Issue - meetings

To consider the findings and recommendations from Local Government Ombudsman’s investigation in to complaints about temporary accommodation allocated and managed by Homes for Haringey, as  set out in the Ombudsman’s report dated 11^th April 2019.

The Committee considered the findings of a report issued by the Local Government Ombudsman in response to complaints about Temporary Accommodation allocated and managed by Homes for Haringey (HfH) to a resident (Ms B). The report was issued on 11^th April 2019 and the Council had three months to consider the findings of that report. The report was set out in the agenda pack at pages 1-32 and was introduced by Sean McLaughlin, Managing Director (MD) of HfH. The following was noted in discussion of this report:

a.    The case related to a resident in Temporary Accommodation who had been allocated two properties in the borough during the timeframe of the Ombudsman’s report. A fundamental element of the complaint was around the allocation of unsuitable accommodation, however this was not found to be the case in the Ombudsman’s report. A further aspect of the report related to repair issues, including boiler defects, mould and a cockroach infestation. The Ombudsman upheld some of these complaints. The Managing Director HfH advised that the most significant finding/s against the Council related to the fact that the timescales for responding to a review of suitability were exceeded (for both properties). The Ombudsman’s findings in relation to the suitability review were exacerbated by similar failings from a previous Ombudsman’s report in 2017.

b.    The MD HfH advised that following the outcome of this case, HfH had stopped using an independent reviewer due to the delays caused. HfH acknowledged that the Ombudsman had found against the Council in respect of it calculating the 56 day time period incorrectly as it should start when the request was received rather than from when the request was acknowledged. The Committee was advised that there were no cases currently exceeding the 56 day period.

c.    The MD HfH set out that part of the reason for the failings was due to the complexity of the case and understanding where responsibility lay between the private sector landlord and HfH. In response to a question, the Committee was advised that in this case, the Council had leased a property from a private sector landlord and so there were a number of issues around determining responsibility between the leaseholder and the freeholder. In response to this issue, HfH were in the process of employing a specialist private-sector surveyor to undertake inspections.

d.    HfH advised that, as a management team, they needed to learn lessons about coordinating responses to individuals who had lodged a high number of complaints, and ensure that the broader requirement of undertaking a suitability review within the statutory timescales was not undermined by attempting to resolve repair issues.

e.    A further key conclusion outline by HfH was that they failed to engage constructively with the Ombudsman from the outset.

f.     In response to a question around the volume of similar Ombudsman complaints, officers advised that there were two separate Ombudsmans that covered housing matters, the Local Government Ombudsman and the Housing Ombudsman. Complaints to the Housing Ombudsman were a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82