Haringey London Borough Council (202318746)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318746

Haringey London Borough Council

30 June 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests to be permanently rehoused.
2. Reports of repairs to the property.
3. Requests to be moved to temporary accommodation due to nearby construction.
The landlord’s complaint handling as also been considered.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The resident lives in the property with her children. One of the resident’s children is disabled. The resident is vulnerable due to her mental health. The resident’s Local Councillor is representing the resident in this matter. The resident’s Local Councillor is referred to as the ‘resident’s representative’ in this report.
A damp and mould inspection was carried out in the resident’s property on 6 February 2023. The inspection identified mould in the hallway, kitchen, living room, and both bedrooms. It identified that the cause was condensation from inadequate air inlets.
On 13 March 2023, a support worker contacted the landlord and the resident’s representative, on the resident’s behalf. They outlined that the resident was concerned about the mould in the property. They also raised that there was a new building development in close proximity to the resident’s block, and the resident was worried about the noise this would cause. The resident wanted to be moved to temporary accommodation while the building work was completed with a view to move permanently afterwards.
On 18 March 2023, the resident’s representative wrote to the landlord to request the resident be moved to temporary accommodation. They also enquired about whether the resident could be prioritised for a permanent move to the new properties being built.
A scope of works for the property was agreed on 29 March 2023. This included:
1. Mould washing and redecoration of the living room, bedrooms, and kitchen.
2. Repairing or replacing the extractor fan and ventilation system.
3. Redecoration of the bathroom.
4. Replastering and redecorating of the toilet.
5. Mould washing in the hallway.
6. An electrician to inspect the Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system in the hallway for excessive cold production.
7. A gas engineer to advise on the need for an additional radiator in the hallway.
On 17 April 2023, the resident’s representative requested an update from the landlord. The landlord responded that it could not provide the resident’s representative with an information about the repairs because, at the time, the repairs were the subject of a disrepair claim which the resident’s representative was not a part of. The resident’s representative requested an update about the possibility of temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s records show it attended to fit a new radiator in the resident’s hallway on 21 April 2023, but there was a wardrobe blocking access which needed to be emptied by the resident so it could be moved.
On 9 May 2023, the landlord outlined that it had confirmed with the resident that the repairs relating to the mould were now complete and that a temporary move was now not required. The resident’s representative asked whether the resident could be temporarily moved for the duration of the building construction in close proximity to the resident’s property, and if this would impact her ability to bid for bigger properties. The resident’s representative repeated her request for the resident to be prioritised for a move to the new development being built.
On 14 May 2023, the resident’s representative outlined that the repairs were not complete because the PIV system had not been replaced. The resident’s representative complained on 8 July 2023 because the landlord had not responded to her questions.
The landlord responded on 13 July 2023. It advised that residents within 250 metres of the new development would be contracted to express interest when the timescales for completion were clearer. It stated that a replacement of the PIV system had not been recommended by its surveyor. It was in the process of arranging for an electrician to check the system to ensure it was working correctly.
On 14 July 2023, the resident’s representative advised that she had not received a response about the resident being temporarily moved from the property while the nearby building works were completed, or about the resident being permanently rehoused.
The landlord responded on 28 July 2023. It outlined that the resident was on a waiting list for a larger property but the average waiting time for a 4-bedroom property was 12 years. It stated that the work in the resident’s property to resolve the mould was complete so there was no need for a temporary move.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 11 August 2023. It outlined some additional works including replacing the resident’s hand wash basin in the bathroom. It confirmed that a heating engineer and electrician had attended the property to examine the PIV system, it advised it would follow up on the additional radiator.
The resident’s representative complained again on 29 October 2023. She requested that the landlord provide a formal response to her enquires.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 13 December 2023. It said:
1. It had recorded the resident’s representative’s previous correspondence as a member enquiry but had moved the matter to stage 2 of its complaints process following her request for a formal response.
2. The resident should continue to bid widely and flexibly for a permanent move. It was not in a position to allocate the properties in the new development because construction had not begun.
3. It could not consider a temporary move during the planned construction at this time, because the work had not started.
4. All remedial works had now been completed, including a new radiator in the resident’s hallway, a new hand wash basin, and redecoration throughout the property.

Jurisdiction

The resident’s request to be permanently rehoused

The resident’s representative has asked that the resident be prioritised for the new properties being built in the vicinity of the resident’s current property. This request was made on the grounds of medical needs and overcrowding. The landlord has advised that the resident is currently in its housing need band B, meaning a move is needed due to a serious medical or welfare need.
When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. This is called our jurisdiction.
Housing allocations, bidding, banding, and the housing register are functions which are administered by the local authority. We can only consider complaints about councils in their role as landlords and not their wider role as a local authority. Any complaints that relate to these functions would be better discussed with the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is line with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body.
Additionally, would not propose a remedy that would put matters right for the resident but would adversely affect other individuals or mean that the resident had received preferential treatment compared to others in the same situation. For example, we would not say that a landlord should offer a resident a particular property, where there are other applicants who have a higher priority for that property, as that would be unfair to the other applicants.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to be permanently rehoused is outside of our jurisdiction.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is understood that there have been historical reports of damp and mould within the property. We expect residents to raise their concerns with their landlord when they arise, so that it can be escalated to us within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports throughout 2023, because this is what the landlord has responded to in its complaint response.

