Haringey London Borough Council (202416668)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416668

Haringey London Borough Council

30 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a pest infestation
2. an occupational therapy (OT) assessment
3. the resident’s request to be rehoused
4. the resident’s reports of damp and mould
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord under an agreement dated August 2005 for a 1-bedroom flat in a purpose built block. The landlord is a local authority. The resident’s representative has told us that the resident is elderly and has limited mobility, of which the landlord is aware. The complaints have been made on the resident’s behalf by a representative. For ease of understanding, the representative is referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
Between February 2023 and October 2023, the landlord’s pest control team carried out a number of treatments in the resident’s home following reports of rodent activity. It also carried out a damp and mould inspection at her home on 29 August 2023.
On 23 October 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint. She said:
1. there was a recurrent rodent problem at the flat, and a strong smell of ammonia present
2. there were too many steps for the resident to manage at the property, and she was unable to get in or out of the bathtub
3. there had been continuous problems with lack of heating and hot water
4. damp and mould at the flat was affecting her breathing
5. her Housing Officer was not responding to her emails about these issues. She also wanted to know when an OT assessment would take place as the initial referral had been made in February 2023
The landlord issued what it called a ‘service request response’ to the resident’s complaint on 22 December 2023. It said:
1. its pest control team had attended on 13 January 2023 and got no answer. A visit was rescheduled for 8 February 2023, and further block treatments were carried out after that date
2. it had emailed its damp and mould team to plan follow up work. An inspection had been completed previously and the identified works required would be co-ordinated
3. its contractor had confirmed the resident’s boiler was working on 20 December 2023, and she had heating and hot water
4. its OT team received a referral for the resident on 9 October 2023 and it was allocated on 17 October 2023. The assessment was completed with the resident on 8 November 2023, and a report had been sent to the relevant team
5. It had no application on file for the resident’s request for a transfer, and had asked its housing registration officers to contact her on 3 January 2024 to carry out an assessment
6. It would feedback the issues with poor communication from its Housing Officer
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 December 2023. She said:
1. no one from pest control had attended on 13 January 2023 or left a card. Another appointment was scheduled for 15 November 2023, and no one had attended
2. a damp and mould inspection had taken place on 29 August 2023 and nothing was heard from the landlord afterwards. It had called her on 15 December 2023 to book a mould wash and treatment for January 2024 but could not confirm that it would not be hazardous to her. She had asked for a call back from a manager to confirm this and not received one
3. heating and hot water was currently running but there continued to be issues with the boiler
4. the OT referral had been made in February 2023 and she had to wait until October 2023 for an assessment. £160 in compensation for the delay had been offered but never paid to the resident
5. 4 applications had been made for housing and she could see them online, so she did not understand why the landlord was unable to
6. She had received poor service from its Housing Officer
The landlord issued a further service request response on 26 March 2024. It said:
1. damp and mould work had been put on hold until further notice because the resident had advised it on 15 December 2023 that no appointments should be booked because she needed to be rehoused
2. treatment for pests did not go ahead on 17 January 2024 because the resident was ill
3. no further repairs related to gas had been reported and there were no issues found when its team attended in November 2023. A further visit from its contractor on 20 December 2023 had confirmed the boiler was working
4. the resident was not interested in supported living, so no further action had been taken to rehouse her. It advised that the resident could apply for a transfer on medical grounds. It also explained that it did not have access to the system the resident’s housing applications had been made on, so it was unable to view them
5. it understood its Senior Housing Officer was overseeing any issues, and was providing contact details for them
On 11 July 2024, the landlord issued a final response to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. an OT assessment had been completed on 4 December 2023 and was shared with its housing team. It was then closed in January 2024. The OT report found extreme levels of pest issues, and observed damp and mould in the resident’s home, and structural issues. As a result, the OT did not recommend adaptations due to the condition of the property, which it found to be “not fit for purpose.” The assessment also supported the resident’s request to be rehoused.
2. a damp and mould inspection on 20 June 2024 identified works that were needed, including draught proofing, which were the resident’s responsibility. It also said it would contact the resident to arrange the works, but noted that it had been asked to hold off on works previously by the resident due to her rehousing request. It strongly advised that repairs should resume
3. its Housing Officer could support the resident with looking at housing options
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. When she brought her complaint to us in June 2024, she explained that pest, damp, and mould issues were ongoing at the property. To resolve her complaint she wants the issues resolved, and a move to a different property.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case are there area reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
Paragraph 42.I. of the Scheme states that:

42. ‘the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.’

