Haringey London Borough Council (202231852)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231852

Haringey London Borough Council

25 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak and associated remedial repairs at the resident’s property.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority, at the property, where she lives with her adult son. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord informed the Ombudsman it has “no vulnerabilities recorded” for the resident. Through the course of the complaint the resident made the landlord aware of her respiratory and mental health issues. She also made it aware of her adult sons’ autism and mental health issues.
  2. The resident previously had a leak coming from her kitchen ceiling. The landlord repaired the leak on 22 April 2022 and believed the leak issue was resolved. On 3 October the landlord raised that the resident’s kitchen ceiling needed repairing due to a previous leak from her bathroom. She went on to report her bathroom tiles were loose on 14 November. A landlord operative attended on 28 November to look at the damage to the kitchen ceiling. They identified that asbestos needed to be removed before any work could commence.
  3. On 12 December the resident reported “water was seeping between the bath and wall.” She raised her concerns with her local councillor who contacted the landlord on 20 December. They said a landlord operative attended 3 weeks ago “to assess the damage and the leak” but “needed to check for asbestos” and then left. They said the resident had heard “nothing since” and raised she had “severe respiratory problems.” They asked when the landlord would assess the asbestos and undertake the ceiling repair.
  4. An operative attempted to complete the repair of the water leak between the bath and wall on 11 January 2023. The landlord’s records show the operative was unable to access the property so left a card. On the same day, the landlord responded to the local councillor. It told them its asbestos team needed to remove asbestos from the ceiling before any further repairs could be completed in the kitchen. It assured the resident asbestos “had not been disturbed” and “posed no risk”. It said this was because its operative had carried out the “correct procedure in raising the issue before work commenced.” It would later tell the local councillor on 13 January the resident needed to call the number on the card left to rebook the appointment.
  5. On 15 February 2023 the landlord isolated the lights in the kitchen and downstairs bathroom to allow for the asbestos removal. On the same day, a specialist contractor removed the kitchen ceiling, removing the asbestos. An air sample certificate was completed on the same day following the work for “reassurance”. It found the air test was “satisfactory.”
  6. The local councillor chased the repairs to the ceiling and reinstatement of the lighting on 28 February. The landlord replied on 8 March. It told them its next available appointment to repair the ceiling and lighting was 27 June. The resident and local councillor raised their dissatisfaction with this timescale on multiple occasions between 9 March and 15 May. She said she was without a light in her kitchen throughout and it was affecting her and her son’s health. The landlord responded on two occasions stating if it “had capacity to” bring the appointment forward it would. The resident also raised a formal complaint on 10 March about the issue. The landlord did not provide a formal response to this.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 March 2023 about her concerns. In turn, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a formal complaint response to the resident by 15 June. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 6 June. It told her the following:
    1. It apologised for the delay in completing the works required due to leaking in her kitchen. It said remedial works for arranged for completion on 27 June 2023 and they could not be brought forward. It said this was due to “work diaries being at capacity.” It said it was assigning complex work to temporary contractors and appointing a new contractor to assign all remedial work to. It confirmed this did not affect the date it had scheduled the resident’s work for.
    2. It said it “missed an opportunity” to consider the resident’s complaint following her email of 9 March 2023. It acknowledged this and poor management of its works. It said it was recruiting additional admin resources to “improve complaint handling and communication.”
    3. It stated the resident reported the issue on 3 October 2022 and it was scheduled to complete the repair on 27 June 2023. It offered the resident total compensation of £402This was made up of a £10 one-off payment, followed by £2 per day for weeks (3 October to 24 October, then £10 per week (25 October 2022 to 27 June 2023).
  8. Following completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure the repairs at the property were completed as follows:
    1. On 22 June 2023 the landlord fixed the tiles in the resident’s bathroom and the leak that was affecting the kitchen ceiling. On 27 June 2023 the landlord completed plastering repairs to the resident’s ceiling
    2. On 11 July 2023 the lights were reinstated to the kitchen and downstairs toilet. The landlord installed stock lighting. On 17 August 2023 the landlord painted the kitchen ceiling to complete the repair.
