Haringey London Borough Council (202346809)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346809

Haringey London Borough Council

22 October 2024

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 impact on the resident’s health of the landlord’s handling of repairs.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. concerns about temporary accommodation.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that planned repairs are those where the repair will need to be pre-inspected or if the job will take several days to complete. The landlord says it will inspect this work within 28 days and then tell the resident when it expects the work to be completed.
The landlord’s temporary moves (decant) policy says that it recognises moving on a temporary basis involves substantial upheaval and inconvenience for the resident. It says that:
1. if a resident is only expected to move out for less than 2 weeks it may offer a room in a hotel.
2. for other moves, the accommodation offered will be decided by the landlord’s decants panel.
3. for longer stays in temporary accommodation, the alternative accommodation will match the current home unless the resident currently has spare rooms.
4. residents will not be financially worse off as a result of having to move temporarily from their home. The landlord will cover relocation costs and increased food costs (such as if there are no or limited cooking facilities).
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident complained to the landlord on 10 April 2023. He reported significant mould at his property, which he said was due to delayed bathroom repairs. He said:
1. the landlord had cancelled a repair to plasterwork due to COVID-19 restrictions.
2. he had reported continued damage, and the landlord arranged an inspection in August 2021, but no work had been completed.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 12 May 2023. It said:
1. it had inspected the resident’s property on 20 August 2021.
2. at this time the surveyor decided a plumber should attend to ensure no leak was present before completing remedial work.
3. the surveyor’s report was not actioned, and it apologised for this error.
4. a plumber had since attended on 26 April 2023 and had traced and remedied a leak from the bath.
5. a further survey was due to take place on 24 May 2023.
Records show the landlord attended the property on 24 May 2023 and noted a mould wash and plasterwork was needed. On 5 July 2023 the landlord completed a structural survey of the property. This recorded that it had now removed the bath, floorboards and ceiling below the bathroom. It noted that a concrete lintel and new timber joists were needed, in addition to installing flooring and a ceiling. On 12 July 2023 the landlord moved the resident to a hotel due to “structural issues” and because it had removed the bath.
The resident’s daughter made a further complaint to the landlord on 7 August 2023. She said the resident had received “unacceptable service and mistreatment” by the landlord. She complained of its poor level of communication. She also raised concerns that the resident was still living in a hotel room with no access to a kitchen, his belongings or his “personal space”. She said he was struggling to eat, sleep or work due to the stress from the situation.
At the end of October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. He said he had been told when moving to the hotel in July 2023 that work would take 2 to 3 days. He said he was still in a hotel and was struggling to pay for lunch and dinner every day, while no attempt had been made to complete repair work. Later that month the landlord told the resident:
1. it would log a formal complaint for him.
2. it would contact him about the support for meals and other reimbursement he was entitled to.
3. it would chase the repairs team about work to his property.
In early November 2023 the resident told the landlord that his housing officer had ignored his emails and telephone calls requesting updates. He said his daughter had made a complaint to the landlord on 7 August 2023 and he was still awaiting a response to this. Later that month the landlord contacted the resident. It apologised for the lack of response to his complaint and asked whether he still wanted to progress this. The same day the resident confirmed that he wanted to proceed with his complaint. He said:
1. the current situation had “dragged on” since July 2023.
2. communication had been poor, and he had been “ignored”.
3. he had been moved from hotel to hotel at short notice and his requests to avoid certain hotels had been ignored.
4. he had suffered “physically, mentally and financially” as a result of not being able to return home.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 19 December 2023. It said:
1. it recognised the work had been ongoing for “some years” without resolution.
2. it was finalising an appropriate remedial plan.
3. a joint visit had been completed with its contractor on 7 November 2023 and it was waiting for a quote for work to be approved.
4. it anticipated that work would start in January 2024 and would take 4 to 6 weeks to complete.
The landlord said the decant to temporary accommodation had been necessary due to the extensive nature of the work. It said:
1. it had not anticipated this work would take so long, and there had been no suitable properties available to move the resident to. For this reason, it had placed him in a hotel.
2. it could not make longer bookings for the hotel as it did not know how long the temporary accommodation would be needed.
