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

Haringey London Borough Council (202233543)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233543

Haringey London Borough Council

29 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports that its records incorrectly showed that her property had 3 bedrooms.
    2. A door replacement.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has held a secure tenancy at the property since 27 January 2000. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident’s 16-year-old grandson lived with her at the time of the complaint.
  2. There is evidence that the resident complained that the landlord had incorrectly classified her property having 3 bedrooms, when it only had 2, in September 2020 and December 2021.
  3. The resident also told the landlord that her front door was jamming in September 2021. The landlord decided that it needed to replace the door and asked its contractor to complete the job on 1 November 2021. The contractor cancelled the job on 8 November 2021. The landlord then asked a second contractor to complete the work, but they advised that they were unable to.
  4. On 7 January 2022, the landlord raised a repair job to inspect and measure the front door. It then asked a third contractor to do the work, but they too declined the job in April 2022. On 12 September 2022, the landlord raised another repair job for an operative to measure the front door.
  5. The resident complained on 22 September 2022. She said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s poor communication and customer service. She said that she had been waiting for a front door replacement for over a year and it had measured it multiple times. She also said that its records showed that her house had 3 bedrooms when it had always been a 2-bedroom property. She noted that the landlord had visited to take measurements and draw up a floorplan, but she had heard nothing since. She said that she was unhappy that she had been paying rent for a 3-bedroom property for many years.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 26 September 2022 and responded on 6 October 2022. It said that:
    1. It had attended several jobs for the “mortice lock on the door, which had been completed”.
    2. An operative had taken measurements for a new door on 30 September 2022. The new door would take 12 weeks to manufacture and it would fit it as soon as possible after this.
    3. Following its visit in early 2022, it was satisfied that the property had 2-bedrooms. Unfortunately, the officer that visited had left the organisation shortly afterwards and the approval to change its systems was not actioned. It had now requested that the rent account team update her account and it would let her know when it had actioned this.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 October 2022, 28 December 2022, and 18 January 2023. She said that her front door remained unsafe and she had still had no updates about the rent account. She asked it to escalate her complaint on 8 February 2023.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 22 March 2023. It said that:
    1. The complaint handler had “not been given an explanation for the seeming non-progress” with her new front door.
    2. It had booked another appointment to measure the front door on 23 March 2023.
    3. Its rent accounts team were now updating the system to show the property had 2 bedrooms. If this resulted in a lower rent it would provide a backdated refund for the previous 6-7 years.
    4. It awarded £304 compensation comprising:
      1. £154 for the delay in replacing the front door from 23 December 2022 up until 16 June 2023, when it anticipated that the new door should be fitted.
      2. £50 compensation for her time and trouble relating to the door.
      3. £50 for the delay in rectifying her rent account.
      4. £50 for her time and trouble relating to the rent account.
  9. The landlord has provided evidence to show that it credited the resident’s rent account with £1,056.64 in May/June 2023 and a further £1,056.64 in April 2024. The resident advised us that it replaced the front door on 10 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, concern the level of rent. A determination relating to the level of rent is more appropriate for the First-Tier Tribunal. Therefore, this investigation will not consider the level of rent charged by the landlord but will focus on how it handled the resident’s reports that she was being incorrectly charged.
  2. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. We have therefore not considered whether the landlord should backdate the rent refund to the start of the tenancy. However, the resident has the option to take legal advice regarding this should she wish.

Incorrect bedroom classification

  1. The tenancy agreement form signed by the resident in January 2000 said that the property type was “H2” which is likely to mean that it was identified as a 2-bedroom house at the start of the tenancy.
  2. The resident advised us that she discovered in 2020, when her grandson moved in and claimed benefits, that the landlord’s records showed that the property had 3 bedrooms. She complained to the landlord in September 2020, and in its stage 1 complaint response, it said that its lettings service had been at fault at the time she signed up. However, as this error occurred 20 years before, it could not investigate what had happened. It said that it would need to visit the property to draw up a floorplan but could not do so due to COVID–19 restrictions in place at that time. It invited her to supply it with a floorplan if she felt able to. (As these events occurred more than 12 months prior to the complaint we are investigating they have been included for context only).
  3. The resident complained again in December 2021, and the landlord visited the property and drew up a floorplan which confirmed that the property had 2 bedrooms. However, the officer that completed the plan left the organisation soon afterwards and failed to authorise the change on its systems. We would expect the landlord to have robust systems in place for record keeping and changeover in staff but in this case it did not. This error cost the resident time and trouble because she had to chase the landlord for a response and then raise another complaint. It also caused her distress and inconvenience because she felt her rental charge was incorrect and that the landlord was failing to resolve the issue.
  4. In the stage 1 complaint response of 6 October 2022, the landlord promised to update its systems and keep the resident updated. However, it did not. She chased it again by email 3 more times before escalating the complaint. We have seen no evidence that it responded to these emails. This communications failure cost her further time and trouble and caused further distress.
  5. In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said again that it would update its systems. It also said that it would backdate any rent refund to cover the previous 6-7 years. However, it did not explain why it would not refund the extra rent for the full length of the tenancy. This lack of explanation left the resident with further questions which cost her further time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint to this Service.
  6. The landlord first credited the resident’s rent account in May 2023. This was after she called it again to chase the issue and was over 2 years after she first brought the issue to its attention. This delay was unacceptable. We would also expect the landlord to have told her:
    1. That it had processed the refund.
    2. How it had decided to refund the amount it did.
    3. What the new rent levels were.
  7. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so. The resident told us that she did not know about the refund until she telephoned it and it told her that her account was in credit. This further communications failure means that the resident still has unanswered questions regarding how the error affected the rent charged over the years, how the refund was calculated, and if the correct amount has been refunded. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to provide this information so that she can challenge the amount refunded if needed.
  8. Due to the long delay in resolving the issue, poor communication, and failure to provide a full explanation of the rationale behind the refund, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her property had 2, not 3, bedrooms.
  9. In addition to the rent refund, the landlord awarded £100 compensation to the resident for this aspect of the complaint. However, this was not proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to her over a long period. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay a total of £500 compensation comprising of £250 for time and trouble and £250 for distress and inconvenience. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Front door

