Haringey London Borough Council (202442873)

Background

1. The resident lives with her 2 young children. The property is a maisonette in a block. In her formal complaint, the resident said she had been reporting damp and mould for at least a year and that she felt ignored by the landlord. She wanted the repairs completed and compensation, including for the damage caused to her belongings due to damp and mould in the riser cupboard under the stairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould damage caused to her belongings.
   2. Reports of damp and mould in the cupboard under the stairs.
3. We also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

What we can’t look at

4. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal, or other procedure. In this case, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould damage caused to her belongings, is better dealt with by the landlord under its insurance policy or by the courts. This is line with its responsive repair and compensation policies, which say all liability claims against it must be made to its insurance team. This is also because the courts and insurers are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent expert advice to decide on the cause of any damage and how long it lasted.
5. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate the complaint about damp and mould damage caused to the resident’s belongings. The landlord appropriately provided the resident with details of its insurance team for her to make a liability claim. However, as the resident recently told us she experienced difficulty in making a claim, we have included an appropriate recommendation.

Our decision (determination)

6. We have found:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould damage to her belongings to be outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the cupboard under the stairs.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. We found that:

Handling of reports of damp and mould damage to her belongings

1. This is outside of jurisdiction because it is better dealt with by the landlord under its insurance policy or by the courts.

Handling of the reports of damp and mould in the cupboard under the stairs

2. The landlord promptly inspected the property after it received the damp and mould report but unreasonably delayed addressing a leak which was the underlying cause of this.

Complaint handling

3. There were delays in the landlord providing its complaint responses, particularly at stage 2, which it only issued after being asked by the Service.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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 did not investigate

8. The resident told us and the landlord about the effect of the damp and mould on her and her young children’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

9. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it attended within target dates and followed its procedure after receiving the resident’s damp and mould report on 30 September 2024. Before this, the landlord said it had received a leak report on 7 July 2023, but it closed the work order after its operative attended the resident’s home on 20 July 2023 but could not get access.
10. The landlord’s repair records show it inspected the property within 2 working days of the resident’s 30 September 2024 damp and mould report on 2 October 2024. This was in line with its damp, mould and condensation policy’s 5-working-day timescale for moderate damp and mould cases. Based on evidence we have seen, the categorisation and action taken was appropriate, including because the resident’s tenancy agreement made the landlord responsible for repairing the property’s structure.
11. During the inspection, the landlord identified the source of the damp and mould was a leak in the kitchen riser cupboard area under the stairs and recommended that a plumber attend to trace the leak. They also noted leaks from the WC flush pipe had damaged the kitchen ceiling, which needed to be made good. The next visit was on 16 December 2024, when its surveyor identified the works needed included a mould wash, replastering, and seal coating the units. They also found that the kitchen window needed replacing. The landlord scheduled these works between 8 January 2025 and 23 January 2025, which was in line with its responsive repairs policy’s 80-calendar-day timescale for planned repairs.
12. In identifying works to address damage and prevent further damp and mould, the landlord acted appropriately. However, the landlord had not fixed the leak by this stage. Completing work before the root cause of the damp and mould was fixed risked causing ongoing damage. The landlord’s failure to prioritise fixing the leak immediately after diagnosing this on 2 October 2024 was inappropriate. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards, including damp and mould. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
13. The landlord’s plumber attended on 9 January 2025 to inspect the toilet and bath for leaks, however the leak was not fixed during this visit. They reported there was no leak under the bath or basin but found signs of a leak from the toilet pan connector, flush cone, and pipe. The plumber noted that a 4-hour appointment was needed. The landlord’s repair records show it scheduled a visit for 27 January 2025 to complete this work, however it is clear from the ‘N/A’ inserted in the comments column, that no visit took place. The reason for this is unclear from its records and the landlord has not explained this.
14. On 10 February 2025, the landlord raised an inspection of pipework in the cupboard for leaks, as well to repairs to the toilet. This was scheduled for 20 March 2025, however on this visit it identified that an asbestos check was required. The leak was eventually fixed on 27 March 2025, almost 6 months after it was identified on 2 October 2024. There is no detail about the source of the leak in the landlord’s records. However, based on what the resident told us, it was in the pipework above the riser cupboard.
15. We recognise it can take time to locate and fix leaks. However, the length of time taken by the landlord to address the leak in the resident’s case was inappropriate, as this far exceeded the 24-hour timescale in its responsive repairs policy for fixing leaks. The landlord failed to take adequate or prompt steps to address the leak, which was unreasonable.
16. In her complaint, the resident said she had been reporting damp and mould for at least a year and felt ignored by the landlord.
17. Based on the available evidence, we cannot see any previous damp and mould reports. However, we can see from the landlord’s records that the resident reported a leak at the property in the same location on 7 July 2023. In its complaint responses, the landlord said its operative attended the property on 20 July 2023 following this report but could not get access. It said despite leaving a calling card for the resident to re-arrange the visit, as it did not hear back within 5 days, it closed the job.
18. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident disagreed with the landlord’s claim and said no one attended on 20 July 2023 or left a card at this time. Having reviewed the repair record, this suggests that its operative had ‘carded’ the resident’s address at this time. However, there is no further information included in this record. As such, we are unable to find out exactly what happened at this time.
19. The landlord’s repair records show further leak reports were made on 26 October 2023 and 9 May 2024. However, they mention that the leak was coming through the kitchen ceiling, so this does not appear to relate to the leak in the riser cupboard. The landlord’s records suggest that leak was traced back to the WC and fixed on 9 May 2024.
20. However, the presence of a leak found in the riser cupboard on 2 October 2024, suggests it may have been ongoing since July 2023 when first reported. Although the gap in the reports suggests this may have been an intermittent leak. This leak and the one from the toilet may have caused the damp and mould then reported by the resident on 30 September 2024. Damp and mould could have then worsened over the 5 to 6 months while the riser cupboard leak remained outstanding. The delay in addressing the leak also increased the time taken by the landlord to complete the necessary works. These were ongoing until the leak was repaired.
21. In its final complaint response on 24 June 2025, the landlord said all the repairs had been completed. However, the resident has since told us that plasterboard work and redecoration to the riser cupboard remained incomplete (an operative attended but did not complete the work, leaving their tools at the property). We can see from the landlord’s records this work was outstanding at the time the leak was fixed on 27 March 2025. The resident also told us she was still awaiting the kitchen window replacement. We can see the landlord attended the property on 13 January 2025 to measure to supply and fit the window. However, there is no evidence of the window being fitted.
22. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge outstanding works in its final response was inaccurate and unreasonable. The landlord, however, apologised to the resident for any inconvenience caused and offered her compensation (£25) for acknowledged issues with communication, also highlighting learning points from the resident’s complaint.
23. Although this went some way to putting right the failings we have identified, the amount of compensation did not reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident. This is evidence of maladministration.
24. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500 (including the £25 offered) based on:
    1. £350 for distress and inconvenience
    2. £150 for time and trouble
25. This amount is in line with the level recommended in our remedies guidance where failings adversely affect the resident and is proportionate to the failings identified.
26. We have also ordered the landlord to complete the outstanding damp and mould works.

27. The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within a further 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
28. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint raised on 16 December 2024, which was inappropriate. It provided its stage 1 response 15 working days later on 9 January 2025, showing the landlord did not meet its 10-working-day timescale.
29. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s 30 January 2025 escalation relatively promptly after 3 working days on 4 February 2025, but it did not issue its final complaint response until 100 working days later, on 24 June 2025. This was after it was asked to by the Service on 11 June 2025.
30. The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing its final complaint response and offered the resident £25 compensation. Bearing in mind the length of the delay in providing its final response, the level of compensation was not enough to put right this failing. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident increased compensation of £100. This in line with the level recommended in our remedies guidance where such failings have adversely affected the resident.

Learning

31. Some of the landlord’s repair records include an appropriate level of detail about the jobs raised and work carried out. However, other records show that a job was raised but the related visit did not take place without including a reason.
32. Also, the landlord did not always give us a separate record of the resident’s leak and damp and mould reports (for example notes of her calls and her emails). This made it more difficult for us to work out if the landlord responded appropriately.
33. The landlord should identify learning from this complaint to improve record keeping in the above areas and so we have made a recommendation for it to do so.
34. The landlord acknowledged it should have kept the resident better informed throughout the repair process and it identified learning for its repair service to improve communication and response times. This was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.