3. it had tried to keep the resident in 1 hotel, but this was not always possible because of hotel availability.
4. it appreciated this did not excuse the disruption caused to the resident.
The landlord noted the resident’s concerns. It said that the housing officer had been in contact with him, but the frequency of this contact should have been agreed with the resident. It apologised for this and said it would ensure regular contact in the future.
The landlord said it had now offered to transfer the resident to a 1 bedroom flat while work was ongoing and had paid him £1,044 in discretionary disturbance payments. In recognition of the time taken to complete the repairs it also awarded the resident £500 in compensation. The resident later declined this offer of moving to alternative accommodation as he understood work to his home was due to commence.
In July 2024 the landlord told the resident that it was trying to ascertain the latest position of repairs to his property. It said:
1. it was experiencing issues finding a contractor to complete work.
2. the case was now being overseen by its head of repairs who had again instructed the repairs team to obtain quotes with a view to completing work as soon as possible.
3. it had asked the repairs team to keep the resident updated.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The impact of the landlord’s handling on the resident’s health

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident said the landlord’s handling of repairs had a negative impact on his mental and physical health. We are sorry to learn of this, and the resident’s comments are not disputed. However, paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such as claim. As such, we have recommended that it provide the resident with information on how he can make such a claim to its insurer.
It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on his health and well-being when considering his complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of leak, damp and mould repairs in July 2021. Following this it issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident in August 2021. However, we have seen no evidence that this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
It is acknowledged that repairs remained outstanding following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of August 2021. However, have seen no evidence that the resident sought to escalate his complaint at this time, or evidence of any communication from the resident about this matter until April 2023. This investigation has therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould repairs since April 2023 when the resident made further contact to report issues. We have, however, considered the appropriateness of the landlord’s actions since that date in the context of its awareness that this was a longstanding repair.

Leaks, damp and mould repairs

The resident told the landlord in April 2023 that work identified by the surveyor in August 2021 remained outstanding. The landlord took appropriate steps later that month to resolve the leak from the bath. In its stage 1 complaint response it told the resident that a further survey of the property had been arranged for 24 May 2023. That was also appropriate given the passage of time since the previous survey. The records we have seen of this survey note that replastering and a mould wash were required. However, by the time of the structural survey on5 July 2023 the landlord had identified that significant additional work was required. It noted that work was needed to install a concrete lintel, timber joists and new flooring and ceilings.
Given the landlord had earlier identified its failure to act on the survey of August 2021, it should reasonably have taken prompt action to complete remedial work following its inspection in May 2023. But its records of work to the resident’s property between 24 May 2023 and 4 July 2023 are unclear. It noted attendance twice in June 2023, but it did not detail any work completed at that time. That was a failing in record keeping. The landlord cannot demonstrate it was taking sufficient steps to complete remedial work during that time. Had it done so, it should reasonably have identified at an earlier stage the full extent of work needed at the property.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that it had not identified, when moving him to a hotel, that the work to his property would take so long. But there is no evidence it took any appropriate steps in July 2023, or after this, to establish the likely timescale for work. It should reasonably have done so. It should have done so in order to provide the resident with a realistic timescale for the work and to consider the most appropriate temporary accommodation for him.
We have seen only very limited attempts by the landlord to keep the resident updated about any progress it was making with the work. The resident’s daughter contacted the landlord at the end of July and the beginning of August 2023 to raise concerns about the time repairs were taking and the lack of communication. There is no evidence the landlord responded, and that was a failing. It contacted the resident 3 times in late October and early November 2023. But it gave no indication of when work was likely to be completed, or why it was taking so long. As noted in the landlord’s own policy, moving to temporary accommodation was a substantial upheaval and inconvenience for the resident. The landlord should reasonably have maintained regular communication with him to let him know what work was being completed, or of any issues it had experienced doing so. An Ombudsman’s report of September 2024 focused on key learning from severe maladministration cases, specifically on landlords handling of temporary accommodation. This set out the importance of good communication by the landlord to manage the stress, anxiety and uncertainty that may be experienced by the resident. Good communication with the resident could have helped to manage his expectations about when the work was likely to be completed. It could also have helped the landlord to respond to any concerns about the suitability of temporary accommodation. That it did not communicate well with the resident during this time was a failing. This failure showed a lack of regard for the level of upheaval and inconvenience the resident was experiencing.
