From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Harrow (202417193)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417193

London Borough of Harrow

26 August 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 the resident’s reports of:

a.     A leaking roof.

b.     Asbestos.

c.      A pest infestation.

  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 1-bedroom bungalow. She has mental health conditions, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 23 August 2023 the landlord inspected the property for cracks and asbestos. It found asbestos soffits at the front and rear elevations. On 28 September 2023 the landlord carried out an asbestos survey which recommended removing the soffit panels. It also found asbestos in the water storage tank in the loft.
  3. On 28 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about rats and asbestos. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 12 December 2023. It said it had arranged to deal with rats coming from neighbouring properties. It also said that it would remove and replace the asbestos soffits. On 10 April 2024 the landlord carried out another asbestos survey.
  4. On 6 May 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She said earlier inspections had already found that the asbestos needed to be covered. She also asked the landlord to fix the peeling artex on the kitchen ceiling, and to install an extractor fan. She explained she had reported rat issues several times in the past and thought they were coming into her loft from a neighbour’s property. On 5 July 2024 the resident reported holes in the roof causing a leak. The landlord repaired this on 25 October 2024. It also found that rats had taken bait in the loft and put more bait down.
  5. On 24 February 2025, after the resident contacted us, we asked the landlord to respond to the complaint by 3 March 2025, which included the roof leak. On 11 March 2025 the landlord issued a new stage 1 response. It said a surveyor was due to visit that day to assess and carry out repairs. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered £150 compensation for the delay and the distress caused. On 13 March 2025 we asked the landlord to respond to the complaint at stage 2 by 20 March 2025.
  6. The landlord carried out 3 pest inspections between 21 March and 4 April 2025. It issued its stage 2 final response on 8 April 2025. It acknowledged it had not handled the matter properly and apologised. It said it had ensured the property was pest-free, it had cleaned the loft, and removed damaged belongings as requested. It also said it would send the resident a report to confirm all works were completed after it had post-inspected.
  7. In her referral to us, the resident said she first reported asbestos in 2020 and a rat infestation in 2022. She said these issues had a major impact on her mental and physical health. She also mentioned that the rat problem caused her financial hardship, as she had to spend money on cleaning products and bait. She explained that it also left her isolated because her family could not visit. She wanted the landlord to complete all outstanding repairs and to be compensated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that she first reported asbestos in 2020. However, given the passage of time and the evidence available, it would be fair and reasonable for this investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of reports from August 2023 when it inspected the property prior to the resident’s formal complaint, up to the landlord’s April 2025 final response.
  2. The resident said she wanted compensation for damage to her belongings due to the leak and pest damage. In this case, we are unable to determine the cause or extent of damage to the resident’s possessions. This would be better suited to an insurance claim or a court. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience this situation may have caused her.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking roof

  1. The landlord’s repair records show the resident first reported holes in the roof causing a leak on 5 July 2024. It is unclear how serious the leak was, but the record notes holes in the eaves and fascia. These were not repaired until 25 October 2024, more than 3 months later.
  2. This delay was unreasonable. The landlord’s repair charter says roof leaks are urgent and should be repaired within 1 to 5 working days. In any case, even if the landlord considered this as non-urgent, it should have repaired the roof within 20 working days, in line with its repair charter timescales. The delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who reported to us that the leak damaged her home and possessions.
  3. Overall, the delay was unfair. The landlord was aware of her circumstances but did not consider this when prioritising the repairs. Nor did it consider the adverse effect caused to her by months of living with a leaking roof.
  4. This amounts to maladministration. We have awarded £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards from £100 where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of asbestos

  1. On 23 August 2023 the landlord inspected the property for asbestos. It found asbestos in the soffit panels to both the front and rear elevations. The inspection report noted there was no cause for concern if left undisturbed.
  2. Just over a month later, another asbestos inspection was carried out. Although it is unclear what prompted this, it recommended removing the soffit panels. It also found ‘very low risk’ asbestos in the cold-water storage tank in the loft. However, the landlord took no action, and the resident had to chase for updates, causing her time and trouble.
  3. On 2 January 2024 the landlord told the resident that its contractor would arrange a ‘visit’ for the soffits and to check the kitchen ceiling. It is unclear why this was not done sooner after its September 2023 inspection. Instead of acting on the September 2023 inspection, the landlord carried out another asbestos inspection of the soffits on 10 April 2024. It noted there had been no change in their condition. It is unclear why the landlord took this approach, as it already knew what action it needed to take. This frustrated the resident and likely caused a delay in resolving this matter.
  4. The resident said in her May 2024 escalation request that an asbestos inspector had advised installing a kitchen extractor fan and fixing the peeling artex on the kitchen ceiling. However, we found no evidence to support this. The September 2023 asbestos report stated that no action was needed in the kitchen. Nevertheless, the landlord should have inspected the kitchen ceiling as promised in January 2024. Yet, it failed to do so.
  5. Again, the landlord took no meaningful action after the April 2024 inspection. The evidence showed that it was not until October 2024 when the resident contacted her local councillor, that the landlord acted. At that point, the landlord told her it would investigate the asbestos issues, arrange to encapsulate the soffits and inspect the kitchen ceiling to decide what works were required.
  6. The landlord records suggest another asbestos survey was carried out in November 2024. However, we have seen no evidence of this survey. This is important because in January 2025 the resident told the landlord that an inspector said a full house inspection was not needed. And that previous inspections had already shown that the soffits needed covering, the water tank cover replacing, the kitchen ceiling fixing, and an extractor fan installed. The landlord did not dispute this.
  7. However, no action followed until March 2025 when the landlord’s stage 1 response said a surveyor had inspected the property. We have again seen no evidence of this. It is unclear what the landlord found or what actions were agreed.
  8. The landlord encapsulated the asbestos soffits in April 2025, around 17 months after first identifying them for removal. Although they were external and classed as low risk, it is unclear if the resident was told this. In any case, the long delay was unreasonable and caused her distress. She felt unsafe and anxious about living with asbestos, and the effect was made worse due to her mental health conditions.
  9. Overall, the landlord handled the resident’s reports of asbestos poorly. It did not communicate properly, leaving her to chase to progress matters. It failed to take appropriate action within a reasonable time, and did not address other asbestos concerns, such as the kitchen ceiling, even though the resident raised these on several occasions.
  10. In its March 2025 stage 1 response the landlord offered £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused for the delay in resolving repairs. It is unclear if this offer was related only to asbestos. In any case, the offer did not go far enough to put things right. We therefore find maladministration and award a further £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards from £100 where the landlord has failed to fully address the detriment caused to the resident.
  11. The resident told us that the landlord has not repaired the kitchen ceiling or installed an extractor fan, which she said an asbestos inspector had advised. She also said that the water tank in the loft still has an asbestos cover, preventing the landlord from repairing a leak through the overflow. We have therefore ordered the landlord to inspect these issues and provide an action plan with timescales.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation

  1. The landlord showed delays and poor communication in handling the resident’s pest reports. The August 2023 inspection found rat activity and concluded that it needed to investigate to check for holes in the loft. However, the landlord took no meaningful action for months. The resident regularly chased for updates, causing her time and trouble.
  2. The resident also described how this situation had affected her mental and physical health. Particularly as she said that her family were unable to visit. She also explained how she had incurred costs, such as putting her own bait down while waiting for the landlord to act.
  3. The landlord did not take any action until October 2024 more than a year after its first inspection. Its records showed it accessed the loft and applied sealing solution, insulation and placed bait there. During a re-inspection in late October 2024 it was found that some bait had been taken, and it rebaited the area. The landlord’s records indicated that another inspection took place in November 2024. However, we have not seen the pest inspection report, so it is unclear what was found or whether any action was agreed upon.
  4. This is a significant record-keeping issue. In January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord claiming that a pest control officer advised filling the holes in the walls between her neighbours and the loft. She also said that the landlord needed to remove the guttering, fill holes to prevent pest access, and carry out repairs to another neighbour’s sewage pipe. While we cannot confirm the accuracy of these claims, the landlord did not dispute them. And its records showed that it sealed a structural crack in the guttering on 11 February 2025.
  5. The landlord carried out 4 pest inspections between 21 March and 16 April 2025. The first visit and one follow-up found droppings from both mice and rats. However, by the final inspection on 16 April 2025 the baits were untouched, and the resident said she had heard no new activity. Nevertheless, these actions should have happened much earlier. The resident also told us that holes remain in the loft between the neighbour’s roof, causing her distress and concern that the infestation could return.
  6. The landlord’s final response claimed that it had cleaned the loft and removed damaged belongings from it. However, we have seen no evidence to support this. The resident told us that these actions are still outstanding. This has caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was entitled to believe the landlord would complete these tasks. We have therefore ordered the landlord to do so.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation was poor. The delays were unreasonable, and its actions showed a failure to consider the effect this situation had on the resident. It also failed to keep to commitments, and the repairs to fully remedy this issue appear to remain outstanding.
  8. This amounts to maladministration. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 in compensation. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the costs the resident incurred that likely would not have arisen had the failings not occurred.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord did not handle the complaint properly. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 6 May 2025. However, the landlord failed to respond. This caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble, who had to seek our assistance.
  2. When the landlord did respond, it issued a new stage 1 response. This was inappropriate. It should have escalated the complaint and provided a stage 2 response. This delayed resolving matters and prevented the resident from bringing the complaint to us for investigation sooner.
  3. In addition, when we asked the landlord to respond to the complaint at stage 2 by 20 March 2025, it failed to do so. It issued its stage 2 response 18 days later, on 8 April 2025. Overall, it took the landlord nearly a year to issue its final response. This was far beyond its 20-working-day stage 2 policy timescale.
  4. The landlord also failed to acknowledge or apologise for its poor complaint handling in its formal responses. Its responses lacked detail and did not address all the key points raised. This caused frustration for the resident, who questioned the accuracy of the landlord’s final response.
  5. We have therefore found maladministration and awarded £150 in recognition of the adverse effect caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of asbestos in the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:

a.     Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.

b.     Pay the resident compensation of £1,050 comprised of:

  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of a leaking roof.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of asbestos in the property. This is inclusive of the £150 offered in its March 2025 stage 1 response.
  3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation.
  4. £150 for the frustration caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

c.      Inspect the kitchen ceiling and water tank to determine whether any asbestos related work is required. It must also assess whether an extractor fan is needed in the kitchen. It must produce an action plan with timescales and provide a copy of the inspection report and action plan to the resident and this Service.

d.     Inspect the loft to determine if there are any holes between the loft and neighbour’s roof. If remedial work is required, it must provide an action plan with timescales. It must provide a copy of the inspection report and action plan to the resident and this Service.

e.     Remove any damaged belongings from the loft and clean it if it has not done so already. It must provide evidence to this Service that it has done this.

  1. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.