Haringey London Borough Council (202217469)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217469

Haringey London Borough Council

12 July 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. reports of shower repairs.
   2. associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives at the property with her two children, who both have disabilities and require care from the resident. The landlord is aware of these vulnerabilities.
3. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the property is a three-bedroom house, however, the resident has advised this Service that the landlord carried out a loft conversion to the property in 2016, which created an additional bedroom and shower room to accommodate the vulnerabilities within the household.
4. On 19 January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the shower in the loft converted shower room was not working and that the door was broken. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend the resident’s property on 17 February 2022, however, the operative was unable to resolve the issue on the day, and advised the resident that a plumber was required for the job instead. On 21 February 2022, the landlord arranged for a plumber to attend the resident’s property. During the appointment, the plumber explained that the job could not be resolved as they believed a specialist contractor had installed the resident’s shower, meaning the plumber could not source the required parts.
5. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 25 February 2022. She stated that use of the shower was essential as it had been specifically installed for her vulnerable son. She also complained that the plumber who attended her property was rude and had accused her of installing the shower herself. The resident expressed her frustration with the fact that since her initial report, several operatives had attended her home and she had been assured the shower would be repaired but this had still not been done.
6. On 11 March 2022, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. It upheld the resident’s complaint and confirmed it was responsible for maintenance of the shower room. It apologised for any offence that had been caused as a result of the plumber’s questioning but explained that due to the shower being part of a loft conversion, the plumber had reasonable cause to make further enquiries to establish who was responsible for maintenance of the shower. The landlord advised the resident that it would make contact with the supplier of the shower to find out whether its repair would still be under warranty. It explained that if the shower was no longer under warranty, it would seek to source the replacement parts as they were not within the standard stock of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance supplies.
7. The resident emailed the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process on 26 April 2022, as she had not received an update on the situation. The landlord sent its stage two response on 1 June 2022. In this it accepted that there had been a 11-week delay to manage the repair, therefore, it offered the resident £122 in compensation. The landlord explained that it had been unable to source the required parts, therefore, the entire shower unit would need to be replaced. It advised that the job had been marked as urgent, and that on 18 May 2022, the works had been passed to a contractor who would be in touch with the resident directly to arrange the necessary appointments.
8. The resident contacted this Service on 15 September 2022, to ask for the complaint to be investigated. She told this Service that the repairs to the shower remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of shower repairs.

