Haringey London Borough Council (202441103)

Decision
Case ID	202441103
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Haringey London Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a two-bedroom flat with their two teenage children. They have told us there has been a longstanding issue with damp and mould in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of a request for the resident to be rehoused.
3. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. The landlord’s handling of a request to be rehoused is outside of our jurisdiction.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
7. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a request for the resident to be rehoused

8. The landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint falls under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property

9. There was a significant delay in the landlord actioning commitments it made within its complaint responses.

The landlord’s complaints handling

10. The landlord provided the resident with timely complaint responses.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in arranging the damp and mould inspection committed to at stage 2. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 03 February 2026
2	Damp and mould works Within 4 weeks of the determination the landlord must contact the resident to arrange a further damp and mould inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. Within 8 weeks of this determination the landlord is to write to the resident and outline any works it plans to conduct, and its timescales for completing the works.	No later than 03 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should record on its systems that the resident’s children have a history of asthma. It should consider this information when making decisions about any future reports of damp and mould.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 September 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. In their complaint the resident said: They have had damp and mould issues in their property for many years, and the landlord had sent multiple surveyors to the property. Damp and mould works occurred in 2023. After conducting the works the landlord said it did not expect damp and mould to be present in the property for the next 5 years. The mould had returned despite them ventilating the property and using a dehumidifier. They were concerned the presence of mould would affect the household’s health.
14 October 2024	The landlord sent its stage one response which said: A damp and mould team leader had called the resident to arrange for a surveyor to attend the property to investigate the damp and mould. It said the resident had refused this appointment because they didn’t want surveyors to attend the property, and because they wished to be rehoused.
21 October 2024	The resident escalated their complaint as they thought the landlord was unsupportive. They disputed that they had refused any damp and mould works. Instead, they said they had expressed they didn’t want additional inspections to occur when they had sent photographic evidence of the mould to the landlord.
20 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response which said: It apologised for any distress the resident experienced from its comments at stage one. On 18 November 2024 a member of the landlord’s repairs team called the resident to apologise for the comments made about the resident refusing the works. In this call the staff member explained why an inspection was required even though the resident had provided photographs of the damp and mould. During the following week the damp and mould team would confirm a date for a future damp and mould inspection. It had assigned a target completion date of 6 February 2025 for the associated works.
13 January 2025	The resident referred their complaint to us as they didn’t think the landlord had taken their concerns about damp and mould seriously. They also wanted to be moved to a property where the children did not need to share a room.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a request for the resident to be rehoused.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

11. We cannot investigate a complaint which falls under the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. In this case the resident has raised concerns around the suitability of their property and their associated banding, given that their teenage children are sharing a room. As the landlord is a local authority, this element of the complaint falls under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO can consider complaints about the allocation of housing, including the assessment of applications and the level of priority given.

Complaint	The landlord’s handing of damp and mould in the property
Finding	Maladministration

12. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will carry out works to address the underlying causes of damp and mould. It will ensure properties are properly ventilated and provide advice to residents on preventing damp and mould. When a resident reports damp and mould, the landlord will assess the report and prioritise the case. In severe cases, it will attend within 1 working day; in moderate cases, within 5 working days. Low-risk cases will be treated as responsive repairs, with attendance within 28 days.
13. The resident provided a medical letter dated 18 September 2025. The letter raised concerns about exposure to mould, as both children have a history of asthma. This letter was produced after the landlord’s complaints procedure concluded, so we have not considered it when assessing how the landlord handled the complaint. However, we have recommended that the landlord records the children’s medical conditions and takes this into account when responding to future reports of damp and mould.
14. The resident told us the landlord conducted damp and mould works in 2023, and it told them it did not expect mould to return within 5 years. The resident said they ventilated the property and used a dehumidifier, but mould returned in 2024.
15. On 29 April 2024 the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection. No mould was identified during the inspection, but the resident reported that mould appears during colder months. No defects likely to contribute to damp and mould were identified. The surveyor noted that the reported mould could be linked to increased condensation caused by overcrowding. The surveyor advised the resident to keep trickle vents open to improve ventilation.
16. The resident complained on 23 September 2024. The landlord then contacted the resident to arrange a damp and mould inspection. The resident said they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s proposal for another inspection, as they felt inspections were disruptive and too frequent. They wanted the landlord to arrange repairs based on photographic evidence they had provided. While inspections can be inconvenient, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out an in-person inspection. Physical inspections allow landlords to confirm the presence of damp and mould and identify any defects that may contribute to the issue.
17. The landlord’s decision to arrange an inspection was reasonable. However the wording in its stage 1 response could be perceived as heavy-handed, as it suggested the resident had refused works. It would have been better customer service for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s concerns while explaining why an inspection was necessary. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the wording in its stage 1 response and confirmed it had called the resident to explain the need for an inspection. This was appropriate.
18. In its stage 2 response, dated 20 November 2024, the landlord said it would arrange a damp and mould inspection. Evidence shows this inspection took place on 19 May 2025, which was 181 days later. This was significantly outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the reason behind this delay. The landlord’s repairs records indicate that it has not actioned the recommendations made following the 19 May 2025 inspection.
19. Whilst the actions that the landlord identified in its stage 2 reply were appropriate, it failed to then ensure that matters were put right within a reasonable amount of time. There have been delays in an inspection being carried out and no action has been taken on the recommendations from the inspection. We have found maladministration occurred due to these unreasonable delays. We have ordered the landlord to pay £150 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the time taken for it to action its stage 2 commitments.
20. Given the time that has passed since the last inspection, we have also ordered the landlord to conduct a new damp and mould inspection so that it can make an assessment on any current issues in the property. Within 4 weeks of this inspection the landlord is to write to the resident to outline what works it will conduct, and its timescales for completing the works.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

21. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
22. We asked the landlord to provide information around when it acknowledged the resident’s complaint and escalation request, but this information has not been provided.
23. As the acknowledgement dates are unknown, we have assessed the landlord’s complaint handling against the maximum response times set out in its policy. On this basis, the stage 1 response was 1 working day late, and the stage 2 response was sent 23 working days after the escalation request. Although the stage 1 response was delayed by 1 working day, the stage 2 response was 2 working days early, which offsets the earlier minor delay. We therefore find that no maladministration occurred.

Learning

The landlord’s record keeping 

24. We asked the landlord to supply us with additional material relevant to the resident’s complaint.  The landlord did not supply this information in line with our requested timescales, and it did not provide further requested information about its complaint acknowledgements. The landlord should consider if it can make improvements in how it keeps records, and shares records with us.

Communication

25. In this case the resident was concerned that there had been reference to them refusing works in the stage 1 reply. The landlord later apologised for this. The landlord should consider what improvements it can make to its complaint handling processes to ensure resident’s views are more accurately represented.