Haringey London Borough Council (202401088)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401088

Haringey London Borough Council

14 April 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Request for a temporary or permanent move due to domestic violence (DV).
2. Concern regarding the suitability of the temporary hotel accommodation.
3. Concern regarding access for gas and electric safety checks.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. She has lived in the 2-bed house with her daughter since March 2010. While the landlord’s records do not show any vulnerabilities for the resident and her daughter, there is evidence that the resident told the landlord of the health concerns for them both which included diabetes, restricted impairment due to spinal injuries and a heart condition.
The resident and her daughter fled their home in March 2023 after a DV incident. After staying in a different city for several months, they returned in November 2023 when the landlord moved them into a hotel and referred them to the DV team. In April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord after receiving a letter about an electric safety check (ESC). She raised her concern about the impact of returning to the property.
The resident complained to the landlord on 17 May 2024. She was unhappy with:
1. The conduct, communication, and professionalism of 2 staff members following the report of DV.
2. Moving between hotels which she said was having an impact on the physical and mental health of her and her daughter.
3. Threatening letters about gas and electric safety checks.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint on 5 June 2024, in which it said:
1. There was no evidence the case had been managed inappropriately by the members of staff.
2. The resident left her home the previous year and had declined an offer of a property in a different city after an incident in the local area.
3. It made support referrals and moved the resident and her daughter into a hotel when it was notified of the DV in November 2023.
4. It was sorry for the stress caused by moving hotels but advised availability was out of its control.
5. The DV team closed the case in March 2024 as the resident applied to Seaside and Country Homes (SSCH) which the landlord assisted with.
6. Its records showed the staff members communicated regularly with the resident about housing options, but it could not say how long it would take for a property that met her needs to become available.
7. An agency had offered a property on 13 May 2024 but it did not know why it was later withdrawn.
8. It would prepare a report for an internal transfer and if accepted the resident would be a priority, and while it would continue to look for temporary housing, properties in the areas of the resident’s choice were not available.
9. It was standard to send gas safety letters if it could not gain access and it asked the resident to suggest someone to facilitate the check, but advised if she did not make contact, it would continue with court action.
The landlord’s management panel approved the management transfer on 13 June 2024.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 June 2024, in which she said:
1. She had evidence that the information given by the housing team was incorrect and statements were misleading to cover wrong doings.
2. The landlord had not followed procedure and had abused powers to disrupt and disregard basic human rights.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 15 November 2024, in which it:
1. Apologised for the time taken to respond to the complaint.
2. Said it appreciated the resident was not happy with the response but confirmed it had investigated the stage 1 complaint thoroughly and the response covered all issues raised.
3. Confirmed it was trying to help, but it was facing shortages in accommodation and apologised if the constraints were portrayed as an unprofessional service.
4. Confirmed gas checks must be done legally and there was a systematic process to follow which included sending letters.
During contact with us in November 2024 and February 2025, the resident said:
1. Three people had managed the case, but no progress was made, and she and her daughter were still sharing a hotel room which was affecting their relationship.
2. There was inconsistent communication and information from the landlord which left her confused about her housing applications.
3. She would like:
  1. Confirmation of the status on all her housing applications and how long she will be waiting.
  2. A permanent move to a suitable property.
  3. Written confirmation that her current secure tenancy and all the associated rights will be transferred to her new permanent tenancy.
  4. Compensation for the additional financial costs for staying in the hotel since November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation had on the health of her and her daughter. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter best suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she should seek legal advice.
What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has referred to the length of time she has been waiting for the landlord to find temporary housing to enable her to move out of the hotel while waiting for a permanent move. She has also referred to the time taken to find permanent accommodation.
While we can assess the actions of the landlord, some of the issues raised do not fall under the responsibilities of the landlord as a housing provider and may fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As such, while we may refer to the actions of the local authority (LA), SSCH, or DV services within this report, we will not make an assessment on the following:
1. The allocation of priority banding and any delays with the bidding process in finding permanent accommodation.
2. The management of the SSCH Scheme.
3. Any support or advice offered by the DV service.
If the resident wishes to pursue these matters, she should visit the LGSCO website for further advice.

