Haringey London Borough Council (202334825)

Background

1. The resident lived in a 3-bedroom, ground floor flat with her 2 adult children. The resident complained to the landlord about ongoing leaks into her home.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of leaks
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
4. We have found service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There were failings by the landlord in the handling of the resident’s reports of leaks. But the landlord acknowledged its failings, ordered a further inspection with oversight by the team leader, it offered apologies and compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances
6. The landlord’s complaint handling was delayed and it was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord did acknowledge its delays in its complaint holding responses and apologised to the resident. But the complaint responses did not demonstrate it treated the complaint as a priority as it said it would. This was unreasonable in the circumstances, and this was a failure in service to the resident.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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. On 30 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that the leaks that had been previously reported were ongoing with no resolution.
8. On 21 July 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response, it apologised for the issues being experienced by the resident and her family. It said there had been several leak repair jobs attended at both the resident’s home and the flats above.
9. It recognised there was a job raised in May 2023 that had not had an appointment made. This was unreasonable in the circumstances as it was not in line with its policies and procedures. But the landlord apologised for this failing and confirmed a plumber would attend on 27 July 2023. The plumber would inspect the leaking toilet, and mixer taps and a leak coming into the resident’s flat from the flat above.
10. It offered compensation of £112 for the period between 25 May 2023 and 27 July 2023. This was broken down as:
    1. £10 one off payment
    2. £42 of £2 per day up to 3 weeks
    3. £10 per week for remaining 6 weeks.
11. The compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s discretionary compensation procedure and was reasonable in the circumstances.
12. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to stage 2. On 23 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. it apologised on behalf of the repairs service for the severe delay.
    2. the team failed to plan necessary appointments to access other flats
    3. awarded a further £25 for this failing
    4. it detailed a team leader would attend the booked inspection to ensure a remedial plan which is sufficient is agreed with the resident
    5. it upheld the complaint and extended its apology again
    6. the repairs team had failed the resident in this instance
    7. the team aimed to learn from this case and improve its services
13. The resident told this Service she moved to a different property in May 2024, so the issues were no longer ongoing.
14. There were failings by the landlord in the handling of the resident’s reports of leaks. It had attended on several occasions and completed repairs. But it is not clear to this Service if each reported leak was because of the same issue. The landlord acknowledged its failings, ordered a further inspection with oversight by the team leader, it offered apologies and compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

15. On 30 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She asked for her complaint to be escalated for review. The landlord’s records show that the complaint could not be escalated due to the timeframe of the resident’s complaint, and it was to be treated at stage 1 of the complaints process.  This was appropriate in the circumstances.
16. On 25 May 2023 the landlord sent an email to the resident apologising for the length of time to investigate her concerns. It would come back to the resident as soon as possible and no later than 2 June 2023. This was 17 working days from the resident raising her complaint. This was unreasonable in the circumstances because it was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
17. On 2 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised that it had not yet provided a full response. It was working through a backlog of complaints, and it would respond as a priority.
18. On 21 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was 57 working days from the resident raising her complaint and this was unreasonable in the circumstances.
19. On 21 July 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and copied in her MP. The landlord’s records do not show if it acknowledged this escalation with the resident. It did however acknowledge the escalation to the resident’s MP. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
20. On 23 August 2023 the landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response. This was 24 working days from the escalation request. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
21. The landlord did acknowledge its failings in its complaint holding responses and apologised to the resident. But the delays were not referred to in the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It did not demonstrate it treated the complaint as a priority as it said it would. This was unreasonable in the circumstances, and this was a failure in service to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

22. As mentioned in this report there was a repairs job which was not raised as an appointment. The landlord should ensure processes are sufficient to assure itself that repairs reports are actioned in accordance with its policies and procedures.

Communication

23. The landlord’s records show that the resident had to chase the landlord on multiple occasions about the issues being experienced. The landlord should assure itself that its staff can recognise the difference in a service request and a complaint. It should also ensure its complaint handling staff understand the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and we have made a recommendation relating to this.