Haringey London Borough Council (202124402)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124402

Haringey Council

31 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of mould in the property.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She has resided at the property, a two-bedroom house, since 2015. In correspondence with the landlord and this Service, the resident’s son has acted as her representative. In this report, both parties will be collectively referred to as “the resident” and “she/her” for simplicity.
In her complaint, the resident advised the landlord of vulnerabilities due to her health and age. The landlord has stated it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the household until it received the complaint.
The landlord’s Repairs Handbook for Residents states that it is “always” the tenant’s responsibility to repair and renew floor coverings. It also states that it aims to complete non-urgent repairs within 28 days.

Summary of events

Landlord records show that in August 2020, the resident reported that she was experiencing low water pressure in the property. Repair records indicate that this was “rectified” on 4 September 2020, although no further details are available. A further repair order was raised in October 2020 to supply and fit a break tank in the property for the cold water supply.
In November 2020, the local water company carried out a Wastage Survey at the resident’s property. The survey report makes reference to an “internal supply leak” which it believed was under the floorboards. It also noted that the water pressure in the property was “very low”.
In May 2021, landlord records show it received an email from its contractor advising that the local water company had carried out repairs outside the resident’s property. It noted that the water meter had been relocated and that the “laminate floor in (the) lounge requires lifting to get to the floorboards” so that a 25mm medium density polyethylene (MDPE) could be run through to the kitchen, where the stop cock was located. This would then be “reattached” to the system which would be converted back to mains pressure. Later the same day, the landlord raised an order for the contractor to carry out these works. It noted that “the resident will have to be notified that the laminate flooring will be their responsibility (to remove and replace)”.
On 10 August 2021, the landlord sent a further email to the contractor asking it to survey the property again. It noted that the landlord had visited the property and that the resident was “happy to remove (the) laminate flooring to give access to the new pipework”.
On 3 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to raise a complaint. She raised the following concerns and issues:
1. There was a problem with the “main water line” to the property, which had had a “huge leak for months”. She stated the local water company had been “striving to fix this problem” and had advised her to contact the landlord to resolve the matter, which they had diagnosed as being a leak under the resident’s living room.
2. She advised she had been in touch with the landlord, who suggested fitting a tank and “pump(ing) the water to our appliances”. While trying to resolve the issue, she advised that the landlord had on one occasion not returned her calls “for weeks” and she had been left without hot water for more than a month. She reported that the boiler in the property had low pressure and stated that this was because the landlord had not resolved the issues with the water supply.
3. The landlord’s contractor had visited the property and advised they could carry out repairs but they would not put back the resident’s flooring afterwards. The resident stated she had therefore declined the works as she had previously been told the landlord would be able to replace the flooring afterwards. She believed the contractor was waiting for the landlord to give “the green light to change the main water line pipe” and had chased this with the landlord on 14 June 2021. However, there had been no progress since.
4. She was unhappy that the property was without hot water “most of the time”, which impacted on her when she was dressing and changing, and felt the landlord had a responsibility to appropriately “repair and maintain the heating system”. She also stated that the water tank pump installed by the landlord caused stress and sleepless nights due to the noises it made.
5. On 29 and 30 September 2021, the water company had visited the property and carried out a survey. They established there was a “huge leak in the house”, although the repairs “had been closed”. She also noted that mould in the property was a “huge issue” and that large amounts of water were going to waste while the leak remained unresolved. She noted he had advised the landlord of this on 1 October 2021 (the complaint stated “1 September” but this is assumed to be a typo as it would pre-date the survey).
The landlord provided a complaint response on 22 October 2021. It noted that it understood the complaint to be about “outstanding works to increase the water supply to your property and the unresolved leak under the property”. It advised that the complaint was not upheld and made the following findings:
1. It was sorry for any stress and inconvenience the outstanding works had caused the resident and her family. However, it advised that it had “raised the works to remedy the leak and water pressure issues in the property” but its contractors had been unable to schedule the repairs. It stated this was due to the fact that laminate flooring in the living room and kitchen needed to be lifted up “to access the repair”.
2. While the resident had stated the landlord’s gas inspector advised the landlord would organise for the flooring to be lifted up, it noted that the inspector had disputed this. The landlord also advised it did not carry out such works. It stated that works had not progressed as it was awaiting confirmation from the resident that arrangements had been made to lift the flooring.
