Haringey London Borough Council (202317960)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317960

Haringey London Borough Council

20 June 2024

 

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:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp/mould and structural damage within his property.
    2. The resident’s concerns relating to asbestos within his property.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. His tenancy started on 11 November 2019. The property is a 1 bedroom, ground floor flat in a sheltered housing scheme. The resident is registered disabled.
  2. The resident first reported damp and mould on his living room walls and ceiling, to the landlord on 8 January 2020, shortly after moving into the property.
  3. Following continuing issues with damp and mould, and concerns in relation to the presence of asbestos in his property, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. It should be noted that the resident’s initial complaint has not been included within this investigation, however, the details of it are included in the following paragraphs to provide context to the subsequent complaint made by the resident.
  4. This Service cannot confirm the date of the initial complaint as we have not been provided with the details of it, or the stage 1 complaint response, from the landlord. The stage 2 response was sent to the resident on 5 May 2022. The landlord said that the damp and mould issues had been referred back to a manager on 7 September 2021, because asphalt works were required to the balcony above the resident’s property to stop the water ingress. The landlord explained that a contractor should have been appointed to complete the works, but due to an oversight, the job had not been raised. It apologised to the resident and confirmed that the work had been assigned to its contractor. The landlord awarded the resident £140 compensation as the damp and mould had not been fully resolved.
  5. The landlord’s response, in relation to the resident’s concerns about asbestos, was that it had noted the concerns. It said any asbestos which needed to be removed in the course of works would be done in line with full health and safety protocols.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 3 of the landlord’s complaints process in place at the time of the complaint, which consisted of a review by an appointed panel. The stage 3 complaint response dated 12 July 2022, said the panel felt that the complaint had been investigated fairly, and it agreed with the stage two conclusion.
  7. The resident raised a further formal complaint with the landlord on 5 May 2023. It is this complaint that forms the basis of our investigation. He said he wanted to move to another area via a mutual exchange. However, he was unable to do so due to structural damage, asbestos and damp/mould in his flat, which had been ongoing since 2020.
  8. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 13 July 2023. It said it could see that the resident had previously reported a damp issue, which was inspected in 2021. Following a survey, it had carried out repairs to defective external brickwork. However, it noted that the upstairs balcony was also likely contributing to the issue and it acknowledged that it had not communicated with the resident and it had not completed the works to the balcony. Therefore, it upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 13 July 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response, particularly as the landlord had not addressed his concerns in relation to asbestos.
  10. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 4 August 2023. It said some structural issues were identified during a survey in 2021. A structural survey was completed on 15 March 2022, and a further survey was carried out on 10 November 2022. This concluded that the ongoing damp was likely coming from the balcony above. The job to complete the necessary repairs was passed to a sub-contractor, although the work was never completed. Therefore, it would arrange for another contractor to undertake the work, although it was unable to provide a completion date as it had no available contractor to complete the work. It apologised for the lack of communication throughout the process and said it would keep the resident updated.
  11. The resident contacted this Service on 17 August 2023, and referred his complaint for investigation. As of 24 May 2024, the asphalt repairs to the balcony above the resident’s flat were still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of damp/mould and structural damage within his property