  9. The resident told the landlord most recently on 26 October 2023 it had not paid the compensation it promised to her on 6 June 2023. It is unclear if the landlord went on to pay this to the resident.  The resident contacted the Ombudsman numerous times between 22 June 2023 and 11 September 2023. She raised concerns the compensation offered by the landlord had not been paid to her. She believed the amount offered should be “double”. She also raised concerns about the delays in completing the total repairs which made her “miserable.” In 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman about further repair issues. This included further leaks in her bathroom roof and downstairs toilet. She also stated there was damp and mould in the property, damage to kitchen surfaces and a damaged tap. It is unclear if the resident raised these issues as a complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

  1. The resident said that she and her son’s health suffered because of how the landlord handled her reports of the leak and outstanding repairs at her property. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of how the landlord handled the situation involving her property.
  2. In her further correspondence in 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman about further repair issues. This included further leaks in her bathroom roof and downstairs toilet. She also stated there was damp and mould in the property, damage to kitchen surfaces and a damaged tap. It is unclear if the resident raised these issues as a complaint. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Ombudsman, this is not something that the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and provide its final complaint response to this aspect. The resident can raise the any formal response the landlord may provide on the matter if she remains dissatisfied.

The landlord’s handling of a leak and associated remedial repairs at the property.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms it is responsible for the structure and outside parts of the property. When it receives a report, it will “agree a date and time convenient for (the resident)”. It can apply “priority needs” or extra help to those it applies for. It has 4 categories of repairs, out-of-hours, emergency, agreed appointment and planned. It will attend emergency repairs in 24 hours. Examples include dangerous structures or burst pipes or major water leaks. It will complete agreed or priority appointments within 28 days. Examples include water running from overflows, tiling and minor plaster repairs. The policy also explains it “understands how stressful” leaks are, so is “being firmer on this”. It says residents should tell it where a leak is coming from, and it will “agree a time to come and fix it.”
  2. The landlord has a separate Asbestos Policy which confirms “it is not necessary to remove asbestos where it can be or is already sealed and poses no significant risk to safety or health due to its condition or location.” It states that “any asbestos found where work will be carried out will be removed under The Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR) 2012.” The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord completing an asbestos survey at the property in 2013. The survey found “future refurbishment work may damage or disturb asbestos-carrying materials.” It said materials should be “assessed and may require removal by a licensed asbestos removal contractor prior to such works.” It also states, “under no circumstance must work with asbestos be undertaken without assessment.”
  3. The landlord’s repair records of 3 October 2022 show the plaster on the resident’s ceiling was damaged and in need of repair due to a leak from the bathroom. It is unclear from the records if the damage to the ceiling was caused by a current leak at the time or the previous leak in April 2022. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord would state the resident “first reported the leak on 3 October 2022.” This suggests therefore the landlord’s repair records to be ambiguous and not supportive in managing the issues raised at the property.
  4. There were 3 reports from the resident to the landlord at the end of 2022, on 3 October, 14 November and 12 December 2022. Each report was recorded as “priority” by the landlord. This was in accordance with its Repairs Policy and not an emergency as there no evidence there was a “major water leak” or that the structure was “dangerous”. The landlord attended to the 3 October and 14 November reports on 28 November. It was within in its 28-day timescale for the report of 14 November but exceeded the timescale by 28 days for the report of 3 October. There is no evidence it communicated with her through this period however. This lack of communication and the delay caused uncertainty to the resident as to whether it was taking the issue seriously. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations, which it should have done in line with its policy. Further repairs were delayed by the discovery of asbestos, which is assessed later in this report.
  5. The landlord attempted to attend at the property for the report of 12 December 2022. Its records show a plumber attempted to attend on 11 January 2023. This exceeded its policy by 2 days. This is not evidence of it “understanding how stressful leaks can be” or that it was being “firm” on leaks. The Ombudsman can find no evidence to suggest the landlord “agreed a date and time convenient” to the resident for the appointment as its policy suggests. The resident stated she just “received a text saying the plumber was going to attend.” As such the appointment was not tailored to the resident’s availability.