Records show the landlord completed a mould wash at the property in early September 2023. But there is no evidence of any significant steps towards completing the work identified by the structural survey in July 2023. It told the resident in early November 2023 that a joint visit between a contractor and its surveying team had been booked for 7 November 2023. But we have seen no evidence of this visit. Nor have we seen the report of work the landlord told the resident it would be sharing with the contactor in December 2023. These were further record keeping failings. The absence of these records means the landlord cannot demonstrate it was making any real progress towards completing the repairs.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord told the resident that it anticipated repair work would not start until January 2024 and that it would take 4 to 6 weeks to complete. But there is no evidence it was communicating with contractors or its own operatives about completing the work. In February 2024 the landlord acknowledged to the resident that it had exceeded the time usually taken to complete this type of extensive work. But it did not explain why that was. By then the resident had been living in a hotel room for 7 months. The landlord should reasonably have expanded on the reasons why the work had not even started. While it said it needed to obtain 3 quotes for the work it did not explain why it still needed to do so, 7 months on from the structural survey. Nor did it explain why the position had changed since its stage 2 response. At that time, it referred to sharing a report of work with a contractor and starting work in January 2024.
It told the resident in February 2024 that it had escalated the matter to its head of repairs and that it was due to meet with a contractor the following week. It said it would ensure the work was expedited. But, again, records do not detail any meeting with contractors around this time. That was a further record keeping failing. The landlord cannot demonstrate it was making progress in completing the repairs at this time. By March 2024 the landlord told the resident the work required to the property was “significant” and would likely take several months to complete. But there is no evidence the level of repairs were any different to those identified in July 2023. Despite the resident asking the landlord in April 2024 for a “timeline” for the repairs, there is no evidence it responded to him. Instead, at the end of that month, it noted that the repair was being passed to its major works team to oversee due to the “extent of works”. It is unclear why it took more than 9 months for the landlord to identify that work was better dealt with by the major works team. As noted above, there was no apparent change in the extent of work identified, and no clear progress was made in completing the repairs between July 2023 and April 2024. Given this, the delay until April 2024 in identifying which area of business was best placed to manage these repairs was a failing.
When the landlord wrote to the resident in July 2024, it said that it was having issues finding a contractor to complete the work. It said its head of repairs had instructed staff to obtain 3 further quotes for work with a view to starting the repairs as soon as possible. While it is acknowledged that repair work may sometimes be delayed by issues engaging contractors, in this case there is no evidence the landlord had taken appropriate or well-planned action to identify contractors to complete work. As result, work to the resident’s property remains outstanding, and he remains living in a hotel. That is particularly poor given the landlord was aware it had already delayed in completing repair work identified by the survey of August 2021. The landlord also failed to maintain appropriate communication with the resident about repair work, leaving him with no clear indication of when repairs were likely to start or finish. Its failings in its handling of leaks, damp and mould repairs to the resident’s property are significant and amount to severe maladministration.
We have considered the impact of the landlord’s failings further below. However, we have also ordered that it complete a senior management review of the position with work to the resident’s property. It should then provide the resident with a clear and detailed plan about steps it will take to undertake this work, along with timeframes for work.

Concerns about the temporary accommodation.

The landlord moved the resident to a hotel in July 2023. It is not disputed that this was necessary, due to the extent of work needed to the property. The resident said he was told by the landlord that the work would take 2 to 3 days. Its internal notes around this time do not record a discussion with the resident about timescales for work. It noted that it would book the resident into a hotel and then look to move him to a property depending on family composition. Later that day it recorded that the resident lived alone and was happy to go to a hotel while it undertook work to the property. However, as outlined above, there is no evidence the landlord appropriately considered how long work was likely to take.
