Haringey Council (202009073)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009073

Haringey Council

23 June 2021

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 regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation in her property.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overcrowding and her request to move properties.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(e) and 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of Anti-Social Behaviour.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overcrowding and her request to move properties.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that ‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising’.
The resident’s reports of ASB referenced within her complaint were historic and the only evidence provided to this investigation related to a reported incident from 2017. However, her complaint to the landlord was not made until July 2020, significantly over 6 months since the matters arose. While there are concerns over the landlord’s record keeping, as it advised it had no record of receiving any ASB reports since 2012, despite evidence referred to above that it received emails from the resident’s support worker relating to ASB in 2017, these reports will not form part of this Service’s investigation as they are considered outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because there is no evidence that the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports within a reasonable period of time of the matters complained of occurring.
Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’. Matters relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overcrowding in her property and a request to move to a new property would usually be for consideration by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) as this is the organisation that considers complaints about how a local authority manages its allocations and lettings functions and will therefore not be considered during this investigation. The LGSCO can be contacted via www.lgo.org.uk if the resident wishes it to consider this aspect of her complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a Local Authority. She resides in a 1-bedroom maisonette and has done so since 2010.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy, aiming to respond at Stage One within 10 working days and at Stage Two (Independent Review) within 25 working days. It states it will contact the resident to clarify the complaint, if required, and that the right to complaint is generally limited to 12 months from the date of the incident that led to the complaint.
The landlord has a repairs policy which states that repairs fall into one of four categories: Out of Hours; Emergency; Agreed Appointment; and Planned Repairs. It advises that for ‘agreed appointments’, which cover repairs that can be completed in a single visit, residents will be offered an appointment within 28 days. For ‘planned repairs’, which relate to repairs which will need to be pre-inspected, it states that an inspection will take place within 28 days.

