Haringey London Borough Council (202224687)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224687

Haringey London Borough Council

24 September 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:
    1. Reports of a roof leak at the property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord, a local authority, since September 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 2nd floor of a 3-storey block owned by the landlord.
  2. As well as employing its own operatives, the landlord uses the services of contractors to carry out repairs and maintenance.
  3. The neighbour’s property mentioned in this report refers to the flat above the resident’s property, which is also owned by the landlord.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 October 2022 to report a leak affecting his property.
  5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 18 December 2023. He said the landlord missed an appointment to address a roof leak he reported and it subsequently failed to keep him properly informed regarding repairs.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 March 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledging the resident had experienced poor communication. The landlord summarised the actions it had taken to date and said it had scheduled an inspection to identify the cause of the leak and would arrange any remedial works required.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 8 March 2024. He said the leak had still not been repaired and was getting worse. He also expressed disappointment with the landlord’s delayed complaint response.
  8. On 18 April 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had accepted it was at fault for the delay in establishing the cause of the leak and acknowledged failure in its complaint handling response times. It offered the resident £350 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused by missed appointments and his efforts in pursuing his complaint.
  9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 7 May 2024. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. He said the landlord had missed appointments and delayed responding to his complaints and other communications.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints about matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  2. In this case, we will consider the resident’s concerns addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses, with a focus on events in the 12 months leading to the resident’s formal complaint on 18 December 2023. We have also considered events following the final complaint response as the issues were still unresolved at the close of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  3. In correspondence with this Service, the resident referred to a financial impact. He said that he had paid for private refurbishment works at his property which could not be completed because of the landlords delay in repairing the leak. This aspect has not been addressed through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 18 April 2024. This is because the landlord needs an opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service. The resident may make a new complaint about this matter if he wishes to do so.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak at the property