The resident has raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation, more specifically, its handling of the infestation between June 2022 and November 2023. This complaint was already determined by our Service under case reference 202234713 in March 2024. In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme, we will not investigate this element of the complaint.
Paragraph 42.J. of the Scheme states that:

42. ‘the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.’

The resident has raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of an OT assessment. This activity is something that is carried out by the landlord in its capacity as a local authority, and forms part of their council services. It is therefore not an activity that falls within our jurisdiction to investigate. However, it may fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), and the resident can contact it for information on how to raise a complaint if she wishes to do so. In accordance with paragraph 42.J. of the Scheme, we will not investigate this element of the complaint.
The resident has also raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request to be rehoused. Complaints about applications for re-housing or transfers that meet the reasonable preference criteria (dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf, which could include a housing association) do not fall within our jurisdiction to investigate. The landlord handles these requests in its capacity as a local authority, and based on this, the complaint may fall under the jurisdiction of the LGSCO. The resident can contact it for information on how to raise a complaint. In accordance with paragraph 42.J. of the Scheme, we will not investigate this element of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

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

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says:
1. it will make sure it quickly identifies homes that are suffering from damp and mould so it can act quickly to remove damp and mould, address its root cause and prevent it from re-occurring
2. the landlord categorises damp and mould as Category 1 (severe), Category 2 (moderate), and Category 2 (slight/typical). Reports of moderate mould will be reviewed and responded to within 5 working days, and typical mould would be responded to within 28 days
3. an action plan and schedule of works will then be agreed with the resident, and any repairs will be undertaken within its repairs policy timescales, which are 28 days for planned or routine repairs
4. where category 2 damp and mould is identified to be causing adverse effects to residents who are vulnerable for age and health related conditions, the landlord may decide to offer the resident a temporary move
The landlord’s repairs policy says:
1. routine and planned repairs will be attended to within 28 days
2. residents are responsible for repairing linings
From the information available, it is not clear when the resident first reported damp and mould to the landlord, but according to its records it raised an inspection for damp and mould at her property on 1 August 2023. No information has been given on how the landlord categorised the mould reported, as per its policy. Therefore, it is not possible for us to say that the landlord responded in line with its policy timescales here.
The inspection took place on 29 August 2023, but the landlord has not provided us with a copy of the report. Its repair logs indicated that silicone needed replacing on various windows at the property.
On 5 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for an update as she said no further action had been taken since the August 2023 survey, and mould was still present in her home. On 23 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again and explained she felt the mould was causing her breathing difficulties. In response, the landlord contacted its inspections team on 24 October 2023 and asked it to inspect her home. However, it has provided no evidence to show the inspection took place, or that any action was taken on the damp and mould at that time. We think the landlord’s response was inappropriate here. The resident had reported damp and mould around August 2023, and as of October 2023, the issue remained outstanding. This was unreasonable, and not in adherence with its damp and mould policy, particularly for a resident vulnerable because of her age and health related concerns.
An OT report was completed on 23 November 2023. The report stated:
1. there were obvious structural issues within the home
2. damp and mould had been observed in all rooms
3. adaptations would not be advised due to the condition of the property
4. the property was not fit for purpose
5. black mould had been observed on walls, ceilings, and doors
6. there was an obvious smell of damp in the property
The report clearly stated the property was suffering from damp and mould in all rooms, and made reference to possible structural issues which should have indicated to the landlord that it was a serious problem.
Despite this, in its “service request” response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 22 December 2023, it said that it had contacted its damp and mould team to plan in follow up works following its inspection in August 2023, and that the resident should have been contacted about the works. In response the resident explained that the landlord had contacted her by phone on 15 December 2023 to book a mould wash for January 2024. She explained that she had asked the person on the phone if they could confirm that the mould wash would not be hazardous to the resident, and they could not. She said she then asked for a manager to call her back to confirm the same, and did not receive a call back.
In a further response to the resident on 26 March 2024, the landlord confirmed that all works had been put on hold following its discussion with her on 15 December 2023. It then said that if she wanted works to continue, it could call its repairs team to book them in. This was an inappropriate response. Putting the onus on the resident to arrange follow up works instead of managing them itself in line with its policies, was unreasonable.
Further, although the resident raised concerns about the safety of the mould treatment, the landlord did not make any meaningful attempt to engage with her to understand or address those concerns. There is no evidence that it assessed whether the treatment could be completed safely with the resident in situ or explored alternative arrangements, such as temporarily moving her as per its damp and mould policy, to allow the work to proceed without placing her at any potential risk.