Summary of Events

On 9 July 2020, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. In her complaint, the resident raised the following issues:
1. Her current accommodation was unsuitable for her and her children.
2. On ‘numerous occasions’ she had reported various issues including damp, mould and problems with mice but ‘these have yet to be resolved’. She noted an appointment had been booked to inspect the mould in 2017 with her advocate but the landlord had not attended.
3. She had reported being a victim of ASB and harassment, but this had not been ‘escalated’ or added to her file.
4. She had ‘constantly been given inaccurate information (and) at times been ignored’. She stated that this had had an impact on her mental health due to pre-existing medical issues.
5. ‘Various…departments’ had lost documents and not updated her file which had led to ‘numerous inaccuracies’, although no further details were given regarding which departments had lost documents and what had been lost.
6. She was seeking compensation for ‘the damage that has been done to me and my children’ and ‘damage that has been done to my things because of the mould and damp’, although no specific details were given regarding the items she wished to be compensated for.
On 23 July 2020, the landlord issued its Stage One response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. Regarding the resident’s concern that her property was unsuitable, it provided clarification and an update on the status of her housing application along with details of other housing options available to her.
Responding to the resident’s other concerns, the landlord advised:
1. Following her reports of damp, the resident’s property had now been added to its surveyor’s inspection list. However, the landlord would not attend until ‘normal service has resumed, after the current COVID restrictions’ and it would ‘contact (the resident) to make an appointment once able to do so.’ It also provided a video link that gave advice on mould washing. Regarding her reports of a mouse infestation, it stated the resident’s property was included within block wide treatment which had been undertaken by its Pest Control Team over a twelve-month period, starting in August 2019. It advised that it had been unable to gain access to the resident’s property ‘on any occasion over a seven-month period’, with the last visit being attempted in February 2020.
2. Regarding the resident’s reports of ASB not being added to her file, it advised the last report it had logged on its ASB recording system was from 2012 and was marked as having been resolved at the time. It advised the resident to report any further incidents and provided contact details.
3. Regarding the resident being given inaccurate information or being ignored by the landlord, it apologised for this and for the effect this had had on her mental health. The landlord stated that it ‘always endeavours to keep records of any interactions (we) have with a tenant on their file’.
4. Regarding lost documents, the landlord advised it could not identify from her complaint which departments the resident had referred to so had not been able to contact them for a response. It requested that the resident provide further details.
On 27 July 2020, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated due to issues including:
1. Her complaint being investigated by a member of staff who was involved in her case.
2. She should not have been offered rehousing assistance via a scheme which did not have funding, and this was an example of inaccurate information she had been given by the landlord which had affected her mental health.
3. The landlord not addressing her point about why it had not responded to her previous reports of damp and mould and why it did not attend an inspection that had been arranged with her advocate.
4. She had not received any letter or phone call regarding the landlord requesting access to her property in relation to pest control treatment.
5. She disputed the landlord’s statement that it had not received any reports of ASB since 2012 and advised she had made several reports since then.
6. She again requested compensation for ‘damage’ but did not provide any specific details of what she wanted to be compensated for.
On 25 September 2020, the landlord issued its Independent Review (Stage Two) response. It apologised to the resident for the delayed response and summarised the resident’s complaint as being about:
1. The fact her complaint was responded to by the member of staff she had complained about.
2. That, regarding rehousing, the landlord had offered her a scheme which was out of funding.
3. That the damp in her property had not been dealt with and that the landlord had missed an appointment scheduled with her advocate.
4. That she had not received any missed appointment card from the landlord’s pest control team.
5. That the landlord had no record of the resident’s further reports of ASB.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. Addressing each point in turn, the landlord stated that:
1. While according to its procedures a manager would usually respond to a complaint made against a staff member, it had considered that the complaint was regarding issues such as damp, pest control and a transfer request rather than the member of staff’s specific behaviour.
2. The rehousing scheme it had promoted to the resident had lost funding after it had been suggested to her and this change of circumstances could not have been foreseen.
3. It had not been able to respond to the resident’s reports of damp as due to ‘restrictions in place due to coronavirus, operatives were unable to attend non urgent appointments.’ It advised that a surveyor had since attended on 15 September 2020. Regarding an appointment it had allegedly missed with the resident’s advocate, it advised it had no record of this and requested that the resident provide further details of the appointment if she wished the matter to be investigated further.
4. The resident’s property was included as part of a block treatment and its Pest Control team ‘were visiting monthly over a twelve-month period starting in August 2019’. It stated that the team had been ‘unable to gain access to your property on any occasion over a seven-month period (last visit February 2020).’
5. It had additionally checked with its ASB enforcement team who advised they had not received any new ASB reports from the resident since 2012.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Within her complaint, the resident stated she had made reports regarding damp and mould in her property over a number of years. Evidence seen by this investigation indicates that an advocate contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident regarding this issue, and the landlord had confirmed via email that it would inspect her property in June 2017. However, apart from the correspondence provided to this Service referred to above, this investigation has not been provided with any further evidence that the matter had been raised since by the resident. This Service acknowledges that the resident’s complaint suggests she has had contact with several separate departments within the landlord’s organisation and it may be that she had brought the matter to the landlord’s attention elsewhere, but in the absence of any further details or evidence to confirm this, this Service is unable to reach any conclusion as to whether that was the case. This Service also notes that the resident appears to have only brought her complaint over the missed appointment to the landlord’s attention around three years after the incident took place.
Despite this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord did not respond fully to the resident’s concerns in its Stage One and Stage Two responses, missing opportunities to put matters right. In her complaint escalation request, the resident reiterates that the landlord had missed an inspection relating to damp and mould that it had agreed to carry out in 2017. As above, although the landlord advised it had no record of this appointment, evidence submitted to this investigation shows that it did arrange a visit to the resident’s property via email to inspect mould and damp and confirmed this with her advocate, which raises concerns over its record keeping. The landlord could have reasonably cited its complaints policy and advised it could not investigate issues that had not been raised within 12 months of them occurring. However, it did not do so and instead advised it had no record of the appointment, which appears to be incorrect.
Following the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord advised in its response on 23 July 2020 that her property had been listed for a surveyor’s appointment. It advised that due to ‘the current COVID restrictions’ it would not be able to attend and would contact the resident once ‘normal service has resumed’. While this Service acknowledges the significant extra challenges faced by landlords, and the additional pressures on their services, as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is noted that Government guidance issued to social housing residents on 11 May 2020 stated that ‘landlords should be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households’. This guidance was further updated on 1 June 2020, stating that landlords ‘can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken with public health advice.’
Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates that landlords may have had repairs backlogs as a result of the pandemic and therefore needed to prioritise urgent repairs, there is no evidence that this was explained to the resident. Furthermore, in its submissions to this investigation, the landlord has not provided any specific policies regarding how its services had been altered due to Covid-19, or whether it had put in place any revised procedures regarding home visits or its ability to carry out repairs and inspections. Therefore, having noted the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property, it was unreasonable of the landlord to advise it would not attend to carry out an inspection due to ‘current COVID restrictions’ as Government guidance at the time was that landlords should continue to honour their repair responsibilities, where safe to do so. There is no evidence that the landlord had deemed it unsafe to visit the resident’s property or carried out any kind of risk assessment before advising that it would not attend until the resumption of ‘normal service’. This was not appropriate and caused an unnecessary delay in responding to the resident’s report.
Having advised the resident it would contact her when ‘normal service has resumed’, repair logs provided to this Service by the landlord show the landlord did raise an order to ‘inspect mould/damp in the property’ on 20 August 2020. The landlord’s repair log indicates that this took place on 10 September 2020, although in its Stage Two response it refers to a visit taking place on 15 September 2020. Having advised the resident in its Stage One response in July 2020 that her property had been added to its surveyor’s list for inspections, this was outside the 28-day target set out in its Repair Policy by either 21 or 26 days, depending on the date it actually took place. This was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an unreasonable delay, particularly as there is no evidence of any explanation for the delay being offered to the resident.
Repair logs indicate that following this inspection, a further order was raised for a surveyor to attend the property, although no details are available regarding what this second inspection was for. The landlord’s Stage Two response did not refer to a further inspection being required or give the resident further clarification regarding the actions it would be taking to investigate the issue and what, if any, works or repairs had been identified following the first inspection. This was not appropriate and missed an opportunity to offer the resident clarity regarding the actions it would be taking to resolve the issue.
It is also noted that the repair logs provided to this Service do not contain any additional information regarding the outcome of the inspections and in the landlord’s submissions to this investigation it advised that ‘survey inspection reports are not available’ but did not provide further explanation as to why that was the case. Although the landlord has advised this Service that ‘subsequent remedial instructions were issued’ and completed on 20 December 2020, no further detail was provided, and it is noted that this repair was not referred to within the repair logs submitted. It is further noted that the landlord’s repair logs refer to a second inspection taking place in January 2021, after it stated that remedial works had been completed, and some four months after the second inspection order had been raised following the initial inspection in September 2020. Although this Service acknowledges that Government guidance regarding home visiting changed again following the second national lockdown on 5 November 2020, even allowing for this, there appears to be an unreasonable delay in the landlord attending for a second inspection and again it was outside of the landlord’s 28-day inspection target. The above lack of clarity regarding inspections and repairs carried out means this Service is unable to determine whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould and damp in her property following her complaint were reasonable or proportionate.
The Ombudsman also has concerns over the consistency of the landlord’s record keeping and its ability to evidence actions taken in response to repair reports and in seeking to resolve the resident’s complaint. As the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out, identifying actions that can put a matter right, and then following up on those actions, is essential for effective complaint handling. There is insufficient evidence that the landlord has done so in this case.
Regarding how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and her escalation request, on both occasions she stated she wished to be compensated for ‘damage’ resulting from alleged mould and damp at her property. Based on the evidence available, this Service is not able to make any determination as to whether any damage had been caused, or whether compensation would have been appropriate if it had. This is because, in both its Stage One and Stage Two responses, the landlord does not address the request and does not evidence that it had even considered the resident’s request. This was not appropriate. While this Service acknowledges it would have been helpful for the resident to be specific about the damage she believed had been caused and the amount of compensation she was seeking, the landlord ought to have contacted her to clarify these details, which would have enabled it to consider the request. It could also have directed her to her insurer if she had one. These are reasonable actions the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take if it were treating the resident fairly, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and should have formed part of a comprehensive complaint response. It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy states it will contact complainants to clarify aspects of their complaint if required, which did not happen in this case.
Furthermore, in its Stage Two response, the landlord did not identify the delay in carrying out an inspection at the resident’s property regarding the reported damp and mould referred to above. This meant the landlord missed an opportunity to apologise or consider other remedies to ‘put things right’, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. This also raises concerns over the thoroughness of its Stage Two investigation. It is also noted that the landlord’s Independent Review response was issued 18 days outside of its stated target time of 25 working days. Although it did apologise to the resident for this, it did not provide any further explanation for the delay.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation in her property.