  6. The landlord told the local councillor on 13 and 30 January 2023 its plumber had left a card when they were unable to gain access. It said it was the resident’s “responsibility” to call the number on the card to rearrange the appointment. The Ombudsman can find no such process within the landlord’s policy. It is uncertain therefore why the landlord could not rebook the appointment at a “convenient time” for the resident. It was prompted to do this within correspondence from the local councillor about the matter on 12 and 16 January 2023. It is of further concern the landlord recorded the issue as priority and the issue had the potential to impact other work it was arranging to repair the ceiling. As such it should have taken the initiative to rebook and complete the repair at the earliest possible opportunity.
  7. The landlord would not complete the repair of the leak until 22 June 2023. This was over 6 months after the resident had initially reported the issue. This was not in accordance with its policy and represented a failure to manage the issue and the resident’s expectations. The landlord failed to mention the leak in its complaint response, further failing to manage the resident’s expectations on the matter. On 16 January 2023, the local councillor raised concerns about whether the plumber had attended and if they had the correct contact details for the resident. The landlord reiterated its previous response and there is no evidence it checked the contact details held with the plumber.
  8. Following its complaint reply on 15 June the resident raised concerns about the appointment on 11 January. She said the plumber had not attended on the day and had not left a card. As further assessed in ‘complaint handling’ the landlord failed to contact the resident at any point to listen to her complaint before replying. It therefore missed the opportunity to investigate whether its plumber did attend on 11 January. It also never took the opportunity to review this following the resident’s correspondence on 15 June. This was further evidence to the resident it was not taking her concerns seriously.
  9. On 28 November 2022 the landlord acted in accordance with its Asbestos Policy and its 2013 asbestos report. It attended on 28 November to assess repairs to the ceiling. However, it attempted no further work on the kitchen ceiling until the asbestos could be assessed and further action taken. It failed to explain this to the resident, however. She was uncertain about what was taking place so raised her concerns with the local councillor. They contacted the landlord on 20 December 2022. The landlord did not respond until 11 January 2023 stating the asbestos had not been disturbed and posed no threat. The Ombudsman acknowledges this was during the Christmas period, but the reply was inappropriately delayed. This caused further uncertainty and worry to the resident if she would be affected by the asbestos.
  10. On 30 January 2023 the landlord arranged the asbestos removal appointment with the resident for 15 February.  A specialist external contractor attended on 15 February 2023 and removed the asbestos from the kitchen ceiling. This was completed in accordance with CAR 2012. The asbestos removal was completed in an appropriate timescale given there were complex regulations governing the removal by the specialist. An air test was also completed following the removal of the asbestos. This was a reasonable step to assure the resident the property was safe and habitable.
  11. To support the removal of the asbestos the landlord disconnected the lighting in her downstairs toilet and kitchen on 25 January 2023. This was appropriate action to allow the asbestos removal. However, it should have been prepared to reinstate the lights as soon as the asbestos removal was complete on 15 February. It was unclear if the landlord needed to repair the ceiling before reinstating the lights in the kitchen or downstairs toilet. This was never explained to the resident. The landlord did not reinstate the lighting in each room until 11 July. This took 146 days to complete, far exceeding its 28-day timescale in its policy.
  12. Between the resident and local councillor, they chased the landlord on 8 separate occasions. On 28 February 2023, the local councillor told the landlord the resident was “cooking by torchlight”. The landlord only responded on 8 March when it said it would repair the ceiling and reinstate the lights on 27 June. It failed to adhere to this date and did not reinstate the lights for a further 10 days. Other than this the landlord failed to specifically respond to the concerns raised about lighting by the local councillor and resident. As evident by the amount of correspondence chasing the issue, reinstating the lights was imperative to the resident. The landlord did not specifically respond to the issue in its complaint response of 6 June. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the issue, prolonged the issue for the resident causing her further distress and inconvenience.
