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

Haringey London Borough Council (202217107)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217107

Haringey London Borough Council

24 May 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 response to the resident’s repair requests.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. On 25 January 2021, the resident moved to the property as part of a decant while the landlord carried out repairs to his main property. On 10 February 2021, a repair order was raised to change the second lock and renew glazing on the front door. On 24 November 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that it had not repaired the door. On 24 February 2022, the resident complained again about the landlord’s inaction with repairing the door. On 15 March 2022 and 25 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint because it had not completed the repair.
  3. On 11 April 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint because of the delay in repairing the front door. As a resolution, it offered compensation of £215 for the delay calculated as £5 per week over 43 weeks and said it would provide an installation date for replacing the door before 21 April 2022.
  4. On 3 July 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. On 4 August 2022, the resident complained that the landlord still had not replaced the front door and advised that the police had raised concerns about the door. On 9 August 2022 and 24 August 2022, the landlord asked the resident to clarify what repair issues remain outstanding so that it can escalate his complaint. The resident replied on 24 August 2022 that he was escalating every repair that the landlord had not completed.
  5. On 2 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord again requesting a stage 2 complaint escalation. He included a further complaint about the landlord’s response to a repair to his electric shower. He said that he reported it as an emergency repair 5 days previously and said that he does not have access to a bath.
  6. On 24 November 2022, the landlord raised a further repair for the door. Its repair notes state “overhaul front door for elderly tenant to get in and out, new door job booked in”. The resident advised this Service that an operative for the landlord raised this work order because when he was repairing his fence, he noticed that the door was stuck. The landlord completed this repair on 28 November 2022.
  7. On the same day, the landlord provided another stage 1 complaint response for various repairs not completed. It advised that it had booked a carpenter to survey his front door and a plumber attended his shower on 23 November 2022 and an electrician was booked for 21 December 2022 to complete the shower repair. It apologised for the delay in responding to the repair issues.
  8. On 5 January 2023, the resident requested a stage 2 complaint response. He said that the recent repair allowed the door to open and close properly, but he remained unhappy as he was told the door would be replaced due to security before the beginning of the tenancy. He stated that the landlord had only left him with 1 lock instead of 2. He was unhappy that he had not been compensated for not having any shower facilities for 20 days due to the delay in repairing the shower.
  9. On 30 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the door. It said that it made the previous compensation offer in error. It responded to a report of the front door being jammed on 28 November 2022. It shaved the door, replaced 1 lock, and fixed the letter box. It confirmed that there was an outstanding order to repair for the glazing. It upheld the complaint for its delay in repairing the shower and offered £52 for the 20 days the resident was without bathing facilities. It acknowledged its delay in providing a complaint response and offered £100 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  10. When the resident brought the complaint to this Service, he confirmed that the landlord had recently replaced the glazing in the door and replaced the second lock. He remained unhappy and asked for the compensation offer to be reviewed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs in 4 ways; out of hours, emergency, agreed appointment, and planned. Each categorisation has different timeframes depending on the urgency of the repair. Out of hours and emergency repairs have a 24-hour turnaround, agreed appointment 28 days and planned repairs will be inspected within 28 days and a date will be agreed for completing the repair. 
  2. In his complaint correspondence, the resident said that he raised the issue of his security and safety because of the door when he viewed the property before the tenancy began on 25 January 2021. He said that the landlord agreed to repair the door. On 10 February 2021, the landlord raised a repair order to replace a lock in the door and replace glazing in the door. The evidence shows that this repair was not complete until over 2 years later on 30 March 2023, when it provided its stage 2 complaint response. This was an unreasonable delay and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
  3. It is evident that the resident went to significant time and trouble to get the repair completed. While this Service does not have the landlord’s telephone records, it is notable that he chased the repair 9 times by email over 2 years. Most of this correspondence was through the landlord’s complaints process.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated that it “cannot determine what was said when you moved in as that is not recorded”. It is good practice for landlords to complete a tenancy sign up check list so there is no dispute as to the condition of the property at sign up and agree any issues with the resident at that point. As the landlord has no record of what was said but it did raise a repair order for the door shortly after tenancy sign up, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident raised this as a security issue since the beginning of the tenancy. Furthermore, when the resident raised complaints to the landlord, he said that the police shared his concerns about the security of the door.
  5. It was a significant failure that the landlord did not replace the door as part of a stage 1 complaint resolution on 11 April 2022. The landlord should have surveyed the door to confirm if it required renewal or replacement, or if it was fit for purpose. Its failure to take any action contributed to the overall delay in repairing the door and caused further distress to the resident who had expressed concern for his safety.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response on 30 March 2023, the landlord said that its previous compensation offer of £215 was made in error because the door did not need to be replaced. It said that it had repaired the door (due to another issue) on 28 November 2022, and it was fit for purpose. It said that it was only required to provide 1 lock and apologised for the repair delay.
  7. This was an unreasonable response by the landlord. While the landlord ultimately concluded that the door was fit for purpose, it could not have known this because it had not surveyed the door until it carried out a further unrelated repair. While the door may have been fit for purpose, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concern for his security for the period of 2 years and it failed to consider the distress caused to the resident by the delay in communicating its position.
  8. An order has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. In considering this compensation, this Service recognises that the landlord made a compensation offer of £215, albeit in error, and this has been reflected in the order.    
  9. In its complaint response the landlord accepted that there was a failure in its repair of the resident’s shower. It apologised for its delay in completing the shower repair which left the resident without bathing facilities for 20 days and offered £52 compensation for the delay. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers 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.
  10. The evidence shows that the resident reported the broken shower on 28 October 2022, and this was responded to 26 days later on 23 November 2022. The resident reported that the shower was replaced and working on that day and an electrician was booked to complete the repair on 21 December 2022. Based on this evidence, the resident was without bathing facilities for 26 days. 
  11. Because the shower was the only bathing facility in the property, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have compensated the resident for loss of amenity, rather than a repair delay. Its compensation policy allows a refund of the weekly rent of 80% for the loss of an essential room which includes a bathroom. This Service has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident loss of amenity based on 40% of the weekly rent for 4 weeks. It is acknowledged that the resident did not lose complete use of the room and still had use of a wash hand basin and toilet, however, the only shower was a significant portion of an essential room, and it was the only bathing facility in the property.   
  12. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests. This is because it significantly delayed in repairing the front door. Its lack of communication caused considerable distress, time, trouble, and frustration to the resident. It also failed to appropriately compensate the resident for loss of bathing facilities.  