Given the extent of work identified in the structural survey on 5 July 2023, it is unclear how the landlord could have envisaged that work was likely to be completed very quickly. But, in any event, it should have reviewed the ongoing situation with the work so that it could consider the suitability of the resident’s temporary accommodation. While the landlord said in its stage 2 response that there were no suitable properties available when it moved the resident, records we have seen do not confirm this. Instead, it appears the landlord moved the resident to a hotel as he had agreed to this. But, as noted above, the resident had been under the impression the work would only take a short time. The resident’s daughter made contact twice at the end of July and early August 2023 to raise concerns that her father remained living in a hotel room. But there is no evidence the landlord reviewed the position with work or considered whether suitable temporary accommodation was available. Nor did it respond to the resident or his daughter about the concerns raised. These were failings that left the resident without any indication of how long he was likely to be living in a hotel. The landlord also showed no concern about what the resident’s daughter said about the distress and inconvenience the resident was experiencing.
The resident told the landlord and us of the inconvenience he experienced as a result of being moved from hotel to hotel at short notice. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it could not make longer hotel bookings as it did not know how long the repair work would take. But, as noted earlier, there is no evidence it made any real attempts to establish this. Given the extent of work already identified, the landlord should have made an ongoing consideration of the suitability of the temporary accommodation it had placed the resident in. Its own policy indicates that hotel accommodation would generally only be suitable for periods of less than 2 weeks. As noted in the Ombudsman’s report of September 2024, referred to above, it is vital that landlords make sure they place residents in temporary accommodation that is suitable for the timeframe. This should also be reviewed and managed throughout the move. That there is no evidence the landlord did so is a failing.
The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response in December 2023 that it had now offered to transfer the resident to a 1 bedroom flat while work was ongoing. We have seen that it corresponded with him about this offer in January 2024. But by this time, he had been living in a hotel for 6 months. There is no evidence the landlord had made attempts to explore alternative accommodation in the intervening time. We note that the resident declined the offer of a 1 bedroom flat at the end of January 2024. He advised the landlord that he was doing so as he believed repairs to his property were due to start and it did not make sense for him to move at this “late hour”. In line with what he had been told in the stage 2 complaint response, he understandably expected that repairs would start imminently.
We note the landlord has since offered the resident a permanent move to a 2 bedroom house in July 2024. But he has expressed his understandable wish for the landlord to focus on completing repair work so that he can return to his 3 bedroom property.
The resident’s daughter outlined concerns, in her complaint of August 2023, that the resident was having to spend more money paying for lunch and dinner as he had no access to a kitchen. But the landlord gave no response to this until the resident raised the matter again in October 2023. Following this, it said it would contact the resident about any reimbursement he was entitled to. But the landlord should have clearly communicated with the resident from the outset about extra costs it would cover, in line with its policy. That it did not clearly communicate with the resident about this at the outset was a failing. He should not have needed to repeatedly chase the landlord before it confirmed it would reimburse him. It was understandably a matter that caused him some concern. While we have not seen records relating to payments, the resident has said he has received around £3,000 from the landlord. We have ordered that it contact the resident to offer to consider any other additional costs he has incurred during this time
We have found significant failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about temporary accommodation. It failed to consider a realistic timescale for the work. It also failed to communicate appropriately with the resident during this time or make timely consideration of alternative temporary accommodation. These failings amount to severe maladministration.
So far, the landlord has offered the resident £500 in recognition of its failings. It also said that it had made a discretionary disturbance payment to him of £1,044. We note this payment was made in September 2023. However, the landlord has not clarified to us how the payment was calculated. Nor was this confirmed to the resident. That the landlord was not clear and transparent about how the payment had been calculated was a failing. As a result, it is not apparent what the payment was intended to cover. Nonetheless, the level of payment awarded by the landlord to date does not adequately compensate the resident for the impact of its failings.
With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the circumstances of the case, we have considered the resident’s loss of amenity since July 2023. That was when he was moved to a hotel by the landlord. We acknowledge that it was appropriate for the landlord to move him at this time so work could be safely completed. But, as a result of the landlord’s failings, he has remained living in a hotel room for 15 months. The resident has been caused significant upheaval and inconvenience over a prolonged period, without any indication of when he would be able to return to his home. During this time, he has been unable to enjoy and make full use of his 3 bedroom house. He has said that he has lived in the hotel with just 1 suitcase of possessions. He has needed to return to his home weekly to wash and change clothes. We have calculated the loss of amenity to be 80% of the property.