3. It stated it was “very sorry that this discrepancy has caused a delay in these works” but clarified that its repairs service would not accommodate the request to lift the resident’s flooring. However, it advised it had asked its Tenancy Management Team if there was any further support they could offer in terms of helping the resident make arrangements to lift the flooring.
4. Floor coverings (such as tiling, lino, carpets and laminate flooring) were the tenant’s responsibility and as such the landlord “would expect (the resident) to facilitate (the lifting of the flooring) to allow us to carry out the repair”. It advised the resident to make the arrangements herself in case the Tenancy Management Team were unable to offer further support, so as to not delay the repairs further. The landlord finally advised that it may lift the flooring itself to carry out the repair if the resident did not do so, but clarified that it would not relay it once works were complete. It asked the resident to make contact once the flooring had been lifted so it could schedule the repairs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 January 2022 to request her complaint be escalated. She advised she had not heard further since the last complaint response and reported that the property had been without hot water for a month.
On 10 February 2022, the landlord provided a stage two complaint response, under the heading “Independent Review”. It stated that it understood the resident to be unhappy that the leak into the property had not been resolved and that the repair work was being delayed because the landlord was unwilling to lift her laminate flooring, which was necessary to gain access to the source of the leak. It noted the resident had been advised that lifting the flooring was her responsibility but she contended that she had previously been told that the landlord could assist with this. It also noted that she had reported issues with mould in the property and problems with the water tank.
The landlord made the following findings and observations:
1. Its contractors had service the resident’s boiler on 30 April 2021, before carrying out two repairs on 4 August 2021 and 8 January 2022 regarding low pressure and “no heating/hot water” respectively.
2. Regarding obtaining access to address the leak, it reiterated that lifting and relaying a resident’s flooring “was not something the repair service offers”. It also referred to its repairs handbook for tenants which advised repairs were its responsibility and which were the responsibility of tenants. It provided the resident with a weblink to the handbook.
3. It clarified that it understood the resident had not prevented operatives from accessing the property but she had declined to remove and replace the flooring “once any investigatory work/remedial work has been completed”. It did not dispute the resident may have been advised by an operative that the landlord could help with this. However, while it again clarified it would not do so, it stated it would arrange for a further survey to “ascertain the current position” and identify any necessary works. It would also establish whether water was still leaking into the property and if there were still issues with the water tank.
4. Regarding the reported mould in the property, the landlord advised its repairs service “will be arranging a mould wash treatment”.
5. In conclusion the landlord advised it had not identified any failings regarding how it had handled the repairs process and stated that the “delay in progressing this repair is largely due to your refusal to remove the floor covering” which was preventing it gaining “access to the affected areas”. It encouraged the resident to “reconsider” removing the floor coverings so works to commence and signposted her to its insurer as it advised she may be able to recover “any costs incurred via our insurance service”.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 17 March 2022. She noted that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leak and response to her concerns regarding mould and that she did not have the funds to lift her own flooring to allow the works to take place.
In correspondence with this Service just prior to the issuing of this determination, the landlord confirmed that the water company had attended the property on 30 March 2023 as part of a pre-arranged visit and that representatives from its repairs team had also attended. It confirmed the following had taken place:
1. The water company had isolated the burst pipe and created a new water course. The pipe was now out of use and the water company had rerouted the pipework through the right hand side of the property. It had also been rerouted above surface level so any future leaks will be more easily identifiable.
2. The water company had appointed a contractor to plumb a connection from an external pipe to the new water course and this was scheduled to take place on 31 March 2023.
3. The resident had requested that the booster pump, originally installed to increase the water pressure, be removed now the leak had been resolved.
4. Evidence of water ingress had been identified in the property and evidence of flaking paint, bubbling/blown plaster and bubbling paint had been noted in several locations. The landlord advised that it would arrange for a plasterer to assess the condition of the walls in the property and confirm on 31 March 2023 whether a dehumidifier was necessary. The landlord would then make good dependent on the plasterer’s recommendations.
5. It clarified that the resident’s flooring did not appear to have been affected by the leak so it did not need to be lifted or otherwise attended to.
