Haringey London Borough Council (202321169)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321169

Haringey London Borough Council

17 April 2025

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 handling of repairs to the fences at the bottom of the stairwell and top of the terrace to the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the top floor property. The lease began in April 2013. He lives in the property with his partner.
The resident wrote to the landlord and his councillor on 9 August 2022 raising his complaint. He explained:
1. About the wooden fence that went around the stairwell to his flat. He said there was another going around ‘the top outside his flat stopping people falling off’.
2. He told the landlord that the fence was in a bad state as it was rotten, dangerous, and hanging off in places. He raised safety concerns, said it was responsible for replacing the fence.
3. He said he had raised concerns about this for 2 years. It had not acted asides from sending operatives round the previous year when it agreed it needed to repair the fence as soon as possible. It had still taken no action.
4. Every time he called, it took the job number and assured him someone would contact him, but nothing ever happened. He asked for help to get something done.
The landlord responded to the councillor on 23 August 2022 following their enquiry into the resident’s concerns. It acknowledged the repair remained outstanding and that it had not updated the resident. It apologised for the issues and said it had requested internally for an investigation and response around the issue. It told us on 19 March 2025 that its response to the councillor was its stage 1 response. It explained in the response:
1. It attended on “19 November 2022” and its operative noted that the fencing needed to be resecured to the walls and the fencing posts renewed. It then referred the job to a manager. It apologised the job was not actioned promptly.
2. It would inspect the fencing/safety issue on 23 August 2022. Once done, it would then recommend the necessary follow on action to resolve the fencing/safety issue.
3. It apologised that it did not have an answer as to what repair works it would complete. This would depend on the inspection results. It had asked for an update so that it could inform them at a later date. It thanked the resident for his continued patience around the issue.
The councillor chased an update from the landlord between 30 August 2022 and 30 September 2022 following the promises made in its stage 1 response. As they did not receive a response, they escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure on 30 September 2022. They said that the resident raised the repairs under a year ago, and a site visit took place at the time. Other than the visit in August 2022, over 9 months after the initial report, after the resident escalated the matter to them, there had been no other works or communication. They said this was unacceptable.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 October 2022. It explained that:
1. It originally raised works on 18 June 2021. Its timeframe for such works is usually between 10 to 12 weeks. It would have expected to make the fence safe and carry out the works by mid-September 2021.
2. The contractors referred the job to it as “surrounding staircase looked in need of urgent renewal”. This caused confusion as there was uncertainty whether the stairwell was an issue or just the fence and the surrounding wall.
3. It reviewed this again and it was now clear that only the fence needed repairing. Due to the length of time taken, it had booked a surveyor to attend on 28 October 2022. The surveyor would assess the requirements of the job and at least ensure they made the fence safe. They would then book the follow-on work that would be necessary to complete the job.
4. It had explained the delay was due to it struggling to confirm ownership as it did not appear to be a typical structure and there was very little recorded data on the repairs system.
5. During the previous responses, it should have established the ownership by discussing further internally. It apologised and agreed that the delays he faced were unacceptable and communication should have been better.
6. It noted from its records that he contacted it several times but despite this it failed to provide him an update. From the evidence it had seen, the delay appeared to be due to poor administration and communication.
7. It found a fault in relation to the delay and poor management of the works and awarded £100 compensation for the time and trouble he went through pursuing his complaint. It said it suggested that he started paying his service charges to avoid any recovery action.
The resident raised his complaint with us on 19 September 2023. He explained the situation and his concerns that it was dangerous. He said both fences around the stairwell and terrace were the landlord’s responsibility, and it had acknowledged this. Pieces fell off the stairwell weekly, and he was concerned if someone leaned against it, they would go through and over the fence. He said it erected scaffolding in December 2022 but had done nothing. He said he believed the landlord should remove the current fencing and replace them as soon as possible. He also raised concerns with its communication.

Post complaint

The resident told us on 19 March 2025 that the landlord started work on the fence in January 2025. He provided us with what appears to be a schedule of works which suggests it aims to complete the works in August 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us that the outcome he sought was for the landlord to replace the fencing. It is for the landlord to decide whether a replacement is required given the condition of the fence. We would usually expect a landlord to identify whether a repair or replacement is necessary and take the appropriate action. Therefore we would not order a landlord to replace a fence if a repair could be carried out.

