Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Haringey London Borough Council (202324341)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINTS 202324341 and 202329421

Haringey London Borough Council

13 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 dampness and the associated repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaints.

Background

  1. The resident has held a lease with the landlord since 18 July 2022. She lives in a ground-floor flat which is situated within a larger building.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident began reporting repairs and dampness in her property on 21 November 2022. The landlord identified works that were required to the resident’s building through its subsequent inspections. The works included repointing some of the brickwork, replastering the affected parts of the living room, and renewing the skirting in both the living room and communal area.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 occasions, on 6 and 17 September 2023. The landlord recorded 2 separate complaints. The resident’s first complaint (landlord reference LBH/14433723) focused on the landlord’s delay in starting works to the exterior of her property. She said the guttering needed replacing as water was leaking down the wall and entering her property through the window frames.
  4. The resident’s second complaint (landlord reference LBH/14475923) was on 17 September 2023. This complaint was linked to her previous complaint about the structural repairs. However, her main issue was about the landlord’s handling of her reports of dampness in her living room. She said her flooring was bowed, there was fungus on the skirting board, and mould spores. She said that the conditions posed a health risk and she wanted to know the landlord’s plans for starting the works.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s first complaint (reference LBH/14433723) at stage 1 of its complaints process on 19 October 2023. It said it had completed the roofing repairs, and she could claim from her insurance regarding damages to her property. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to the next stage of its complaints process the same day. She said its first reply was inaccurate, as it had not completed any roofing works that month, and the guttering was still leaking. The landlord responded on 16 November. It agreed its first response did not address the issues and said it would keep her informed of its plans to start the guttering works. It offered her £25 in compensation.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident’s second complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process on 29 November 2023. It apologised for its poor communications concerning the works, and acknowledged its delays in assigning them. It promised to address the cause of the dampness and make good the subsequent internal damage. It said its plans to resolve the guttering were part of a “larger works project” and it would let the resident know of its plans when these works were scheduled.
  7. The resident escalated her second complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 29 November 2023. She said she was pleased works were going ahead, but she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s delay in starting them. She said she had chased the landlord “100s of times” in over a year. She also complained about the landlord’s handling of her complaint. She said its first response to her complaint was delayed and it had blocked her from escalating it.
  8. The landlord responded to the resident’s second complaint on 30 January 2024. It confirmed it had completed the internal repair works. However, it said the guttering works remained outstanding and it agreed to update her when it would begin them. It offered her £200 in compensation for the time she had spent in reporting the issues.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaints and referred them to the Ombudsman. She later confirmed that the landlord completed all of the works in May 2024. However, she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offers of compensation it had made in relation to both of her complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has escalated 2 complaints to the Ombudsman (the landlord reference numbers are LBH/14433723 and LBH/14475923). These complaints are closely related and the issues overlap. As such, we have investigated and determined the landlord’s handling of both of these complaints and combined them within this 1 report.
  2. The resident also explained the landlord’s actions have had an impact on other residents within her block. We are unable to consider matters raised on behalf of another without their authority. If other residents have concerns, they can raise a formal complaint with the landlord and also bring the matter to the Ombudsman for consideration.
  3. Additionally, the resident has raised concerns about the impact the issues may have had on her health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  4. Furthermore, the resident told us that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the repairs which extended beyond its final complaint response. The Ombudsman may only look at matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. 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 our involvement. Therefore we are unable to consider events after the landlord’s final complaint response in January 2024.
  5. The resident may raise any new issues as a new complaint with the landlord if it remains a concern. If she remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s responses to any new complaint she has the option of asking the Ombudsman to investigate these concerns.

The resident’s reports of dampness and the associated repairs 

  1. The landlord’s records are unclear as to what exactly was causing the leaks and dampness in this case. The evidence shows that multiple factors may have contributed, including external works being required to the drains and guttering. The records say “complex case involves wet rot” and they suggest the landlord tried to lessen the issues, as it had purchased a dehumidifier. Itis therefore evident that the landlord was aware it needed to do works. It identified some of them within a damp survey on 23 November 2023. During this inspection, the landlord took images of high moisture readings, and fungus growing on the resident’s skirting board.
  2. Despite the landlord knowing about the repairs since the resident had reported them in November 2022, its efforts to complete the works were significantly delayed. The extent of the delay is unclear from the landlord’s records. However, they suggest it did not start works until the beginning of September 2023, which was unreasonable, as it was over 9 months after she had reported them. Throughout the delay, the landlord identified further works that were needed via its surveys, including one on 16 May 2023. Regardless of this, the landlord did not demonstrate it had communicated with the resident to inform her of its plans to complete the works within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. Repair works can be unavoidably delayed for various reasons. However, where works cannot be completed within planned timeframes the Ombudsman would expect landlords to keep residents fully updated throughout. In this case there is no evidence of the landlord offering any explanation for the delays. Nor of it communicating with the resident at all until it acknowledged her first complaint on 20 September 2023. This was unreasonable, given that it was aware from its inspections of the potential health and safety risks the conditions may pose.
  4. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that a blocked or leaking drain will be attended within 1 working day. A leaking roof will be attended within 7 working days. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook for Residents sets out that most reactive repairs should be completed within 28 days. Considering the complexities of the repairs (which required scaffolding to be erected), it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to have adhered to the 28-day timescale set out in its Repairs Handbook. However, the delays in actioning the repairs were significantly excessive, and represent a failing.
  5. The landlord missed an opportunity to outline its plans for resolving the issues within its final response to the resident’s first complaint (landlord reference LBH/14433723) on 16 November 2023. It said that it had erred in its first complaint response by saying the problem was with the roofing, as the issue was with the guttering. It said that the guttering problem was “being managed as part of a project on the block” and it was unable to provide the resident with a plan of when it would begin the works. As the resident had already waited almost 12 months since reporting the repairs, the landlord’s response was unreasonable, lacked customer focus, and left the resident’s first complaint unremedied.
  6. It was therefore appropriate when the landlord apologised to the resident within its second complaint response (landlord reference LBH/14475923) on 29 November 2023. It also acknowledged that its communication “should have been better”. However, it failed to offer an appropriate remedy for the delays in line with its policy and our remedies guidance. Also, as the work remained outstanding, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
  7. In its final response to the resident’s second complaint on 30 January 2024, the  landlord confirmed it had completed the works to the inside of her property. However, it said there were outstanding external works required to the pipes and guttering. Yet it failed to outline its plans (and anticipated timescales) for resolving these. The evidence shows the landlord went on to finish the structural works during Spring 2024. But, from the landlord’s records these issues appeared to be closely linked to the cause of the dampness, therefore it did not adequately resolve the overall complaint.
  8. It is clear from her complaints to the landlord that the situation has been distressing for the resident. She said that her living room had been unhabitable at times. In September 2023 she raised concerns about the conditions, as a 2 year old child would soon be living with her. She provided evidence of images which included her living room flooring being taken up and the rotting wood underneath. The images also showed plaster coming off the walls in her living room and fungus growing from her skirting board. She said that she was without flooring in her living room for 21 days, and that she had to move out for 2 weeks over the Christmas period in 2023.
  9. The landlord offered the resident a combined total of £225 in compensation as a way of remedying both of the resident’s complaints. It said its offer within its first complaint was for the delays she had experienced, and trouble taken to pursue the complaint. Likewise, it said that its offer of £200 in compensation for the second complaint was for her “time taken to pursue this complaint”. Given the excessive delays, and the inconvenience they had caused, neither of these offers of compensation were proportionate to the scale of the findings in this investigation.
  10. It is evident that the resident has spent significant time and trouble in reporting the repairs to the landlord, including through her 2 complaints. She first raised the repairs in November 2022 and complained twice in September 2023. There is also evidence of her escalating the issues to her MP in November 2023. They said they supported “a recommendation for compensation given the significant repair works that have been left unfinished for so long”.
  11. In conclusion, the landlord eventually completed the repairs and took most of the actions necessary to put right the complaint, without intervention by the Ombudsman. However, the delays experienced were prolonged and the adverse effect significant, even when mitigating factors were taken into account. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dampness and the associated repairs.
  12. Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified maladministration or service failure by the landlord. Financial compensation of £1,000 is appropriate for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in this case. This is in line with our remedies guidance which suggest amounts of up to £1,000 compensation should be considered where there was maladministration which had a significant and long-term impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints

  1. The landlord’s policy which applied at the time of the resident’s complaint says it has a 2 stage complaints process. It said it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022) which was applicable at the time of the resident’s complaints.
  2. The landlord’s records show that its initial response to the resident’s first complaint made on 6 September 2023 (LBH/14433723) was delayed. It contacted her on 20 September and apologised for the delay, which was an appropriate response. It agreed to respond by 4 October, however, it did not reply until 19 October. As this was 31 working days after the resident had complained, it was not in line with its policy or the Code, and was therefore a failure. It apologised again for its delay in its first stage 1 response.
  3. Despite its initial failing, the landlord demonstrated that it responded to the resident’s escalation of her first complaint within its policy timescales. She asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 19 October 2023, and the landlord responded on 16 November. As this response was sent within 20 working days, its final response to the resident’s first complaint adhered to its policy and the Code.
  4. Both of the landlord’s responses to the resident’s second complaint (reference LBH/14475923)made on 17 September 2023 were significantly delayed. It sent its first response on 29 November which was 52 working days after she had complained. This was well outside of its 10-day policy timescale. When she escalated her complaint to the landlord the same day, it did not respond until 30 January 2024. This was a failure as it was in excess of its policy timescales due to being 41 working days after she had escalated her complaint.
  5. It is evident that the resident has spent a lot of time and trouble chasing the landlord for its response to her complaints. An example of this was on 16 October 2023 when she contacted the landlord as it had not provided its promised response that day. She sent a further email chasing the landlord on 7 November, before it finally responded on 16 November. It is clear that the resident was frustrated by the delays. When escalating her second complaint on 29 November, she commented that it was her view that the landlord had blocked her from pursuing her complaint through its internal process.
  6. In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling failures resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident, this delayed both the resolution of her complaint and access to the Ombudsman. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its delays in responding to the repair issues within its final complaint response to the resident, its service failed as it did not specifically address its complaint handling delays. Subsequently, it did not offer an appropriate remedy for its delay, which left this issue unresolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dampness and the associated repairs.
    2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1,425 in compensation. This is made up of:
    1. £1225 for the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused to her in its handling of her reports of dampness and the associated repairs.
    2. £200 for the handling of her complaints.
  2. As the resident’s issues overlapped in both of her complaints, the above amounts represent the total compensation for the combined cases. They also include the compensation that the landlord has already offered to the resident in relation to the combined complaints.
  3. The compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any service charges.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. The total compensation will be apportioned across both cases (202324341 and 202329421) but the landlord may provide its evidence combined for both.