Haringey London Borough Council (202121329)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121329

Haringey London Borough Council

18 May 2023

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. Reports of a leak into the property.
2. Request for reimbursement for damage to his personal items due to the leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property). The landlord owns the property.
The resident’s tenancy commenced in March 2014.
The resident lives in the property with his partner and children.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s stage one complaint, however notes from evidence available that the complaint was made on 4 October 2021 and concerned the landlord’s response to a leak into the property.
On 20 October 2021 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that “the leak [had] not yet been resolved”.
2. A work order was raised in July 2021 for a plumber to attend the property to investigate and remedy the leak. It confirmed that the work order had a completion date of 1 September 2021.
3. A plumber attended the property on 26 July 2021. It confirmed that the plumber referred the job to their manager following the appointment as they believed that a roofer was required to inspect and remedy.
4. The manager accepted that they failed to instruct a roofer for which they were sorry.
5. It would like to award compensation. It confirmed the compensation was for the period 1 September 2021 to 21 October 2021 comprising:
  1. £10 one off payment
  2. £2 per day for three weeks
  3. £7.50 per week for five weeks
  4. Time and trouble £10 for eight weeks
  5. Total £160 (rounded up).
6. An appointment was scheduled for 21 October 2021 for a roofer to attend to investigate the leak. It confirmed that the roofer would complete the repair on the day if possible, however if it was not possible a follow on appointment would be scheduled.
7. Its compensation policy did not cover “loss or damage to personal items”. It confirmed that it had therefore included details of its insurance team should the resident wish to make a claim for any loss or damage.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may request to escalate his complaint if he was not happy with its response.
On 21 October 2021 the resident wrote to his MP to request assistance in respect of the leak into the property. In summary the resident said:
1. Despite reporting a leak into the property for “over seven years” the landlord had failed to take action to resolve the problem. He confirmed that the location of the leak was “two rooms” in the property.
2. His daughter had developed asthma due to the leak.
3. The leak had caused damage to his personal items.
On the same day the MP contacted the landlord regarding the leak, and on 4 November 2021 the landlord responded to the MP. In summary it said:
1. It was sorry for the time it had taken “to source and trace the leak” and for the “impact” it was having on the resident and his family. It confirmed that the case had been raised with its “repairs managers” for learning.
2. There had been a number of visits by plumbers and roofers to investigate and resolve the leak. It confirmed that during these appointments remedial works had been carried out in the “property above, the balconies and walkways and the roof [had] been inspected for defects”.
3. “Unfortunately all inspections so far [had] not been able to identify the cause of the water penetration”.
4. As it had not been able to identify the source of the leak it had arranged for a surveyor to visit the property on 11 November 2021. It confirmed that any works identified would be organised as “a matter of urgency” which would include making good.
On 16 December 2021 the resident contacted this Service for assistance as the landlord had not remedied the leak into the property. Within his correspondence the resident reiterated that:
1. The leak had been ongoing for seven years without resolution.
2. The leak was causing damp and mould throughout the property.
3. The leak had caused damage to his personal items.
The resident concluded by confirming that he was open to moving to alternative accommodation if the leak could not be resolved.
On 4 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the complaint, following contact from this Service. The landlord confirmed that its records indicated that the complaint was closed following its stage one response. The landlord also noted that it had responded to an MP enquiry in November 2021 regarding its handling of the leak, and confirmed that if the “issue [was] still unresolved” it could consider the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. The landlord explained that in order to escalate the complaint the resident should detail “what issues [he] would like the investigation to address, and what outcomes [he was] hoping to achieve”.
On 13 April 2022 the resident wrote to this Service to provide an update. The resident confirmed that the landlord inspected the property on 14 March 2022 however he had not heard back from the landlord regarding next steps.
On 28 May 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to request that it escalate the complaint to stage two. The resident set out that despite calling the landlord “over 20 times and several plumbers and surveyors attending [the] property” the leak had not been remedied. The resident reiterated that his daughter had developed asthma as a result of the leak into the property.
On 6 July 2022 the landlord provided its stage two, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had attended the property on a number of occasions, investigating several sources of potential water ingress such as balconies, walkways and the roof. It confirmed that unfortunately the inspection had been unable to identify the cause of the water penetration.
2. A “new survey inspection”, date not given, was undertaken where it was established that there was “potentially” an issue with an internal rainwater pipe. It confirmed that the remedial works were assigned to its contractor (the contractor) in March 2022. It set out that the contractor attempted access to neighbouring properties where they suspected the leak to be coming from during the appointment but they had not been successful. It acknowledged that the delay was “frustrating”.
3. It was currently working on gaining access to the neighbouring properties. It confirmed that once it had secured access to these properties it would be in touch with the resident.
4. While access to the neighbouring properties was pending it would like to arrange a mould wash in the property. It confirmed that “any decorations due to leak damage” would be considered once the leak was resolved.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer his complaint to this Service if he was not happy with its response.
On 7 July 2022 the resident responded to the landlord to confirm that he was unhappy with its stage two response. The resident set out that he did not believe that the landlord would take action to remedy the leak. Within his correspondence the resident noted that other tenants within the block were experiencing leaks also (no further details given).

