Haringey London Borough Council (202445455)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her 2 children. In March 2024, she reported a roof leak affecting her son’s bedroom, which caused damp and mould, to the landlord. The resident stated that the damp and mould impacted her health and that of her children who both have respiratory conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Roof leaks, damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof leak, damp and mould.
4. We have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not resolve the roof leak and the damp and mould with sufficient urgency or in line with its Repairs policy.
6. The landlord delayed its stage 2 response, incorrectly signposted the resident, and did not confirm the complaint outcome in its final response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

7. The resident informed us of a new leak affecting her loft. We note that the landlord completed roof repairs in July 2025 and carried out a follow-up inspection in October 2025, which confirmed the works were successful and no leaks were present at that time. We have not investigated this new issue as we cannot confirm whether it is linked to the previous leak. The resident is aware that she needs to report this to the landlord for repair.

What we have looked at

8. We reviewed the resident’s March 2024 report of damp and mould and the landlord’s actions after its stage 2 complaint response, as the leak, damp and mould issues were still ongoing. We will assess the landlord’s actions up to the point when it completed the repairs as part of this investigation.
9. The landlord’s Repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. For repairs affecting vulnerable residents, it prioritises these cases in line with its policies for vulnerable tenants and leaseholders. The policy says responsive repairs to address damp and mould must be carried out as quickly and efficiently as possible and specifies that a leaking roof should be repaired within 7 working days.
10. The landlord’s Damp and Mould policy state that as soon as it becomes aware of a damp and mould case, it categorises the case by severity and prioritises the most serious for immediate action. It reviews all referrals and responds to the resident within 5 working days.
11. Its policy also says for Category 1 (serious hazards), it requires an emergency inspection within 1 working day, immediate risk removal (such as a mould wash) or temporary move if health is at risk, consideration of household vulnerabilities, and completion of works within 3 months. It would carry out follow-up inspection 3 months after works are completed.
12. For Category 2 (moderate hazards), it must respond within 5 working days, attend within 5 days, agree an action plan with the resident, provide interim measures (mould wash, dehumidifier, advice), and complete repairs within published timescales.
13. On 12 March 2024, the resident reported damp and mould in her property. The landlord attended on 25 March 2024 to carry out an inspection, 10 working days later. This was 5 working days beyond its policy timescale, which requires a response within 5 working days.
14. The inspection found damp in the bedroom caused by water damage from a roof leak and recorded the severity as high. It also identified condensation mould on the living room walls. The landlord recommended repairs and advised the resident on actions to reduce condensation. However, its policy requires categorisation by severity and immediate action for serious hazards. The inspection report did not confirm the hazard category, missing an opportunity to ensure compliance with its own policy and reassure the resident it was treating with the correct level of priority.
15. It is unclear whether the landlord carried out a risk assessment or considered temporary measures, such as rehousing, despite knowing the household was vulnerable and health was at risk. Its policy requires consideration of vulnerabilities and urgent action for Category 1 hazards. The failure to document or act on these requirements was unreasonable.
16. The landlord raised a work order to repair the roof leak on 29 April 2024, 26 working days after the inspection. This delay was outside its Repairs policy, which requires leaking roof repairs within 7 working days and not in line with its Damp and mould policy requiring prompt action.
17. The resident reported multiple cancellations and missed appointments, including scaffolding in May 2024 and an appointment on 9 October 2024. In its stage 1 response on 14 November 2024, the landlord said it had arranged roof repairs for 27 December 2024. However, no one attended on that date, and the landlord did not confirm a new inspection until its stage 2 response on 6 February 2025, setting the next appointment for 11 February 2025. This left a gap of more than 6 weeks between the missed December appointment and the February inspection, during which the damp and mould continued to worsen. These repeated delays were not in line with the landlords’ policy and increased the resident’s frustration and risk.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would arrange another inspection because of the time that had passed since the last inspection in March 2024. It was positive that the landlord proposed this step.
19. Although scaffolding and asbestos checks were necessary, the landlord did not complete the roof repair until 18 July 2025, almost 15 months after the initial report and nearly 14 months after it raised the work order. This delay was unreasonable given the high severity of damp the roof leak caused and also far beyond the 3-month completion timescale for Category 1 hazards and the 28-day timescale for routine repairs.