In addition, there is no evidence to show that the landlord took any follow up action based on the findings set out in the OT report from November 2023. Despite the report showing that the property condition was affecting the resident’s ability to have adaptations carried out, therefore causing her further problems in the property. This was a further failure and unreasonable.
As per recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on attitudes, respect, and rights, landlords need to ensure they provide clear explanations; repeat information where needed, including in different formats; offer face-to-face contact as much as possible and a named point of contact; investigate concerns and share the outcome; recognise when things have gone wrong, apologise and explain how these will be addressed; and know when to make appropriate referrals to agencies and whom to signpost to. Underpinning all of these should be a baseline of empathy and respect
A second damp and mould inspection then took place on 19 June 2024. It identified the mould as “condensation mould” and noted that there was a draught through the kitchen and bedroom windows and the entrance door. It recommended draught proofing strips be fitted. It also said that sealant for the bath needed renewing.
In its final response to the resident’s complaint on 11 July 2024, the landlord explained what it had discovered during the inspection, and said that draught proofing was the resident’s responsibility, and that had been communicated to her previously. It also said that repairs, renewal of the sealant and a mould wash for the property was required, and it would contact the resident to schedule in the works. Additionally, it said that the resident had asked for the works to be put on hold while alternative housing options were looked at, but said it would advise against that.
The resident responded and explained that she had not instructed the damp and mould work to be stopped, just that it be put on hold until the complaint concluded so property transfer options could be ascertained. This indicates that there was a breakdown in communication between the landlord and the resident. While it is possible that a delay may have been caused by this miscommunication, by July 2024 the damp and mould problems had been left unresolved for almost a year, which was unreasonable and not in adherence with the landlord’s own policy timescales.
Additionally, recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on attitudes, respect, and rights, state that landlords ‘need to ensure they provide clear explanations; repeat information where needed, including in different formats; offer face-to-face contact as much as possible and a named point of contact; investigate concerns and share the outcome; recognise when things have gone wrong, apologise and explain how these will be addressed; and know when to make appropriate referrals to agencies and whom to signpost to. Underpinning all of these should be a baseline of empathy and respect.’ These recommendations have not been demonstrated by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports.
In summary, there were a number of failings in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould problem:
1. no follow up repairs or updates were provided following its 29 August 2023 inspection, despite the repair logs indicating silicone needed replacing
2. after the resident reported on 23 October 2023 that the mould was causing breathing difficulties, the landlord failed to demonstrate any urgent follow up action or further inspection, which would have been appropriate. The landlord also missed an opportunity to assess the resident’s eligibility for a temporary move, as allowed for under its policy for vulnerable residents
3. no significant follow up action on an OT report from November 2023 that clearly indicated there were structural, damp, and mould problems at the property. These problems meant that adaptations were not possible, causing further inconvenience and distress to the resident
4. the landlord failed to give due regard to its responsibilities under The Equality Act 2010. In our view, it did not adequately consider the resident’s age or health related vulnerabilities in its handling of this case, particularly in relation to the impact of damp and mould on her ability to maintain a safe and habitable home. The Equality Act requires landlords to make reasonable adjustments for disabled or vulnerable residents, and we consider its failure to do so here to be a significant aspect of this case
5. breakdowns in communication also led to delays in treatment, as well as important queries, such as the safety of the mould wash, not being addressed
6. despite identifying repairs in August 2023, the works were not completed within the 28 day timeframe outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. Many works remained outstanding by July 2024, almost a year later. This left the resident in a property affected by damp and mould for an unreasonable length of time
7. the landlord advised the resident that draught proofing was her responsibility. While its repairs policy does state that residents are responsible for “repairing linings”, the landlord had identified draughts through doors and windows as contributing factors to condensation mould. This misattribution delayed necessary remedial work and left the resident feeling unsupported. It also placed an unfair burden on the resident to resolve an issue linked to a Category 2 damp and mould concern, which should have prompted landlord led intervention
8. the landlord did not assess or offer the resident a temporary move as outlined in its damp and mould policy. This would have been appropriate given the noted conditions of her home
9. a second inspection did not take place until 19 June 2024, nearly a year after the first one. By July 2024, repairs remained outstanding. The long term delay and absence of timely action would have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience
10. the landlord was entitled to access the property to inspect it or carry out repairs as long as it gave reasonable notice. We would therefore have expected it to have taken appropriate steps to access the property, for example, by writing to the resident and reminding her of her obligations to provide access