In her original complaint, the resident stated that she had made previous reports regarding a mouse infestation in her property, but the landlord had not resolved this. The resident advised that she had first reported this in 2015 and the landlord had initially advised it could lay poison in the property, but she considered this to be unsafe due to having young children. However, this investigation has not been provided with any further evidence that suggests the issue had been raised again with the landlord until the resident’s complaint. This Service also notes that the resident appears to have only brought her complaint regarding the landlord’s response to her concerns of a mouse infestation to landlord’s attention around five years after the incident took place.
However, in its Stage One response, the landlord advised that the resident’s property had been included within a block wide pest control treatment that began in August 2019. It stated that its Pest Control team had not been able to access the resident’s property ‘on any occasion over a seven-month period’. In her complaint escalation request, the resident contested this and advised she had not received any letters or missed appointment cards relating to any appointments or attempted visits. In its Stage Two response to the resident, it is noted that the landlord does not address this point, despite specifically noting in its complaint definition that the resident had raised this and proceeded to repeat the same information it provided in its Stage One response, namely that it had been unable to gain access to her property during a seven-month period. This was not appropriate and raises concerns over thoroughness of its responses and the depth of its investigation into the resident’s complaint.
It is also noted that, as part of this investigation, this Service wrote to the landlord and requested records regarding the reports of pest infestation at the resident’s property. As the pest control issue was not referred to within the landlord’s repair logs, this Service made a further request for details of the work that was undertaken as part of the block wide treatment and for details of when the landlord had attempted to attend the resident’s property. The landlord has not responded to this request. This was not appropriate and raises further concerns over its record keeping, as it has not provided evidence of when the issue was raised by the resident, despite it being aware of the issue due to the resident’s property being included within reported block wide pest control treatment, what work it was carrying out within her block, or the dates it had attempted to gain access. While this Service appreciates that access issues can cause problems when landlord are attempting to progress repairs, the landlord has not provided this Service, or the resident, with further information of the access issues it stated it experienced. From the information available to this investigation, there is insufficient evidence of the landlord responding appropriately to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation within her property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