6. It had apologised to the resident and she had been advised that the landlord would contact her “accordingly” with scheduled appointments to carry out works to make good. It would also advise when it would remove the pump.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in her property

Landlord records show that the resident reported issues with low pressure in the property on 28 August 2022. While the resident has advised that she had raised issues previously, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord was aware of the problem previously so cannot make any determination as to whether it should have addressed the matter earlier. Repair records indicate that the landlord initially responded relatively promptly, raising orders for an inspection and repair before completing the installation of a break tank (to boost water distribution) in the property. Records show this was completed by 30 November 2020, some three months after the resident’s initial report. While a period of three months to complete the repair appears excessive, it is acknowledged that non-standard repairs, which may require more detailed investigation or specialist parts, can take longer to resolve. The landlord’s repair records are brief so it is not possible to determine whether there was any unreasonable delay.
Following this, records show that the local water company carried out a survey around the same time, in November 2020, and established that there was a leak under the resident’s property. It is unclear when the landlord became aware of the water company’s findings as this information is not contained within the landlord’s records. However, records indicate it was another five months before the landlord arranged for a contractor to inspect the resident’s property in May 2021. This again appears to be an unreasonable delay, for which the landlord has not provided an explanation or more detailed records which would show why such a length of time elapsed before the issue was progressed.
Once the contractor attended, it promptly fed back to the landlord about the works it believed were necessary to replace pipework under the property and reinstate the mains water pressure. The landlord appropriately raised orders for these works the same day. However, following this it is unclear how the works were progressed and there is no information available regarding attempts to progress the repair between May 2021 and August 2021 when the landlord asked the contractor to carry out a further inspection.
It is not disputed that there was, and remains, a dispute between the landlord and resident over who should have removed – and eventually relayed – the laminate flooring in the property, so as to allow the repairs to be completed. The resident advised that she had been told by a contractor that the landlord could help with this, but the landlord’s correspondence, both to the resident and internally, consistently advised this was not a service its repair team would offer. In correspondence with this Service, the landlord has confirmed that, until 30 March 2023, no further repairs had been carried out on the reported leak under the property until the water company progressed the issue.
The landlord’s repairs policy and residents’ handbook makes clear that residents are responsible for any repair or renewal of their flooring, including laminate flooring. As such, the landlord was entitled to advise the resident that it was their responsibility to remove the flooring and enable its contractors to access the suspected source of the leak. In its complaint responses, the landlord advised that the resident’s refusal to lift their flooring was the cause of the delay. Having confirmed that it would not lift the flooring itself and being consistent in its advice that it expected the resident to do so, this was not an unreasonable position for the landlord to take.
However, given the fact that the resident had declined to lift her flooring, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have been more proactive in trying to reach an agreement with the resident, or a compromise, regarding how it could progress the issue. The prolonged stalemate between the resident and the landlord over who should remove the flooring has resulted in the repairs remaining outstanding for a significant length of time, with a leak under the resident’s property remaining unresolved for almost two and a half years following the local water company carried out its survey. While it is acknowledged that the landlord is not to blame for the resident declining to lift their flooring and thus preventing it from scheduling any repair, it is not appropriate that the matter had been left outstanding for such a length of time, particularly given the potential environment impact of the reported water wastage and that the resident was now reporting issues with damp in the property. Due to scant repair records, there is also no evidence that the landlord had considered whether the ongoing leak could have any impact on the condition and integrity of the property or the health of its residents.
While the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurer in its stage two complaint response, issued eight months after the repair order was raised, it is unclear why it could have suggested this sooner. Similarly, it was appropriate that it made enquiries with its Tenancy Management Team as to whether they could provide any support, but again it is unclear why this suggestion was not made earlier and this Service has not seen any information regarding whether the Tenancy Management Team responded, either internally or to the resident.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was a lack of focus from the landlord in terms of how it could resolve the problem and it should have been more proactive in trying to work with the resident to progress the repair. While its Corporate Feedback Team enquired during the stage two complaint investigation whether it could lift the flooring as a gesture of goodwill, this does not appear to have been considered further. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have considered this, along with other potential solutions to the issue, such as recharging the resident for the cost of removing (and potentially refitting) the flooring so as to allow it to carry out the repair. However, there is no evidence it did so and it instead appears to have been satisfied with leaving the repair unresolved indefinitely. This was not a reasonable position for the landlord to take and it also did not appear to take into consideration the vulnerabilities reported by the resident during the complaint procedure.