The landlord has only provided details of the resident’s current weekly rent. Using this amount, we have calculated the total compensation for loss of amenity as £6,974. This represents 80% of the rent payment from 12 July 2023 to date. It is acknowledged that it is not a precise calculation. However, it is considered to be a fair and reasonable amount to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failings upon the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of his home. We note the awards of £500 and £1,044 already made by the landlord. These appropriately recognise the impact of the landlord’s communication failings, and the distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of the prolonged repairs.
We note that the resident remains in a hotel. We have further ordered that the landlord contact him to review temporary accommodation options.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. But its initial response to the resident on 12 May 2023 was more than 2 weeks outside that target. However, it appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this delay. We also note that it had taken steps in the intervening time to respond to the repair concerns the resident raised. It also reasonably set out steps it would take to resolve the remaining concerns. It confirmed it would survey the property later that month. However, given that the previous survey in August 2021 had not been actioned, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with a point of contact and monitor work to completion. That the landlord did do so at this stage was a failing. It could have helped to ensure timely action was taken to progress the work.
After the resident’s daughter made further contact in August 2023 to raise concerns about the progress of repairs, the landlord should have escalated the complaint. It noted that the resident’s daughter wanted to escalate the complaint at this time. But it took no action to do so until the resident made further contact at the end of October 2023. That was a failing which meant the landlord delayed investigating the resident’s concerns about his temporary accommodation and the progress of repairs.
In line with its complaints policy the landlord should have provided the resident with a stage 2 response within 20 working days. But it did not do so until 19 December 2023, more than 4 months after the resident’s daughter had made contact. This can only have exacerbated the resident’s frustration and concern about the poor communication he was receiving in respect of the repairs. The landlord apologised for this delay in its eventual stage 2 complaint response. But it should have gone further and considered an award of compensation to recognise the impact of this delay. That it did not do so was a failing.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that its communication with the resident could have been better. It noted that it should have agreed the frequency of updates. But there is no evidence that it then made any arrangement to do so. In February 2024 the resident’s son asked that the landlord provide the resident with “proactive updates” about work, instead of the resident having to chase every couple of weeks. The landlord should reasonably have put in place a robust plan for communicating with the resident following its stage 2 complaint response. The resident had been living in a hotel for more than 5 months by that time. As noted earlier, good communication could have helped to manage the stress, anxiety and uncertainty experienced by the resident. That the landlord did not take steps to ensure good communication was a further complaint handling failing. Overall, and in the context of the significant uncertainty the resident was experiencing during the time he was making this complaint, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
So far, the landlord has made no award to the resident in respect of complaint handling failings. With reference to the circumstances of the case and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of these failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s concerns about the impact of the landlord’s handling of issues on his health falls outside the Ombudsman jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to review temporary accommodation options.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. the chief executive for the landlord should write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. the landlord should pay the resident compensation £9,018, made up of:
  1. £6,974 in recognition of the impact of its failings upon the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of his home.
  2. £500 and £1,044 already awarded in respect of the time taken to complete repairs and a discretionary disturbance payment.
  3. £500 in recognition of the impact of complaint handling failings.
  4. any payments already made should be deducted from the total.
3. the landlord should contact the resident to offer to consider any other additional costs he has incurred as a result of his move away from his own home.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should complete a senior management review of the position with work to the resident’s property. It should then provide the resident with a clear and detailed plan about steps it will take to undertake this work, along with timeframes. This review should also consider what circumstances have resulted in the work to the resident’s property being outstanding for more than 15 months.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should carry out a senior management review of the temporary accommodation offered to the resident. The review should be presented to its senior leadership team. It should include a review of:
1. policies and procedures and guidance in place in respect of managing and reviewing the suitability of temporary accommodation.
2. processes and guidance in place to ensure effective communication with residents during temporary moves.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.
Upon completion of work to the resident’s property the landlord should consider whether any further payment is due to the resident in respect of his loss of amenity.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should:
1. review circumstances that led to the August 2021 survey not being actioned and consider whether there are adequate measures in place to stop this failing reoccurring.
2. provide the resident with information on how he can make a personal injury claim to its insurer.