Haringey London Borough Council (202339841)

Background

1. The resident reported that his front entrance door was damaged following a forced entry by police on 23 November 2022. The landlord attended the same day and carried out temporary repairs shortly afterwards. The landlord then confirmed that the door required replacement.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the repair to the front door.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the front door.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Reasons

Repair to the front door

6. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that “emergency refers to a repair which puts a person or property at risk during the day” and confirms that the landlord will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours of being reported. The handbook also states that the landlord will attempt to complete the repair on the first visit. The resident reported damage to the front door on 23 November 2022 following a forced entry. The landlord treated the repair as an emergency and attended the property on the same day. It made the door secure and noted the frame and door were damaged and needed replacing. This response met the requirements set out in the landlord’s repairs handbook.
7. Following the initial visit, the landlord raised a new repair job on 26 November 2022 to address a faulty lock to the front door. The repairs log records show that the door could be opened from the outside. It is therefore likely, that the damage to the lock resulted from the initial forced entry. The repair log says “the lock is since broken” indicating that it was working ok at the time of the first attendance. The landlord completed a temporary repair to the door lock within 24 hours, in keeping with its repairs handbook. In the circumstances, these actions, including the temporary repairs to both the door and the lock, were reasonable and proportionate.
8. The landlord next attended the property on 7 December 2022 and took measurements to progress replacement works. The response time for this visit was reasonable. A subsequent repair log entry dated 28 February 2023 recorded that measurements had been taken and that a new composite door was required. This was later found to be the incorrect door type, which had a knock‑on effect on the progression of the repair and contributed to avoidable delay.
9. After completing the measurement visit in December 2022, the landlord did not progress the permanent replacement of the door within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord agreed a quote for the new door on 28 March 2023 and placed an order on 4 May 2023, but the evidence does not show that it kept the resident informed during this period. As a result, the resident had no clear information about the progress of the repair or when the replacement would be completed. Internal communication does however show the resident chased the matter multiple times during this period.
10. The available evidence does not clearly explain why the landlord took so long to progress the quote and order the replacement door. While repairs that require measurements, quotations, and manufactured components can reasonably take longer to complete, the evidence suggests that some of the delay arose because the landlord was unclear about the door replacement process and whether it would need to involve contractors or complete the replacement in-house. This uncertainty appears to have also depended on the type of door required due to the property being in a conservation area. Throughout this period, there is no evidence that the landlord explained these issues to the resident or provide updates on progress.
11. After a prolonged period with no updates on the repair, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 3 July 2023. In his complaint, he explained that whenever he contacted the landlord, staff told him that an operative would attend, but no one attended. He also described the impact of the unresolved repair, stating that he was repeatedly being locked inside the property and felt afraid to go out in case he could not gain access again.
12. In its stage 1 complaint response, provided on 2 November 2023, the landlord acknowledged delays in replacing the front door, apologised, and attributed the delay to difficulties sourcing the door. It also confirmed that a replacement appointment had been booked for 10 December 2023 and offered £100 compensation.
13. The landlord did not attend the appointment scheduled for 10 December 2023 and did not notify the resident or explain the reason for this. It later re‑booked the appointment for 19 January 2024, which it also failed to attend. These missed appointments further delayed the repair and led the resident to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 5 March 2024.
14. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 May 2024. It explained that it had incorrectly booked both appointments with a carpenter, who could not complete the door replacement. The landlord accepted that it had not communicated this error or the resulting delays to the resident. The landlord apologised and advised that it had allocated the work to the correct contractor which was manufacturing a new door. However, the stage 2 response also indicates that the landlord had not fully understood the issue or scrutinised its own repair records, as by this point it had already been established that the replacement would not be a composite door, as stated in its stage 2 response. Although the landlord did not provide an installation date, it confirmed that it had marked the repair as urgent and the contractor would contact the resident directly when the door was ready. In recognition of the prolonged delay, missed appointments, and impact on the resident, the landlord offered further compensation of £400.
15. The timeline of events suggests that some progress was made during the stage 2 investigation. The repair records indicate that shortly after the stage 2 response, a contractor reviewed photographs of the existing door and confirmed that a like‑for‑like uPVC replacement would be fitted, with an estimated manufacture and installation timeframe of three to four weeks. The landlord completed the replacement of the front door and frame on 11 June 2024, which was slightly outside this timeframe. However, this was over 18 months after it first identified the door required replacement.
16. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it will contact residents as soon as it knows an appointment will be late or needs to be rescheduled. It also states that, where a repair cannot be completed on the first visit, it will offer a further appointment before leaving or confirm next steps within 10 working days. In this case, the landlord repeatedly failed to meet either of these commitments. It missed appointments without notice, failed to explain the reasons for delays, and did not provide timely updates or confirmation of next steps. This was not in line with its repairs handbook.
17. The landlord’s repairs handbook also states that planned repairs requiring components to be measured and manufactured should be inspected within 28 days and that residents should be told at the inspection when the work will be carried out. Although the landlord inspected the door within the required timeframe, it did not tell the resident when the replacement would take place. This was not in line with its policy.
18. The landlord’s compensation policy allows awards of up to £500 where it has accepted full responsibility for failings that have a high impact on a resident, and it also allows this limit to be exceeded in exceptional circumstances. Although the landlord awarded £500, the prolonged delay, repeated missed appointments, and significant impact on the resident’s safety, wellbeing, and living conditions mean that the compensation offered did not reflect the severity of the failure in line with our compensation guidance.
19. In summary, the landlord took approximately 18 months to replace the resident’s front door. While it acted appropriately at the outset by attending promptly and carrying out temporary repairs, it failed to progress the permanent replacement within a reasonable timeframe. During this period, the resident lived with a boarded‑up door, felt unsafe in his home, and raised concerns to the landlord about being locked inside and/or outside of the property. Despite this, the landlord missed multiple appointments and failed to appropriately communicate with him about the repair. Although it acknowledged failings and offered compensation, this did not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration.
20. We order the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation. This is composed of the £500 offered in its complaint responses and a further £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the front door. This amount is in keeping with our compensation guidance for instances of maladministration which have had a significant impact upon a resident and where a landlord’s attempts to put things right have failed to appropriately address this.

