Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Haringey London Borough Council (202211692)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211692

Haringey London Borough Council

07 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken fence.
  2. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has held a lease with the landlord since January 2021. The property is a ground floor flat. The resident lives at the property with her spouse and child. The landlord is a local authority and the freeholder of the building.
  2. In January 2021, the resident requested the landlord repair the broken fence in the back garden. The landlord made an appointment for October 2021 but did not attend. It rescheduled the appointment for November 2021. The contractor attended and shored up the fence. It said it would return in April 2022 to complete the repair. Between April 2022 and September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions asking it to provide a completion date for the repair.
  3. In November 2021, the resident complained about the landlord’s delay in carrying out the repair. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered compensation. It said repairs were expected to take place in January 2023.
  4. Between January 2023 and August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord frequently asking when the contractor would attend. In September 2023, the contractor attended but said it could not carry out any work due to a scaffold in place. In January 2024, the landlord removed the scaffold. It repaired the fence on 14 February 2024. This was 3 years and 1 month after it was first reported.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the time taken to repair the fence and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for consideration.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken fence.

  1. The resident’s lease with the landlord states it is responsible for the boundary wall and fences of, and in the curtilage of the building. The landlord has not provided any policy or procedure that set out the timescales within which it will respond to repair requests from leaseholders. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman will refer to the repair’s timescales set out in the landlord’s Repairs Handbook. This handbook applies to residents with a secure or introductory tenancy. It states that fencing is considered a planned repair. It says it will inspect within 28 days and tell the resident at the inspection when the job will be carried out.
  2. In January 2021, the resident reported the fence was broken and needed repair. Between January 2021 and September 2022, the landlord did not carry out the repair. In November 2021, the resident made a complaint. The landlord provided its final complaint response in October 2022. It said internal communication failures and administrative errors had caused the delay. It acknowledged it had provided a poor service, apologised, and offered £422 compensation. It calculated its compensation offer by offering £10 per week up to the expected date of completion. It said this would be 12 January 2023.
  3. When there are failings by a landlord as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response and offer to pay compensation up the anticipated completion date was fair and the amount offered was proportionate to the impact on the resident up to January 2023. However, as set out below the landlord did not put things right and resolve the complaint in January 2023.
  5. On 20 January 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to say it would like to inspect the fence. In its communication it did not show any awareness or acknowledge that the anticipated completion date of the repair had already passed. This was unreasonable and is evidence of insufficient record keeping by the landlord because it should have been aware that it was contacting the resident late and prefaced its communication with an apology.
  6. The records provided do not make clear if the inspection took place. In March and April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord repeatedly asking when the repair was going to be completed. No evidence has been provided that show the landlord responded to the emails. The landlord failed to demonstrate customer care which was unfair and unreasonable.
  7. In May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord again to say the fence was near collapse and could present a danger to her young son. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this or considered it should inspect the situation to check for any health and safety issues. This was a failing and left the resident with the feeling the landlord was not taking the situation seriously.
  8. On 7 June 2023, the resident approached the local councillor and asked them to intervene on her behalf. The councillor asked the landlord for an update and stated the matter had been ongoing for a considerable length of time and needed to be resolved. The records show the landlord responded 14 weeks later on 13 September 2023. This was unreasonable and far exceeds the landlords service standards for responding to correspondence. The situation caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident. In its response to the councillor, it said its fencers would attend on 22 September 2023.
  9. The fencers attended but could not carry out the work because a scaffold was obstructing the work area. The landlord failed to plan appropriately to ensure the work could be carried out. This was unreasonable and left the resident exasperated and disappointed having spent many months waiting for the repair. On 23 September 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. She told it she felt she was being ridiculed by the landlord. She asked the landlord to repair the fence as soon as possible. The landlord has not provided any evidence it responded to the resident’s email. The landlord lacked empathy and customer care when it failed to respond to the resident’s email. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the resident to discuss her feeling of being ridiculed and seek to put that right by offering reassurances and taking action to resolve the matter. There is no evidence the landlord did this. The records provided suggest the parties did not communicate about the matter after this.
  10. In October 2023, the landlord sent the resident a service charge bill. The resident informed it she would not pay the bill until it repaired the fence. It is not clear how the landlord responded to this. It is possible the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the matter for the resident. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 November 2023 to inform it that she had received no communication and that it was almost 3 years since she had first reported the broken fence. The landlord informed her it had passed her query to the fencing team, and she would be contacted by them. There is no evidence the resident was contacted as promised. The landlord’s communication failure caused inconvenience and distress to the resident.