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord must keep the structure and outside of the property (including drains, gutters and outside pipes) in repair. It must also keep in repair and proper working order its installations for space heating, water heating, drainage and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity. It also confirms that the resident has the right to have the repairs completed within a reasonable period of time.
  2. The landlord’s repairs handbook says it will attend to an emergency repair within 24 hours of the report and will attempt to complete the repair on the first visit. Other repairs will be agreed by appointment within 28 days of the report. Planned repairs, that have to be pre-inspected, will be inspected within 28 days, and a further appointment will be confirmed at the inspection.
  3. The resident first reported mould on his living room walls and ceiling to the landlord on 8 January 2020. The evidence provided suggests that the landlord treated the areas of mould on 21 January 2020.
  4. The resident reported further issues with damp and mould on 22 March 2021, as there was black mould by his front door in the hallway, and the mould had started to re-appear in the living room. The landlord’s records show that on 4 May 2021, it attended the resident’s property and found water retention on the balcony above, loose pointing above the front window lintel, cracking on the concrete lintels, issues with the brickwork joint mastic, mould patches on the hallway and living room ceilings. There is no evidence to suggest that any work was carried out to the property following this inspection.
  5. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 18 June 2021, although it is unclear from the evidence provided as to why this was necessary. It found defective and cracked concrete lintel arches to the front exterior windows as a result of settlement. It found an issue with water penetration from the upper balcony, as a result of defective balcony asphalt, which had caused rainwater penetration affecting the front exterior wall and balcony ceiling roof to the ground floor flat. There were gaps between the upper stair landing and balcony roof causing water penetration affecting the ground floor flat. The external front storage room door frame was defective, caused by wet rot as a result of rainwater damage. The expansion joint to the external brickwork by the door entrance appeared to be old and perished and there were minor mould patches on the living room ceiling and wall caused by condensation.
  6. Following the inspection, the landlord issued a works order for remedial action and referred the defect affecting the concrete lintel arches to a structural engineer for further investigation. The landlord has not provided any evidence that shows what remedial works were included within the works order, what works were fully completed, or when they were completed.
  7. The structural engineers report dated 15 March 2022, concluded that the flat was generally in good condition. It said the main issue was the growing moulds on the ceilings in the hallway and the living room. To avoid further mould growth, the report recommended that the landlord replace the water proofing material of the upper balcony’s slab, check the rainwater drain for leaks, renew the render, and renew the paint on the ceilings.
  8. It is unclear from the information provided why the structural engineers report was not completed until 15 March 2022. This was almost 9 months from the date of the previous inspection. It would be reasonable to conclude, from the evidence provided, that the damp and mould persisted during this time, particularly as this would have been over the winter period. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord completed any further mould treatments during this time to limit the effect of the mould on the resident. This is of concern to the Ombudsman, particularly given that the resident is disabled and living in sheltered housing.
  9. The landlord raised a work order on 29 April 2022 to renew the upper balcony asphalt. However, as far as this Service is aware, this work is still outstanding over 2 years later. Which is over 4 years from the resident’s initial report.
  10. The landlord carried out a further inspection of the upper balcony on 11 July 2022. It is again unclear as to why a further inspection was required as it appears, from the evidence provided, that the landlord was clear as to what the issues were. Particularly as a full structural survey had been completed only 4 months earlier. Again, recommendations were made to remove the upper balcony tiles, clean and resurface with a waterproof coating, and renew the tiles. There is clear evidence that the landlord failed to complete the required works at the time of the resident’s original complaint into these matters and that the landlord’s complaint process failed to satisfactorily provide a resolution to the resident.
  11. The resident raised a new complaint to the landlord on 5 May 2023, in which he outlined that he was unable to utilise the mutual exchange programme due to the ongoing defects, including damp and mould, and repairs required at his property, that were essentially still present from his original complaint.
  12. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 13 July 2023, upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised to the resident and acknowledged that it had not communicated effectively about the upper balcony repairs. It told the resident that it did not have an asphalt contractor available to complete the works, however, it expected to have one in place by September 2023. It said that once the asphalt works were complete, it would complete any internal repairs as required. Although the landlord accepted there had been service failures, it failed to provide any redress to the resident or demonstrate any learning from the case. This is not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  13. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 13 July 2023.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 4 August 2023, confirmed that it had passed the asphalt works onto a sub-contractor. However, since then, it had ended the contract. Therefore, it would arrange for a different contractor to carry out the works. The landlord said it could not provide an anticipated completion date but it would provide an update when it could. It apologised for the lack of communication throughout the process. However, even though the landlord identified multiple service failures, and the repairs were still outstanding, it failed to provide any redress or resolution to the resident in line with the dispute resolution principles.
  15. Given that the resident’s tenancy agreement explicitly says he was entitled to have the repairs completed within a reasonable period of time, in line with common law, and given that the damp and mould had been ongoing for over 3 years at this point, it is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord did not act in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, its obligations under common law, or the timeframes set out in the repairs handbook. Therefore, its actions/inactions were inappropriate in the circumstances, which was unreasonable and unfair to the resident.
  16. In summary, the landlord failed to comply with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and common law, it did not act in accordance with the timeframes set out in its repairs handbook and delayed unreasonably in completing the repairs required to alleviate the damp and mould in the resident’s property. Although the landlord recognised service failures through its complaints process, it failed to provide a resolution or reasonable redress. As a result of these failings, the overall detriment caused to the resident due to living with damp and mould for over 4 years, and the outstanding repair which has yet to be remedied, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The resident’s concerns relating to asbestos within his property

