Haringey London Borough Council (202342751)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342751

Haringey London Borough Council

23 May 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 landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a faulty intercom system.
   2. The resident’s reports of ongoing issues with the lifts being out of service.
   3. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
   4. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant with the landlord, a local authority, in a 2 bedroom flat in a block. The block is serviced by two lifts and has a mobile phone based intercom system.
3. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 February 2023. She said her husband passed away in her home late in the evening of 20 December 2022. She said paramedics were unable to reach him in time as the intercom was “faulty” and both available lifts were “broken down.” She said the faulty intercom was a security issue.
4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2023. It said that between September and December 2022 it had responded to and fixed 6 issues with the intercom in a reasonable timescale. There were no reports on 20 December 2022. It said it was unaware of any issues regarding the intercom and the resident’s phone. It said one of the lifts was working on 20 December 2022.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 May 2023. She believed the intercom system inadequate and was a temporary arrangement. She said there were constant issues with it. She said both lifts were out of service on 20 December 2022 as her husband’s body had to be carried down the stairs. She asked to be rehoused closer to her children in another borough.
6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 July 2023. It said intercom issues were due to the individual’s mobile phone signal. It agreed to add signage at the entrance to encourage ringing more than once. It said the lifts could break down during winter due to the cold temperatures. However, it found no reports that both lifts were out of service simultaneously on the 20 December 2022. It said it could not rehouse the resident in another borough, but she could consider a mutual exchange.
7. The resident told the Ombudsman she wants the intercom to be replaced and the lifts to be maintained regularly to reduce breakdowns. She wanted compensation for the failure of the lifts and intercom on 20 December 2022. She also said the landlord failed to take her complaint seriously or adhere to its response timescales. She wanted to be nominated for rehousing near her family members.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. This is clearly a sad case, and the resident’s distress is entirely understandable, as is her concern about the lifts and intercom and the role she feels they played. However, the Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Such a serious concern is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. That is a legal process. The resident has the option of seeking legal advice about that if she believes it is the appropriate course of action.

 The resident’s reports of a faulty intercom system

9. The resident raised concerns with the reliability of the intercom system in both of her complaints. She provided several examples when a caller at the intercom could not reach her when she was within her property. She said other residents were leaving the communal door open as they could not be reached by the intercom. She said this was a security issue.
10. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation of the intercom in its complaint responses. It confirmed the intercom was reliant on residents’ mobile phone signal and explained the circumstances of each of the 6 repair reports it had received, none of which were related to problems with the overall system. It also explained it had not had any reports of problems on the night in question. The landlord’s repair records support its explanation.
11. In response to the resident’s concern that the intercom system should be replaced the landlord explained it had no indications of wider reliability concerns. However, it said replacement would potentially be part of wider building works scheduled for 2024. In the meantime, it said it would place signage at the doors reminding visitors to call more than once if unable to reach a resident.
12. The resident’s concerns about the intercom are wholly understandable in the circumstances she and her family experienced. Nonetheless, nothing in the evidence indicates any specific omissions or failings by the landlord which caused an intercom problem on the date in question. The explanations it provided in response to the complaint were clear and supported by the evidence.

The resident’s reports of ongoing issues with the lifts being out of service.

13. In her complaint and escalation, the resident said that both lifts were out of service on 20 December 2022. She believed this “showed weakness” in the landlord’s lift servicing plan.
14. In both complaint responses, the landlord’s explanation about the lifts’ conditions are supported by its records. They show that one of the lifts was out of service between 11am and 1pm on 20 December 2023. However, both lifts were operational from 1pm. One of the lifts was reported as broken down at 5pm later that day. The landlord was unable to complete an inspection until the following morning, in which it found the lift in question to now be working.
15. The landlord explained why the lifts could occasionally stop working and then restart without intervention due to external temperatures. That explanation was helpful in understanding how the lifts operated, but as the resident had made clear her anxiety about the issue, it would have also been helpful if the landlord provided reassurance or reminders about what to do in such situations. It did not do so, and a recommendation has been made for it to address this.
16. Overall, the landlord responded fully to the resident’s concerns and complaints. It explained that it had no records of both lifts being out of service on the evening in question. It also explained how they could have briefly stopped working and then restarted. The evidence supports its explanations, and as with the intercom, nothing has been seen which suggests the resident’s experience with the lift was due to specific failings or omissions by the landlord.

The resident’s request to be rehoused.

17. In her complaint escalation, the resident asked to be rehoused nearer her daughters in another borough. In response, the landlord made clear it was unable to rehouse the resident in another borough, as it had no jurisdiction to do so. It suggested the resident may wish to speak with the council where her daughters live to discuss housing options specifically there.
18. The landlord’s response also provided the resident with several options to support moving. This included considering a mutual exchange or downsizing or considering sheltered housing in the same area. It offered having its housing officer to speak with the resident to discuss these options further.
19. The landlord’s responses were appropriate and managed the resident’s expectations reasonably.

Complaint handling

20. The resident complained on 9 February 2023, and the landlord replied on 31 March. This meant it exceeded the 10-working day timescale in its complaints policy by 26 working days.
21. Its complaints policy states it must inform the resident of delays in responding, and it did this on 27 February. However, on 3 March it promised to update the resident the following week. It failed to do this and the resident chased the reply on 21 March. The landlord replied on 23 March, apologising for the delay and confirmed it would reply by 31 March, which it adhered to.
22. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 May 2023. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 16 May, confirming it would reply by 7 June. This would have been within the 20-working day timescale in its complaints policy. The landlord did not reply until 28 July. It therefore exceeded the policy timescale by 37 working days. It did not update the resident during this delay.
23. The landlord apologised for the delays in responding at stages 1 and 2 in both complaint responses. However, in the sensitive circumstances of this complaint an apology on its own was not sufficient to reasonably remedy the delays, or its lack of updates to the resident at stage 2. Because of that its complaint handling failings were not fully resolved.
24. The resident stated the landlord failed to acknowledge the trauma, stress, and anxiety she had experienced. In its responses the landlord acknowledged multiple times the seriousness of the resident’s concerns and her distress and bereavement. It offered its condolences, and support for the resident’s desire to move homes.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a faulty intercom system
    2. The resident’s reports of ongoing issues with the lifts being out of service.
    3. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

27. In light of the complaint handling failure found in this report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £150 within 4 weeks of this report.
28. Evidence of compliance with this order must be provided by the deadline.

Recommendations

29. In its complaint response the landlord explained it would possibly include replacing the existing intercom system in the building. The resident has explained that has not yet happened. To help provide her with reassurance the landlord should consider updating her about its current plans, if any, or enquire of her whether the problems she reported have continued.
30. With the same goal of providing reassurance, the landlord should also consider making clear to the resident the relevant plans for occasions when both lifts are out of service, and how she can obtain assistance if ever needed.