Overall, the landlord is technically not responsible for the delay in repairing the leak and it is the resident’s refusal to lift the flooring which stopped the work from progressing. While it is noted that the water company has eventually resolved the issue on 30 and 31 March 2023, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was not appropriate that the landlord, which was ultimately responsible for any repairs within its property, failed to proactively seek a resolution to the issue and was prepared to leave the leak unresolved for such a significant length of time. This was despite the issue apparently continuing to cause problems with the water pressure in the property. Overall, there was maladministration regarding how the landlord responded to the leak.
As noted above, in correspondence with this Service prior to this determination, the landlord has confirmed that the water company has now resolved the leak. While it is positive that the leak has finally been rectified and the matter resolved for the resident, it is noted that the landlord does not appear to have been responsible for ultimately achieving this outcome.
Operatives from the landlord’s repairs team also attended and carried out a further inspection of the property on 30 March 2023, identifying signs of water ingress within the property and noting the resident’s request to remove the water tank booster, which had been provided in 2021 as a temporary solution to the low water pressure. Following the resolution of the leak, the landlord is ordered to share its inspection report with this Service, confirm which follow on works have been identified as being necessary due to the identified water ingress, and confirm when these repairs, and the removal of the water tank pump, will take place. While it is noted that the landlord advised it had apologised to the resident, it is also ordered to provide her with a written apology for its overall handling of this matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould in her property

From the information seen by this investigation, there is no indication that the landlord was made aware of any potential concerns over mould in the property prior to the resident referring to it being a “huge issue” in her original complaint of 3 September 2021. However, following this report, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report. It did not address the matter in its subsequent stage one complaint response and there is no record of it raising any inspection to investigate the matter further. This is not appropriate and the landlord is unable to evidence that it appropriately responded to the concerns the resident raised. It also did not appear to give appropriate consideration to the age of the resident, especially as it is noted that her vulnerabilities were highlighted within the original complaint.
In the Ombudsman’s view, when landlords are presented with reports of damp and mould, they should respond as a matter of urgency in order to identify, resolve, and prevent damp and mould from entering or spreading within residents’ properties. It is highlighted in this Service’s damp and mould spotlight report (“It’s Not Lifestyle”, published October 2021 and available on this Service’s website) that landlords must take a proactive and urgent approach to reports of this issue. There is no evidence that the landlord did so in this case and as such, it did not treat the resident fairly.
Records show the landlord finally raised an order to “assess (the) mould” in the property on 10 February 2022, noting that the issue had been raised within the resident’s stage two complaint. However, this was five months after the resident had reported the issue in the original complaint. It is not clear why the landlord had not responded previously, or why it waited for the resident to escalate the complaint before it raised an inspection order. This was not appropriate and is evidence of an unreasonable delay in investigating the matter.
Once the inspection order was raised, the landlord appears to have attended promptly, internal email correspondence indicating that the survey took place on 14 February 2022. However, the landlord’s repair records do not contain any further detail regarding the outcome of the survey or the findings that were made. There is no information within the landlord’s records that sheds light on its assessment of the mould and any potential causes. This is not appropriate and raises concern over the landlord’s record keeping. Accurate and comprehensive records are crucial if landlords to manage repair processes appropriately, particularly in relation to damp and mould, as highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.
In this case, there is no further reference to the inspection other than further internal correspondence regarding its upcoming complaint response, which noted that there was “no mention of mould treatment (being) required in the surveyor notes, (pictures) also do not show excessive mould”. As above, this Service has not seen the surveyor’s notes or inspection report but it is of concern that the landlord notes that pictures taken within the property did not show “excessive” mould. This indicates that mould was indeed present, but the landlord appears to dismiss the issue due to it not being an “excessive” amount. It is unclear from the information available how much mould the landlord deemed to be acceptable, or how it reached this conclusion. There is also no indication that the landlord carried out reasonable enquiries to establish what the cause of the mould was. This was not appropriate and from the evidence seen, the landlord cannot be said to have responded appropriately following its inspection.
Furthermore, aside from the apparent confusion as to whether a mould wash or further treatment was necessary, once the landlord did raise works (advising the resident in its stage two complaint response that it would arrange for a mould wash to be carried out), it took a further four months for this to take place. In correspondence with this Service, the landlord noted that “follow on works (were) not appointed in good time” but it is unclear what the cause of this delay was. Records show works were “accepted” by a contractor on 16 May 2022 and completed on 9 June 2022, nine months after the resident first raised concerns over mould in the property in September 2021. This is not appropriate and is evidence of a significant and unexplained delay.