Repairs to the fence at the bottom of the stairwell and top of the terrace to the resident’s property

The landlord acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns. It acknowledged that there were delays with the repairs and concerns with its communication. It apologised to the resident and offered compensation of £100 around this. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its failings, we do not believe the offer of redress was reasonable. This is because the resident had raised his concerns around a year prior to the final response and the matter remained outstanding.
Had the landlord resolved the issue soon after the completion of the complaints process, we may have considered its offer as reasonable. However, it did not, and it remained ongoing substantially after the completion of the complaints process. This led to detriment to the resident as he had to continue chasing the matter due to health and safety concerns. The landlord was aware of the concerns and did not take prompt action to rectify the problem. The length of time the matter remains outstanding following the completion of the complaints process supports a finding of a failing in these circumstances.
As such the landlord’s offer did not adequately reflect the length of the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident. Particularly as after the conclusion of the complaint, there is evidence that the matter remained ongoing for a further 2 years. The evidence also suggests that the issues with the landlord’s communication continued. For example, the resident’s councillor had to chase the landlord on multiple occasions for a response to his request for an update around the required works.
The resident also presented the landlord with options to allow for the completion of the works. This was through an email on 10 March 2023, and it has not shown that it considered any of these. Nor did it show that it responded to the resident around this. As it had found the failings in its approach, we would have expected the landlord to ensure that it responded appropriately to reduce the delay and keep the resident informed. We also would have expected it to re-evaluate its position and consider if further compensation was due given that the matter remained outstanding for such a substantial amount of time.
The landlord has not shown that it did, and this was unreasonable. It also provided us with some reasons for the ongoing issues, such as issues with subcontractors taking legal action. We understand that this could lead to delays, and require it to source a new contractor for the works. It however has not shown us that it explained the impact this had on the works to the resident.
The landlord also explained to us that part of the delay was due to difficulty establishing whether whoever installed the deck did so with the relevant planning permission. This in turn made it difficult for it to establish repair responsibilities. It also has not shown that it explained this to the resident as a reason for the delays. Based on the ongoing delays, and communication issues. We find that there was maladministration.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will pay compensation where there has been inconvenience caused by a housing related issue. It operates 3 compensation categories:
1. Low impact where there is minimal or now inconvenience or distress caused because of the issue which led to the need for compensation. If it was fully responsible for the issue it would compensate between £30-£50.
2. Medium impact where there was clearly an injustice to the resident and the service had markedly failed to meet the required standards. There is also evidence of a moderate degree of inconvenience or distress. It also considered a repeated failure by it to address the shortcoming, even of a low impact even could also give rise to consideration of a medium impact level of compensation. It will compensation between £100 and £200 if it was fully responsible for the issue.
3. High impact which related to a serious failure in service standard which could include the severity of an event, a persistent failure over a long period, or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve and address the complaint. The resident will have suffered a considerable degree of inconvenience or distress as a result. For this category it will compensate between £350 to £500 where it is fully at fault.
The landlord’s compensation offer falls within the medium impact category within its policy. Whilst this is appropriate, we believe it initial offer falls in the lower end of this category. This is especially when we consider the length of time the matter remained outstanding prior to the resident’s complaint. The delay remains ongoing for a substantial amount of time after the completion of the complaint. There were ongoing communication issues, inconvenience caused to the resident having to raise the issue with both his councillor, and the landlord. We believe that the landlord should pay the resident further compensation to put the situation right and we order the landlord to pay the resident further compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided a link to its website rather than a specific complaints policy. The website does not provide information about its complaint stages or timeframes. It refers to the Housing Ombudsman Code (the code). As such we shall assess the landlord’s complaint handling against the code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was in line with the time timeframes provided within the code. It appropriately responded within a 10 working day timeframe from raising the stage 1. It however has not shown that it acknowledged the complaint. Despite this, there is no evidence of any detriment caused to the resident around this.
The councillor then escalated the complaint to stage 2 on behalf of the resident. Based on the code, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation within 5 working days and provided its response within 20 working days from its acknowledgement. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation was therefore due on 7 October 2022. It has not shown that it acknowledged the escalation and this was unreasonable. However, there is no evidence that this caused any detriment to the resident.
The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 22 October 2022. This was 9 working days earlier than the deadline for the provision of the stage 2 response. Its actions were appropriate around its complaint handling. As there were no delays or any evidence of detriment caused to the resident around its failure to acknowledge the complaint at both stages of the complaints process, we find that there was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

Per paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the fence at the bottom of the stairwell and top of the terrace to the resident’s property.
2. No maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for its handling of the resident’s concerns and the failings found in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £400. We break this down as:
  1. £400 for the delays, communication issues, and inconvenience to the resident around its handling of the repairs to the fence at the bottom of the stairwell and top of the terrace to the resident’s property. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £100.
3. Provide the resident with an update on progress with the repairs to the fence. It should also provide confirmation on when it intends to complete the works.
4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.