s communication and record keeping failures. If the landlord had an adequate record keeping system, it would have been able to inform the resident much sooner about planned works. Additionally, if the communication between the landlord and its contractor had been at a sufficient standard, then it would not have taken over one month to update the resident on the state of the repair. Although the contractor had not provided the information to the landlord in due time, it still falls under the responsibility of the landlord. This is because any third party operative acts on behalf of the landlord, who retains overall repair and maintenance responsibility.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 23 September 2021, in which he stated that the repair had not been completed. He also highlighted that he had decorated the inside of the flat at a cost of £430 but the rain had then come straight through.
The landlord issued its stage two (final) response on 29 October 2021, in which it acknowledged that the repair still had not been completed. It also apologised for the level of service that the resident had received and described the delay as a result of ‘mismanagement of the remedial works’. It did not explain further in what way the landlord had mismanaged the works. If the landlord did not have evidence and records to suggest why the work had been mismanaged, then this would be further indicative of the landlord’s record keeping failures. However, if it did have the evidence yet still did not explain to the resident exactly why and how it had been mismanaged, then this would constitute a further failure in its communication with the resident.
Additionally, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s point that he had paid rent elsewhere as he could not live in the property, nor did it acknowledge the resident’s concern that he had paid £430 for interior decorations that the leak was now affecting. Although the landlord had signposted the resident to its insurer earlier in the complaints procedure, it should have sought more information regarding the redecoration and how it may have been affected by the leak.
The landlord also said that the repair had not progressed because there appeared to be damage to a rainwater pipe which required additional investigation. It further explained that it was a major project that would require the demolition of a wall to re-run the pipe. This again highlights the landlord’s failure to communicate key information to the resident. The resident had been asking for an update since 13 July 2021, yet the first mention of the required major work was in the final response.
It is not clear when the landlord became aware the work would be a major project as this information has not been shared with this Service. It is reasonable to conclude given the lack of evidence here, that the resident was also unaware when the works were classified as of a more serious nature. As mentioned above, it is vital to keep the resident informed on the condition and progress of the property and its planned repairs. However, in this case, the landlord has not provided information unless prompted by the resident. Additionally, when the landlord has offered information regarding the remedial works, the information offered has been inadequate.
At the final stage of the complaints process, the landlord offered a payment of £97 compensation for the delay in carrying out the remedial works. Its breakdown of the payment is concurrent with the structure set out in the appendix of its compensation policy regarding the delay of ‘Priority A’ repairs. However, this payment offer covered the period between 4 August 2021 and 29 October 2021, thus running between the point that the landlord originally scheduled works for completion, and the date of its final complaint response. In the circumstances, both the level of compensation for the acknowledged period of service failure, together with the period decided upon by the landlord, do not present as reasonable.
The landlord stated in its final response that works were raised on 13 April and due to be completed on 3 August 2021 and this is presumably why the landlord has chosen to determine the start of the delay as from 4 August 2021 onwards. However, the resident had reported in his complaint of 16 March 2021 that the leak remained and, though the landlord understood the issue to have been resolved before then, this date would reasonably stand as the date of the resident’s new report. Having received such a report, the landlord was then required to resolve the repair issue within a reasonable timeframe. Given the fact that this issue was ultimately identified as a significant and complex issue, a lengthier timeframe for resolution would be considered reasonable, though not the excessive delay in evidence on this case.
The landlord’s decision to end the compensation on 29 October 2021 would suggest that the repair issue was resolved at the date of the stage two response. This is not the case, and it is clear from further correspondence (an email from the landlord sent to this Service on 18 February 2022) that the work remained outstanding at least until the date of that email. There has also been no evidence provided by either the landlord or resident to suggest that the work has since been completed and this investigation has proceeded on the basis that the works remain incomplete.
This Service’s remedy guidance states that failures by the landlord that have had a severe long-term impact on the resident would warrant a compensation payment of £700 and above. The impact of the water ingress from the leak had more than a minimal impact on the resident and as such, using a higher banding under our remedies guidance seems reasonable. With 16 March 2021 as the first date of the resident’s report of the leak, a reasonable timeframe to have fixed what was clearly a complex issue would have been around three months. Giving the landlord a further two months from the date of this report to fix the issue, results in a delay of over one year to complete the repair – just short of 13 months, between 16 June 2021 and 13 July 2022.
To reflect the inconvenience caused by this excessive delay, a total compensation figure of £1,000 has been ordered. This payment has therefore increased both the duration of the compensation payment as well as the level of compensation throughout – whilst the landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with its compensation policy, the figure offered did not offer reasonable nor proportionate redress for what has undoubtedly been a distressing time for the resident.

Landlord’s complaint handling

It is a landlord’s responsibility to not only respond to a resident’s complaints in a reasonable time, but to also address all issues raised and to keep the resident informed of any progress or delays regarding the resident’s complaint. Several issues were not addressed or identified by the landlord’s complaints process. These include the failure to act proactively to the ongoing leak when the resident first raised his complaint, the resident’s claim that the property was unsuitable to live in, and the landlord’s poor record keeping and communication. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure is intended to support and assist its wider service delivery, but this has not happened in this case.
The landlord’s stage one response was issued to the resident within a reasonable time and addressed most of the resident’s concerns. However, perhaps most importantly, it did not give the resident an indication of what it would do next and how it would resolve the complaint. As mentioned above, the landlord should have addressed the resident’s point about the leak having continued and should have offered a plan to verify this.
The final response was issued over one month after the resident escalated his complaint. Although this is not unreasonable itself, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the receipt of complaint and should have advised the resident how long the landlord expected it would need to review and investigate the complaint. In this response, the landlord did give a date (8 November 2021) that the resident could expect an update. However, the landlord failed to give the resident an update by this time and the resident contacted the landlord asking for the flat to be fixed so that he can ‘live normally’.
Additionally, the landlord’s communication and record keeping directly resulted in poor complaints handling. Throughout the complaints process the landlord failed to keep the resident properly informed of the ongoing situation. On multiple occasions, the landlord updated the resident only after being prompted by the resident himself and failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It also failed to gather a clear picture from its contractor as to what stage the repairs were at and therefore left the resident uninformed and constantly chasing the landlord for updates.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

Maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak in the property.
Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1200 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £1,000 for the service failures identified with its response to the resident’s reports of a leak;
2. £200 for the service failures identified with its complaints handling.
The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service by 10 June 2022.
The landlord to ensure that works to resolve the leak issues at the property are resolved within two months of the date of this investigation (by 13 July 2022). The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service by this date.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its communication process with both residents and contractors in order to ensure residents have a clear understanding of how repairs to their property are being managed.
It is also recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping process to ensure that there is a detailed audit trail for repairs and works that have been both planned and carried out.