  13. On 9 March The resident said she only had a single lamp provided by the landlord which she later described as “useless”. There is no evidence of the landlord reviewing either its delay in reinstating the lighting or whether it had provided adequate temporary lighting to the resident. As a result, the resident was required to live for almost 5 months without suitable lighting. This affected her ability to cook or use the toilet. On 14 July the resident told the Ombudsman the landlord had installed “council lights” in her kitchen and toilet. She said it had not reinstated her pre-existing lighting. It is uncertain if the resident raised this with the landlord directly. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to investigate this and consider returning the resident’s lights to the previous type.
  14. On 8 March 2023 the landlord told the resident it would complete repairs to the ceiling on 27 June. At this point, the repair had been outstanding for over 5 months. It is acknowledged the requirement to remove the asbestos impacted this. The landlord completed the repair to the ceiling on 27 June as it had stated. However, its timescale to do so was not in accordance with the 28 days in its policy as follows:
    1. From the original report of 3 October 2022, the repair took 267 days.
    2. From the date it completed the asbestos repair on 15 February 2023 the repair took 132 days.
    3. From the date it booked the repair with the resident on 8 March 2023 the repair took 111 days.
  15. From 8 March 2023 onwards the landlord’s communication with the resident and/or the local councillor was inadequate. Despite chasing the issue on several occasions, the landlord only replied once on 12 April. It reiterated what it said on 8 March here and said it would bring the 27 June appointment forward if there was a cancellation. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations throughout this period. The local councillor asked on 25 March if the landlord could appoint an external contractor to complete the repairs. The landlord failed to respond to this point and there is no evidence it considered taking the action requested at the time. This could have been an appropriate measure to bring the repair forward. Its failure to consider this prolonged the issue and the distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  16. It was an encouraging wider step for the landlord to explain in its complaint response the additional steps it was taking to improve its repairs service in the wider context. However, this had no impact on the resident’s pending repair and there is no further evidence it focused on expediting this. Following the repairs to the ceiling on 27 June 2023, the landlord would paint the ceiling on 17 August. In total, this would take 51 days to complete which was an unreasonable timescale for doing so. Despite promising in its complaint response to “track progress” of the works there is no evidence it did this. Between 27 June and 17 August, the resident emailed the landlord about the painting on 5 occasions. There is no evidence of the landlord replying to any of these emails. As such the resident lost trust in the landlord complying with what it promised, affecting the landlord/tenant relationship and causing uncertainty to her.
  17. It is of concern the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her son. The resident or local councillor stated difficulties with the resident or her son’s health on the following dates: 20 December 2022, 13 March 2023 and 15 May 2023. This involved the resident stating she was 71, had severe respiratory problems and the issues were “affecting (her) mental health”. She said her son was “autistic” and had “schizophrenia.” There is no evidence of the landlord ever responding to any of these points or offering appropriate support or signposting to support. Furthermore, there is no evidence it ever completed a risk assessment for the resident or her son.
  18. A risk assessment is crucial in informing the landlord’s decision-making at the outset. It also enables it to monitor a case as it progresses so it can identify proportionate actions that consider factors such as household vulnerability. The landlord will be ordered to complete a risk assessment for the resident and her family at the property. It must then take any further appropriate action, as necessary. Had the landlord accurately recorded the resident or her son as vulnerable it may have been able to enact its “priority needs” process. Its failure to do this prolonged the issue for the vulnerable resident and her son, causing much detriment to them.
  19. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered £402 compensation for the delay in completing the repair between 3 October 2022 and 27 June 2023. The amount awarded for the sole issue was in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy. However, the award was disproportionate to the findings in this report and the total detriment suffered by the resident.
    1. It failed to appropriately investigate the resident’s concerns about its plumber’s attendance on 11 January 2023. This was despite concerns being raised by the local councillor and resident either side of the complaint. Despite being aware of the leak being a priority and it having the potential to affect the ongoing repair, the landlord took no initiative to rebook the repair for completion.