As set out above, the landlord’s complaint responses were brief and did not address the resident’s complaints in full. While it is noted that some of the resident’s complaints seem to relate to incidents that have occurred outside of the time period that would generally be considered and the landlord could have chosen to cite that part of its policy, it did not do so and instead provided insufficiently detailed responses to a number of the resident’s concerns.
The landlord could have been more proactive in contacting the resident to clear up any areas of confusion, including her compensation request, which it did not address at all, or which department(s) she stated had lost documentation. The landlord’s responses to the resident were brief and, concerning the issue of alleged missed appointments from its Pest Control team, its Stage Two response simply repeated the information provided in its previous response and did not give any indication that it had properly considered or investigated the query raised in her escalation request. Furthermore, while the landlord acknowledged its Stage Two response was delayed and issued an apology, it did not give the resident any explanation for this.
The Ombudsman has therefore taken the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling and how it investigated and responded to the resident’s complaints overall into account when reaching a determination of the resident’s complaints about damp and mould and a mouse infestation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.

Reasons

After the resident raised concerns over damp and mould within her complaint, the landlord delayed in carrying out an inspection at her property. It unreasonably advised her that it would attend at that time due to the Covid-19 pandemic and because the issue was considered ‘non-urgent’. While this Service recognises the challenges faced by landlords during this period, this was contrary to Government guidance in place at the time and the landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest why it could not have taken steps to attend the resident’s property in a safe way. Once it did raise an inspection, there was a further delay in attending and its records do not make clear what actions or repairs have taken place following the inspections it has carried out. In its submissions to this investigation, the landlord advised that it was not able to provide survey reports, but did not advise why, and it remains unclear to this Service what work has been ordered, completed, and, if anything, remains outstanding.
The landlord has not been able to evidence the actions it has taken, or has tried to take, to investigate the resident’s reports regarding a mouse infestation at her property. While it has advised that her property is part of a wider treatment plan covering her block, it has not provided information regarding what treatment it is carrying out, or when it first received reports of issues at her property. While it has advised the resident that she did not provide access when it attempted to attend her property, it has not provided details of when it attended or how it communicated with her, either as part of its complaint response or to this investigation. To date, it is not clear what action the landlord plans to take to try and resolve this issue.
The landlord’s complaint responses are brief and do not address the resident’s complaints in full. While it is noted that some of the resident’s complaints seem to relate to incidents that have occurred outside of the time period that would generally be considered and the landlord could have chosen to cite that part of its policy, it did not do so and instead provided insufficiently detailed responses to a number of the resident’s concerns. It could have been more proactive in contacting the resident to clear up any areas of confusion, including her compensation request, which it did not address at all, or which department(s) she stated had lost documentation. The landlord’s responses to the resident were brief and, concerning the issue of alleged missed appointments from its Pest Control team, its Stage Two response simply repeated the information provided in its previous response and did not give any indication that it had properly considered or investigated the query raised in her escalation request. While the landlord acknowledged its Stage Two response was delayed and issued an apology, it did not give the resident any explanation for this.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £500 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, consisting of:
1. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in progressing an investigation into the resident’s reports of mould and damp at her property, for not providing an appropriate complaint response regarding her request for compensation and for its delayed Stage Two response.
2. £200 in recognition of the lack of clarity provided regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation at her property and not providing an appropriate complaint response to her query regarding when it attended, or attempted to attend, her property during block-wide treatment.

Recommendations

The landlord should, if it has not done so already, contact the resident to arrange access to her property for it to complete the required pest control treatment.
The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with staff members who deal with complaints to ensure that they respond to complaints in accordance with best practice.