Haringey London Borough Council (202231001)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231001

Haringey London Borough Council

28 October 2024

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 reports of roof and window repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bed flat on the ground floor of a converted house.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 29 September 2022. He was concerned about loose roof tiles which fell off during windy weather. He said he had reported the issues for the previous 2 years. He also said he was scared of the tiles causing him injury or death. He noted the landlord had agreed to erect scaffolding to protect him. He also said it had agreed to complete major works a year prior to his complaint. However, it had not updated him about either of these works. He noted disrepair with his windows too. He said these issues impacted his standard of living.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 12 October 2022. It upheld his complaint about the roof and windows. It did not uphold his complaint about the major works. It said:
1. It was sorry to hear of the frustrations and concerns. It would learn lessons to provide better communication going forward.
2. It would complete major works to the windows and roof within its 2024/25 programme. It would complete any repairs if needed in the interim.
3. It would inspect the windows on 19 October 2022. It would then update him regarding any necessary works by 26 October 2022.
4. It would erect scaffolding to protect him from the falling roof tiles. However, it could not confirm when this would be. It would instead update him by 30 October 2022. This was because it needed to procure new contractors to complete these works. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by this delay.
5. It said it had completed works to neighbouring properties under different programmes. It said this was separate to the major works programme at his property.
The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 12 October 2022. He said:
1. The procurement for the scaffolding contractor had taken a long time.
2. The windy weather could cause tiles to fall and injure him. He asked the landlord to install netting to prevent tiles falling.
3. It needed to replace the windows as repairs would not resolve the issues.
4. Its major works website showed only internal works planned at the property. He said this was not correct as it needed to replace the roof.
5. He was unhappy to wait another 2 years for the major works programme in 2024/25. He said it should do this sooner as the landlord had already delayed the works. He also highlighted the danger to life and that it had not offered any temporary solutions to prevent injury.
6. He also raised separate issues with damp caused by internal leaks, and pigeons nesting above his front door.
On 16 November 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It upheld the complaint. It said:
1. It had originally planned to complete the major works in 2021/22. However, it placed this on hold while it procured new contractors. It would now complete the works sooner than advised, in 2023/24. It would start the works to the roof and windows in August 2023.
2. It would consider installing an edge guard to prevent loose tiles falling. It had erected scaffolding in the short term.
3. It had inspected the windows on 19 October 2022. It would complete the necessary repairs identified to the sash cords and broken windowpane. It would contact him to confirm the appointment date.
4. It had responded to his concerns with pigeons on 25 October 2022. It would update him once it had found a pest contractor.
5. It acknowledged it could have provided a better service for remedial works. It said it had taken steps to resolve the issues in the short term. It reiterated that it would complete the major works in 2023/24.
6. It would learn from its mistakes. It would escalate the issue of poor management of the remedial repairs.
The resident escalated his complaint to this Service. He remained unhappy that the roof and windows would not be immediately replaced. In the meantime, he still experienced issues with both the roof and windows. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 14 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident included new complaint issues within his escalation to the landlord. This included issues with a pest infestation and damp in the property. In the interest of fairness, we cannot investigate matters that the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate and respond to.
It is noted that the landlord referred to these issues in passing within the stage 2 response and advised what action it would be taking. This was reasonable in the circumstances. If the resident is unhappy with what has since happened, he may wish to log a new complaint for the landlord to investigate his concerns and have the opportunity to put things right. He may then bring that complaint to the Ombudsman as a new case to investigate if needed.

