Haringey London Borough Council (202128345)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128345

Haringey Council

25 August 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 the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bedroom window and balcony door due to leaks

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 13 July 2021, the resident requested repair works to her balcony door and bedroom window due to a leak. On 20 July 2021, the job was attended to by contractors and the resident requested for the issue to be inspected by a surveyor. A surveyor attended the property on 05 August 2021 and, following this, raised a job for roofers to assess the property. On 14 September 2021, roofers attended the property following a period of heavy rain and found no signs of a leak into the property. The job was then marked as completed. On 25 November 2021, a job was raised to inspect the balcony door and bedroom window to assess whether this was the source of the leak, this job was marked as completed on 29 November 2021.
  3. In the resident’s stage one complaint, she informed the landlord that she was dissatisfied with the level of remedial work carried out on the property in relation to the reported leaks. The resident advised that she had contacted the landlord on several occasions and was told she would receive call backs in relation to the repairs, but this did not happen. The resident also raised other issues including queries about a communal water tank and why the repairs have not yet happened. The resident raised further concerns in her stage two complaint dated 29 November 2021 relating to the necessity of repairs appointments and a lack of communication from the landlord about the purpose of some appointments.
  4. In the landlord’s responses to the complaint, it partially upheld the resident’s claims and apologised for any misinformation and for the resident having to chase the repair works. The landlord explained each of the repairs (toilet, radiators, and various for the doors/windows) and the associated visit dates. The landlord explained that the contractors had stated no leaks had been found even after a period of significant rainfall. It advised the resident that, despite this, it would reassess the situation and an appointment had been booked for 29 January 2022. It explained to the resident that in relation to any damage within the property, she would need to contact the landlord’s or the resident’s insurance
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 25 March 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with poor communication from the landlord in relation to the repairs, and the quality of remedial work and appointments carried out. The resident also informed this Service that the lack of repairs has significantly impacted her health and provided information from her doctor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to repair the leaks within her property has impacted her health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

Policies

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs with an arranged appointment should be completed within 28 days.
  2. The tenancy agreement states that the resident must ‘allow council workers or people we have sent to your home, reasonable access to your home to inspect or carry out occupancy checks, repairs, maintenance including statutory gas maintenance, improvements, or other work. Such workers or agents will carry identification.’

Repairs

  1. When the resident raised the repairs with the landlord on 13 July 2021, an initial appointment was carried out on 20 July 2021 to assess the leak. During the appointment the resident requested a surveyor’s inspection of the property. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 05 August 2021. The surveyor then recommended that a roofer should also attend. The roofer attended on 14 September 2021 and advised that despite heavy rain, there was no indication of a leak. The landlord first attended the repair within seven days which was in line with the repairs policy. Whilst there was almost six weeks in between the surveyor and the roofer attending, this is reasonable due to the landlord having to make the specialist appointment and given there was no confirmation of an ongoing leak. It is clear that the landlord took several steps to ensure there was no leak and, ultimately, it relied on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors who found no evidence of a leak.
  2. The landlord has acknowledged that whilst it was frustrating for the resident, the number of appointments required to investigate the leak was necessary and it has provided sufficient reasoning for the appointments during the complaints process. Throughout the repairs process, it was clear that there was a lack of understanding in relation to the purpose of the appointments and it would therefore have been helpful for the landlord to communicate with more detail during the repairs.
  3. The landlord has acknowledged the negative feedback received by the resident on a survey in relation to the leaks and the quality of service by the landlord in relation to the repair and has advised that a new job was raised with an appointment on 27 January 2022 to reassess the window and whether works were not completed previously, as reported. The landlord would expect for its staff and contractors to have reasonable access to the property in order to carry out remedial work and inspections as stated in the tenancy agreement. The landlord has informed this Service that access has been denied for the follow-up appointments arranged but it will re-book these if the resident wishes; this was reasonable action for the landlord to take.
  4. In summary, the landlord took appropriate action to assess the resident’s claims of a leak within the property, but after considerable inspection by a number of qualified contractors, it was concluded that there was no sign of a leak. The landlord has offered follow-up appointments to reassess the issue if the resident would like this, but so far access has been denied. The landlord adhered to its policies relating to repairs but could have improved its communication at some stages of the repairs process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the handling of repairs of the alleged leak within the property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review the detail provided in its communication with residents during the repairs process.