  11. In early December 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to request access to her garden for a matter unrelated to the fence. She agreed on the proviso that the fence would be fixed. The landlord said this was not possible. It said it was sorry the repair was still outstanding. It said it would liaise with its internal teams and get back to her with a completion date for the fence repair. The records do not make clear whether the landlord did get back to her as promised. However, in January 2023, the landlord carried out another inspection of the fence.
  12. On 10 January 2024, this Service wrote to the landlord to inform it the resident had requested an investigation into the landlord’s handling of the repair. In turn, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the matter. The resident informed this service that the scaffolding was removed, and the landlord repaired the fence on 14 February 2024. The time taken to complete the repair was 3 years and 3 weeks.
  13. The Ombudsman finds the landlord unreasonably delayed in repairing the fence. The resident spent a total of 3 years engaged with the landlord on the matter. Its communication with the resident was insufficient and there was a lack of ownership of follow-up actions after its stage 2 complaint response. On many occasions it failed to respond or ignored the resident’s requests for information or an update. Additionally, it has not demonstrated that it responded to the resident’s concern that the fence presented a risk to her child. It was only when this Service became involved the landlord took steps to resolve the matter for the resident. This was unreasonable. The duration of the issue caused considerable inconvenience and distress to the resident for a prolonged period. In October 2022, it said it expected the work would be completed by 13 January 2023, but this did not happen. The landlord has not put forward any mitigating circumstances or provided an explanation. It continued to mismanage the repair for another year which caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the fence and considers a financial remedy would be appropriate in the circumstances.
  14. The Ombudsman notes that in October 2022 the landlord paid compensation of £10 per week up to the expected completion date. It would be fair and appropriate to continue with this formula. The completion date stated in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was 13 January 2023. The landlord did not complete the repair until 14 February 2024. This calculates as an additional 56 weeks and 5 days. Accordingly, the Ombudsman makes an order for compensation to be paid to the resident in the amount of £570 (rounded up). This calculates as £10 per week for an additional 57 weeks). In addition to this, the Ombudsman considers compensation of £250 should be paid for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s poor customer service when it failed to respond to resident’s communications during the 3 years.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. In this case the records provided show the resident’s first formal complaint to the landlord was made on 18 November 2021.This means the landlord’s complaint response was due no later than 2 December 2021. The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it acknowledged or responded to the complaint. This was inappropriate and caused the resident frustration.
  3. At 5pm on 2 December 2021 (the day the complaint response was due), the resident emailed the landlord and bemoaned its ‘woeful lack of courtesy or communication’. She informed it that had she intended to register a complaint with this Service. No evidence has been provided that the landlord responded to this expression of frustration. This was unreasonable and undermined the resident’s trust and confidence in the landlord. The resident’s email should have prompted the landlord to contact her, apologise for its failing and attempt to put things right.
  4. On 23 December 2021, the landlord sent the resident an email apologising for the delay in the repair. It did not acknowledge or apologise for its late complaint response. Given that its response was 3 weeks past the due date, this was inappropriate.
  5. In its complaint response it informed her it would attend on 6 April 2022. On 8 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to express dissatisfaction that no progress has been made. At this stage, the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2, but it did not do this. The resident contacted this Service again seeking support with the matter. Section 5.5 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code applicable at the time, states that ‘…outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.’ The landlord did not effectively track and action the repair through to completion or communicate effectively with the resident because the repair remained outstanding in June 2022, and it had not communicated the reasons for this with her. This caused frustration and distress to the resident.
  6. This service wrote to the landlord informing it the resident wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. We asked it to provide its stage 2 response no later than 13 October 2022. It responded on 10 October 2022. In its response it provided an anticipated completion date for the repair. However, the landlord did not complete it and did not track the actions set out in its complaint responses.
  7. The landlord’s complaint handling was ineffective because it failed to respond to the resident’s stage 1 response without good reason, and only provided a response 3 weeks after she complained about its lack of response. It also delayed escalating the complaint to stage 2. At both complaint stages the landlord failed to track and monitor the service commitments it made in its complaint responses, resulting in disappointment for the resident and a failure to resolve the issue. Additionally, the landlord should have recognised that it would be appropriate to revisit its earlier compensation offer when it became aware that it had not met the timescales for a second time, but it did not do this. The situation caused frustration, inconvenience, and distress to the resident, and suggests a lack of management oversight of the complaints process. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  8. In July 2023, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. In December 2023 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement and complaint handling.
  9. In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our inspection and special report in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken fence.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for its handling of the repair and its complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident £1020 for the failings identified by this investigation. This is comprised £820 in relation to its handling of the repair and £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by its complaint handling.
  2. Within 10 weeks the landlord must:
    1. Carry out an internal review of this case to identify where lessons can be learned. It should provide evidence to this service that action has been taken to reduce the likelihood of similar failings.
  3. Within 4 and 10 weeks respectively, the landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders.