Haringey London Borough Council (202301477)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301477

Haringey London Borough Council

19 November 2024

 

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 the resident’s reports about:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. Outstanding repairs.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started in November 1979. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord confirmed it was made aware during the complaints process that the resident is disabled. The resident confirmed to this Service that she uses a walking stick.
  2. The resident contacted this Service on 12 April 2023. She said she had not been able to contact the landlord about her complaint. This Service wrote to the landlord on the same day, asking the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint by 28 April 2024. The complaint was about damp and mould in the kitchen, and incomplete repairs in the downstairs bathroom.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 4 July 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said it had sent a letter to the resident’s neighbour, who was not a tenant of the landlord, about damp issues from their property. Once the landlord received notification that this had been resolved it would revisit the resident about any making good work. It said it was liaising with the major works team about the incomplete bathroom works. It said it would update the resident on this. It also referred to a repair to loose/missing tiles to the external steps, which it said was not part of the original complaint. It said a job had been raised to remedy this on 22 August 2023. It apologised for the mismanagement of this repair.
  4. On 6 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. She said the issues in the stage 1 response were not resolved. She said her health was suffering, she no longer felt safe or comfortable cooking or eating in the kitchen, and she wanted compensation as the issues had been ongoing since 2019.
  5. A representative of the resident emailed the landlord on 29 November 2023. They asked for an update on the complaint. They said the repairs remained incomplete, and the hazards and stress to the resident had been severe. They raised safety concerns about the loose tiles.
  6. The landlord provided a further stage 1 response on 14 December 2023. It said the following:
    1. It upheld the resident’s complaint.
    2. It last attended to a job for the repair of floor tiles on 6 November 2023. It had raised a follow-on job to complete the repair on 24 January 2024.
    3. It apologised for the delay to this repair.
    4. It completed a damp and mould survey on 6 December 2023. Following this, it had booked a mould wash for 3 January 2024. A plumber was booked to attend on 8 January 2024.
  7. On 21 January 2024, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She told the landlord that nothing was being done and a number of plumbers had visited. The resident said she was on the verge of suicide due to the stress and could not cook a meal without dirt and plaster falling into the food. She said the landlord had not got back to her about the neighbouring property.
  8. The landlord provided its final response on 15 March 2024. It said the following:
    1. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 12 April 2023. This was about damp, mould and water ingress, loose tiling, and outstanding repairs to the bathroom.
    2. In its response on 4 July 2023, the landlord had advised there were issues with access to the neighbouring property meaning the team were unable to determine the cause of the water ingress and mould. It had also stated it would follow up on the completion of the bathroom repairs.
    3. A new complaint was raised on 30 November 2023 following contact from the resident informing it that there had been no progress on the issues. It had opened a new stage 1 complaint. This was responded to on 14 December 2023.
    4. It apologised for the delays the resident experienced with its repairs team. This had fallen well below the standard of service it expected to provide.
    5. The floor tile repair was completed on 12 February 20224.
    6. On 21 December 2023 it completed a mould wash to the toilet. There was no noted damp in the kitchen on the survey notes but plastering works were to be completed.
    7. On 19 January 2024, a plumber attended to inspect and resolve any leaks. There were no follow-on works noted as required.
    8. On 14 February 2024, a plastering inspection was completed. Follow on works were planned to be completed on 4 April 2024.
    9. A damp and mould treatment was planned for 25 and 26 March 2024.
    10. It would inspect/repair the external brickwork on 4 April 2024.
    11. It would inspect the flooring in the downstairs toilet on 5 April 2024.
    12. It provided contact details if the resident needed to rearrange any of the scheduled appointments.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In August 2024, the resident told this Service that the damp had grown in the kitchen and toilet. The resident also said the works to the toilet had not been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised during the complaint process that repairs remained outstanding from 2019. While the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s more recent reports that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  2. The resident reported to this Service in August 2024 that the damp and mould had grown in the toilet and kitchen, and her belongings had been affected by damp and mould. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint made in April 2023 and addressed in the landlord’s final response in March 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service.
  3. In raising her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting her health. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, the investigation cannot directly assess any reported impact on health or the liability for impacts on health and wellbeing, as this is better suited for the courts.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord was required to consider whether any damp and mould in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The landlord’s repairs handbook says agreed appointment are repairs which can be completed within a single visit and it will keep agreed appointments within 28 days. Planned repairs include those where the job may take several days to complete. For these repairs, it will inspect within 28 days and tell the resident at the inspection when the job will be carried out.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says as soon as it is made aware of a damp and mould case, it will be categorised according to severity, with the most serious cases prioritised for immediate action. The policy catagorises cases of damp and mould as follows:
    1. Category 1 (serious) hazards are the most severe cases. A works order will be raised and an emergency inspection will be carried out by a surveyor within one working day. Where the risk cannot be removed immediately because of the extent of the works required it will move residents out of their home immediately under its temporary moves policy if the location of the mould in their home poses a risk to their health.
