Haringey London Borough Council (202510222)

Background

1. The resident reported leaks, pests and repairs to the landlord. The landlord visited but did not resolve the issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of a leak.
   2. Response to reports of pest infestation.
   3. Handling of drainage issues.
   4. Handling of a repair to a wardrobe.
   5. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of pest infestation.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of drainage issues.
   4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of a repair to a wardrobe.
   5. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a leak

4. The landlord acknowledged there was a recurrent leak into the resident’s property. However, it did not trace and resolve the leak. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate, and it did not follow its repairs policy.

The landlord’s response to reports of pest infestation

5. The landlord did not assess if pest treatment was needed at the resident’s property. It did not record the results of an assessment of the bin store. It completed some repairs but did not assess if all ‘pest access’ points had been repaired.

The landlord’s handling of drainage issues

6. The landlord said it would inspect but did not do so. It did not fix the issues.

The landlord’s handling of a repair to a wardrobe

7. The landlord did not follow its repairs policy and has not completed the repair.

The landlord’s complaint handling

8. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint or escalation request. It took too long to send its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. The landlord did not address all issues the resident raised and did not set out its decision on his complaint.

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.

9. There were historical issues with a leak into the property. We encourage residents to complain to their landlords in a timely manner. This is so the landlord can consider issues when they are ‘live’, and evidence is readily available. We usually consider the 12-month period before a complaint is made. In this case we have considered the period from December 2023. This is because the resident reported the leak at that time, but the landlord did not trace and fix it.
10. On 26 December 2023 the resident reported an uncontainable leak into the bathroom. The repair record said the landlord went to the upstairs property and there were no signs of a leak. On the same date the landlord ordered an emergency repair to ‘make safe’ the electrics. The landlord acted correctly in ordering an emergency repair but completed the repair 18 days after the timeframe set out in its repairs policy.
11. On 3 January 2024 the resident reported the leak had spread. The repair record said the leak was unresolved and was in 3 areas of the resident’s property. The landlord attended as an emergency. It did not record the source of the leak or the nature of any repair. Complete and accurate records are essential to allow a landlord to fulfil its repair responsibilities and demonstrate it has done so. This is a record keeping failure.
12. The landlord told us it suspected the leak was coming from a neighbouring property. It said a sink waste pipe in the property was rotten and needed replacing. It said it visited the property on 24 January 2024 but did not gain access. There is no evidence it took further action to gain access and complete repairs.
13. On 2 April 2024 the landlord ordered a repair of the bathroom lights following the leak. The landlord completed the repair on 9 April 2024. This was within the timeframe required by the landlord’s repairs policy.
14. The landlord said it contacted the resident on 22 August 2024 about the leak. The landlord has not provided customer contact records. This is a record keeping failure.
15. On 12 March 2025 the resident reported a leak from the upstairs property. The landlord ordered an emergency repair. It did the repair on 24 March 2025. This was 11 days after the timeframe required by its repairs policy. The landlord did not record the source of the leak or the nature of the repair.
16. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says where there is a leak from a neighbouring flat it will establish if it owns the property. It says the landlord will arrange access within 72 hours, or if access is not provided, book an appointment to force entry. The landlord did not follow its policy.
17. On 25 March 2025 the resident reported the bathroom light was not working. The landlord ordered an emergency repair to ‘make safe’ the electrics. It completed the repair on 2 May 2025. This was 37 days after the timeframe required by its repair policy. Its repair records say it fixed the light on 18 July 2025. This was 90 days after the timeframe set out in its policy. The resident told us the bathroom light was not fixed.
18. The resident complained about an ongoing leak. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it visited but found no active leak. The response did not say when it visited. The response does not match the information in the landlord’s repair records.
19. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the resident had told it the leak had stopped. The resident disputed this account and told us the leak was ongoing, and he had to use buckets to catch the water. The landlord said as it was the third leak, the resident wanted it to visit the upstairs property and confirm the leak was fixed. The landlord said it would fix the bathroom light on 2 June 2025 and visit the upstairs property on 19 June 2025.
20. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will trace and rectify leaks. The landlord should have traced the first leak. The resident should not have needed to insist the landlord follow its repairs policy.
21. The resident said the landlord visited on 3 June 2025 but did not restore the light as it did not know if the leak was fixed. The landlord did not access the neighbouring property on 19 June 2025 and did not update the resident. The resident said the landlord completed some repairs. However, in November 2025 there were further leaks into the resident’s property. The landlord confirmed the resident had to move to emergency accommodation. On 26 November 2025 the resident told us the landlord had fixed the leak, and he had returned to the property.
22. The landlord did not follow its repairs policy. It did not complete all emergency repairs within the required time. It did not trace and fix the leak into the resident’s property. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate. The landlord failed to recognise the impact of the recurrent leak on the resident and the distress and inconvenience it caused him. We have therefore found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to take action, apologise to the resident and pay £600 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for a failing that had a significant impact on the resident.