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order, installations for drainage and sanitation. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that repairs fall within four categories:
   1. Out of hours.
   2. Emergency.
   3. Agreed appointment.
   4. Planned.
10. The repairs policy explains that repairs which cannot wait until the next day or could put a resident at risk fall under categories ‘a’ and ‘b’. All other repairs generally fall within either category ‘c’ and will be scheduled and attended to within 28 days on receipt of the report, or category ‘d’, which usually require pre-inspection and may take several days to complete. It also notes that residents will be provided with updates throughout the repairs procedure.
11. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident has been unable to use the shower room for a significant period of time. The landlord has acknowledged its responsibility to maintain the shower room and has confirmed to the resident that it intends to replace the entire shower unit. It also explained that its initial delay to confirm what action it intended to take was due to its lack of clarity over responsibility, and as a result, offered £122 compensation in recognition of the delay, time and trouble pursuing the matter. Additionally, the landlord spoke to its contractor to investigate the resident’s claims regarding the plumber’s conduct and issued an apology to the resident.
12. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and has resolved the resident’s issue satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this, the Ombudsman must consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
13. Following the resident’s report that the shower was not working on 19 January 2022, there was a delay by the landlord of just over two weeks to establish whether it was responsible for carrying out any repairs. The Ombudsman notes that during this period, the landlord arranged for several operatives to attend the resident’s home to inspect and potentially carry out repairs, which is in line with the landlord’s category ‘c’ timescales for repairs.
14. It is understandable that the circumstances were likely to cause a greater level of inconvenience to the resident in view of the vulnerabilities within the household. Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord’s explanation as to why there was a delay, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have had clear and accessible records of any adaptions made to the property to avoid any confusion over who was responsible for maintaining the shower. This would have also prevented the resident from being questioned by the plumber, and the subsequent complaint she lodged in respect of the plumber’s conduct during this questioning.
15. From the information provided to this Service by the landlord, it had been established on 10 March 2022, that the landlord was responsible for maintenance of the shower room. It was appropriate that the landlord outlined its next steps to the resident, in that it would liaise with the shower supplier and source replacement parts. However, the Ombudsman would have also expected the landlord to provide the resident with a timescale of when it was likely to repair or replace the shower. If this was not possible, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assign a single point of contact to the resident’s case to ensure she was provided with regular updates, as set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord’s records indicate that there was a significant delay from 10 March 2022 until 1 June 2022, to provide the resident with an update on the matter. This meant a further 12 weeks passed with the resident being unable to use the shower room, and no communication or update was provided by the landlord as to its progress. This was inappropriate and would have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she was left not knowing when the shower would be repaired.
16. Given the time that had lapsed and the impact caused to the resident and her children, it was appropriate for the landlord to decide that installation of a new shower unit would be the best way forward. From the evidence, the Ombudsman also notes that the landlord has recognised the importance of ensuring any shower design decided upon, will need to be maintenance friendly to avoid a similar situation occurring again. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that since the landlord’s last communication with the resident on 1 June 2022, it has kept the resident informed on the progress of the proposed works or provided her with an explanation as to why there has been a delay. This has meant a further 12 months have passed and the resident has been without use of the shower room with no indication as to when it will be resolved.
17. There are no records to demonstrate whether the resident conveyed to the landlord the level of distress and disruption being without the shower room has caused. However, the evidence shows that the landlord should have been aware of how essential the shower was to the resident, given that it had carried out a loft conversion to install the shower room to meet the needs of the household. The resident has told this Service that although there is another bathroom within the property, the configuration of the shower fitted over a bath makes it extremely difficult for her to use this facility when caring for her son. Consequently, over the past 17 months, the resident has stated, she has been forced to travel to a family member’s home in order to use their shower facilities. She has expressed this has had a huge impact on her son and has severely disrupted his routine which is very important for him due to his disabilities.
18. Additionally, the Ombudsman has noted that in the landlord’s response to this Services’ enquiries, it stated “there are no recorded vulnerabilities” within the household. The resident has advised this Service that the landlord is aware of the vulnerabilities within her household. The Ombudsman has also been able to verify this information based on another case currently being investigated by this Service, involving the resident and her landlord in which the landlord confirmed the vulnerabilities from its records. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s omission here to be inappropriate, as in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the vulnerabilities within the household are central to the determination of this case. Therefore, the landlord should ensure it keeps accurate records of residents’ vulnerabilities so that it can access this information when needed and take it into account when arranging repairs.
19. In light of the above points, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has acted unfairly and unreasonably in the management of the repair to the resident’s shower. Having reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy, the Ombudsman notes its offer of £122 was a discretionary offer, consisting of £97 for a 11 week delay and £25 for time and trouble pursuing the matter. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount offered by the landlord does not proportionately reflect the negative impact caused to the resident, and the overall delay to the current outstanding repair. As such, the landlord has failed to do enough to put things right for the resident. Regarding learning from outcomes, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord has recognised the impact the delay has caused to the resident or demonstrated its understanding of the importance of regular communication throughout the repairs process.
20. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of shower repairs. In addition, the landlord has failed to provide the resident with redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
21. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our Service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. Where there has been a determination of severe maladministration which has had a significant long-term impact on the resident, the guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £1,000 or over, in order to put things right. Based on the failings identified within this investigation and the landlord’s failure to provide a service for a prolonged period, put things right and learn from outcomes, the Ombudsman is inclined to consider the higher end of the scale in terms of compensation. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident £2,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in responding to the resident’s reports of shower repairs. This amount is inclusive of the landlord’s earlier offer of £122 which can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within two working days and offer a complaint response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two and the landlord should respond within 25 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new expected response date.
23. In this case, the resident initially raised a formal complaint on 25 February 2022. From the evidence, the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint, which was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the landlord acted appropriately by responding to the complaint within ten working days. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the plumber’s conduct and confirm that it had taken steps to ensure its contractors raise future queries relating to responsibility with it directly. However, the Ombudsman would have also expected the landlord to assure the resident that the individual she had raised a complaint about would not attend her property again – except where it could not guarantee this due to unforeseen circumstances, such as staff shortages from the contractor.
24. The Ombudsman also notes that although it was appropriate for the landlord to explain the next steps it was going to take to repair the shower, it failed to provide the resident with a timeframe of when this was likely to take place. This would have been distressing for the resident as she had complained about delays only to then experience further delays without being given clear timescales for the repair.
25. The landlord issued its stage two response on 1 June 2022, which was in line with its 25 working day timescales at stage two of the complaints process. Its response reasonably acknowledged and apologised for the delays that had occurred managing the repair and set out its next steps. However, the resident’s complaint remains unresolved.
26. As such, the Ombudsman has concluded that the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint was unsatisfactory. As the landlord has failed to replace the shower as promised or adequately compensate the resident for its failings to resolve the complaint, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its overall handling of the resident’s complaint. As set out in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600 to put things right where there have been failings by the landlord which affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact from these failings. Therefore, the landlord should offer the resident £200 compensation in view of this failing.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of shower repairs.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

29. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the following compensation:
    1. £2,000 to reflect the loss of amenity and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her children, as a result of the outstanding repairs needed to the shower for 17 months.
    2. £200 in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
30. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £122. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
31. Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should provide the resident with:
    1. a written apology for the further delay in replacing the shower after the landlord issued its final response to the complaint.
    2. a schedule of works for the replacement of the shower unit, including timescales for the work to be completed. The schedule of works should also be sent to the Ombudsman.
    3. a single point of contact who will take ownership of the outstanding repair until completion of the works. This point of contact should provide the resident with weekly updates as to the progress of the works until the shower is replaced.
32. Within eight weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to complete the replacement of the shower unit.

Recommendations

33. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure that a clear and accessible record is kept of any adaptions carried out by the landlord. This will help to prevent any misunderstandings around responsibility for the maintenance of adaptions in the future.