The landlord’s stage two response did not address why it had taken several months to raise an inspection regarding the reported damp and mould and did not offer any apology for the delay. Taking this into consideration along with the further subsequent delay in carrying out mould treatment works, the landlord’s poor record keeping and apparent failure to take into consideration the potential impact of damp on its elderly resident, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. In recognition of this, an order is made at the end of this report for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaint procedure states it aims to respond to resident’s complaints at stage one within 10 working days. However, after receiving the resident’s complaint on 3 September 2021, it did not provide its first response until 22 October 2021, some 25 working days outside of its target. There is no evidence that the landlord had provided any update to the resident regarding its delayed response, or provided a new timeframe if it was aware it could not meet the 10 working day target. This was likely to cause the resident inconvenience and it is noted that its response failed to acknowledge the delay or offer an apology. This was not appropriate and did not treat the resident fairly.
Its response also did not fully address the issues raised by the resident, as it did not comment on the concerns expressed about damp in the property. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords should address all concerns raised in complaint responses so as to ensure that residents feel heard and that their complaints are being properly acknowledged. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to address all aspects of the complaint and it was also not appropriate that it did not properly advise the resident how she could escalate her complaint, simply advising her to “contact us” if she remained unhappy and not making clear how complaints were progressed via its complaint procedure. In recognition of this and the delay in providing its stage one response, an order is made at the end of this report for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident.
Within its stage two response, while this did address the resident’s concerns regarding mould and appropriately advised that an order had been raised to inspect then property, the landlord did not acknowledge its previous failure to address the matter, or provide an explanation as to why several months had passed without the matter being progressed. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord missed an opportunity to identify a failing and “put things right” in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Additionally, it is of concern that the landlord’s stage two complaint response was referred to as being an “Independent Review”. It is noted that this term is also used within the landlord’s current published information regarding its complaint policy and procedure. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, a complaint response provided by the landlord in response to concerns raised abouts its services should not be referred as being “independent”. By any understanding of the definition, this implies that the review or investigation has been carried out by, and the response provided by, a third party not involved in the issues under consideration. While it would be reasonable for the landlord to stress that the complaint responder was a member of staff not previously involved in the complaint process, it is misleading to refer to the review as being “independent”. The landlord should therefore reconsider how it refers to the second stage of its complaint procedure so as to ensure it is transparent with residents and clear about who is providing its final stage complaint response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Although the landlord is not responsible for lifting or replacing the resident’s flooring and it was reasonable to assert that the resident had caused the repair to be delayed, it was unreasonable that it failed to more proactively try and find a resolution to the situation. It was not appropriate that it failed to take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities and did not give further consideration as to whether it could have offered further support or found an alternative resolution to the issue of lifting the flooring. It was also not appropriate that it was apparently willing to leave the leak unresolved for such a significant length of time and it was ultimately resolved by the water company who were not responsible for carrying out internal works.
After the resident raised concerns about mould in the property in her original complaint, the landlord failed to respond appropriately and did not raise an inspection order for another four months. Once it had inspected the property, its poor record keeping means it is unclear what the findings of the inspection were, what the cause of the mould was, how it satisfied itself that the mould was “not excessive” and even whether the surveyor agreed that a mould wash was necessary. Furthermore, once it had advised the resident that it would carry out a mould wash, there was a further, unexplained, delay of several months before this was carried out.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response was issued outside of its target timeframe and there was evidence it provided the resident with any updates, no acknowledgement or apology. The initial response did not address all of the resident’s concerns and the landlord should consider whether its use of the phrase “independent” to refer to its stage two responses is appropriate.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation, consisting of:
1. £400 for its poor handling of the resident’s reports of mould in the property.
2. £100 for its poor handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord should also consider whether its use of the term “independent review” to describe stage two of its complaint procedure is appropriate and transparent. Once it has considered this, it should outline its position and any actions it intends to take, to this Service.
The landlord should write to the resident to apologise for its overall response to the resident’s reports of a leak. This should be sent by a senior member of staff.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is also ordered to, within eight weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide a copy of its inspection reports from 30 and 31 March 2023 and confirm which follow on works have been identified and when these will be carried out. It should also confirm when it will remove the water tank pump, as requested by the resident.
2. Carry out a self-assessment of its service against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report and provide this Service with a report of its findings and identified actions and any learning from this complaint. The spotlight report can be found at https://housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Spotlight-report-Damp-and-mould-final.pdf