Haringey London Borough Council (202325647)

Background

1. There were numerous repairs needed at the property. The resident was unhappy with the time taken for them to be completed and the landlord’s communication. She is vulnerable due to health issues and being physically disabled.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs.
   2. Formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. There were significant delays in the repairs and poor communication with the resident.
6. There was a slight delay in the stage 2 response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. A property inspection took place on 27 May 2022. It noted the following repairs:
   1. Fix or replace roof tiles on the flat roof above the kitchen.
   2. Replace kitchen units and drawers.
   3. Plaster and decorate kitchen area damaged by a leak from the flat roof.
   4. Repair the timber guard rail on the balcony.
8. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, programmed repairs are works that require time for manufacture or specialist trade. The kitchen and roof repairs fell into this category and should have been completed within 60 days. The roof repairs were completed 16 months later, in September 2023. The kitchen was repaired in September 2024, over 2 years later. These were excessive delays and not in line with policy.
9. In the stage 1 response the landlord told the resident the kitchen repairs were booked for April 2024. They were not completed until 5 months after this. There is no record of the reason for the additional delay and no evidence it was explained to the resident. This was a failure.
10. The resident lives on the first floor and has a timber guard rail around the balcony. The inspection in 2022 found it was rotten and needed to be fixed and painted to stop it deteriorating further. This was completed over 2 years later in September 2024. This should have been done within 28 days if it was classed as a non-urgent repair, or within 60 days as a programmed repair. It greatly exceeded these timescales.
11. The resident told us the landlord’s communication was poor, particularly about appointment times. The repairs policy says the landlord aims to ensure appointment times are convenient for the resident. It says it will agree times that fit with the resident’s commitments and lifestyle. The resident said this was not the case. She was often not given advance notice of contractor visits which meant she missed them due to other appointments. This caused further delays to the works. The resident also recalled a time when a contractor called at the property late at night which she found upsetting and inconvenient.
12. The resident also complained about door and window repairs. In the stage 1 response the landlord said it was not aware of these issues and the property inspection had not identified them. The landlord gave contact details for the resident to report any further repairs such as these, outside of the complaints process. It was reasonable for this not to be dealt with as part of the complaint. However it would have been helpful for the landlord to raise the repairs instead of asking the resident to do it separately.
13. The resident raised the issue of the front door on 1 August 2024 and it was inspected the following day. A new door was ordered but we are not aware of the date of installation.
14. We do not know when the window repair was raised but the landlord arranged repairs for 25 September 2024. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the resident refused the appointment as she wanted the timber frame replaced with UPVC. The landlord said it would only provide a timber frame like the existing one. The resident has since informed us that she did not refuse but pointed out she had been told a UPVC frame would be fitted. The landlord did send the resident a text making reference to UPVC so her frustration is understandable. This is further evidence of the miscommunication that contributed to repair delays.
15. It is not clear when the repairs to the door and window were resolved. Overall, the repairs took too long to complete and the landlord’s communication was inadequate.
16. The resident said contractors left a mess when doing repairs. This caused her further inconvenience. The landlord accepted it should have checked for any mess when signing off the works and apologised for this. It identified this as a learning point, which was appropriate, and in line with our dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes.
17. The landlord apologised for the delays and accepted its failures. There were no reasons for such long delays in the records provided to us and the landlord did not offer any to the resident. Its offer of £500 compensation was not proportionate to the length of the delays or the impact they had on the resident. The delays affected multiple repairs, increasing the detrimental impact. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is made and the landlord is ordered to pay £650 compensation. This sum is more in line with our remedies guidance for this level of failure, which has caused the resident stress and inconvenience.

18. The stage 1 response was given within the landlord’s 10 working-day target timescale. Its content was appropriate and covered all repair issues raised by the resident.
19. The stage 2 response was slightly delayed. It was given 5 days later than its 20-working day target. This was a minor failure but added to the resident’s inconvenience. The resident was already unhappy with the level of communication from the landlord and felt ignored and disrespected. The late response did little to reassure her or rebuild trust.
20. We order the landlord to pay £50 compensation for its complaint handling failure. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a low-level failure of short duration. It recognises the loss of confidence and disappointment felt by the resident while waiting for a response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. There were sufficient records to allow for this investigation.

Communication

22. The communication between the landlord and resident was poor, increasing the detriment caused by repair delays.