The landlord’s response to reports of roof and window repairs

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of roof and window repairs. He said he had reported these repairs for the previous 2 years leading to the complaint. While the resident’s comments are not disputed, the landlord has only evidenced 1 report to the Ombudsman.
Following a request in March 2022, the landlord inspected the roof on 10 May 2022. An internal email on this date stated that widespread nail rot caused loose tiles. It noted this was a potential health and safety hazard for residents accessing the building. The landlord said it had completed some patch repairs in the previous year, but this Service has not seen such evidence. It added the “slates are in a potentially dangerous condition”. The email queried whether the property would undergo major works to the roof.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any response to this email. It is therefore unclear what action the landlord took in response to the safety concerns. Additionally, it is unclear what position it took about completing major works at the time. This is especially concerning given that it was aware of potential health and safety concerns for the residents living there.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it said that it would replace the roof and windows. It would complete these under major works. The landlord said it had planned to complete the major works in 2021/22. However, it confirmed within its initial complaint response that delays occurred. This was due to issues with procuring a contractor. It agreed that it would complete the works in 2024/25. Later, within its final complaint response, it said it would complete the works in 2023/24. It confirmed the works would therefore start in August 2023. This did not occur.
The landlord is responsible for carrying out major planned works at the property. It’s repairs handbook states it would inspect works within 28 days. It would then provide an expected completion date for the major works during the inspection. It updated its handbook in September 2024, outlining it would complete planned works within 80 calendar days. It is evident that the landlord did not act in line with its timescales.
It is understandable that timescales for this type of work can change for various reasons. This includes contractor availability, and the scope of works required. It is unclear what other major works the landlord had to consider during this time. However, the risk to the residents safety should have been part of its prioritised major works. It would be reasonable for the landlord to provide an estimated timeframe it would complete such works. It should also provide regular progress updates to keep residents as informed as they can be.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it discussed the major works with the resident in 2021/22. It also has not provided evidence of communication about the subsequent delays. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence of communication with the resident about the works and delays. However, it said “it is possible that no information was sent to residents”. This is a failing.
Additionally, this Service asked the landlord for its records of how it made the decision to delay the major works. It could not provide such evidence. It said all staff involved in the delivery of the project are no longer in employment. While that may be the case, a clear record of this should have been retained. That is was not, is a failing. As a result it has not been possible for us to assess the landlord’s decision-making and what factors were taken into account.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding when it would complete works. The changing timeframes for the major works would have understandably left the resident confused. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord updated him between 2021/22 and the time of the complaint. This is a failing.
Additionally, the landlord said it would provide an update by 30 October 2022 about when it would erect the scaffolding. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it did so. Due to the lack of evidence provided, we cannot determine that the landlord has appropriately managed the resident’s expectations.
The resident remained concerned with his safety when accessing the building. He told the landlord that falling tiles may cause him injury or end in fatality. Given the concerns, the landlord should have considered conducting a risk assessment. This would have allowed it to understand the risks to his safety, and that of other residents, visitors, and staff. There is no evidence to suggest that it completed a risk assessment. It is therefore unclear whether it made informed decisions regarding the delay of the major works. Additionally, it is unclear whether the resident remained safe at the property or not. This is a significant concern.
As part of the resident’s complaint escalation, he requested temporary safety measures. He requested this after the landlord said it would complete the works in 2024/25, which was 2 to 3 years away. It is a failing that the landlord did not consider action itself sooner. It instead responded reactively to the request, rather than offering reassurance by being proactive. The resident explained his anxieties with his safety, yet it failed to offer suitable reassurance to him.
From the landlord’s records, it is unclear what action it took in response to the resident’s request. In its final complaint response, it said it had installed scaffolding to protect him from falling tiles. However, there is no evidence to show it completed a risk assessment at this point either. It is therefore unclear whether this was suitable and safe as a temporary measure.
In the landlord’s evidence submission to the Ombudsman, it highlighted internal conflicts. It experienced “persistent conflict between Major Works and (the repairs team) regarding which department is responsible for the comprehensive repair work required for this roof”. This is a concern as it may suggest that this issue could repeat in the future. We recommend it to review its relevant internal procedures. Specifically, it should consider how it could improve cross-working between teams.
Additionally, the landlord told the Ombudsman that it was unclear how it first identified the need for a roof replacement. It said the roof issues “reportedly” began during major works renovations as part of its decent homes project. It said “should this be true” it would need to complete a “re-evaluation and potential redo” of any works.
It is a significant concern that the landlord cannot establish how the required works came about. Its reference to being unclear if its records were accurate, is a concern. The landlord should maintain clear records to allow it to reflect on what has happened. As it cannot determine this, it cannot confirm whether the property requires additional work under its decent homes project.
Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it said it would complete necessary repairs while waiting for the major works. Given the resident’s concerns about his windows, it agreed to inspect these on 19 October 2022. It said it would provide an update about the follow up works by 26 October 2022. It completed the inspection as planned and noted required repairs. These included a broken sash cord, broken glass to the kitchen window, and rotten timber on sills and sashes.
While the landlord completed the inspection, there is no evidence to show it updated the resident as it said it would. It then did not complete the necessary repairs in a reasonable timeframe. In its final complaint response, it said it would contact him with relevant appointment dates. However, there is no evidence that it did so.
In June 2024, the landlord told the Ombudsman that it had not completed the window repairs. It outlined it would contact the resident to redo the inspection and then complete the repairs. It said the reason for its failure to complete the repairs are “uncertain”. This is a concern because if it cannot identify how the failing occurred, it cannot ensure that similar errors are not repeated. The resident has since disclosed that it has not completed the repairs.
The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it would complete routine repairs within 28 days. It is evident that it did not complete the repairs within this timeframe. Instead, it remains over 2 years since it first inspected the windows. This would have understandably caused significant frustration, distress and inconvenience to the resident. Especially given the overall delays with the major works to replace the windows.
In summary, it was appropriate for the landlord to outline its intention to complete the repairs and provide updates to the resident. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it did so. Given this lack of evidence, its actions after the final complaint response failed to demonstrate that it had learned lessons from its failings.
The landlord should have communicated regularly with the resident to provide reassurance that he was safe to live in his home. Its failure to manage his expectations regarding the works to the roof and windows was not appropriate. It did not fulfil its commitments set out in the complaint response which is a failing. It instead caused the resident significant distress. He remained in a property with falling roof tiles, awaiting prolonged window repairs, and delayed major works to resolve the issues.
As such, the landlord should pay £850 compensation to the resident. This is in acknowledgement of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of roof and window repairs. This is an appropriate award in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings which have caused a significant impact to the resident.

