Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Haringey London Borough Council (202329921)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329921

Haringey London Borough Council

31 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s report of a leak.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. He lived in a 1-bedroom, first floor flat. He moved from the property in May 2024 but remains a resident of the landlord.
  2. In May 2023 the resident reported a containable water leak from the flat above. A repair was booked in for July 2023 which was recorded as no access by the landlord.
  3. A surveyor visited on 31 August 2023 and identified medium damp and mould in the kitchen and low damp and mould in the bathroom and requested follow on visit from a plumber.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 19 September 2023. He told it no one had been out since the surveyor in August 2023 and there was still a water leak on the wall. He was not happy with the condition of the flat.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 20 November 2023. It apologised for the frustration, inconvenience, and delay in dealing with the water leak. It confirmed a plumber would attend on 14 December 2023 to look at the cause of the leak. It said it would learn from the complaint to improve communication with residents and ensure follow on works were booked. It gave contents insurance and escalation details.
  6. The resident continued to contact the landlord following the plumbing appointment on 14 December 2023 to find out the next steps. On 1 February 2024 the resident requested an escalation of his complaint. He said he was not getting anywhere.
  7. On 17 April 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay in responding and confirmed the leak was still unresolved. The response said the plumber had tried to access the flat above to identify the cause of the leak but there had been access issues. The landlord confirmed it was the freeholder of the flat above so access should have been gained sooner. It passed this to the Customer Liaison Manager to monitor. It offered £500 compensation for inconvenience, and time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
  8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman during the landlord’s complaints process due to the delays in complaint responses. He referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 4 September 2024. He said although he had moved from the property, he was unhappy with how the complaint was handled and the lack of action to stop the leak by the landlord. The resident said the leak went unresolved for a year, it caused damp and mould, and he felt the £500 compensation was not enough.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident recently told this Service that he experienced issues with leaks before the initial report made in his complaint. We have not been provided with evidence that previous leaks were related to the one the resident raised in his formal complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. This investigation will focus on the leak which was reported in May 2023 and the landlord’s response.
  2. The resident said the situation impacted his health. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter best suited to an insurance claim or court. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, he should seek legal advice.
  3. Reports of a leak
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its repair responsibilities. It says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency within 28 days. The policy highlights leaks and says the resident can tell the landlord where the leak is coming from and how bad it is and then they will agree a time to fix it. If necessary, the landlord says it will force entry.
  5. The landlord’s damp and mould policy is on its website, it prioritises cases by severity:
    1. Category 1 (serious): Inspection within 1 working day, complete works within 3 months with follow up inspection
    2. Category 2 (moderate): Repairs within 5 working days, action plan agreed with resident, mould washers/dehumidifiers, advice
    3. Category 3 (slight): Repairs within 28 days
  6. The resident reported a containable leak from the flat above on 31 May 2023 but there is no evidence to show this was completed or the resident was contacted. A further report by the resident was made on 13 July 2023 and an appointment was booked for 22 July 2023 but cancelled due to staff leave. A second attempt on 24 July 2023 failed due to no access. There was no evidence to suggest the landlord kept the resident up to date about these appointments which would have caused the resident to feel frustrated with the time it was taking to address the leak.
  7. As part of the repair job logged in July, a surveyor attended on 31 August 2023. A damp and mould inspection was completed and a further follow on request for a plumber was made. This appointment was 3 months after the resident’s initial report, although one attempt had been unsuccessful due to no access this timescale is unreasonable. It is more than the landlord sets out in its repairs policy and would have caused frustration for the resident.
  8. The property inspection said there was low mould in the bathroom and medium in the bedroom. It was appropriate for the landlord to record the damp and mould during this visit and request follow on investigation to find where the leak was coming from. However, there was no evidence to show it provided any advice or temporary solution in line with its damp and mould policy. This meant the resident continued to live in a property with visible signs of mould, affecting his enjoyment of his home and, which he later tells the landlord, on 10 November 2023, was affecting his health.
  9. As the resident did not receive any update following the surveyor visit, he requested a complaint to be raised in September 2023. Despite the landlord being aware that the matter remained unresolved, the appointment for the follow on works was not carried out until 14 December 2023. This exceed the landlord’s timeframes for routine repairs and was not appropriate. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed the appointment but did not provide an explanation for the delay which was unreasonable. The landlord’s delays and lack of oversight of the repair would have caused the resident avoidable inconvenience and distress.