  1. The landlord’s “guide to asbestos” leaflet says it holds a list of properties where asbestos has been found or is believed to exist. The list is updated as surveys are carried out across its housing stock. If asbestos is found, and it is in a good condition, the landlord’s guide says it is ‘best practice’ to leave it in place. However, if the asbestos is in a bad condition, it will be removed or made safe by the landlord.
  2. This is in line with the advice given by the health and safety executive (HSE) which states that asbestos in poor condition must be sealed or removed. The HSE also recommends that if asbestos is likely to release dust and cannot be easily repaired and protected or is likely to be disturbed during routine maintenance work, then it must be removed.
  3. The landlord’s asbestos management procedure says, for domestic dwellings, it will:
    1. Identify if asbestos is within each individual premises.
    2. Manage asbestos containing material (ACM) causing an immediate risk by removing or encapsulating damaged materials or those highly likely to be disturbed.
    3. Provide the tenant with a floor plan to identify where the asbestos is present, explain that it poses no risk if left undamaged, and ask them to report any damage immediately to the asbestos team.
    4. Provide information to operatives attending site, as any asbestos materials present should be reviewed prior to any work commencing.
  4. The resident has told this Service that the landlord had been aware of the asbestos in his property since 2014, although the landlord has not provided any evidence to support this.
  5. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident first raised his concerns in relation to asbestos in his property. However, the information suggests that he raised it in his first complaint. This appears to be at some point in early 2022. Although, the landlord did not provide a conclusive response to his concerns within its stage 2 response dated 5 May 2022 or stage 3 response dated 12 July 2022.
  6. An asbestos management survey report was issued on 4 August 2022. The report concluded that there was chrysotile asbestos (white asbestos) within the brown vinyl floor tiles and the adhesive below the vinyl tiles. Asbestos is generally divided into 2 sub-groups: serpentine and amphiboles. Serpentine asbestos (chrysotile or white asbestos) is far less hazardous than the amphibole type.
  7. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this information was relayed to the resident in line with its asbestos management procedure which says it will “provide the tenant with a floor plan to identify where the asbestos is present, explain that it poses no risk if left undamaged, and ask them to report any damage immediately to the asbestos team”.
  8. The resident raised the issue of asbestos again in his complaint dated 5 May 2023. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response dated 13 July 2023. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 13 July 2023. He said he believed the presence of asbestos in his property was a statutory nuisance which had to be removed.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 4 August 2023, confirmed that his complaint included “damp and mould, structural damage and asbestos” within his home. However, it again did not investigate the resident’s concerns of asbestos or provide any outcome or resolution to the issue within the stage 2 response. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states at 5.6 “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decision, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Therefore, the landlord did not act in accordance with the Code, and by failing to investigate the resident’s concerns, its inaction was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  10. It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident was concerned about the presence of the asbestos, and the potential impact of him being unable to agree a mutual exchange because of it. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took any steps to allay the resident’s fears or concerns in line with its asbestos management procedure. This demonstrates the landlord’s unsympathetic and unfair approach to the issue. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident that the presence of asbestos does not always constitute disrepair unless it is damaged or it has deteriorated. It’s lack of action and investigation was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. This was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances.
  11. In summary, the landlord did not act in accordance with its asbestos management procedure, or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It’s approach towards the resident’s concerns was unsympathetic, unfair, and dismissive. As a result of these failings, and the detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 5 May 2023. The landlord sent the resident “holding response” letters on 31 May 2023, 16 June 2023, and 30 June 2023, which explained that there were delays due to a backlog of complaints. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 13 July 2023. This was over 2 months from the date the complaint was logged and significantly outside of the landlord’s published timeframe of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2022) says at 5.1 “landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason”. Although the landlord did keep the resident updated, the cause of the delay, which was due to a backlog of complaints, was not a sufficient or “exceptional” reason to justify the delay in the stage 1 response.
  4. The landlord did apologise for the delay within its stage 1 complaint response. However, it failed to recognise that this amounted to a complaint handling failure and it did not provide appropriate redress. Therefore, the landlord did not comply with the Code or act in accordance with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy and its actions, which caused delays, were inappropriate in the circumstances.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 13 July 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 4 August 2023. This was within the timeframe set out in the landlord’s complaints policy of 20 working days. However, although the landlord recognised that there was a delay at stage 1, it again failed to provide appropriate redress. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  6. In summary, the landlord failed to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and its own complaints policy, as it delayed unreasonably in providing the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord also failed to provide reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures and did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. As a result of these failings, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp/mould and structural damage within his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns relating to asbestos within his property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report(the apology should be offered by the landlord’s Chief Executive in writing).
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,900 made up of:
      1. £1,000 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp/mould and structural damage within his property.
      2. £600 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns relating to asbestos within his property.
      3. £300 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
    3. Carry out an inspection of the asbestos within the resident’s property and provide the resident with a floor plan to identify where the asbestos is present.
    4. Confirm whether the asbestos poses any risk and confirm what remedial work will be carried out if any risks are identified.
  2. Within eight weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Identify an appropriate contractor, agree a schedule of works, and complete the outstanding work to the upper balcony. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the schedule and confirm when the work is complete.
    2. Agree a schedule of works and complete any other outstanding repairs identified during the previous inspections (if any are still outstanding). The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the schedule and confirm when the work is complete.
    3. Agree a schedule of works and complete any required internal repairs following the completion of the external remedial works. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the schedule and confirm when the work is complete.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.