The landlord’s record keeping

Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations. We cannot establish whether it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations. We also cannot assess whether its actions were appropriate. This would have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The evidence provided shows poor record keeping practices by the landlord. Accurate and clear record keeping is a core function of a repairs service. A clear audit trail allows the landlord to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and to keep residents updated as to their progress. It also allows that landlord to monitor its own performance, including identifying any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
The landlord’s poor record keeping in this case has affected our investigation into its handling of the substantive issue of the complaint. We have therefore found that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
The Ombudsman produced a Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report for landlords. The Spotlight report states that if it does not create information correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of roof and window repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples where failures occurred. The apology should be from a senior member of its repairs or major works management team.
2. Pay £850 compensation to the resident. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of roof and window repairs. It should pay this directly to the resident, and not his rent account.
3. Inspect the windows. It should then provide an action plan to the resident. This should include appointment dates for the relevant window repairs. The appointment dates should be in line with its repair timescales set out in its repairs handbook.
4. Confirm the estimated start date for the major works regarding the windows replacement at the property. It should provide this to the resident in writing.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Inspect the roof. It should assess whether the roof is safe and whether it needs to complete any interim repairs while awaiting the roof replacement. It should also assess whether the property requires additional work under its decent homes project. It should confirm the outcome in writing to the resident. If needed, it should then provide an action plan to him. This should include relevant appointment dates, in line with its repair timescales.
2. Complete a risk assessment relating to the roof. This should include consideration of the risk of falling tiles and the safety of the building structure. It should also consider the safety of the resident, other residents, visitors, and staff, when accessing the property.
3. Confirm the estimated start date for the roof replacement. It should reflect on the roof inspection and risk assessment when deciding this date. It should provide this in writing to the resident.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its relevant internal procedures. Specifically, it should consider how it could improve cross-working between teams.