Haringey London Borough Council (202514601)

Background

1. The resident lives in a top floor flat and repeatedly contacted the landlord about missing loft insulation. He also reportedrepairs to the garden gate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Missing loft insulation.
   2. Repairs to the garden gate.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to missing loft insulation.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs to the garden gate.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Missing loft insulation

4. There was no evidence to show the landlord has completed the actions stated in its complaint responses in relation to carrying out a loft survey and increasing the loft insulation.

Repairs to the garden gate

5. The repairs to the garden gate remain outstanding over 626 calendar days after the repair was first reported to the landlord. The landlord has not kept the resident updated.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord issued 2 stage 1 responses which is not in line with its resident feedback policy or our Complaints Handling Code (the Code). It did not escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Code which considerably delayed the resident receiving a stage 2 response.

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.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs are defined as repairs that can be completed in a single visit. It says it will attend these appointments within 28 calendar days.
8. On 1 November 2023 a work order was raised to inspect and remedy loft insulation. The landlord’s repair logs stated this work order was completed on 12 July 2024. However, it was unclear from the landlord’s records what work had been carried out and why there was such a delay in the work order being completed. This timeframe was a failure to follow the policy timescales.
9. The resident’s complaint dated 29 January 2025 stated that he did not think the loft insulation had been completed. Therefore, he had asked some workmen who had attended another job in the loft to take photos of the insulation.
10. The resident’s complaint said that these photos showed there was no insulation between the plasterboard ceiling and the roof structure. He said the absence of insulation can facilitate and exacerbate fires spreading. The resident also said the inadequate insulation was increasing his heating costs.
11. The landlord’s first stage 1 response dated 14 February 2025 said it had carried out a fire risk assessment. It did not state in its response when this was carried out. Carrying out a fire risk assessment was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
12. However, the stage 1 response said that access to the loft was not possible during the fire risk assessment as this required 2 people due to the design of the loft hatch. The landlord said an action from the fire risk assessment was to instruct a loft survey. It did not say when the loft survey would take place.
13. The fire risk assessment report said the assessment was “conducted” on 20 February 2025. It was unclear how the landlord’s first stage 1 response, issued 6 calendar days before this date, was able to contain the information about the outcome of the fire risk assessment.
14. The resident requested a copy of the report on 24 February 2025. The fire risk assessment was sent to the resident with the landlord’s stage 2 response, which was issued on 30 September 2025. This was an unreasonable delay in providing the resident with a copy of the report.
15. There was no evidence to show when, or if, the loft survey took place. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the loft insulation would be checked and increased to current standards, if required. This implied the loft survey had not yet been carried out. This was over 7 months after this action was identified in the fire risk assessment.
16. As there was no evidence that a loft survey was carried out as per the action raised in the fire risk assessment, the resident’s concerns about fire safety remain unresolved.
17. Despite saying the loft insulation would be checked and increased, if required, the landlord’s stage 2 response also said an energy performance certificate (EPC) was produced for the property in May 2025. The landlord said the EPC stated there was 200mm of loft insulation. It said the loft insulation would be increased by 70mm. This was because 270mm is the current standard for loft insulation.
18. The insulation depth not being in line with current standards may have had potential heating cost implications for the resident, like he raised in his complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge this point in its complaint responses.
19. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations for when the loft insulation would be increased. On 23 April 2026 the resident told us the landlord had not increased the loft insulation yet. We have found no evidence in the landlord’s repair logs that this work has been completed.
20. The landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation in its stage 2 response. It said the compensation had been awarded for poor handling of the repairs and the lack of communication. As the landlord awarded £100 for all the complaint points raised, we have attributed £50 of this compensation to each repair complaint point.
21. The evidence showed that the poor handling of this repair and the lack of communication about it has continued to date.
22. Therefore, in line with our compensation guidance, we have awarded the resident an additional £250. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by the continued delays and poor communication about the outstanding work and fire safety concerns relating to the loft insulation.

23. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 December 2024 about his concerns regarding the garden gate. He said as the gate was not locking, somebody had secured it using a motorcycle lock. The resident said this was not appropriate and a repair was needed. He said this had previously been raised with the landlord but not resolved.
24. The landlord did not reply to the resident’s email. This was inappropriate. This led to the resident making a complaint.
25. The landlord’s repair logs showed a work order had been raised on 5 August 2024 about the gate not locking. Despite this work order being listed as complete, we were unable to establish from the repair records what work, if any, had been carried out.
26. The landlord’s first stage 1 response dated 14 February 2025 said that this job was attended to on 29 October 2024. It did not state what happened at this appointment but said a job had now been issued to a specialist contractor. The landlord said the contractor would carry out a survey and then re-attend to carry out the repair.
27. The landlord said that it could not advise when this appointment would take place as the contractor manages their own diary. This was unreasonable as the landlord could have contacted the contractor to find out when it was going to attend.
28. This was also inappropriate. If the landlord contracts out its repairs, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Our Spotlight Report on repairs states landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services. This did not appear to have been the case with this repair.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 response issued on 30 September 2025 said that an operative had been scheduled to attend on 29 September 2025. This appointment was 227 calendar days after the landlord advised that a contractor would carry out a survey and then re-attend to carry out the repair. This length of time considerably exceeded any timescales stated within the landlord’s repair policy.
30. The landlord said that the appointment had been to measure and order some temporary metal mesh fencing. It said a follow-up appointment had been booked for “Thursday” to allow time for delivery of the fencing. However, the landlord’s repair logs recorded the follow-up appointment was booked for “Thursday next week” which was a different date. It appeared that the landlord provided inaccurate information in its response regarding the follow up appointment.
31. We were unable to establish from the landlord’s repair records when the temporary fencing was put up and why it was. It appeared from photographs that the temporary fencing was potentially put up to prevent unauthorised access to the communal garden while the gate did not lock.
32. The stage 2 response did not advise when the repair to the gate would be carried out. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 16 November 2025. He wanted to know when the gate was going to be fixed as he said the temporary fencing had been in place for 7 weeks. The resident expressed concern that the landlord’s delay in mending the gate could result in increased costs for residents should the temporary fencing be on hire.
33. The resident highlighted to the landlord that in putting the temporary fence up, it had blocked what could serve as a fire escape. He felt residents should not be having to choose between security and fire escape routes. The resident said the gate just needed to be fixed. There was no evidence to show the landlord replied to this email.
34. The resident told us on 23 April 2026 that the temporary fencing was still in place, the gate had still not been fixed, and he had not heard from the landlord about the matter. As of this date, the repair to the gate remains unresolved for 626 calendar days after the first work order was raised for the job. This exceeds any timescales stated in the landlord’s repairs policy.
35. As referenced above, the landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation during its complaints process, and we have attributed £50 to this repair matter. The evidence showed that the poor handling of this repair and the lack of communication about it has continued to date.
36. Therefore, in line with our compensation guidance, we have awarded the resident an additional £150. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by the continued delays and poor communication about the outstanding repair to the garden gate.

37. The landlord’s resident feedback policy, including complaint definition and timescales, were compliant with the Code.
38. The landlord issued 2 stage 1 responses. One was dated 14 February 2025 and the second was dated 11 July 2025. Both told the resident that if he was dissatisfied with the outcome, he could escalate his complaint to stage 2. Issuing 2 stage 1 responses for the same complaint was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
39. The landlord missed 3 opportunities to escalate the resident’s complaint in response to his communication on 24 February 2025, 10 July 2025 and 22 July 2025.
40. The landlord’s second stage 1 response issued on 11 July 2025 did not provide answers to the points the resident had made. Therefore, the resident contacted us for support to escalate his complaint. The resident should not have needed to have contacted us to get a stage 2 response. This should have been provided by the landlord in line with the Code.
41. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 September 2025. In its covering email, it said a stage 2 response was initially due on 11 April 2025. This date was over 6 months earlier. It apologised for the delay.
42. The landlord said the delay was due to a large backlog of stage 2 cases. However, it had failed to acknowledge that it had issued 2 stage 1 responses and not correctly escalated the resident’s complaint.
43. The landlord did not award any compensation for its complaint handling failures. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of up to £100 compensation are appropriate to put things right when there has been maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord should ensure it keeps thorough records of the outcomes of its surveys and work orders. We would encourage the landlord to review the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management and the key learnings in our Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs. This is to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its record keeping.

Communication

45. The landlord should ensure it has appropriate communication with its contractors to ensure oversight of outsourced work. We would encourage the landlord to review the key learnings in our Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs. This is to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its communication with contractors and oversight of them.