Haringey London Borough Council (202410631)

Decision
Case ID	202410631
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Haringey London Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	10 December 2025

Background

On 21 July 2025 we issued our determination of case reference 202307798 which assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks. Our investigation considered the landlord’s stage 2 complaint responses of 14 September and 12 December 2023. We found that there were systemic issues with the landlord’s management of appointments for leaks and repairs. Failures relating to delays and poor communication were found in both its response to leaks and its complaint handling.
On 1 March 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it would attend for a roof leak on 10 April. It failed to attend and did not communicate with the resident.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s report of a leak
2. handling of the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak
2. there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Resident’s report of a leak

The landlord repeated the same failures and failed to use the complaint to improve its service.
It failed to consider the resident’s individual circumstances.

Complaint handling

The landlord delayed escalating the resident’s complaint and failed to manage his expectations around when it would respond.
Its responses failed to meet the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its response to the resident’s report of a leak £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed	No later than 07 January 2026
4	Take Specific Action order We have identified failures in the landlord’s management of repairs appointments and complaint handling. Considering its commitments following our special investigation it should tell us how it will improve its service to residents. This must include: how it communicates with residents when repair appointments are cancelled how it rebooks appointments following cancellations to ensure it meets its repair timescales how it will ensure it issues its complaint responses within the timescales set out in its policy and the Code It should demonstrate how lessons learnt will be incorporated into its culture and practices. The outcomes should be confirmed in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 21 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 April 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to say it failed to attend the appointment on 10 April without any prior notification.
24 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in which it: provided an explanation for its non-attendance on 10 April apologised and offered £10 compensation advised the appointment was re arranged for 2 July confirmed it had carried out staff training and set out steps it would take to make further improvements
27 April 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said he: was dissatisfied with the compensation offered wanted further details of works to be carried out was concerned about how it managed cancelled appointments
10 June 2024	The landlord emailed the resident to say it had not received the resident’s email of 27 April. It said it would provide a response by 25 June.
4 July 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to chase its response. It replied on 10 July to apologise for the delay and said it would respond by the end of the week.
16 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The main points were that it: apologised for the delay in its response was satisfied its stage 1 response addressed all the resident’s concerns had considered the shortcomings in its handling of repairs appointments. It said it would feedback to management to make service improvements apologised that its appointment management was “poor”
13 September 2024	The resident emailed us to express his frustration that the landlord had failed to make improvements to how it managed repair appointments and formal complaints.
5 March 2025	The resident emailed the landlord to raise a new stage 1 complaint. He said it failed to attend an appointment on 4 March with no communication. He was also dissatisfied with the time taken to resolve the roof leaks.
7 April 2025	The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response which: apologised for failing to attend an appointment on 4 March with no communication with the resident confirmed it suspected leaks could be from the chimney stacks advised it would inspect the pipework in the loft and carry out a drone survey of the roof/chimney
10 April 2025	The resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 because: there were ongoing issues with management of repairs appointments he wanted a point of contact to provide him with regular updates the works to the roof leaks were unreasonably delayed
25 November 2025	The landlord emailed us to confirm the resident made a further stage 2 complaint on 10 April 2025 about the same issues. It said it would issue its response within 5 working days.
4 December 2025	The landlord issued a further stage 2 complaint response. It said: it carried out works to the leak in July 2025 in September the resident reported the issue was ongoing it raised this with the contractor who carried out the works. Works were progressing and it would post inspect once they were finished it offered £150 for the delay in its complaint response

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.

Complaint	Response to the report of a leak
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord failed to attend its appointment on 10 April 2024. The resident emailed the landlord the same day to say he’d not been told it was cancelled. He was frustrated that issues with appointments were ongoing and it had not taken steps to improve its service.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 24 April 2024 advised the operative had been sick. It appropriately apologised for the inconvenience and offered £10 compensation for the missed appointment. This was appropriately in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord confirmed the repair had been moved to 2 July which was the earliest date available. The repairs handbook says it aims to offer agreed appointments within 28 days. Considering the landlord’s failure of service and its timescales it was inappropriate to offer an appointment 2 months away.
It confirmed training had been carried out with its roofing team around communication and planning of appointments. While this was positive it failed to use the complaint as an opportunity to reflect on why this had not prevented a further reoccurrence of its failures.
The resident’s frustration was evident in his email to the landlord of 27 April 2024. He asked if a system was in place to communicate with residents about cancelled appointments. He said he’d waited months for the original appointment and asked why he was put to the back of the queue for a new one. He felt the compensation failed to reflect the overall distress caused.
The resident also asked the landlord to set out details of the proposed works for 2 July 2024. On 3 July it emailed the resident to say there was no record of works for either the communal areas or the property itself.
In his email to the landlord of 16 July 2024 the resident said he’d emailed it on 18 June to check if the appointment was going ahead. He said it’s response was too slow because it was sent the day after the appointment on 3 July. We’ve not seen a copy of the resident’s email of 18 June but it’s noted this was not disputed by the landlord.
The resident also asked the landlord what it would do differently to ensure it communicated with residents about cancelled or amended appointments. He also asked how he could obtain an update on a repair without having to make a formal complaint.
Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 16 July 2024 set out its shortcomings in its general processes. While this was positive it failed to tailor its response to the resident’s individual circumstances. It therefore failed to address the distress and inconvenience caused considering the history of repeated failure of service.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation which is in line with our remedies guidance. The landlord may deduct the £10 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 10 April 2024. The landlord provided its response on 24 April which was within time.
The Code requires landlord’s to set out in clear plain language the complaint stage and decision on the complaint. Its response failed to do so which was inappropriate.
On 27 April 2024 the resident sent an email including both us and the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord failed to provide a response. On 20 May the resident emailed it to chase. It replied on 10 June to say it had not received the email causing distress to the resident.
The landlord said it would reply by 25 June 2024 but failed to do so. This caused time and trouble to the resident who emailed to chase on 4 July. On 10 July the landlord explained that the delay was caused by the need to obtain further information. This was a reasonable explanation but it should’ve proactively updated the resident to manage his expectations.
It said it would respond by the end of the week which was 12 July but failed to do so. It issued its response on 16 July. This was past the deadline date and it again failed to update the resident to advise him of the delay.
The stage 2 response was 54 working days after the resident asked to escalate his complaint. The delay was unreasonable. It was positive that the landlord apologised for the delay. However, it failed to consider offering compensation to try to put things right. Its compensation policy says it will consider paying compensation for low impact failures where the resident has just cause but has suffered minimal inconvenience or distress. It also failed to set out the landlord’s decision on the complaint.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is in line with our remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Learning

In July 2023 we published a report on our special investigation into the landlord. The themes identified in the report reflect the resident’s lived experience in this case. We found that where poor record-keeping was known to be an issue, there is no evidence that lessons were learned, nor that the necessary changes made to help prevent a reoccurrence.
In its response the landlord said it planned to introduce a customer relationship management system to help improve its systems and processes. A year on from the report the same failures were repeated. This has been reflected in the orders above.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord provided appropriate records for the purposes of this investigation. Wider issues with its record keeping are set out above.

Communication

The landlord failed to proactively communicate with the resident regarding the repair appointments and his complaint.