Haringey London Borough Council (202321928)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321928

Haringey London Borough Council

5 June 2025

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 landlord’s handling of:

Repairs to the front door and windows at the resident’s property.
The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder with the landlord at the property, a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
Between 2013 and 2014 the landlord replaced the front door, and windows at the property. The resident paid £12,000 as part of her contribution to these planned works.
On 21 February 2023 the resident reported there were cracks in the wooden front door as well as cracks and signs of rot in the wooden window frames at the property. The resident said the draught excluder for the front door had broken off, and the door was sticking which made it difficult to open and close.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord sent an operative to carry out an inspection of the front door and windows. Between 29 March 2023 and May 2023, the resident chased the landlord for it to provide an update following this inspection. On 4 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint because it was not responding to her.
On 4 June 2023 the resident submitted a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the front door, and windows at the property. The resident wanted the landlord to explain why it had not responded to her requests for updates. She also asked the landlord to complete the repairs to the front door and windows.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 June 2023. The landlord apologised for its delays in its communication and handling of the repair. It said it would carry out a further inspection of the front door, and windows at the property. It awarded the resident £102 compensation.
On 27 June 2023 the landlord carried out an inspection at the resident’s property. The surveyor said the front door, and all of the windows needed to be replaced.
On 7 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said this was because the landlord had not carried out any works, and it had not responded to her requests for further updates after its stage 1 complaint response.
On 20 November 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it had been unable to find a suitable contractor to replace the windows and doors. It said this was because the property was in a conservation zone, and the works needed to be completed like for like, by a contractor who specialised in wooden replacements.
The landlord said it would carry out a further inspection to identify if it could carry out any temporary repairs, whilst it continued to look for a contractor to replace the front door and windows at the property. It awarded the resident a further £200 compensation in view of the delay.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating that she wanted the landlord to identify a single point of contact (SPOC) to manage the repairs to the front door, and windows at the property.
The resident said the landlord carried out repairs to the windows at the property between 13 March 2025 and 14 March 2025. She said these repairs were carried out by the landlord’s operatives rather than a specialist contractor. The resident said the landlord has not carried out any repairs to the front door.
The resident wanted the landlord to:
1. Carry out the repairs to the front door or replace it if it cannot be repaired.
2. Provide an explanation for:
  1. Why it spent 2 years looking for a specialised contractor and then chose to carry out the repairs to the windows itself.
  2. Why it has provided inconsistent information on whether the front door, and windows needed to be either repaired or replaced.
The resident also wanted the landlord to apologise and provide an increase in compensation for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to her by the landlord’s handling of these repairs.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement at section 5.2.(a) states the landlord will maintain, repair, decorate, renew, amend, clean, repoint, paint, grain, varnish, whiten, and colour as applicable to the structure of the building and in particular the external walls, window frames, and glass in windows and timbers.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it categorises the replacement of windows and doors as major repairs. There is no specific timescale in the policy for major repairs.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. It will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond, at either stage.

The repairs to the front door, and windows at the property.

On 21 February 2023 the resident reported the front door at the property was sticking which made it difficult to open and close. The resident also said the front door and windows were cracking and had signs of rot.
The landlord’s operative attended the property 35 days later, on 28 March 2023. The resident said the operative told them the inspection was not within their remit, and they left without carrying out any inspection or works. This was not an appropriate response by the landlord. We would expect a landlord to send qualified operatives who are suitably prepared for its prearranged appointments. This is to prevent multiple visits, and unnecessary delays in carrying out repairs for which it is responsible. This is evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of its repairs.

On 29 March 2023 the landlord raised a new works order for its surveyor to carry out an inspection of the front door and windows at the property. It also raised a works order for an operative to rub down and paint the front door. We have seen evidence the resident chased the landlord between 29 March 2023 and June 2023. She asked the landlord to provide her with updates as to when it would carry out these works.
It was right the landlord raised these repairs. However, the landlord should have communicated and kept the resident updated on its handling of them including timescales for when they would be completed. This is evidence of poor communication.
On 23 June 2023 an operative of the landlord visited the property. The resident has said the operative told her they did not know the reason they had been sent. The operative then left without carrying out any works to the front door, or the windows. We understand this appointment had been raised for the operative to rub down the front door and then paint it. It was not appropriate the resident had a second wasted appointment which we understand added to the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
On 27 June 2023 the landlord carried out an inspection of the front door, and windows at the property. The surveyor confirmed that they all needed to be replaced as they were beyond repair. This inspection had taken place 126 days after the resident reported this repair. This was a significant delay. The landlord should have arranged to carry out this inspection within 28 days, in line with industry best practice.
Between July 2023 and October 2023, the resident continued to chase the landlord for it to provide an update about the repairs to her front door and windows at the property. She requested the landlord provide her with a point of contact for the handling of these repairs due to the landlord not responding to her repeated requests for updates.