Request for a temporary or permanent move due to DV

The landlord’s housing allocation policy states:
1. The allocation scheme operates through a choice-based lettings (CBL) system and all homes are let in accordance with the allocation policy.
2. In exceptional circumstances, tenants may be provided with an emergency management transfer, and this will occur when a management transfer panel has determined that a transfer to alternative social housing offers the most appropriate way of ensuring the personal safety of the tenant and members of the household.
The landlord was made aware of the DV in November 2023 when it referred the resident to the DV team and found hotel accommodation for her and her daughter. It was reasonable for the landlord to promptly offer alternative accommodation given the resident’s concerns about safety. It was also appropriate that it referred the resident for support through its local authority functions.
On 26 January 2024, the landlord told the resident:
1. As requested by her, an application had been approved for a 2-bed property with Seaside and Country Homes Scheme (SSCH) – (a scheme run by the Greater London Authority who provides council and housing association tenants with an opportunity to move to the seaside or country).
2. The DV team would no longer request a management transfer due to the approval with SSCH.
3. It could not say how long she would be waiting for a property, but it would continue to look for temporary accommodation within its own stock while she waited for permanent rehousing.
The landlord’s update was reasonable as it set expectations regarding timescales and confirmed the support it would offer until a permanent home was found.
In April 2024, the resident told the landlord she applied for SSCH as the DV team told her it would be a quicker transfer, but she had not heard anything. The landlord confirmed the resident’s application with SSCH was active and she had been approved for a 2-bed property because she met the criteria for age and had a carer, not due to the DV. The landlord recognised and apologised for the distress this caused but advised it did not have any influence as to when a property would be available. This was reasonable as the landlord had no control over SSCH’s waiting list.
It is clear from the resident’s emails that she was not aware of the SSCH application status and said that when the application was made, it was only housing applicants under DV grounds. While this was miscommunication from SSCH, the landlord recognised the confusion and agreed to meet the resident to clarify matters. This was reasonable and a meeting on 23 April 2024 resulted in the following agreements:
1. The resident would contact the DV team for temporary housing while waiting for a permanent move.
2. The resident would remain on the waiting list with SSCH and would keep her current tenancy until a permanent move was found.
3. The landlord would make a referral to the DV team for a management transfer and a transfer to an agency who supported residents at risk of homelessness because of DV.
4. The landlord would continue to look for temporary housing, however due to limited stock that met the resident’s needs, it could not say when a property would become available.
The actions and communication from the landlord were reasonable. It set expectations regarding timescales and demonstrated a commitment to keep the resident updated and supported.
The resident was offered temporary housing on 13 May 2024 through an emergency-based housing agency. Although the resident accepted the offer, the agency withdrew it 4 days later and the landlord told the resident it did not know the reason. It is noted the landlord has no control over the agency’s decision making but it was a shortcoming that it did not evidence that it checked the reason for the withdrawal so it could update the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 5 June 2024, the landlord confirmed the resident was on the waiting list with the agency supporting residents at risk of homelessness. It confirmed it was still looking for temporary housing but said there were no properties available in the areas near to her daughter’s university. There is no evidence the landlord sought alternatives to support the resident and her daughter such as hotel accommodation closer to the university while it waited for self-contained temporary accommodation. This was a failure by the landlord.
Although the landlord took the above reasonable actions and liaised appropriately with other agencies, it is unclear why it did not progress a management transfer during November 2023 to April 2024. The landlord confirmed it had received the information to prepare a report for a management transfer as per the meeting on 23 April 2024.
It was unreasonable that the landlord took 5 months from when it was first made aware of the DV incident, and that the resident could not return to her home to pursue the management transfer option. There is no evidence of action to progress a permanent move during November 2023 to January 2024 and the landlord was overly reliant on the potential for a move via SSCH or the DV service.
Further, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated regularly with the resident between the June 2024 management transfer approval and the end of the complaints process. This likely left the resident uncertain as to when the management transfer approval was likely to lead to a permanent move. This was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a temporary or permanent move due to DV.