    2. Category 2 (moderate) hazards are reviewed and the tenant responded to within five working days. Where it is appropriate, mould washes will be undertaken and dehumidifiers will be provided and advice given to the resident on how to reduce issues with damp and mould, while the cause of the damp is identified and rectified. Repairs will be undertaken within the target time scale as set out in its published repairs standards.
    3. Category 2 (slight/typical) hazards are where a hazard has been classified as a slight or typical risk, this will be actioned as a normal responsive repair and attended to within 28 days.
  4. The landlord’s housing compensation policy says claims for compensation and/or reimbursement will only be considered within 12 months of the incident, or in line with statutory requirements. The landlord can award compensation based on its level of responsibility and the impact on the resident of between £20 and £500.
  5. This Service published a spotlight on damp and mould report prior to this complaint. This stated that landlords should have a ‘zero tolerance approach’ to damp and mould and be proactive in identifying potential issues. It says that landlords should look beyond the immediate symptoms, such as wet walls, and look to find the cause.
  6. The landlord’s records did not show when the resident first reported damp and mould in the kitchen. As such, it was not possible to establish the full timescale of this issue. The resident raised this to the landlord in her complaint in April 2023. Therefore, it is considered reasonable for this investigation to have assessed the landlord’s response to the repairs noted in this report from the timeframe of April 2023 onwards.
  7. As set out in the Spotlight on repairs report published by this Service in March 2019, landlords should keep comprehensive records of resident’s reports of disrepair and their responses. The landlord had not demonstrated that it accurately recorded the resident’s initial reports of the repairs. This resulted in the resident taking the time to follow up on the repairs in the form of his complaint.
  8. Clear record keeping is a core function of repair, and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to the Ombudsman when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding reports and issues and provide effective services to its residents. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management sets out expectations for landlords on how they manage housing information. The report specifically refers to the need for “accurate and robust record keeping”. An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it and residents. It would also help with our investigations by improving our understanding of the situation at the time.
  9. The landlord’s responses to the resident during the complaints process showed that previous investigations had been carried out (this Service has not seen a record of these), and the damp was identified as coming from a neighbouring property. The landlord confirmed to the resident in its stage 1 response on 4 July 2023 that it had delivered a letter to the resident’s neighbour on 3 July 2023 and would update the resident on any making good works to her property works once the neighbour contacted it about remedying the issue. There was no evidence of the landlord updating the resident on the outcome of this letter or the making good works prior to it raising a further stage 1 complaint about the matter in December 2023.
  10. In its final response, the landlord stated works including damp and mould treatments had been arranged for 25 and 26 March 2024; follow on plastering works and an inspection/repair of external brickwork had also been booked for 4 April 2024. The landlord confirmed to this Service that this work was completed and its repair records showed the repairs raised in relation to the damp and mould were completed in April 2024. This was a timeframe of almost 12 months following the resident initially raising her complaint.
  11. It is acknowledged that damp, mould and internal damage can take more than one inspection or repair attempt to resolve as there can be several potential causes. In this case the landlord had identified the neighbouring property as the cause of the damp prior to its initial stage 1 response in July 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the neighbouring property as a possible cause following its inspections. It is also acknowledged that the landlord does not own the neighbouring property and as such did not have access to this.
  12. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that itfollowed this up with the neighbour within a reasonable timeframe.On 25 August 2023, the landlord told the resident it had asked the planning team to schedule a leak investigation appointment at the neighbouring property as this had been carded due to no access last time. However, it did not provide a further update on this. A further inspection took place at the resident’s property on 6 December 2023 which identified the neighbouring property again as requiring investigation.
  13. The landlord also did not demonstrate that it had completed works to help alleviate the damp and mould for the resident in the meantime. A mould wash was not completed until December 2023. This was almost 7 months after the resident raised the issue as outstanding in her complaint. This was not in line with its damp and mould policy.
  14. The law does not specifically define what is considered a reasonable time, but this should depend on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. The resident informed the landlord of the impact the damp and mould to the kitchen was having on her ability to use the kitchen fully and cook safely in August 2023 and again in January 2024. She had also informed the resident of the impact on her health in an email on 6 August 2023, and again through her representative in November 2023. However, there was no evidence of the landlord assessing the risk to her of the dam and mould in the kitchen or taking this information into consideration in the timeliness of it actioning the repairs.
  15. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration was given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. The landlord should have taken reasonable steps to understand the impact on the resident of the continued delay to the repairs.
