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

Haringey London Borough Council (202224615)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224615

Haringey London Borough Council

27 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 repairs to the building following a structural survey.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a ground floor flat, within a 2-storey building.
  2. The landlord instructed the local authority building control team to act as its consultant in July 2020, after structural concerns were raised about the rear flank wall of the building. From here on in this report, the local authority building control team will be referred to as the landlord’s consultant.
  3. The landlord’s consultant carried out a structural survey on 23 July 2020, which identified the need for major works to the building. Its consultant sent a decant form to the landlord’s tenancy management team on the same day.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 15 November 2022. The resident was dissatisfied because repairs to the building had not yet begun. To resolve the complaint, the resident asked the landlord to provide a copy of its repair policy and confirm when the works would begin.
  5. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 5 December 2022. The landlord said:
    1. A decant form had been sent to its tenancy management team in 2020. Its tenancy management team had been asked to confirm the reason for the delay and to provide an update. Its tenancy management team would respond to the resident about this directly.
    2. The resident had raised a repair request on 8 September 2022, in relation to the flank wall. Its bricklayer attended the property on 3 November 2022 but had not been issued with a copy of the structural survey. The landlord offered its apology for this.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 28 December 2022. The resident was dissatisfied because the landlord had not completed repairs to the building, in accordance with the structural survey. The resident emailed the landlord again on 10 January 2023 asking the landlord to escalate the complaint.
  7. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 23 May 2023, following intervention from the Ombudsman. The landlord accepted there had been delays completing the repairs. It stated that its services were working together to provide a clear timeline for the decant. A member of its leasehold team would contact the resident by 25 May 2023, to discuss the arrangements.
  8. To remedy the complaint, the resident told the Ombudsman on 21 June 2024, that she wanted the landlord to confirm a start date and complete the outstanding repairs to the building.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 15 November 2021 and 23 May 2023, concerning the substantive matters of complaint raised by the resident, and which were considered by the landlord at stage 1 and stage 2 of its internal complaint process. This being 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, this report will reference events outside of this timescale, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive matters of complaint.

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord had a statutory obligation under Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. Under this Act, repairs should be carried out within a reasonable timescale.
  2. The landlord’s repair handbook sets out the landlord’s expected timescales for completing repairs. For non-emergency repairs, where repairs can be completed in a single visit, the landlord will offer an appointment to suit the resident within 28 days. For repairs that must be pre-inspected, which may take several days to complete, where components need to be measured and manufactured, or where work may be packaged together, the landlord will carry out an inspection within 28 days. The resident will be notified at the inspection when the repairs will be carried out.
  3. The landlord had a decant policy, which came into operation on 14 March 2023. The landlord’s decant policy sets out its commitments to leaseholders where a decant is required. Where the landlord has accepted liability, the landlord will:
    1. Keep the leaseholder informed.
    2. Provide the leaseholder with a budget for alternative accommodation and will confirm what other payments or support it can offer.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the building following a structural survey.

  1. Issues with the landlord’s handling of repairs was highlighted in the Ombudsman’s July 2023 special report on the landlord. It is understood that the landlord has an action plan in place to bring about improvements to its repairs service.
  2. The landlord instructed a structural survey in July 2020, after concerns were raised about the rear flank wall of the building. The structural survey was carried out on 23 July 2020, which noted the property to be in good condition. However, on the 1st floor of the building there were issues with damp and the pointing. The rear flank wall of the building was found to be bowing. It was recommended that the landlord decant all the occupants of the building, rebuild the bowed section of the flank wall, replace the roof, and renew the footings if necessary. It estimated that works would take 3 months to complete.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord’s consultant promptly sent a decant form to the landlord’s tenancy management team. The decant form stated that works would take 12 weeks to complete. It indicated that the works would be completed during the financial year 2020 to 2021. It is unclear from the evidence seen if the landlord agreed the decant. This is a concern.
  4. The landlord’s records are silent between 24 July 2020 and the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 15 November 2022. The Ombudsman has therefore assumed that the landlord was not actively progressing the decant or the works over this period.
  5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there were 2 national lockdowns between 5 November 2020 and 12 April 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was likely to have disrupted the landlord’s repairs services over this period, and the immediacy of its tenancy management team to find temporary accommodation for the resident and her neighbour. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have kept the resident informed about the repairs. It should have explained its intentions regarding the decant. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident was unreasonable and would have created uncertainty for the resident.
  6. According to the stage 1 complaint, the resident chased the landlord about the outstanding repairs to the flank wall in September 2022. The resident claimed that the landlord’s bricklayers were unclear about what was required from the job, upon their attendance. The landlord has not provided evidence of the resident’s contact with the landlord or the landlord’s response. This suggests that there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping, or the landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with all contact and repair notes relevant to the case.
  7. However, the stage 1 response indicates that the resident contacted the landlord on 8 September 2022 about the flank wall. Information collected by the landlord during its own complaint investigation suggests, that in response, the landlord raised a new works order for its bricklayer. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the repairs handler ought to have identified there were outstanding repairs required to the building, involving the flank wall. For expediency, it should have considered passing the resident’s repair request to its surveyor to consider next steps.
  8. But having raised a new works order, the landlord had an obligation to respond to the repair in a reasonable timescale. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s bricklayer attended the property 8 weeks later, which exceeded the landlord’s stated response timescales quoted in its handbook. It has not been possible to verify the reason for this from the evidence seen. It is also troubling that its bricklayer had no knowledge of the 2020 structural survey prior to attending. This suggests there was an issue with the landlord’s information management.
  9. Sometime after 3 November 2022, its bricklayer informed the landlord that the flank wall was “solid”, but the bow could not be resolved by a patch repair. Its bricklayer recommended that the matter be passed to the landlord’s structural surveyor.
  10. The landlord contacted its consultant on 28 November 2022. Its consultant responded the same day, explaining that it was waiting for the occupants to be decanted before the issues with the flank wall could be addressed. It reminded the landlord that it had completed a decant form in July 2020. Although the landlord followed this up with its tenancy management team, there is no evidence of a response.
  11. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine from the evidence seen, what steps the landlord took between 7 December 2022 and 23 March 2023, to progress the decant or outstanding repairs. This is troubling. Either the landlord was not actively progressing the matter, or there were issues with the landlord’s record keeping and information management.
  12. In the Ombudsman’s view, there was some improvement in the landlord’s communications with the resident after the landlord’s internal complaint process was completed, which was encouraging. However, the resident has told the Ombudsman that communications have deteriorated again more recently. It is understood that the landlord has asked the resident to find her own temporary accommodation. The landlord has agreed to cover the resident’s expenses. This is consistent with the landlord’s new decant policy. The resident has been given an estimated start date of August 2024 for the works. However, a confirmed start date has yet to be provided.
  13. In summary, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to indicate that the recommended structural works to the building needed to be completed urgently. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the property itself was in good condition and has remained habitable. However, the landlord was obliged to complete the identified repairs within a reasonable timescale. At the date of this report, the resident has been waiting 3 years and 11 months for structural works to the building to begin.
  14. While disruption to the landlord’s services caused by the national lockdown may offer mitigation for some of the delay, the landlord ought to have progressed the works in a timely manner once services had resumed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. There was a lack of effort by the landlord to expedite the decant process and complete the repairs in a timely manner, after the resident prompted the landlord about this.
  15. Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs to the building following a structural survey fell short, which caused the resident distress and uncertainty. Accordingly, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.
  16. As a remedy, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The compensation ordered reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident arising from the landlord’s delay to complete identified repairs to the building between 15 November 2021 and 23 May 2023, while taking into account any unavoidable delay caused by the national lock down. A separate order for compensation is made, which recognises the impact caused to the resident by inadequacies in the landlord’s communications, between 15 November 2021 and 23 May 2023.
  17. The landlord should take the opportunity to reflect upon its handling of repairs to the building, and the adequacy of its communications, following issue of the stage 2 response. Where failings are identified, the landlord should consider making a further offer of compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

