Haringey London Borough Council (202343755)

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs in his home, including damp and mould and a door repair. He is registered blind. He told us he would benefit from translation services. One of his children has a medical condition that may make him more susceptible to respiratory illnesses.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A report of a roof leak causing damp and mould in the property.
   2. A door repair.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported roof leak.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the door repair.
   3. Service failure in its complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord carrying out repairs following its inspection of the property. It failed to fully consider the household’s circumstances and vulnerability.
5. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord repairing the resident’s door and its record keeping was inadequate.
6. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if it carried out the follow up actions it agreed in its complaint responses. The landlord should have contacted the resident to get full details of the complaint but there is no evidence it did so.

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.

7. The landlord accepts that after a damp and mould inspection in March 2023, it did not arrange the follow-on repairs promptly and they were not complete when the resident complained in March 2024. As 12 months had passed, it was appropriate for it to arrange another inspection, as the condition of the property could have changed.
8. The landlord aims to deal with non-urgent repairs (such as damp and mould) within 28 calendar days. When the resident complained in March 2024 it should have arranged the damp and mould inspection within 28 days to meet its repairs policy timescale. It exceeded this timescale by 2 weeks. Although the landlord did not explain this delay, overall, it was not excessive.
9. The landlord identified low severity mould in 3 rooms of the resident’s house. During the inspection the landlord gave the resident advice on managing condensation in his home. This was in line with its damp and mould policy.  It also arranged several repairs following the results of the survey, including a damp and mould wash, redecoration, improving the insulation, and reglazing of a window. These were positive steps to resolve the issue and prevent it from reoccurring in future.
10. In line with its repairs policy timescales, the landlord should have completed the follow-on repairs within 28 calendar days. It accepted that there were unacceptable delays in it carrying out the repairs, and that it failed to communicate with the resident adequately.
11. The landlord’s records suggest the window was reglazed around 7 months after the repair was identified by the damp and mould surveyor.  It did not complete the mould wash in the bathroom, or the redecoration in the bedrooms and kitchen until at least January 2025, 8 months after the repair was identified.
12. The landlord needed erect scaffolding twice. First to investigate the report of a roof leak, and later to improve the insulation in the property. It had to put the scaffolding a neighbour’s garden. While this complicated the repair, it did not fully account for the delays in the landlord’s roofing repairs, which it accepts were not fully completed until July 2025, over 2 years after it first arranged to put scaffolding up. The delays throughout the repairs process caused the resident frustration, distress and inconvenience.
13. The landlord told us that some of the delay was caused by co-ordination challenges between teams. While it is positive that the landlord identified where things had gone wrong, it failed to identify changes it would make to improve its service going forward.
14. The resident told us that he is registered blind, and would benefit from translation services as English is not his first language. He has a disabled child. The landlord’s records indicate that it did not respond appropriately to the individual circumstances of the household, and that its record-keeping around their vulnerability and disability was inadequate.
15. Several individual repairs notes show that the landlord was aware that the resident was registered blind from at least 2017. However, when we asked about recorded vulnerabilities, it did not report this and instead referred to a different medical condition. This indicated that either its records were not adequate, or they were not held in an accessible, central location.
16. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will consider household members’ vulnerabilities, giving the example of a household containing children or people with conditions making them particularly susceptible to illness following exposure to mould. In line with this commitment, the landlord should have ask residents for relevant information about any household vulnerabilities as part of every damp and mould survey.
17. In the landlord’s damp and mould survey, it recorded that there were no vulnerabilities in the household. Given the circumstances of the family, which they have readily disclosed on other occasions, this suggested the landlord may not have asked the family about their personal circumstances during the survey.  This was a significant failing in this case as the resident’s child has a genetic condition which may make him more susceptible to respiratory illnesses. The landlord may have assessed the risk to the household differently if it had considered this.
18. It is not clear if the landlord was aware of the resident’s son’s genetic condition prior to November 2024. However, in November 2024, we shared complaint emails from the resident in which he disclosed this information. As such, the landlord should have contacted the resident to discuss this. Its records do not show it did so. This was a further missed opportunity.
19. In an internal email the landlord recorded that the resident may benefit from reasonable adjustments in its stage 2 complaints response. However, its records do not show if it offered these to the resident. It is important that reasonable adjustments are offered to residents, so they have equal access to the complaints process.
20. The landlord arranged a post-inspection of the repairs in August 2025 to ensure they had been completed satisfactorily. This was good practice by the landlord. It concluded that the internal works had been completed. The landlord has arranged to post-inspect the roof in January 2026. It has explained that the delay in the inspection is due to staff shortages. As the landlord is not required to post-inspect all of its repairs, the delay in inspecting the roof has not caused the resident disadvantage.
21. The landlord has been ordered to do a review of its handling of information about vulnerability and personal circumstances in this case. It has also been ordered to pay  £250 in compensation for its failure to keep accurate, accessible records on the household’s circumstances, and use these to assess the services it provided to the resident.
22. It took over 2 years from the first damp and mould survey in March 2023 for the landlord to complete the repair. Avoidable delays in the repairs process caused the resident distress and inconvenience. As such, the landlord’s offer of £400 for its handling of the repairs does not fully reflect the impact the delays had on the resident. It has been ordered to pay an additional £300 in compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says awards in this range are appropriate where there is maladministration by the landlord.
23. The resident told us that damp and mould have reoccurred since the repairs were done. It is not clear if the landlord is aware of this. It should arrange another damp and mould inspection and consider if further repair is needed.

24. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy.  In this case, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping.
25. We did not see any evidence that the landlord was aware that a door repair was needed before the resident’s complaint. As there was no indication that the property was insecure, the door repair would be considered a routine repair. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
26. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged to inspect the doors on 15 April 2024.  This timescale was reasonable as it aligned with the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. The landlord told us it identified repairs needed to an internal door and the kitchen door during the inspection.
27. The landlord accepted in its stage complaint 2 response that it had not repaired the doors. It said that it would follow up the repair, but its records do not show if it did this. This was a further record keeping failure.
28. The landlord’s records indicate that it completed a carpentry repair to the door on 3 July 2025. The landlord has not explained why it took more than 1 year to complete the repair.This was far in excess of its policy timescales. As such, we consider that it was an unreasonable delay, amounting to maladministration.
29. Further repairs were carried out between January 2025 and October 2025. These are outside the scope of our investigation as they were new issues which occurred after the resident completed the landlord’s complaints process.
30. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the door repair. The delay of over 1 year in repairing the resident’s door will have caused him frustration and inconvenience, and may have led him to believe his concerns were not being taken seriously. The landlord has been ordered to pay £100 in compensation for impact of this delay. Awards in this range are in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (discussed above).

31. The resident told us that he had complained to the landlord previously about its handling of the repairs. While we do not doubt the resident’s account, the evidence seen as part of this investigation does not show when the resident first complained to the landlord. As such we cannot conclude that there was service failure in the landlord’s initial handling of the complaint.
32. We contacted the landlord at both stages of the complaints process to ask it to log, and escalate, the resident’s complaint. The landlord met this timescale at stage 1 of the complaints process but exceeded it at the second stage of the complaints process. When it became aware that it would not be able to respond on time, it appropriately contacted the resident to let him know when he could expect a response. This will have helped to manage his expectations.
33. There was no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint. In this case, where the complaint had not been made directly by the resident, this would have been good practice, as it would have ensured the landlord and the resident had a clear shared understanding of the complaint.
34. The landlord identified that it should have communicated more regularly with the resident and set out a clear plan for the repairs in its stage 1 response. However, its stage 2 response did not give specific dates for all the repairs, and although the landlord said it would follow-up with the resident 10 days after it sent its stage 2 response, it is not clear if it did this. This did not demonstrate that it had embedded the learning it had identified, and may have impacted on the resident’s trust in the landlord.
35. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord has been ordered to apologise for the inconvenience caused by the shortcomings in its complaint handling.

Learning

36. Where landlords identify failures, for example co-ordination challenges in arranging scaffolding at the resident’s property, they should consider how they can improve their processes to prevent similar failures in future. This demonstrates a commitment to learning from mistakes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord should consider how it records information about the personal circumstances of residents. It should ensure that information stored is accessible to all relevant staff, so it can make reasonable adjustments to its services where necessary.

Communication

38. It is good practice to offer residents translation services, as this helps residents to have equal access to services. We did not see any evidence that the landlord offered translation services to the resident. The landlord may wish to consider additional training for staff to ensure they are able to confidently offer reasonable adjustments to residents.