Concerns regarding the suitability of the temporary hotel accommodation

The landlord has confirmed it does not have a procedure that relates to temporary accommodation that includes assessing the resident’s needs while staying in accommodation such as a hotel or another property. It confirmed it has a policy for statutory homeless residents placed in hotels, but this does not apply to secure residents.
Our learning from severe maladministration cases relating to decants and temporary housing, published in September 2024, states:
1. It is vital that landlords make sure they are placing residents in the appropriate type of accommodation when undertaking a temporary move, which is both suitable for the timeframe and the individual circumstances of the household. This should be reviewed and managed throughout the move to make sure it is still appropriate.
2. Processing and providing temporary accommodation can be complex and communication plans need to be robust and individual to the case. A successful move will need to manage stress, anxiety, and uncertainty which may be experienced by the resident especially when the move goes from temporary to months or even years.
3. Landlords should explore whether having a named contact whilst in temporary accommodation is appropriate, to make sure the resident feels they are not being left in that accommodation and ignored.
4. Landlords should have a clear and comprehensive communication plan to support a temporary move, which includes communicating timescales. It should communicate any changes to the length of stay in the accommodation and the reasons for them.
5. Landlords should assure themselves that this is the most appropriate and suitable type of accommodation for the situation, especially where temporary becomes more elongated.
When the landlord was informed of the DV in November 2023, it arranged emergency hotel accommodation for the resident and her daughter. This was reasonable at the time as it ensured the resident had an immediate safe place to stay.
It is noted that neither party was aware how long the hotel stay would last. Further, it is acknowledged that hotel availability was not something the landlord could control. We asked the landlord if it had assessed the resident’s health concerns before, or during, her stay in the hotels. It confirmed it had not done this as the accommodation was offered on an emergency basis and it did not have a policy to cover this. While this was reasonable for the initial placement, as the time spent in the hotel continued, the landlord should have satisfied itself that the accommodation was appropriate and suitable for the situation.
Notwithstanding this, the landlord informed us that when it was told of the resident’s disabilities, the hotels offered were wheelchair accessible and had an adapted shower. There is however limited evidence to show how it reviewed its approach once it was aware of the resident’s health needs. Further, there is no evidence that it made any assessment of the residents’ needs and hotel suitability when it needed to move her to different hotels. This was unreasonable.
With no evidence of any other offer of self-contained temporary accommodation, in April 2024 the landlord asked the resident if she was interested in a 2-bed ground floor flat and, if so, it would see if it was still available. In asking for the resident’s interest, it raised her hopes that a temporary property had been found. While the landlord did not suggest the resident viewed the property at that time, she did so on her own will and found it was occupied. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to check the status of the property before suggesting it to her. The resident’s disappointment and frustration was therefore understandable after living in a hotel for 5 months.
While the landlord continued to look for temporary housing, the resident has evidenced that she was moved between hotels 5 times and told the landlord of the impact it was having on her and her daughter. Our publication (as above) states a landlord should communicate any changes to the length of stay in the accommodation and the reasons for them. There is no evidence the landlord communicated the changes to the resident. This was a failing by the landlord.
The resident told the landlord it was avoiding basic duty of care by leaving 2 adults in one hotel room for so long without cooking or washing facilities. In its stage 1 complaint response on 5 June 2024, the landlord apologised for the hotel moves and acknowledged how distressing it was, but said there was no other option while it continued to look for self-contained temporary accommodation.
However, by this point, the resident had been living in hotels for 7 months and the landlord has not evidenced any discussion or assessment with the resident regarding her health needs or how the situation was impacting her. Further, when the resident expressed concerns regarding the financial impact of the situation, the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to this or offer any support or financial signposting advice. This was unreasonable.
On 25 September 2024, the resident told the landlord her daughter was poorly and was in hospital and asked for a hotel closer to the hospital so she could support her. On 23 October 2024, the landlord confirmed a hotel with an accessible bathroom was fully booked. On 12 November 2024, it confirmed it had booked a hotel with an accessible twin room. Although the landlord supported the resident in being closer to her daughter, the 2-month delay in finding accommodation was unreasonable.
In its final complaint response on 15 November 2024, the landlord confirmed the shortage in accommodation but advised it was still looking for temporary self-contained accommodation.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the resident’s concerns regarding the suitability of the temporary hotel accommodation. This is because the landlord:
1. Provided hotel accommodation when it was presented with the resident’s housing situation, however, it did not evidence any discussion regarding the resident’s health needs at any stage (prior to September 2024 when her daughter was in hospital).
2. Did not evidence effective and timely communication with the resident regarding the need to change hotels or when the stays would come to an end.
3. Has not acknowledged the length of time the resident has been staying in the hotel or considered the impact this had on the resident.
4. Has not recognised the financial impact staying in the hotel had on the resident or offered any additional financial support to account for the lack of cooking facilities and washing facilities while still paying the rent and bills at her home.