    2. Although the landlord acknowledged the overall delay in completing the repair it failed to break this down further and apologise. It was delayed in responding to all but one report made by the resident and all follow-ups. This was not in accordance with its policy and not appropriate management of all repairs.
    3. The landlord did not review its provision of temporary lighting to ensure it was adequate. As such the resident and her son were left with insufficient lighting affecting their ability to cook and use the downstairs toilet.
    4. It failed to demonstrate that it had considered the resident or her son’s health at any point. As such it was unable to offer support, consider its “priority needs process” or complete a risk assessment.
    5. The landlord detailed the communication failures between it and the local councillor. However, it failed to detail its failure to communicate directly with the resident. It did say it failed to manage her expectations, but the further concerns she raised about the “state of the property” went unanswered.
    6. Following the completion of the repair works there was further delay in completing redecoration to the affected areas.
  20. The resident chased the payment of the compensation with the landlord on 3 occasions between 5 July and 26 October 2023. There is no evidence the landlord paid this amount to the resident. As such it failed to put things right as promised in its complaint response.
  21. In summary the landlord recorded the initial reports by the resident at the end of October 2022 appropriately as a priority. However, it then failed to complete the reports as a priority. The repairs to the ceiling were delayed by the requirement to remove asbestos. The landlord acted responsibly and in accordance with its policy and CAR in removing this. This represented a significant and reasonable mitigating circumstance that contributed to the overall delay in resolving this issue for the resident.
  22. However, aside from this, the landlord did not follow up on a dispute about whether its plumber attended to repair the leak and took no further initiative to complete this repair. The leak had the potential to impact further work it was arranging. It was then delayed by over 4 months in repairing the resident’s ceiling and reinstating her lighting. Communication from the landlord was inadequate throughout leaving the uncertain on what was happening. She often had to chase a response herself. Despite reporting issues with her and her son’s health the landlord took no supportive steps, failing in its equality obligations.
  23. In all circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been found. Compensation of £850 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. This is £448 more than the £402 already offered by the landlord. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states it “welcomes feedback and views feedback as an opportunity to improve services.” It “logs and aims to resolve complaints about failures of service.” Its “primary intention” is to resolve any service failure and “realises it is much more important than providing a detailed explanation of what went wrong.” It aims to “respond quickly” to complaints and “will keep residents informed of progress.” The policy confirms an advocate can make a complaint on behalf of the resident. The landlord’s policy confirms has 4 recognised stages of its complaints process, as follows:
    1. Informal complaints. It suggests residents should raise the issue with whom they were originally dealing with. It says it may be possible to resolve the complaint “immediately without it going through a more formal process.”
    2. Stage 1 formal complaint. The complaint will be investigated by the “team responsible for that area of work.” It will speak to the resident to clarify the complaint and will provide its full response in 10 working days. There is no detail regarding extending this timescale.
    3. Stage 2 formal complaint – independent review. The review will be completed by an officer not involved in the stage 1 response. The landlord will “aim to provide a resolution to the complaint” in writing within 25 working days. The policy confirms the resident has the option following this to raise a complaint to its Independent Panel or the Ombudsman.
  2. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 28 June 2024 the landlord reviewed its complaint handling. It recognised it should have accepted the local councillor’s email of 20 December 2022 as a formal complaint and followed its complaint procedure. Its failure to treat the correspondence as a complaint was not in keeping with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Both describe a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however, made….” As such the landlord was not resolution-focused in a timely manner. This prolonged the outcome for the resident. Despite further correspondence with the local councillor on 12 and 16 January, 28 February, 13 and 25 March 2023 the landlord still failed to raise a complaint on the matter.
  3. The resident asked the landlord on 9 March 2023 to raise her concerns as a formal complaint. It took appropriate steps to acknowledge the complaint, telling the resident on 14 March it would respond by 27 March. Following this, there was no further response from the landlord, and it did not reply on 27 March. This caused uncertainty to the resident if it was taking her concerns seriously. This was particularly relevant as this was the first time in a period the resident had contacted the landlord directly instead of the local councillor. The resident, frustrated with the lack of reply contacted the Ombudsman on 28 March.