Complaint handling. 

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. At stage 1, the landlord will respond within 10 working days. If a resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to stage 2. At this stage, the landlord will reply within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to the relevant Ombudsman. These timeframes align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code makes it clear that landlords should make it easy for residents to complain and should not obstruct access to its complaint procedure.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord delayed significantly in bringing the complaint through its complaints process. The resident first complained to the landlord on 24 November 2021 with the subject line “Complaint re front door”. He chased the repair and asked to escalate the complaint on 24 February 2022, 15 March 2022, and 25 March 2022. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2022, 85 working days beyond its time scales.
  3. After this the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 4 August 2022. The resident reported his complaint about the “false” front door and stated that it had been 4 months since the landlord provided compensation and agreed to replace it. The landlord asked the resident to clarify what he meant and asked him if it was a temporary front door. On 24 August 2022, the resident emailed and advised that he was escalating every repair that the landlord had not completed. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint.
  4. Based on the landlord’s repair records and complaint records, it was reasonable to assume that the resident was complaining that it had not replaced the front door as agreed in its stage 1 complaint response. If it did not understand the reason for the complaint escalation it should have taken more steps to clarify the issue with the resident before closing the complaint. On balance, it was evident that the resident remained unhappy and as such, it should have escalated the complaint to stage 2. This failure led to a delay in the resident bringing his complaint to this Service for consideration.
  5. On 2 November 2022, the resident again asked the landlord to escalate his complaint in relation to the door to stage 2 and further complained about its delay in repairing his shower. On 28 November 2022, it provided a further stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the repair delays and noted that it had attended to both repairs.
  6. On 14 December 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that it had only considered a recent door repair but not the door repair which had been the subject of his complaint since the start of his tenancy. On 5 January 2022, the resident and this Service contacted the landlord to escalate the complaint. On 22 February 2022, it advised the resident it would provide its stage 2 complaint response on 10 March 2022. This Service chased the landlord again on 23 March 2022 and it provided its stage 2 complaint response on 30 March 2023. This was 146 working days past the Codes timescales for providing a stage 2 complaint response.
  7. Based on the evidence, the total complaint process took 16 months since the resident first raised a complaint on 24 November 2021 until the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 30 March 2023. The evidence shows that this delay was largely because of the landlord’s poor complaint handling. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord would not have progressed the complaint to stage 2 but for the intervention of this Service.
  8. It is recognised that the landlord offered £100 for the time and trouble caused in bringing the complaint through the complaint process and its delay in responding to him, however, this offer of redress was not sufficient in the circumstances. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s complaint handling delays contributed to its repair delays. It is notable that the landlord repaired the door on 30 March 2023, the same day it provided its stage 2 complaint response. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman Remedies Guidance to reflect the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling.
  9. Furthermore, the landlord has not demonstrated any learning from the complaint. Given the considerable complaint handling failures identified in this report, it would have been reasonable for it to have reviewed the case to identify these failures and put measures in place to improve its service going forward.  
  10. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it failed to appropriately identify, acknowledge, and escalate the complaint in line with the Codes and its own policy timescales. The complaint process was considerably delayed by the landlord, its offer of redress was insufficient, and it failed to demonstrate any learning from the case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is ordered for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £840 compromising:
    1. £400 for time, trouble, and distress caused by its failures in responding to the resident’s repair requests.
    2. £180 for loss of amenity of the property representing approximately 40% of the average rent for the area for a period of 4 weeks, as set out in paragraph 22, when the resident was without bathing facilities. (average weekly rent table below).
    3. £250 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  3. If the landlord has already paid compensation of £367, offered in stage 1 and stage 2, this can be deducted from the amount.
  4. It is ordered that the landlord provide complaint handling training to its complaint handling staff with particular focus in identifying and escalating complaints appropriately.
  5. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-rents-lettings-and-tenancies