  1. The resident’s lease agreement says the landlord will maintain, repair or renew the structure of the building, including the roof and walls.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and it will treat leaks as an emergency repair.
  3. The landlord’s customer care standard says it will acknowledge emails within 2 working days and it aims to respond within 3 working days from the acknowledgement. It says if it cannot respond fully within 2 working days, it will send a holding response with a date for the full response.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy says:
    1. it will consider the level of its responsibility and the impact of any service failure when calculating a compensation award. Where the complaint is considered high impact, and the landlord accepts full responsibility, it will award compensation between £350-£500.
    2. it categorises impact as low, medium or high and the amount of compensation is dependent on the seriousness of the failure and the level of inconvenience, distress or disruption experienced by the resident.
  5. On 26 October 2022 the resident reported a leak affecting his property. The landlord raised an inspection, but this was cancelled without explanation. There is no evidence of any communication, repairs or investigations completed between October 2022 and November 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will treat leaks as an emergency repair. As such it was a failing the landlord did not take appropriate action in response to the resident’s report by completing either an inspection or repair in an appropriate timeframe.
  6. The resident told us he had had some private internal refurbishment works done which had to be cancelled because the leak was still unresolved. It was unfair that having reported the leak 13 months earlier, the landlord had not taken any proactive action to resolve the issue. This reportedly impacted the resident financially because his contractor was unable to complete work which he had paid for as part of the total cost of his refurbishment.
  7. The landlord’s repair record shows that following further reports of water ingress, an inspection was completed on 14 November 2023. After this the landlord admitted it had failed to action an internal referral for a joint inspection with its roofing team, which led to a substantial delay. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said this had been addressed with the team and as a result it had updated its internal processes to improve its performance in the future. While the landlord’s follow up response was positive, the oversight showed poor repairs management, and this was a failing.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint on 8 March 2024, saying the leak was getting progressively worse. He said he wanted a permanent solution, an action plan and compensation for his inconvenience. The landlord promised an action plan in its stage 2 complaint response but cannot evidence this was ever provided to the resident, which was unfair and contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  9. The evidence provided shows the landlord missed 2 inspection appointments in March and April 2024. The resident said that on 23 April 2024 he had tried to call the landlord 7 times and, on each attempt, calls went through to an automated message. The landlord’s customer care standard says it will let residents know in advance if it needs to cancel a visit. The landlord cannot evidence it informed the resident, who had rearranged his working pattern to be home, that it was cancelling the appointments. This was a failing.
  10. The landlord’s internal complaints process was completed on 18 April 2024. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord on 4 occasions between May 2024 and August 2024 asking when the inspections would take place and for an action plan on the planned repair. The landlord issued 2 holding responses during this time, in June and July 2024, promising an update from its repair service on both occasions. The landlord cannot evidence that it followed up on these commitments. The resident had spent time and effort chasing the landlord. There was poor communication from the landlord, which was not in line with its customer care standard for responding to resident’s emails.
  11. On 25 July 2024 the landlord’s contractor conducted a CCTV survey of the balcony gully at the neighbour’s flat, above the resident’s home. The landlord cannot evidence it informed the resident of the outcome of the inspection, and the resident said he had still not received any information from the landlord. It was unreasonable the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates. The landlord demonstrated further poor communication and did not keep the resident informed which was a failing.
  12. A report from the contractor shows work to repair the leak was completed on 14 August 2024. The resident had asked the landlord in October 2024 to confirm work was completed and asked if it had been tested to ensure the repair had been effective. He sought reassurance on this because his ceiling still felt damp. The evidence shows the landlord’s contractor had appropriately conducted a CCTV survey following the works to check it was successful. The landlord had available evidence to show it had successfully repaired the leak, but it failed to share this with the resident when asked. It missed an opportunity to restore the resident’s confidence with its service.
  13. Overall, it was unreasonable that the repair took almost 2 years to complete from when the resident first reported it and the landlord did not have due regard for its repair policy or for its obligations under the resident’s lease agreement. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident or reassure him that it was responding appropriately to his concerns.
  14. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted the service the resident had received was below the expected standards. The landlord said that it had since implemented improvements to its customer service. As well as the recruitment of additional staff, it planned to review how it communicates with residents to keep them informed. This was positive and appropriate action to take in response to the failings identified. We have made an order below for the landlord to evidence the changes it has implemented following this review.
  15. The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response, in respect of “your complaint and the missed appointments”. The landlord said it considered this case to be “high impact” and accepted “full responsibility”. The landlord gives an example of high impact as “failure to act promptly to address an uncontainable leak”.
  16. We recognise the landlord offered a reasonable level of compensation for its handling of the reported leak up to April 2024, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance on compensation. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord outlined an appropriate and proportionate plan to resolve the issue. However, we cannot determine the landlord’s actions and offers amounted to reasonable redress because of the subsequent failure to adhere to its commitments and the subsequent delay in completing the final repairs. Therefore, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak at the property. We have made an order below for the landlord to offer an additional £100 compensation for this aspect.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy is a 2-stage process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will acknowledge the complaint escalation within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy was compliant with the Code’s recommendations at that time.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 18 December 2023. He did not receive a response until 5 March 2024, 52 working days after the initial complaint. The resident escalated his complaint on 8 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 April 2024, 29 working days later.
  3. The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a stage 1 complaint response was not compliant with its own complaints policy, or The Code. The absence of this response meant the resident spent considerable time and effort pursuing the landlord and ultimately engaging our Service to obtain a complaint response. We were required to issue a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) to the landlord in order to progress the complaint. This was unreasonable and a departure from its complaints policy and the Code and added to the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  4. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its complaint handling because it had delayed extensively in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and subsequently delayed again in responding at stage 2.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of a roof leak at the property.
    2. the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
    1. provide a written apology to the resident acknowledging the range of service and communication failings that occurred. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and a copy should be provided to this Service.
    2. pay the resident a total of £550 compensation which must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. This is comprised of:
      1. £350 compensation previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not already paid this.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the missed appointment and continued delay in repairing the leak after the close of the internal complaints process.
      3. £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
    3. provide evidence to this Service to show the changes it has implemented as a result of its review into how it communicates with residents, as referred to in its stage 2 complaint response.
    4. provide evidence of compliance with these orders by their respective deadlines.