20. The extended delay meant the resident’s children continued to sleep in a bedroom affected by water ingress, exposing them to damp and mould for a prolonged period. This significantly impacted their living conditions and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience. This is a failing on the landlord’s part.
21. The landlord carried out mould wash and works to resolve the damp and mould in November 2025 and December 2025, almost 21 months after the initial report in March 2024, and the delay significantly exceeded its policy timescales. While the landlord had to repair the roof leak which caused the damp and mould, the delay in resolving the damp and mould was still unreasonable.
22. As part of its complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £150 for the failings identified. However, these failures continued after its stage 2 response in February 2025, and it did not complete the repair works related to the damp and mould until December 2025. This shows the landlord did not put things right or learn from outcomes. The impact on the resident was worse because the landlord did not recognise vulnerabilities or adapt its approach. Its policy states it will prioritise damp and mould cases for vulnerable households and provide support.
23. Despite knowing about the health conditions of the resident and her children and being aware that her children were sleeping in the affected room, the landlord did not use this information to prioritise the work, change its approach. It also did not fully satisfy itself regarding the habitability of the property or consider temporary measures. This was not in line with its policy and was unreasonable.
24. In February 2024, we issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its handling of complaints, repairs, and record keeping. The report recommended the landlord review its process, practices and procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future.
25. In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those in our special report. To avoid duplication no further orders for policy, process or practice review have been made. We do expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account when delivering future service provision.
26. The resident believes the landlord’s handling of damp and mould affected the family’s health. We are not medical experts so cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts.
27. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings. While this is hard to quantify, it is clear these failures caused significant distress to the resident and her vulnerable family for a prolonged period. She explained that the damp and mould spread to the bathroom and attracted gnats, creating an unhealthy environment. This was particularly concerning because she has 2 sons with asthma and is herself vulnerable due to health issues. This caused significant disruption, upset and inconvenience to the family. This is an addition to an unreasonable amount of time and trouble caused progressing issues and facilitating repairs.
28. In this case, the records show the landlord failed to keep the resident regularly updated on the status of the repair. There was a long gap between March 2024, when the resident first reported damp and mould, and October 2024, when she submitted her complaint. The landlord provided no evidence of any activity or communication during this period.
29. The failures resulted in a significant impact on the resident; therefore, we order the landlord to pay the resident £1,350 for its failures in dealing with damp and mould. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there have been serious failings by the landlord which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.

30. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition (April 2024).
31. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy at the time stated that it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. These timeframes did not comply with the Code when the resident made her complaint with the Code when the resident made her complaint, although the landlord has since updated its policy to comply with the Code.
32. The resident submitted her complaint on 24 October 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 November 2024, 15 working days later. The landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge and 10 working days to answer the compliant (up to 15 working days). We have no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint, the landlord’s response was in line with the Code.
33. The stage 1 response incorrectly signposted the resident to escalate to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Service instead of the Housing Ombudsman Service.
34. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 December 2024, and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 February 2025, 26 working days later, therefore not in line with its policy or the Code. The landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge and 20 working days to answer the compliant (up to 25 working days). Also, we do not have evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint.

Learning

35. The landlord failed to adequately address repairs, damp, and mould in this case. It should consider reviewing how effectively its policies are implemented in practice to ensure they achieve the intended outcomes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord did not record or provide evidence that it assessed whether the property was suitable for the resident and her household, even though her 2 children with respiratory conditions slept in the affected bedroom.

Communication

37. The landlord did not communicate proactively with the resident. Records show the resident had to chase the landlord for updates on repairs and for information about appointment changes and cancellations.