Based on the identified failings, the landlord was responsible for severe maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Its failure to carry out timely repairs, despite identifying necessary works as early as August 2023, left the resident exposed to persistent damp and mould for an extended period of nearly a year.
Furthermore, important resident queries, such as concerns over the safety of mould treatments, were left unanswered, causing further frustration and distress for the resident. The lack of action, communication, and sustained delays also caused the resident prolonged inconvenience for an excessive length of time.
The above failings would have likely impacted the resident’s enjoyment of the property. The evidence also shows that its failings made the associated impact on the resident worse over an unreasonable period of time. The landlord failed to consider her vulnerabilities and the impact of the circumstances on her. It also failed to appropriately recognise the delays and the associated impact in its complaint responses.
With consideration of our outcomes guidance, we have found multiple cumulative failures, as outlined above.
We have therefore ordered the landlord to write to the resident for its failings identified by this investigation. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.
Further, with consideration being given to our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures over a significant period as identified in this report, and the loss of enjoyment of the property as a result.
Compensation equivalent to 15% of the resident’s current monthly rent is appropriate for the failures outlined in this investigation. The calculation is based on the basic monthly rent figure provided by the landlord. The number of weeks has been calculated by considering the period between the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property on 1 August 2023 and the date the landlord inspected the property on 20 June 2024 to establish the cause of the damp and mould (11 months). We have also considered the further delays in the landlord completing damp and mould treatment, and the fact that the resident said the issues with damp and mould are unresolved at of the date of this investigation.
In line with our dispute resolution principle, to put things right, we also order the landlord to complete a full survey of the property to assess the cause of the damp and mould and the outstanding issues the resident has complained of, providing all parties with copies of the report.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is a statutory guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. In line with the Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 of its process within 5 working days and supply a written response within 10 working days from the date of acknowledgement. It must also acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and supply a written response within 20 working days.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 23 October 2023, and it was acknowledged by the landlord on 8 November 2023, 14 working days later, and after the resident chased it for an acknowledgment on 2 occasions. In its acknowledgment it explained that because the issues raised by the resident had been looked at previously, it was recording her complaint as a service request instead. This was unreasonable, given that some of the issues that formed her complaint, including damp and mould, had not been looked at previously. Subsequently, a stage 1 response was not issued by the landlord, which was not in adherence with the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 December 2023. No acknowledgement was issued by the landlord, and it again recorded the complaint as a service request, which was unreasonable. Subsequently, it issued a service request response on 26 March 2024, 65 working days after the complaint was escalated. A stage 2 response was then issued on 11 July 2024, 139 working days after the escalation request. No explanation was given for the excessive delay.
In summary, the landlord failed to record the resident’s complaints appropriately, or respond to them in adherence with the timescales set out in the Code or its own complaints process. The unnecessary and excessive complications and delays caused to her complaints journey meant that the resident was caused inconvenience in having to chase it for responses. It also delayed her bringing her complaint to us, which was unreasonable.
The delays in providing meaningful responses, lack of clear communication, failure to log the complaints correctly, and failure to take ownership of the issues raised resulted in further distress for the resident and contributed to a sense that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
We therefore find that the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £400 in compensation, to recognise the time and trouble linked to the unnecessary delays caused to her complaints journey. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which a landlord has failed to acknowledge or put right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation is out of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.J. of the Scheme, the following parts of the resident’s complaint are out of our jurisdiction:
1. the landlord’s handling of an occupational therapy (OT) assessment
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. A senior director must make the apology
2. pay compensation to the resident of £1095, broken down as follows:
  1. £695 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and the loss of enjoyment of the property
  2. £400 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
3. arrange an inspection of the property by a suitably qualified surveyor. The surveyor must provide a written report to the Ombudsman, the resident, and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection, which must:
  1. address the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and comment on the cause
  2. confirm whether the property is habitable and/or whether a temporary move is required
  3. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding
The landlord must ensure it completes the works within 28 days of the date of the inspection report, or such other later time specific in the report. The landlord must retain records of its actions.
The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with proof of compliance with the above orders.