Haringey London Borough Council (202345329)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a converted mid-terraced house. The resident has physical and mental health issues the landlord is aware of.
2. The resident was temporarily moved from the property in December 2015 while the landlord carried out repairs to address damp. A judge ordered the resident to give vacant possession of the second property he had temporarily moved to in April 2022 following a possession claim. The resident visited his original property with the landlord’s surveyor in April 2023 and raised a number of repair issues. In an email sent to us on 5 July 2024, the resident said he returned to his property “after 8 years [unclear exactly when]” and found repairs raised in April 2023 still outstanding.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of property repairs.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of property repairs.
6. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of property repairs

7. The landlord failed to raise, follow-up, or explain its position in relation to the repairs, despite the resident chasing on multiple occasions. Its communication with the resident was also poor over a prolonged period of time.

Complaint handling

8. There were delays with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and the resident had to chase on multiple occasions. However, the landlord offered compensation in line with our compensation guidance, which was reasonable.

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.

What we did not consider

9. The history of events are noted above for context, but there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made until 21 June 2023. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. Therefore, we will consider events from 18 April 2023 (when the resident raised repair issues with the property) to 15 May 2024 (when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response), a period of 13 months.
10. The resident has said he felt the landlord have discriminated against him. While the serious nature of this matter is acknowledged, we cannot make a finding of discrimination. Whether or not the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 have been adhered to is a matter that may only be decided by a court of law.
11. Similarly, the resident told us about the impact the condition of the property had on his health. Although we can consider the impact that the issues raised had on the resident, and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to court or an insurance claim.
12. The resident also raised concerns and complaints about other issues. This included with missing belongings that had been in storage and noise issues with a neighbour. There was no evidence of all the issues being raised consistently through the full complaints process. As a result, the landlord has not had a proper opportunity to investigate and resolve them. Therefore, they are not considered in this investigation.

13. In January 2023, we carried out a further investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This allows us to conduct investigations beyond individual complaints to establish whether there is evidence of a systemic failing. Our investigation reviewed findings of complaints made to the landlord between mid 2018 and April 2023. The events in this case took place around the same period. We have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those already made previously.
14. The landlord’s repairs handbook (pre September 2024) said:
    1. Emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours, and the landlord will attempt to complete the repair on the first visit.
    2. Other repairs will be completed within 28 days.
    3. Planned repairs will be inspected within 28 days and the resident will be told when work will be carried out.
15. Emails between the resident and landlord show a property inspection was arranged for 18 April 2023. The landlord visited the property with the resident as arranged. Later that day, the resident emailed the landlord twice. He:
    1. Asked for further time before he had to move back into the property.
    2. Listed approximately 20 repair issues with the property.
    3. Said there was still damp.

The landlord responded promptly the same day, which was reasonable. It:

4. Said it “could not agree to delaying the eviction [from the property the resident was temporarily moved to].”
5. Listed the repairs it agreed to carry out.
6. Said some of the repair issues raised were not valid and explained its reasons.

16. The resident emailed again on 24 April 2023 and asked for further repairs to be completed including to the heating and hot water. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to:
    1. Ensure repairs identified during the inspection were raised.
    2. Reiterate its position in relation to repairs it would, and would not, complete.
17. It was unclear exactly what happened next. However, another property survey was completed on 15 June 2023 by an independent surveyor. The survey noted:
    1. Penetrating dampness affecting the kitchen, bathroom and front bedroom.
    2. The defect appeared to be due to a defective downpipe, rainwater goods, soil pipe and plumbing overflow.

It was unclear whether the landlord was provided with a copy of the survey, or if the landlord contacted the resident following the survey. However, the resident raised his formal complaint 6 days later. The complaint was an opportunity to put things right. However, there was no evidence the landlord took any action in relation to the repairs. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to either raise repairs or explain its position.

18. The evidence showed the resident chased in July, August, September and October 2023 in relation to the complaint response to address the repairs. There was no evidence the landlord took any action or updated the resident, which was unreasonable. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response sent in November 2023 was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to provide its position in relation to the repairs.
19. There was then no evidence of any further contact for almost 4 months when the resident contacted us and a solicitor. After contact from us, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response in May 2024. The landlord acts on the expert advice of suitably qualified staff. It was therefore reasonable to use the stage 2 response to explain its position in relation to the survey completed in April 2023. However, the stage 2 response failed to address the repairs the resident had raised. This led the resident to contact us again 2 days later with a list of outstanding repairs.
20. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the property repairs has been poor. The landlord:
    1. Missed opportunities to raise/follow-up/explain its position to the resident in relation to the repairs. This was despite the resident chasing on a monthly basis. It is still unclear as to whether any of the repairs identified in April 2023 have been completed.
    2. Has been poor in its communication with the resident. This has led him to contact both us and solicitors after failing to get a response.
    3. Seemed to push the resident down the legal route, rather than using the complaints process to try and progress matters for the resident.

The resident was not living at the property for around 9 of the 13 months considered as part of this investigation. Therefore the impact the incomplete repairs had on him is lessened. But the landlord missed opportunities on an almost monthly basis to follow-up the repairs. It has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. There was therefore maladministration. While the delays to complete the repairs had a reduced impact on the resident, it was evident the situation had a distressing effect on him. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay £500. This reflects our compensation guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord made no attempt to put things right.

21. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
22. The landlord initially acknowledged the resident’s complaint in line with policy, which was positive. The landlord emailed the resident on 5 July 2023 and said it would reply by 19 July 2023. However, the evidence showed the resident chased for a complaint response on 21 and 24 July 2023. In response, the landlord sent a ‘holding response’ on 24 July 2023. The resident chased again on 15, 30 and 31 August 2023 but there was no evidence of a landlord response, which was unreasonable.
23. After chasing again on 13 September 2023 the landlord responded the same day. But said it could not issue a stage 2 response until a stage 1 had been sent. The landlord reiterated this position 6 days later in another email to the resident. However, still did not issue a stage 1 response, which was a failing.
24. After the resident chased again on 2 and 4 October 2023, the landlord eventually sent the stage 1 response on 13 November 2023. However:
    1. This was almost 5 months after the complaint was raised, which was a significant delay.
    2. The complaint response was brief and failed to acknowledge the repair issues raised in the original complaint, instead focusing on the resident’s complaint about the delayed stage 1 response.
    3. Failed to offer compensation for the delayed response.
    4. Failed to use the complaint as an opportunity to put things right.
25. It was unclear whether the resident contacted the landlord directly following the stage 1 response. However, he contacted us instead. We contacted the landlord on 22 April 2024 and the landlord emailed the resident on 29 April 2024. Again, it said it needed further time and would respond by 7 May 2024. The landlord failed to do so, and sent its stage 2 response on 15 May 2024 instead. There was no evidence to show the resident was updated to say the response would be late. However, this was 16 working days after contact from us, which was within its policy timeframe. The stage 2 response was detailed and offered compensation, which was positive. However, it:
    1. Said the repairs would be managed by the disrepair team as the resident had started a new disrepair claim. The landlord could have used its complaints procedure to investigate the repairs alongside the disrepair claim. The failure to consider doing this was unreasonable.
    2. Failed to consider compensation for its complaint handling.
    3. Failed to use its complaints process to resolve matters. This prompted the resident to seek advice from solicitors and us to try and progress matters.
26. Overall the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. That being said, the landlord offered £200 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling. Taking into account our compensation guidance, a suitable offer was made. There was therefore reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. However, recommendations have been made in relation to the complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

28. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout was poor. The landlord could have provided a timescale of when it intended to do the repairs. This may have mitigated the resident’s disappointment with its handling of the situation and better managed his expectations.