Complaint Handling

21. The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and to issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days. In this case, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 July 2023, which was within its policy timescales. However, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 2 November 2023, almost four months after the complaint was raised and significantly outside the timescales of both its complaints policy and our complaint handling code (the Code).
22. The evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord on two separate occasions after the stage 1 response deadline had passed. There is no evidence that the landlord provided adequate responses or explanations for the delay during this period. When the stage 1 response was eventually issued on 2 November 2023, the landlord did not address its failure to respond to the complaint within the required timescales or recognise the additional frustration caused by this delay.
23. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 5 March 2024. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 2 May 2024, which was also outside the 20 working days timescale set out in its complaints policy and the Code. While the landlord acknowledged service failures relating to mis‑booking contractors and poor communication, it did not explain why it had failed to meet its stage 2 response timescale or demonstrate that it had actively managed the complaint escalation.
24. The Code requires landlords to respond to complaints within published timescales, keep residents informed of delays, and address all key issues raised. In this case, the landlord failed to meet its timescales at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process, resulting in combined delays of approximately six months. The landlord also did not communicate effectively with the resident while the complaint was ongoing. These failures occurred alongside a prolonged and distressing repair issue, increasing the resident’s frustration and undermining confidence in the complaints process. Due to this, a finding of maladministration is made in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, and the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation to reflect the seriousness and cumulative impact of these failures. This is in line with our compensation guidance where the complaint response was delayed by weeks or months, effecting timely resolution of the dispute.
25. The Code makes clear that landlords are expected to prioritise complaint handling and promote a culture of learning from complaints, in keeping with our dispute resolution principle. In this case, there was no reference to these principles in either the stage 1 or stage 2 of its complaint responses. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord identified learning or reflected on how its service could be improved following its handling of this case. We therefore order the landlord to carry out a case review of this complaint.

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.