Concern regarding access for gas and electric safety checks

The landlord’s gas policy confirms Regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installations and Use) Regulations 1998 imposes a duty upon most landlords of domestic properties to ensure that gas appliances and flues are maintained in a safe condition. Annual safety checks are to be conducted, appointments communicated to residents in advance, and appropriate records kept and issued or displayed to tenants.
An annual gas safety check (AGS) was completed on 17 January 2024. The resident allowed access but stated she had not received any letters about the appointment. She said the landlord called her the day before which made her feel threatened into allowing access to avoid court action. The landlord has not provided evidence to us that confirms it followed the process of sending the series of letters regarding the appointment dates. This was unreasonable as it did not evidence compliance to its policy.
In March 2024, the resident received a letter regarding an electrical safety check (ESC). The resident again told the landlord she could not go to the property following the DV incident and confirmed the contractor had agreed to wait until she had moved out and would contact the landlord to confirm this.
The landlord informed the resident that it was required by law to carry out ESC, but it would wait for the email from the contractor to confirm it would not be carrying out the ESC. There is no evidence to confirm the landlord received the contractor’s email, or that it asked the contractor for confirmation of the agreement. Furthermore, the landlord did not provide the resident with any confirmation as to how the ESC would be managed within either of its complaint responses. This was unreasonable and a failure by the landlord.
It is not disputed that the landlord has a legal obligation to complete the safety checks or that the resident must allow access. However, it took 3 months from the resident first raising her concern about returning to the property for the landlord to suggest a family member helped facilitate access. The landlord acknowledged its awareness of the resident’s circumstances and its delay in proposing this option was unreasonable.
The same situation occurred when the next AGS cycle began. The landlord has evidenced it followed the process, and appointment letters were sent to the resident’s home on 5 October, 5 November and 18 November 2024. The landlord knew the resident was staying at a hotel. Therefore, it was unreasonable for it solely write to the unoccupied property. It did not show it considered the distress this approach would cause her and look for alternative ways in which it could communicate and facilitate the completion of the checks.
Furthermore, the landlord did not demonstrate it explored alternative options to prevent the need for the property checks – for example, capping the gas supply. While it may have needed access to do this, further checks could have been postponed until the resident moved out of the property. This would have reduced the distress to the resident.
Overall, although the landlord was legally obliged to complete the safety checks, it failed to consider the resident’s circumstances in terms of communication and facilitation and did not show sufficient empathy regarding the impact and distress caused by returning to the property. The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern regarding access for gas and electric checks.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process in which it stated it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. Stage 1 complaints would be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords must:
1. Acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
2. Respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
3. Decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
4. Make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response.
The resident complained on 17 May 2024. This was acknowledged 8 days later when the landlord apologised and said it had been “missed in the process”. Although the landlord addressed the issues raised by the resident, it did not respond until 5 June 2024. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its policy or the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged this, but the evidence sent to us was not dated. We cannot therefore assess if the landlord complied with its policy or the Code.
The resident said she had evidence to show the information given by the housing team was incorrect. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the escalation. This was unreasonable, particularly given the landlord did not respond to all of the resident’s concerns and it was not in line with the Code.
The landlord’s final complaint response was sent 105 working days after receipt. Although it apologised for the delay, there is no evidence it communicated this to the resident in advance of the response being sent, and it failed to explain the delay reasons in the response. This was not appropriate and not in line with the expectations of the Code.
Despite the delay, the landlord’s response was limited in terms of the information it provided. It confirmed it was happy with the initial complaint response and addressed the AGS, but it missed the opportunity to consider how it had dealt with the re-housing request and the resident’s concerns regarding the hotel accommodation. As a result, the landlord did not demonstrate it had followed our Dispute Resolution Principles by being fair, learning from mistakes and putting them right, nor did it recognise the impact the delays had on the resident. This was unreasonable.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because:
1. It missed the complaint when it was first raised.
2. It failed to respond in line with its policy and the Code.
3. It failed to communicate the delays to the resident.
4. It did not demonstrate an effective stage 2 review of the complaint based on the resident’s additional comments and concerns.
5. It did not identify any learning to prevent the failures recurring.
6. It did not recognise the distress caused to the resident because of the delays.
7. It failed to offer any redress for the delays in providing a response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a temporary or permanent move due to domestic violence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern regarding the suitability of the temporary hotel accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern regarding access for gas and electric safety checks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation, made up of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its handling of the request for a temporary or permanent move due to domestic violence;
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its response to the resident’s concern regarding the suitability of the temporary hotel accommodation;
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its communication and planning on access for the gas and electric checks;
  4. £200 for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its complaint handling.
3. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord should provide us with evidence to confirm the payment has been made.
4. Write to us and the resident to provide an update on the status of all her applications for rehousing, including the management transfer.
5. Agree a communication plan with the resident in which it will provide updates, progress and a single point of contact. A copy should be shared with us and the resident.
6. Assess the resident’s health needs and confirm whether it finds her current accommodation is suitable. It should advise us and the resident of the outcome of this assessment.
7. Consider the resident’s request for financial assistance for out-of-pocket expenses due to her staying in hotel accommodation. It should write to us and the resident to explain its decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should clarify to the resident whether her security of tenure will apply to any new accommodation that is secured.