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of the complaint the resident notes that, despite reporting a leak into the property to the landlord since 2014, the landlord did not provide a resolution. In responding to the complaint the landlord did not dispute the resident’s comments about the long-running nature of the issue. Therefore, in investigating the complaint, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s overall response to the leak from 2014. This is appropriate taking into account the resident’s reports of repeated reports of a leak, the landlord’s position that it was taking action to put things right and the resident’s position that the matter has yet to be resolved in order to determine whether there has been maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, the property. A landlord is not liable to carry out any repair until it has been put on notice of the need for repair. The landlord must then carry out the repair within a reasonable time thereafter. On notification of a leak into the property by the resident the landlord was obliged to investigate and to make good any issues identified and which were its responsibility.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records for the property from 2014 to demonstrate its response to the leak.
The Ombudsman can see that from 2014 to date the resident has repeatedly reported leaks into the property. This included in November 2014, December 2014, February 2015, May 2015, June 2015, September 2017, March 2018, July 2019, August 2019, October 2019, September 2019, December 2020, July 2021 and October 2022. The majority of the records note that the resident reported a leak into the property from a neighbouring property affecting one of the bedrooms. In response the records show that the landlord did attend on multiple occasions to investigate and complete repairs, however from the records it is not always clear what works were undertaken at what time. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records to demonstrate how it meets its tenancy obligations. Notwithstanding this, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord did complete works to the external walkways and balconies above the property in addition to examining pipework during the period in order to try and resolve the problem.
While it was appropriate that the landlord was attending to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property, the reoccurring nature of the leak reasonably suggests that the repairs completed did not provide long lasting or permanent solutions and that more extensive intervention was needed to resolve the issue. While the Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a leak is not always straightforward and it can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified, it is unsatisfactory that the resident was reporting the same issue in mid-2022 as he had raised in 2014, a period of approximately eight years. From review of the records there is no evidence that, in responding to the resident’s report of an ongoing leak in the property in October 2021 and his subsequent contact, the landlord took into consideration the repairs it had previously undertaken to inform its next steps. This was unsatisfactory and a missed opportunity to put things right at an earlier time, by taking into consideration the full history of reports of a leak, including the number of reports over an extended period of years and repeated attempts to resolve this.
Within the evidence for review the landlord has provided a document dated 29 March 2023 entitled “proposal of phased works” for the building in which the property is situated. The object of the proposal is to “resolve water ingress to flats on the rear quadrant of the building”, which includes the property, in order to “return affected properties back to a liveable standard”. This confirms to the Ombudsman that this issue is still ongoing. While it is appropriate that the landlord is demonstrating that it is now seeking to take a more robust and in-depth enquiry into the issue causing water penetration into the property and wider building, it should have identified that this was necessary at a much earlier time, following the resident’s repeated reports of a leak between 2014 and mid-2022 and taking into consideration that it acknowledged within its stage two response that it had not yet identified the source of the leak into the property.
Within the landlord’s correspondence dated March 2023 it set out that the works it proposed to complete were necessary in order to bring affected properties within the building up to “a liveable standard”. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has not indicated within its records between 2014 and mid-2022 that the leak rendered the property uninhabitable. It is of concern that the landlord’s position regarding the condition of the property has significantly changed, which again highlights to the Ombudsman that the landlord’s previous investigations had been unsatisfactory as it failed to accurately capture the situation and impact on the property.
As a result of the landlord’s handling of the reoccurring leaks into the property the resident will have been adversely impacted for a significantly protracted period of time, which will have included distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty in addition to time and trouble in trying to get the matter resolved. This is unsatisfactory.
At stage one of its complaints procedure, the landlord offered the resident £160 compensation, as it identified during its complaint investigation that it failed to instruct a roofer following an appointment in mid-2021. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may award compensation where there has been “service failure or poor service”. As the landlord had identified a service failure, it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy. While the level of compensation was reasonable for the individual service failure that it had identified, it was unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to make an offer of compensation in responding to the complaint which fully considered all the circumstances of the case, which included multiple reports over multiple years. This was a missed opportunity. The Ombudsman notes that in responding to the complaint the landlord has not disputed the resident’s account regarding the length of time the leak has been ongoing and unresolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to his personal items due to the leak

In response to the resident’s reports of damage to his personal items the landlord directed the resident to make a claim via its insurers. While the Ombudsman cannot comment on the outcome of an insurance claim, as we cannot determine liability, this Service will consider whether it was fair and appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue an insurance claim for damage to his personal items. This is because, if a landlord disputes fault, it may be reasonable to refer a resident to its own insurer to establish liability.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to its insurance team for damage to his personal items, as it had demonstrated that it was responding to his reports of a leak, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it would also have ben reasonable for the landlord to have proactively considered whether a goodwill gesture should have been offered. This is because, despite the landlord’s actions and attempts to resolve the leak, its repair records clearly demonstrated that the leak had been ongoing for a number of years which could reasonably have resulted in damage to the resident’s personal belongings through no fault of his own.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While both the landlord’s stage one and stage two complaint responses were provided outside of the 10 (stage one) and 20 (stage two) working days prescribed by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and its own complaint policy, the delays were not so significant as to adversely impact on the resident – approximately two days at stage one and eight days at stage two. The landlord did not acknowledge the short delays within either of its complaint responses, which would have been best practice.
While the complaint was live the resident expressed that his daughter’s health had been impacted as a result of the matters subject of the complaint. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord responded to the resident in this regard. This would have been best practice as a landlord should carefully consider a resident’s reported circumstances or vulnerabilities when responding to a complaint to determine if any further support or assistance should be offered.
However alone these omissions do not amount to a service failure, but should be considered by the landlord as learning going forwards.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to his personal items due to the leak.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property

While it was appropriate that the landlord did attend to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property between 2014 and mid-2022, it should have recognised at a much earlier time that a more robust approach was needed to identify the source of the leak. There is no evidence that the landlord used its records, which documented a history of reports, to inform its approach in responding to the leak, including on receipt of the resident’s complaint in October 2021. It is unsatisfactory that the resident was reporting the same issue for a period of approximately eight years.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to his personal items due to the leak

While it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to its insurance team for damage to his personal items it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether a goodwill gesture should have been offered as the leak had been ongoing for several years without a permanent solution despite its intervention.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While it would have been best practice for the landlord to have apologised that its complaint responses were delayed in addition to responding to the resident’s report that the leak had impacted on his daughter’s health, alone this does not amount to a service failure, as the resident has not been significantly adversely impacted by these shortcomings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident from its Chief Executive for the repairs service it provided.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £2,160 compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination. This comprises the £160 compensation which the landlord awarded itself in addition to £2,000 in recognition of the time the landlord has taken to proactively resolve the long-running leak into the property and therefore the distress, inconvenience and uncertainty he would have experienced as a result of the repeated leaks into the property.
The landlord should write to the resident, within four weeks of the date of this determination, to provide an updated action plan detailing the steps it is taking in order to investigate and address water ingress into the property, as per the proposal of phased works. The landlord should update the resident on a regular basis, at least three weekly, with progress on the action plan so that he is kept informed.
The landlord should update all other affected tenants within the building and should inform this Service how it intends to keep them updated while works are completed. The landlord should comply with this order within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord should assess whether the resident meets the requirement for temporary accommodation while the works to address water ingress into the property are outstanding and undertaken. The landlord should complete the assessment within four weeks of the date of this determination, clearly explaining its reasons for its decision in writing to the resident.
The landlord should consider the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to his personal items under its complaint procedure. The landlord should write to the resident, within four weeks of the date of the determination, to confirm the outcome of its assessment. Where additional compensation is not deemed appropriate the landlord should provide a full explanation setting out its reasons.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach and management of records relating to repairs. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report, but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall review of complaint handling and its repairs service.