  4. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 17 May 2023 and asked it to respond by 24 May. The landlord asked for it to be given 20 working days to respond to the resident. It went on to provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 6 June. This was 113 working days after the local councillor’s initial complaint of 20 December 2022. It was also 59 working days after the resident’s complaint request of 9 March 2023. The failure to respond over a prolonged period caused much uncertainty to the resident. This left her confused as to whether the landlord was taking her concerns seriously and looking to resolve the issues raised. Its failure to consider a complaint until the Ombudsman’s intervention was not in line with its policy of “welcoming” complaints or learning from them.
  5. Between 9 March and 5 June 2023 there is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to understand the resident’s complaint as its policy suggests. It was further prompted when the Ombudsman contacted it on 17 May. It could have used this time to understand the complaint to support its resolution to the resident. Its failure to do this meant it missed an issue regarding the appointment of 11 January 2023. The resident told it the day after receiving its complaint reply the plumber had not attended. Had it spoken to the resident before this, it could have had the opportunity to understand and investigate this issue.
  6. The landlord’s complaint response of 6 June 2023 did acknowledge the delays to the substantive issue and offered compensation in line with its Compensation Policy. However, it failed to address several issues, which was not in accordance with the Code. These include:
    1. The reported cause of the leak had not been resolved at that point. It had previously advised the resident to rebook the appointment. However, it should have managed the situation if it was resolute in repairing the ceiling. It made no mention of repairing the leak in its response. It should have done this to manage the resident’s expectations and instil confidence in her it was resolving the whole issue.
    2. The lights in the resident’s property had not been reconnected at this point. The resident and local councillor had mentioned the detriment that had been caused to her. The landlord should have specifically acknowledged this to show empathy and understanding of all issues. The resident had said the lighting provided was inadequate. There is no evidence the landlord investigated this to see if its approach could have been better. It also failed to explain when it would reconnect the lights. The resident’s expectations were not managed, and this caused her further despair about living with inadequate lighting.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did acknowledge it “missed” the opportunity to consider the resident’s complaint of 9 March 2023. However, it did not apologise for this and there is no evidence it considered paying compensation for poor complaint handling. At this point, the landlord failed to also recognise it should have taken the local councillor’s initial correspondence of 20 December 2022 as a complaint. Its failure to take all these extra steps was not in accordance with the Code and caused the resident to believe it was not “putting things right.”
  8. In its complaint response the landlord promised to “track progress of works to ensure completion on 27 June 2023.” The plastering repairs to the ceiling were completed as arranged on 27 June. There is no evidence it went on to manage the resident’s expectations of the other remaining issues. The reinstatement of the lights took a further month from its complaint response and painting of the ceiling took a further 2 months from the ceiling repair. This all suggests the landlord was not actively tracking the repairs, or if it was, it was not communicating with the resident sufficiently.
  9. A landlord’s complaint process enables them to identify trends and issues so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy or the Code in failing to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint and not providing a formal response until the Ombudsman had been investigating the matter. Its approach throughout was inconsistent with its policy and the Code confusing the resident. The resident was left uncertain if it was taking her concerns seriously and it did not attempt to put its failings right. A determination of maladministration has therefore been made. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £300 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred with a significant impact on the resident throughout that period.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of a leak and associated remedial repairs at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior member of staff from the landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1150 compensation. Any additional compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £850 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inappropriate handling of repairs to the leak and associated remedial repairs at the property.
      2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
      3. The amounts above include the £402 already awarded to the resident by the landlord during its internal complaint procedure for the above issues.
    3. The landlord must complete a risk assessment for the resident and her son, taking any further action as appropriate.
    4. The landlord must carry out a review of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred and provide a report back to the Ombudsman and the resident on this. This should include:
      1. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
      2. Why it was delayed in completing all work raised within its timescale in its Repairs Policy.
      3. If it is acting in accordance with its policy in requesting residents to rebook priority appointments for no access.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should investigate the resident’s concerns about the lighting it installed in the resident’s kitchen and downstairs toilet.