  16. As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight on repairs report published in March 2019, landlords must act promptly, particularly where issues are having a significant impact on residents. They should be aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond to this. While the landlord confirmed to this Service the resident had reported in her stage 1 complaint that she is disabled, the landlord did not confirm that it had vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. As such, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded to ensure it records are accurate and up to date.
  17. While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs and investigation of damp and mould issues may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of the repairs. The resident followed up with the landlord on the progress of the repairs on 6 August 2023, in November 2023, and in January 2024 because she had not heard back from the landlord. It was evident the landlord did not proactively keep the resident updated on the repairs to the damp and mould. As a result, the resident did not know when she could expect the repairs to be completed. The landlord demonstrated a lack of customer focused approach.
  18. To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that might have happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. In its final response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged the delays in completing the repairs and apologised. While the landlord has attempted to put things right through an apology, it failed to offer the resident appropriate redress, including financial compensation reflecting the detriment experienced by the resident. This was not in line with its compensation policy. It also failed to demonstrate it had taken learning from the complaint and identified what had gone wrong or provided any explanation for the delays. As such, it did not fully recognise the impact its failures had on the resident.
  19. In summary, the repair records provided lacked details on the landlord’s the investigations into the damp and mould and actions taken prior to the resident’s complaint in April 2023. However, it was evident the landlord had not acted in line with its damp and mould policy. It delayed in completing the repairs to the damp and mould. It was acknowledged the landlord stated it needed to gain permission from the adjoining resident as part of its investigations. However, the landlord had not provided evidence that having identified the need to obtain permissions from a neighbour, it followed through on this requirement in a prompt and efficient manner. It failed to provide an indication of when the resident could expect to receive an update on this or offer any repairs in the meantime until a mould wash was completed 7 months after the complaint was made. The landlord also did not demonstrate that it considered the health vulnerabilities of the resident in its response.
  20. The landlord did not demonstrate adequate communication with the resident on this repair, or that it retained a full oversight of the repair. Overall, the response provided by the landlord lacked a customer focused approach. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould. Compensation of £750 has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have had a significant impact on a resident.
  21. Following the end of the complaints process, the resident advised this Service that the damp and mould in the kitchen and toilet had grown. As such a further order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about this to arrange an inspection of this and any outstanding works.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs

  1. A landlord is expected to use the HHSRS to assess its housing and to ensure this meets the Decent Homes Standard. Falls associated with stairs and steps are one of the 29 matters and circumstances that can give rise to category one hazards under the HHSRS.
  2. The landlord’s repair records showed a job was raised on 16 June 2022 for floor tiles broken at the front of the property. The landlord visited the property on 30 August 2022. The job was completed on 12 February 2024. This was a timeframe of over 19 months. This delay was excessive, and the repair did not meet the timescales in the landlord’s repairs handbook.
  3. Following its initial visit on 30 August 2022, the landlord did not return to address the issue until 6 November 2023. It attended on this date to inspect the external steps and identified that 4 tiles were missing and 12 were loose and needed to be re-stuck. The landlord’s records showed it visited again on 24 January 2024 and following this it ordered materials. The landlord failed to retain an oversight of the repair and as such did not act for over a year following its initial inspection.
  4. It was evident that the resident had to chase the landlord for updates and appointments to complete the repair to the external tiles. The landlord’s records noted it received an email about the external tiles on 20 March 2023. The resident also chased the repair on 7 November 2023. The landlord’s internal correspondence from this date states the resident said the repair was due to be completed the previous day but the operative did not arrive. The resident had also raised it as a health and safety issue.
  5. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken into consideration the safety hazard of the missing tiles to the front steps to the resident. This was of particular concern given the resident had reported to this Service that she uses a walking stick. The landlord confirmed the resident reported in her complaint in November 2023 that she was disabled. However, it was not clear if the landlord was aware of this prior to the resident’s complaint. It was evident from the landlord’s internal correspondence on 7 November 2023 that it was aware at this point that the resident was disabled and that she had raised health and safety concerns about the tiles. Despite being aware of the presenting hazard to the resident, it still took a further 3 months to complete this repair. The landlord also did not demonstrate it had completed a risk assessment of the repair to the household.
  6. From the evidence provided by the landlord, it was not clear when the resident first raised the reported outstanding repair issues to the downstairs bathroom/toilet, or the exact nature of the works. It was evident the resident had raised the incomplete work to the downstairs bathroom in her complaint on 12 April 2023. It was not clear what action the landlord took following its response in July 2023. The landlord said in its final response that it had completed a mould wash of the toilet on 21 December 2023. This followed an inspection of the property on 6 December 2023. The resident confirmed to this Service in August 224 that the works to the toilet had not been completed. The landlord confirmed to this Service in September 2024 that the flooring in the bathroom had been replaced but it did not confirm when this happened. It was not possible to fully assess the landlord’s actions here from the records provided. However, it was evident that works to the bathroom/toilet were ongoing from April 2023.