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it is responsible for repairs to the structure and outside of the property. It says that for any repairs that it cannot complete in a single visit it will offer an appointment within 28 days. Examples of this include doors and locks that are difficult to operate.
  2. The landlord correctly took responsibility for repairing the front door in September 2021. It decided that a replacement door was needed in November 2021, but did not replace it until June 2024. While it would be acceptable for a delay of 12 weeks to allow for the manufacture of a new door, the delay of almost 3 years was unacceptable. The landlord failed to comply with the timescales in its repairs handbook or to fully communicate the reasons why it could not. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience because she was living with a door that was allowing a significant draft into the property and she also told the landlord that she felt that the door was not secure.
  3. The landlord failed to have adequate oversight of the contractors it asked to do the work. It raised purchase orders on numerous occasions, but the contractors cancelled them, sometimes after a considerable time had passed. This was the main cause for the delay in the door replacement. It also did not keep the resident informed when this happened. This communications failure therefore cost her time and trouble chasing it for updates and making complaints.
  4. The landlord sent operatives to the property on numerous occasions to measure the front door. It should have kept a record of the measurements to avoid multiple visits, but it did not, which was a record keeping failure. The resident works full-time and told us that often she thought the appointments were for the door to be replaced but instead the door would be measured again. This caused her inconvenience and cost her further time and trouble.
  5. Due to the long delays caused by the landlord’s lack of oversight of its contractors and its poor communication with the resident, there was maladministration in its handling of the door replacement.
  6. The landlord offered the resident £154 compensation for the delay in replacing the front door plus £50 for her time and trouble. It said that this covered the delay from December 2022 to June 2023. However, the door had been faulty since September 2021 and was not replaced until June 2024. Therefore, the compensation awarded was not proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to pay a total of £600 compensation comprising £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the long delay and £250 for time and trouble. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’ remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that “the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when” and that “any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.”
  2. In the stage 1 complaint response, the remedies offered by the landlord to put things right were that it would replace the front door, update the resident’s rent account, and keep her informed. It should have then monitored the case to make sure that it completed these remedies. This would have ensured that the complaints process was effective in putting things right. However, this did not happen and neither of the proposed remedies were completed. This failure to follow the Code cost the resident time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process.
  3. In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the same remedies. However, again there was no oversight and monitoring to make sure that these were completed. If there had been adequate processes in place to monitor completion of remedies, the complaint handling would have been more effective. However, instead the resident had to escalate the complaint to this Service which cost her further time and trouble.
  4. The Code also says that “a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.” It also says that complaint handlers should “have access to staff at all levels to facilitate quick resolution of complaints” and “have the authority and autonomy to act to resolve disputes quickly and fairly.”
  5. The stage 1 complaint response gave no detail about the investigation the landlord had carried out about the front door replacement and did not identify the cause for the delays. The stage 2 complaint response said that the complaint handler had “not been given an explanation for the seeming non-progress” of the resident’s front door replacement by the repairs service.
  6. The landlord should have conducted a full investigation into the reasons for the delay at stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process. Furthermore, the stage 2 complaint handler should have had access to senior members of staff in the repairs service to identify the reasons for the delay. Had this been the case the landlord would have realised that there was an issue with contractors declining the work and may have been able to resolve the problem sooner. This complaint handling failure caused the resident further distress and inconvenience because she had to wait longer for a resolution. It also cost her time and trouble escalating the complaint to this Service.
  7. In summary, the landlord did not follow the remedies it proposed in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses through to completion to ensure that it put things right. It also did not fully investigate the reasons for the delay with the front door replacement which led to further delays. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint and we have ordered it to pay £100 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience this caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports that its records incorrectly showed that her property had 3 bedrooms.
    2. A door replacement.
    3. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior member of staff must apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident directly compensation of £1,200, comprising:
    1. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of her reports that its records incorrectly showed that her property had 3 bedrooms.
    2. £600 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the failures in its handling of the door replacement.
    3. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
  3. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £304. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  4. A senior manager to write to the resident within 8 weeks of the date of this report to inform her:
    1. The reasons why it chose the period of 6-7 years when offering a rent refund.
    2. What difference the change from a 3–bedroom to a 2-bedroom property made to her rent each year showing a comparison between them.
    3. Full details on how it calculated the rent refunds paid to her, including the number of years it applied the refunds for, and consideration of whether it refunded the correct amount.
    4. Details on how she can challenge this calculation, should she disagree with it.
  5. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider whether complaint handling staff have access to staff at all levels in all departments so that they can investigate complaints fully and adhere to the Code. Also consider if complaints handlers require any further training.