  1. Issues with the landlord’s complaint handling were highlighted in the Ombudsman’s July 2023 special report on the landlord. The Ombudsman has identified similar issues with the landlord’s complaint handling in this case, to those identified in the special report. The Ombudsman has already made several orders and recommendations to improve the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping via the special report, as well as in several determinations made by the Ombudsman over a comparable period to this case.
  2. The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its complaint policy. However, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. At stage 2, landlords must respond to the complaint within 20 working days. An extension may be agreed of up to a further 10 working days if more time is needed at both stages.
  3. The stage 1 response was issued within expected timescales. It accepted there had been delays progressing the resident’s decant, for which it apologised. While this was encouraging, it was unreasonable that the landlord was unable to explain the reason for the delay or its next steps, within the complaint response. If its tenancy management team needed more time to provide its position, the landlord ought to have discussed this with the resident and agreed a new timescale for issuing the stage 1 response.
  4. The stage 1 response set out its understanding that its bricklayer had attended the property on 3 November 2022. But it did not demonstrate any meaningful investigation about the outstanding repairs, nor did it propose a resolution or timescale for further works. This would have left the resident unclear how and when the substantive matter of complaint was likely to be resolved.
  5. The Code states that outstanding actions must be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident. If the landlord was doing this, it ought to have noticed that its tenancy management team did not respond to the resident as promised. This created continued dissatisfaction and uncertainty for the resident.
  6. At stage 2, the landlord explained that the building needed to be decanted before works could be completed to the flank wall. It said that its services were working together to provide a clear timeline in relation to the decant. It committed to discussing this with the resident by 25 May 2023. This shows that the landlord was endeavouring to put things right.
  7. However, there was a significant delay in the landlord providing the stage 2 response of 94 working days, which delayed resolution of the complaint for the resident. The landlord did not address this in the stage 2 response, and it did not offer an apology. While the landlord found there had been delays resolving the outstanding works, again, it did not explain the reason for such delay, did not offer an apology, and did not acknowledge the impact upon the resident.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses were inadequate, and its complaint handling fell short.
  9. While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
  10. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping, and information management was inadequate, which made the Ombudsman’s investigation more difficult.
  11. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.
  12. As a remedy, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident arising from failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the building following a structural survey.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Orders

  1. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord must pay compensation of £750 directly to the resident. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
    1. £300 compensation, in recognition of the distress and continued uncertainty caused to the resident by inadequacies in the landlord’s communications.
    2. £250 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident arising from the landlord’s delay to complete identified repairs to the building.
    3. £200 compensation, in recognition of inconvenience, as well as the increased time and trouble caused to the resident, by failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The landlord must endeavour to meet with the resident to discuss next steps and to agree an action plan. Thereafter, the landlord must write to the resident with an expected completion date for the repairs. The landlord must commit to complete the repairs within a reasonable timescale. The landlord should include a copy of the agreed action plan and explain its mechanism for monitoring the action plan through to resolution. As a minimum, the action plan must include:
    1. The actions that must be taken by both the landlord and the resident in relation to the decant, with target timescales.
    2. The actions that must be taken by the landlord to progress the outstanding repairs through to completion, with target timescales.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reflect upon its handling of repairs to the building, and the adequacy of its communications, from 24 May 2023 onwards. This being the period following issue of the stage 2 response. Where failings are identified and if appropriate, the landlord should consider making a further offer of compensation to the resident.