  7. The landlord did not provide evidence to this Service of it updating the resident on the outstanding works as stated in its stage 1 response in July 2023. It was evident that again, the landlord had not retained oversight of the repair or kept the resident updated in the progress of the works. As a result, the resident had to follow up with the landlord and also raise a further complaint. This did not demonstrate a customer focused approach by the landlord.
  8. In its final response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged the delays in completing the repairs and apologised. While the landlord has attempted to put things right through an apology it failed to offer the resident appropriate redress through a reasonable and proportionate compensation offer.
  9. In summary, the landlord did not complete the repairs to the external floor tiles, or to the downstairs bathroom within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord failed to retain an adequate oversight of the repairs or proactively update the resident. As a result, the resident had to take the time and trouble to follow up with the landlord, seek assistance from this Service, and raise a complaint. The resident experienced the distress and inconvenience of continuing to chase the repairs to the downstairs bathroom, and of the external floor tiles remaining outstanding for an extended period. The landlord did not demonstrate that once aware of the risk to the resident that it took this into consideration in the timeliness of its response to the broken floor tiles or that it had undertaken an assessment of the risks of the outstanding repair to the resident.
  10. While the landlord acknowledged its delays in completing the repairs, its offer of redress by way of an apology, was not proportionate to its failures here. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports about outstanding repairs. Compensation of £500 has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have occurred over a protracted period and adversely affected a resident.
  11. Following the end of the complaints process, the resident advised this Service that the repairs to the bathroom were not completed. As such a further order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about this to arrange an inspection of any outstanding works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send a full response within 10 working days. If the resident is unhappy with its response, the resident can ask the feedback and resolutions team to review the complaint. It will acknowledge the request to continue with the complaint within 5 working days and reply in writing within 20 working days. The policy says it cannot investigate complaints about something that happened more than 12 months ago.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
  3. It was evident that the resident first raised her complaint to the landlord through the assistance of this Service on 12 April 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 4 July 2023. This was a timeframe of 56 working days. This did not meet the timescales in the landlord’s complaint policy or the Code.
  4. It was evident that the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response in an email to the landlord on 6 August 2023. She said the issues in the stage 1 response had not been resolved and requested compensation. The landlord responded to this in an email on 25 August 2023, however it did not escalate the complaint to stage 2. As such it missed an opportunity to address the resident’s dissatisfaction and substantive complaint issues earlier. The Ombudsman’s view is that the resident was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, and the issues remained the same. The landlord should have allowed an escalation to stage 2 of its complaint process.
  5. A representative of the resident emailed the landlord on 29 November 2023 to request an update on the stage 1 response, stating the repairs remained incomplete. The landlord acknowledged this and opened a new stage 1 complaint on 4 December 2023. It provided a further stage 1 response on 14 December 2023. This was a timeframe of 10 working days from receipt of the complaint. It is noted the landlord did not provide the resident with a reason for its decision to open a further stage 1 complaint.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 21 February 2024. It provided its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024. This was a timeframe of 17 working days, and within the timescales within the landlord’s complaint policy. However, the resident emailed a complaint handler directly on 21 January 2024 and said she wanted the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 and provided reasons. The landlord responded on 23 January 2024 and advised the resident she needed to raise this complaint to stage 2 using the details on the stage 1 response. The landlord’s refusal to action the resident’s escalation request on 21 January 2024 was unreasonable. This resulted in a further delay in her access to a stage 2 investigation. The landlord should have raised this internally for the resident. As a result, she had to take the time and trouble to further raise this.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling took too long and did not follow the timescales in its complaints policy or the Code at stage 1. It failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 and opened a further stage 1 complaint about the same issues. This resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident, both delaying the resolution and her access to an investigation by the Service. This caused the resident the time and trouble to follow up on her complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge its delay at stage 1 or explain its decision to open a further stage 1 complaint. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 for its poor complaint handling. This amount is within the amounts specified in the landlord’s compensation policy and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to apologise for the further service failures identified in this report.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1500. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
    1. £750 for the likely distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
    2. £500 for the likely distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs.
    3. £250 for the likely inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
  3. The landlord is to arrange an inspection of the property and complete a full assessment of any outstanding work required, this must include the damp in the kitchen, and the repairs to the toilet. Following this inspection, the landlord is to provide the resident with a reasonable timeframe for any outstanding repairs to be completed in line with its policy.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household, to ensure its records are accurate and up to date.
  2. The landlord reviews its record-keeping practices and considers providing additional staff training to ensure it is keeping clear and accurate records relating to repairs.
  3. The landlord should review its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chat to us