  10. The resident continued to chase the landlord for an update following the appointment on 14 December 2023. His first chase on 8 January 2024 was dealt with as a service request. When he had no update, he chased again on 30 January 2024. The landlord provided complaint escalation details which the resident sent on 1 February 2024. The landlord had already identified a delay in repair in its stage 1 complaint, committed to improve communication with the resident, and ensure follow on work was appointed in good time. The landlord repeated this failure by its delay in communicating the next steps following the visit on 14 December 2023. This would have caused avoidable frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
  11. The landlord was aware that access was needed in the flat above to find the root cause of the leak. Whilst there is evidence of 2 internal emails regarding accessing the flat above, there is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated with the resident regarding its attempts to access the flat above. This impacted the resident as he continued to experience a leak into his property and remained unaware of any action being taken to try and resolve the issue from the flat above.
  12. In its stage 2 complaint response on 17 April 2024 the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in resolving the issue. It confirmed there had been no management of follow on works. The landlord also confirmed it was the freehold for the flat above so access should have been gained. As an outcome to the stage 2 response the landlord said it would pass the issue to its Customer Liaison Manager to monitor. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failings and offer compensation, but it was not clear on the next steps. It did not tell the resident specific actions it would take to resolve the access issues with the flat above which would have reassured the resident the leak would be resolved.
  13. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer £500 compensation in recognition for the inconvenience and time and trouble pursuing the complaint at stage 2. The Ombudsman accepts that the compensation offered at this stage was reasonable for the failings identified.
  14. However, there are no further records of any contact, visits, or repairs taking place following the stage 2 response. The resident moved out of the property by his own choice in May 2024.
  15. In summary, from the evidence provided, the landlord did not deal with the reported leak appropriately. Its actions fell short of the standards it sets in its own repairs and damp and mould policy, which it didn’t recognise in its complaint responses. The resident reported the leak in May 2023, but this was not fixed up to the end of his tenancy at the property in May 2024.
  16. Although there were some issues getting access to the flat above, the landlord did not manage the case in a proactive way. This meant the resident had to keep chasing for updates, which left him feeling frustrated and distressed. He told the landlord the leak was damaging his home and affecting his health, but the landlord did not act in line with its damp and mould policy or address this in the complaint responses.
  17. There is evidence that the landlord did not follow through on what it said it would do. It failed to set clear actions to access the flat above and carry out the repair after the stage 2 response. This meant the resident continued to live with the leak for 1 more month, before moving to another property.
  18. This showed the landlord continued to overlook its own repair and damp and mould policies and did not keep to the promise made during the complaints process. The landlord failed to learn from its previous mishandling of the issue, and in doing so further weakened the landlord and resident relationship.   Because of this, the Ombudsman has found maladministration and decided that additional compensation is appropriate. Taking into account the £500 already offered and received by the resident, the landlord should now pay an additional £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The resident raised his complaint with the landlord on 19 September 2023. It acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days, on 22 September 2023, in line with its complaint policy. Its policy says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days, so by 2 October 2023.
  2. On 2 October 2023 the landlord extended its time to respond to 16 October 2023, as allowed by its policy, and told the resident.
  3. However, the landlord continued to delay the response without communication to the resident. Instead, the onus was put onto the resident to chase the landlord for the response on 16 October 2024. The response was sent on 20 November 2024, over 3 weeks after the initial extension was confirmed.
  4. This delay in the stage 1 response would have caused unnecessary frustration and inconvenience for the resident. As such it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delay.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 1 February 2024. In line with its complaint policy the landlord should have acknowledged the request for escalation within 5 workings days. However, the landlord acknowledged within 10 working days, on 15 February 2024 and apologised for this delay confirming a response would be sent by 29 February 2024.
  6. When the resident did not receive the stage 2 response, he chased the landlord on 19 March 2024.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy does allow for situations where it is not able to provide a full response within 20 working days. When this happens the policy says it will contact the resident to explain the reasons why, and when they could expect to receive the response, which it did not do. Instead, the resident had to chase the landlord again. It confirmed on 21 March 2024 the stage 2 response would be with the resident by the end of that week.
  8. The resident then chased the landlord a further 3 times until the stage 2 was sent on 17 April 2024, over 2 months after the initial acknowledgement. This delay would have understandably caused unnecessary frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
  9. In summary, there was a delay at both stage 1 and 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delay and that the resident had to chase it for its response. However, the landlord’s compensation policy allows for awards where there has been delays in communication and the time a trouble caused but there is no evidence that this has been considered for the resident. This would have been appropriate considering the delay in providing the responses and the time and trouble caused to the resident in chasing the response. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £300 directly to the resident, in addition to the £500 the landlord has already paid. This is made up of:
      1. £200 compensation in recognition of the continued failure by the landlord to follow its own policies which caused distress and inconvenience
      2. £100 compensation in recognition of the frustration and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the complaint
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.