23. On 18 September 2024 the resident reported holes in the kitchen through which mice entered. The landlord completed a ‘routine’ repair on 2 January 2025. This was 78days after the timeline in its repairs policy.
24. The landlord’s website says it will treat mice infestations for residents that live in flats. Although the landlord blocked up some holes in the resident’s property, it did not assess if treatment was needed.
25. On 30 December 2024 the resident told the landlord there was a large hole in the plaster through which mice were entering. The landlord ordered a repair. It later cancelled this because it had already booked a visit on 2 January 2025.
26. The resident complained there was an mice infestation in the building. In its stage 1 response the landlord said only 4 residents had reported mice that year. It said it had checked the bin store and there was no infestation. The landlord has not provided evidence of any completed rodent checks. It said the resident could report any rodent issues and it would take action.
27. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would check on 18 June 2025 if there were any ‘pest access points’. The landlord did not record the results of any assessment. On 12 September 2025 it ordered a check and repair of any pest access points. On 26 November 2025 the resident told us the landlord had not yet completed the check or done repairs.
28. We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of pest infestation. The landlord took too long to complete repairs. It did not assess if treatment was needed. It did not document its inspection of the communal bin store. We have ordered the landlord to take action, apologise to the resident and pay £200 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing which adversely affected a resident.

29. On 18 September 2024 and 21 November 2024, the resident reported the bath was blocked. The landlord responded to both reports and completed repairs within the timeframe required by its repairs policy.
30. The resident spoke with the landlord after sending his complaint. He said there was standing water in the bath and sink and asked for this to be included in his complaint.
31. The landlord did not address the drainage issues in its stage 1 response. The resident flagged this in his escalation request. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for not addressing the drainage issues at stage 1. The landlord said it would do an inspection on 19 June 2025.
32. The landlord has not provided an inspection report. The resident told us the drainage issues had not been fixed.
33. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of drainage issues. The landlord did not complete an inspection and the issues are unresolved. We have ordered the landlord to take action, apologise to the resident and pay £100 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing that adversely affected a resident.

34. On 11 February 2025 the resident reported a repair to the wardrobe door. The landlord completed a routine repair on 20 March 2025. This was 10 days after the target timeframe in its repairs policy.
35. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the repair. The resident told us the landlord visited but did not do the repair. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the resident was responsible for the repair.
36. The resident escalated his complaint and questioned if this was correct. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the information given at stage 1 was wrong. It confirmed it was responsible for the repair. The landlord apologised for previously giving incorrect information and said it would do the repair on 24 June 2025. The landlord subsequently ordered a repair, but this has not been completed.
37. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of a repair to a wardrobe. The landlord did not follow its repairs policy. We have ordered the landlord to take action and to pay £50 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord.

38. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it says it will respond within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
39. On 10 April 2025 the resident complained to the landlord. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint.
40. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 May 2025. This was 17 days after the response time required by the Code.
41. The landlord did not address all the issues in the resident’s complaint. It failed to respond to his concerns the issues had been ongoing for 2 years.
42. On 6 May 2025 the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request.
43. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 11 June 2025. This was 17 days after the response time required by the Code. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to be compensated.
44. The landlord did not set out its decision. It did not say if the resident’s complaint was upheld and set out the reasons why. This was contrary to the Code.
45. We found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay £125. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing that adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

46. The landlord’s repair records were incomplete and lacked detail.

Communication

47. The landlord did not communicate clearly or in a timely manner. It did not keep the resident update on repairs.