Haringey London Borough Council (202404084)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. In June 2023, the landlord upgraded the intercom system in the building. The resident complained that the landlord did not install the new entry phone system in his property, leaving him without a working intercom for several months.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Intercom repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Service failure for its handling of intercom repairs.
   2. Service failure for its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Intercom repairs

4. The landlord did not ensure timely completion of the intercom repairs and it did not demonstrate sufficient attempts to contact the resident to arrange the repairs appointment to install the handset. The landlord identified delays and missed appointments and tried to put things right by offering compensation. However, the compensation offered by the landlord did not sufficiently remedy the impact of the delays.

The associated complaint

5. The landlord did not meet the timescales in its complaints policy for responding to the complaint at either stage of the process. Although the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered compensation, the amount was insufficient to remedy the delay at stage 2.

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.

6. The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to deliver effective, efficient and timely repairs.
7. The landlord acknowledged that its contractor failed to attend a repairs appointment on 19 June 2023. Following this missed appointment, the resident chased the landlord about the repairs on 6 July 2023, 1 August 2023 and 26 August 2023. The landlord has not evidenced it responded to the resident to re-schedule an appointment. This was a failure to ensure efficient and timely repairs in line with its policy. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to complete the repairs after the resident raised his complaint on 7 September 2023.
8. In its stage 1 response dated 16 October 2023, the landlord said its contractor had made attempts to gain access to complete the works. However, it has not provided any evidence to reflect this finding.
9. The landlord is responsible for maintaining a clear audit trail of events and providing evidence of this to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that good records will enable a landlord to explain what has happened and ensures that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. It is unclear whether records have been maintained and not provided, or whether the lack of evidence is indicative of a failure to communicate with the resident.
10. The landlord said it would contact the resident to arrange the repair within 48 hours of the stage 1 response. However, there is no evidence that it did so. The contractor wrote to residents in the building on 3 November 2023 to arrange an appointment on 11 November 2023 for new handsets to be installed. This appointment was then re-scheduled, seemingly at the resident’s request, for 30 November 2023. However, the repairs appointment was cancelled on the same day as the contractor had not received the handsets. This was the second missed appointment. There is no evidence that the contractor or the landlord updated the resident about when it would obtain the required handsets.
11. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay £10 compensation for missed appointments and the amount will increase to £20 for further missed appointments for the same repair. The landlord offered the resident £30 for the 2 missed appointments which was therefore in line with its compensation policy.
12. There is no evidence that the landlord or the contractor contacted the resident about the intercom repairs again until 7 February 2024, indicating a further 2-month delay. The contractor evidenced that it contacted the resident on 2 further occasions during February to schedule the repairs. The contractor installed the handset in March 2024.
13. The resident was therefore without a working intercom system for more than 8 months. The landlord did not demonstrate it had made sufficient or timely efforts to arrange the installation of the handset within this time or that it properly monitored the contractor’s handling of the repairs. The landlord therefore failed to ensure timely repairs, and it did not maintain regular contact with the resident to give updates following the failed appointment in November 2023.
14. In addition to the compensation for the missed appointments, the landlord offered £20 for its failure to contact the resident about the repair. The overall compensation of £50 offered by the landlord was insufficient to remedy the impact of the failing. The resident incurred time and trouble in chasing the landlord, as well as inconvenience due to being without a working intercom system for an extended period.
15. The resident’s estimated service charges for 2024/2025 stated that the estimated charges for the controlled entry system during 2023/2024 was £31.64. The landlord did not provide the actual charges.
16. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation. This amount takes into account the time and trouble incurred by the resident, as well as the service charges paid during the 8-month period. The amount is also in line with our remedies guidance for service failures where the landlord’s compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified.

17. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will provide stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses in 20 working days of an escalation request. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states if the landlord decided an extension to the timescales is needed, an extension must be no more than 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Any extensions must be clearly explained to the resident.
18. The resident complained on 7 September 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 September 2023. It contacted the resident on 21 September 2023 and said there would be a delay issuing its stage 1 response, which it would send no later than 5 October 2023. However, the landlord did not adhere to the timeframe given, and it sent the stage 1 response on 16 October 2023, which was 27 days after the resident raised the initial complaint, and therefore not in accordance with its complaints policy.
19. The resident escalated the complaint on 22 October 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this on 31 October 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 December 2023, apologising for the delay and stating it would provide a response by 4 January 2024. However, the landlord issued the stage 2 response on 12 April 2024, which was approximately 100 working days outside of the 20-working day timeframe. This was a failing by the landlord to act in accordance with its complaints policy.
20. The landlord appropriately identified this delay and it tried to put things right by offering £50 compensation. However, this was a lengthy delay which prevented the resident from bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman sooner. We have therefore found that the amount offered was insufficient to remedy the impact of the failing. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation

Learning

21. The landlord should ensure it adheres to the timescales set out in its policy for responding to complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. Clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints. It allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, as well as provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents. The landlord did not show that it or its contractor made enough attempts to contact the resident.

Communication

23. The landlord failed to adequately monitor the repairs being conducted by its contractor. It should ensure its contractors make reasonable efforts to contact residents to complete outstanding repairs.