We understand the landlord’s lack of communication during this time added to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, who was ultimately trying to seek a resolution to the repair of her front door and windows. We would expect a landlord to acknowledge and respond to communication from its residents within 10 working days.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint on 20 November 2023, it told the resident that the property was in a conservation zone, and it had been unable to find the specialised contractor it needed to replace the timber front doors and windows at the property. It said this was because they had to be replaced like for like as per the legislation in carrying out repairs within a conservation zone. The landlord explained the original contractor who had completed the previous installation had been dissolved but it would continue to seek a suitable contractor and would keep the resident updated.
It was appropriate the landlord advised the resident what had caused its delays in repairing the windows. However, it should not have taken 4 months for it to advise the resident of this information which is when the landlord confirmed they needed to be replaced. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide this update within 10 working days of it being in receipt of this information.
It is accepted that if external doors and windows need to be fully replaced this can take longer than 28 days, which is the industry best practice for a routine repair to be completed. This is because new doors and windows would need to be measured, manufactured and fitted. We also acknowledge that where a landlord needs to identify a specialist contractor, this can mean the process can take longer than usual to complete these works. However, we would expect a landlord to keep a resident updated, and for it to provide proportionate estimated timescales for when it would be able to complete the works.

On 7 December 2023 the landlord carried out a further inspection of the front door and windows at the resident’s property. It did this to identify if it could carry out any temporary repairs. We understand the landlord then carried out the repairs to the windows without the use of a specialist contractor between 13 March 2025 and 14 March 2025. This was 463 days after its most recent inspection of the windows. It was also 752 days after the resident raised the repair. This was a significant delay. The landlord should have carried out any repairs within 28 days. We also understand the resident has been left confused and frustrated at the landlord’s lack of communication, and decision on changing its mind on using a specialist contractor after 2 years, as well as whether the windows needed to be repaired or replaced.
We also understand the landlord has failed to carry out any repairs to the front door of the property. It is not reasonable the resident is still waiting for this repair over 2 years and 3 months later. The landlord has not explained why it has not repaired the door.
We will make an order for the landlord to:
1. Carry out an up-to-date inspection of the front door at the property.
2. Carry out a post inspection of the repairs it carried out to the windows and confirm if any of these windows need to be replaced.
The landlord is then to set out a schedule of works for which it is responsible, including timescales, which it is to share with the resident and the Ombudsman.
We will also make an order for the landlord to write to the resident and explain why its operatives carried out repairs to the windows without using a specialist contractor, after stating they needed to be replaced by a specialist contractor for over 2 years.
For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the front door, and windows at the property.
The landlord awarded the resident £302 compensation in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response in respect of this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It is positive the landlord attempted to put things right, but we do not consider the landlord went far enough. We have also taken into consideration the significant delay in the repairs it completed after its final response, and that some of the repairs remain outstanding.
We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. Therefore, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referred to above we will increase this to £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its significant delays in the landlord’s handling of these repairs. The landlord’s offer of £302 can be deducted from the total of £500 compensation, if it has already been paid. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord has made errors which had a significant impact on the resident over a prolonged period of time.

The resident’s associated complaint.

On 4 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint due to it not responding to her request for an update about the repairs to the front door and windows at the property. We have seen no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s request to raise a complaint within 5 working days in line with its complaints policy. This is evidence of the landlord’s poor communication in the handling of its complaints.
On 4 June 2023 the resident submitted a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the front door, and windows at the property. The landlord then provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 June 2023. This was 10 working days later. This was appropriate because it was in line with its complaints policy which states it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of its acknowledgment.

The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 7 August 2023. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 20 November 2023. This was 75 working days later. We have seen evidence the landlord communicated with the resident during this period that it needed to extend its stage 2 complaint response. It was positive the landlord communicated to the resident that it needed further time to respond to her complaint.
However, we would expect a landlord to provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling). Where the landlord may need further time to respond to a resident’s complaint at this stage, this should not exceed a further 20 working days.
Therefore, where the landlord needed further time and had explained this to the resident; it should have provided its stage 2 complaint response within 40 working days to be in line with the Code. This is evidence of poor handling of its complaints.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation. The remedies guidance gives examples of an award in this range where there has been a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord which did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the front door, and windows at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. This apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration, and service failure in which it expresses a sincere regret for its handling of:
1. The repairs to the front door, and windows at the property.
2. The associated complaint.
The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £600. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:
1. £500 for its maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the front door, and windows at the property. This includes the £302 it awarded in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
2. £100 for its service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
The landlord is to:
1. Carry out an up-to-date inspection of the front door at the property.
2. Carry out a post inspection of the repairs it carried out to the windows and confirm if any of these windows need to be replaced.
The landlord is then to set out a schedule of works for which it is responsible, including timescales, which it is to share with the resident and the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to write to the resident and explain why its operatives carried out repairs to the windows without using a specialist contractor, after stating they needed to be replaced by a specialist contractor for over 2 years.
The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this report.