The resident’s reports of repairs in the property

The landlord’s survey in February 2023 highlighted some repairs required in the resident’s property. Some of these repairs related to the presence of mould. The landlord’s final response outlines that it understands that the resident’s representative was concerned about the presence of mould in the property.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will agree an action plan with the resident, which can include mould washes and advice to reduce the mould, while the cause of the issue is investigated. The landlord’s repairs policy states that planned repairs will be inspected within 28 days. A time frame will then be agreed for follow up works.
A scope of works was provided in March 2023. It is unclear on what date the work was carried out; however, the landlord reported that most of this work had been completed by May 2023, and this was confirmed by the resident to her representative. The landlord identified that the cause of the mould was condensation and carried out mould washes and redecoration. This was appropriate because it was in line with its policy.
It is not clear exactly when the follow up works for the radiator in the hallway and the PIV system were completed; however, the records available show they were complete by December 2023 at the latest. It is noted that there was a failed appointment for the radiator which was outside of the landlord’s control. Given that the mould in the property was caused by condensation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete these works in good time. The landlord did provide updates to the resident’s representative in July and August 2023 but was vague about when the work would be completed. The resident’s representative needed to chase the landlord on several occasions for a response.
In its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the “lack of effective communication” and that the resident’s representative had needed to chase it for updates to pass on. It outlined that it would use this case to learn from and improve its service, and the tone of its response was sympathetic to the resident’s lived experience. We acknowledge the landlord’s candour about its own failures. However, the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation to recognise the delay and the poor communication.
The landlord’s compensation guidance outlines that it will offer compensation where there has been some level of inconvenience or distress caused by its own failures. While the landlord has acknowledged its own failures, it has not offered compensation which is not in keeping with this policy.
Overall, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the property. The landlord did act in good time to complete the initial works, but there was a delay in completing the additional works to target the cause of the mould. Additionally, the landlord did not provide meaningful updates to the resident’s representative which was what ultimately led to the complaint being made.
The landlord’s apology and complaint responses go some way to repairing the landlord tenant relationship, but the landlord has not gone far enough because it has not offered compensation for its failures. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its failures, this is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord has not gone far enough to remedy a service failure.

The resident’s request to be moved to temporary accommodation due to nearby construction

The resident’s representative requested that the resident be moved to temporary accommodation while the building development took place opposite the resident’s block. At the time of the landlord’s complaint response, it outlined that the work had not yet started and so it was not in a position to consider the request. The complaint was made on the basis that the resident wanted to know if a temporary move would be offered and if this would impact her ability to bid for a permanent move.
The landlord’s final response was issued on 13 December 2023. Our role is to assess the landlord’s responses to the resident on matters that have been considered through the landlord’s internal complaints process. We cannot look at events that happened after the landlord’s final response because the landlord would not have had the opportunity to review the matter and provide its final position. At the time of the landlord’s final response, the construction work had not begun. This means we cannot look at whether the landlord followed the appropriate policies once the work had begun.
When the resident’s representative asked for the resident to be temporarily moved due to the upcoming construction, the landlord responded that the works in the resident’s property were complete, so it would not offer a temporary move. The landlord missed its opportunity to provide its position on a temporary move in relation to the upcoming construction which was inappropriate.
In its final response, the landlord outlined that the construction work had not begun, and so it could not currently consider offering the resident a temporary move. This was an appropriate response. It is reasonable that the landlord could not consider if a move would have appropriate before the construction began. Once the work begins, the landlord will be in a better position to assess the impact on the resident, including the levels of noise, dust, and disruption. It is unclear if the construction work has now begun, it is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to confirm its current position.
It is noted that the landlord’s decant policy only applies for repair works in a resident’s property. In order to further manage the resident’s expectations, the landlord could have provided the resident with additional information about the circumstances in which it would offer temporary accommodation in relation to construction not in the resident’s property.
We find that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved to temporary accommodation due to nearby construction. This is because there was a delay of several months before the resident’s representative received a response to their query. While the delay in providing a response did not change the overall outcome to the resident, the landlord should apologise to the resident for the delay in order to put things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The Code states that a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord.”
The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days of the escalation.
The resident’s representative first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling on 8 July 2023 because the landlord had not provided a response to her questions. While the landlord did respond to the resident’s representative, it did not recognise the contact as a complaint in order to respond in line with its policy.
The resident’s representative complained again on 29 October 2023, the landlord escalated the matter to stage 2 of its complaint process and noted that it had treated the resident’s representative’s previous contact as a member’s enquiry rather than a complaint.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a stage 1 complaint response when the resident’s representative first complained. However, the landlord recognised that the resident’s representative had been requesting a response for several months and by escalating the matter to stage 2, the landlord prevented further delays in the resident receiving a final response and being able to access our service. Given that the landlord had provided its position on the matter in July 2023, much like it would be expected to do in a complaint response, it was appropriate to provide a stage 2 response. This also mitigated any impact on the resident caused by the initial failure to provide a clear stage 1 response in July 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 December 2023, this was 32 working days after the complaint was made and outside of policy timeframes.
Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure of service. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised timeframe. This response was inappropriate.
For this reason, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should pay the resident £75 compensation to reflect the delay in providing its response. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has not acknowledged its failure or put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to be permanently rehoused is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to be moved to temporary accommodation due to nearby construction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to us that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident in writing for its delay in responding to the questions about a temporary move.
2. Paid the resident a total compensation of £175. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or debt owed. The compensation is broken down as:
  1. £100 for its handling of repairs in the resident’s property.
  2. £75 for its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should write to the resident to confirm its current position in relation to a temporary move for the nearby construction works.