Haringey London Borough Council (202330110)

Decision
Case ID	202330110
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Haringey London Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	14 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with his wife, children, and granddaughter. One child has complex health needs which require careful management and stability in the home environment. The resident has complained that the landlord delayed completing kitchen repairs following a leak from the bathroom above.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The landlord’s response to the kitchen repairs in the property.
   2. The landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the kitchen repairs in the property.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the kitchen repairs

4. The landlord delayed completing repairs in the kitchen and failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It did not adhere to the timeframes set out in its Repairs policy and missed opportunities to put things right sooner. Although the landlord knew the household included a vulnerable person, it did not take steps to prioritise the works to reduce the impact on the household. This prolonged the distress and uncertainty it caused the resident.

Response to complaint handling

5. The landlord acknowledged and apologised that it did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in line with its policy or the Code. The landlord offered compensation, but its offer did not go far enough to put things right.

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	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 12 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £905 made up as follows:   £50 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response £75 to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delays in logging and responding to the resident’s complaint £780 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, and loss of living space caused by the repair delays in completing the repairs This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 12 December 2025

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Policy review The landlord could consider reviewing its Repairs policy to ensure its processes are robust when managing more complex or larger repairs. This review could cover how repairs are tracked and monitored for proactive management. It may also include how communication with residents is maintained to reduce the need for residents to make repeated follow-ups.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 15 January 2023 and 16 August 2023	During this time, the landlord recorded that it had resolved the bathroom leak and confirmed it could schedule the kitchen repairs. The resident contacted the landlord at least 5 times to ask when it would complete the kitchen.
25 August 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint about the delays in completing the kitchen repairs. There had been a leak from the bathroom that began in June 2021 and had caused damage in the kitchen. He was unhappy with the lack of communication and expressed concern about the impact on his household, which includes a vulnerable family member with complex health needs. He asked for the repairs to be completed before September 2023.
29 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and acknowledged it had delayed completing the kitchen repairs. It apologised for the inconvenience and frustration it had caused. The landlord said it started the repairs on 25 September 2023, which included: removing a partition wall plastering and painting the kitchen walls and ceiling refitting kitchen units It would arrange a post-inspection once the works had been completed.
07 October 2023	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said the landlord’s response did not acknowledge the impact it had on his family since reporting the leak in 2021. The repairs had not been completed, and white goods and cabinets were stored in the living room. He asked it to finish the repairs as soon as possible.
10 November 2023	The landlord issued its final response, in which it said: the contractor had completed the repairs since the resident escalated his complaint staffing shortages caused delays in completing the repairs and responding to the complaint it offered £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 27 November 2023 the resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. To resolve his complaint, the resident has asked: to be compensated for the delays completing the repairs and poor communication the landlord to improve its communications

 

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 response to kitchen repairs in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

6. On 15 January 2023 the landlord recorded that it had resolved the leak in the bathroom that had caused damage to the kitchen. The landlord inspected the kitchen on 22 February 2023, which was 27 working days after it had completed the bathroom repairs. This was consistent with its Repairs policy that allows up to 28 working days for inspecting potentially complex repairs.
7. When the landlord visited, it referred the case to its Repairs Supervisor due to the complexity of the repairs required. The Supervisor visited on 28 February 2023 and identified the repairs would take 1 week to complete. While the landlord identified how long the repairs would take, it did not confirm when the work would start. This would have caused uncertainty for the resident. This did not align with its Repairs policy, which requires it to inform residents of the repair date within 10 days of its visit. This failure fell short of the landlord’s obligations. This was not reasonable and placed the onus on the resident to contact the landlord for an update.
8. Between 1 March and 3 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord twice for an update on when the repairs would be completed. The landlord raised an order on 7 March 2023 for its contractor to carry out the repairs who later inspected the property on 3 April 2023. However, the contractor did not provide the resident with a start date for the repairs, despite their obligation under the landlord’s policy to do so. The resident waited more than 3 months for the repairs to begin and had 3 inspections at the property. The lack of repairs and communication would have caused the resident frustration and distress.
9. When the resident contacted the landlord on 1 June and 14 July 2023, he said no one had contacted him since the contractors visit in April 2023. Further, it had been a “stressful few months” as there had been family emergencies, including caring for his vulnerable child. The landlord responded to the resident within 2 days and promised an update within 7 days but failed to do so. This reflects a continued pattern of poor communication.
10. Under the Equality Act 2010, landlords have a duty to consider the needs of disabled residents and take proportionate steps to avoid them being at a disadvantage. The landlord was aware that the household includes a vulnerable family member and should have considered whether any reasonable adjustments were required. It missed the opportunity to demonstrate that it had due regard to this duty. It could have considered prioritising the works to reduce the disruption to the household. This failure contributed to the resident’s ongoing distress and undermined his confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage the repairs effectively.
11. On 16 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord for an update, but it did not respond. On 25 August 2023 the resident logged a formal complaint due to the ongoing repair delays and poor communication. He raised concerns that the kitchen wall was unsafe, which he said had been highlighted by the landlord during a previous visit. He reminded it that he had a vulnerable child, emphasising the distress the situation had been causing. He asked the landlord to complete the repairs by the end of September 2023.
12. As there are no records confirming whether the wall was safe, the landlord should have satisfied itself whether there were any risks. Further, the tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep the property’s structure in a reasonable and safe condition. However, the landlord did not show that it had considered this duty or the distress it had caused. It missed the opportunity to organise a further inspection or take steps to prioritise the works. Had it done so, it could have reduced the impact on the household and helped alleviate the resident’s concerns.
13. The landlord responded on 27 August 2023 and said it was disappointed the works had not been completed and would raise this with its contractor. However, it did not do so. On 11 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again, after receiving no update. The landlord knew the impact it had on the resident but did not show how it considered this.
14. The landlord failed to follow through on its commitment to contact the contractor, missing another opportunity to demonstrate responsiveness. This shows a lack of oversight in the landlord’s repairs service. Landlords should have systems in place to monitor contractor performance to help prevent residents experiencing lengthy and avoidable delays. The resident would have felt that his concerns had been overlooked, damaging his confidence in the landlord’s ability to complete the repairs.
15. On 22 September 2023 the contractor attended to assess the repairs again. Considering 4 months had passed since the last visit, reassessing the repair was reasonable to ensure no further works were required. However, if the landlord had commenced the repairs sooner, it may have avoided the additional inspection. This may have reduced the overall inconvenience it caused the resident.
16. The repairs began on 25 September 2023. This was 253 days after the landlord identified the kitchen works could be arranged. Although its policy does not set a specific timeframe for larger repairs, it does set out that repairs should be completed as efficiently as possible. This delay was excessive and did not reflect an efficient service. The landlord’s failure to act with urgency, despite knowing the household included a vulnerable family member, was a significant shortcoming. It missed multiple opportunities to prioritise the repairs and reduce the impact. The resident had to wait more than 8 months for essential works, which indicates a lack of urgency and oversight in progressing the repair.
17. On 29 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged and apologised for its delays in completing the repairs. The landlord said it had learnt that it needed to improve its communications with its residents and ensure work is completed in a reasonable timeframe. Further, it committed to completing a post-inspection once the following repairs had been completed:
    1. removing a partition wall
    2. plastering and painting the kitchen walls and ceiling
    3. refitting kitchen units
18. The landlord took some steps to put things right in its response. It apologised, committed to a post-inspection, and shared its learnings from the complaint. However, its response did not go far enough. It did not acknowledge that it failed to update the resident when it had promised to do so, or the significant distress it had caused. It did not identify it missed several opportunities to complete the work sooner which prolonged the resident’s uncertainty.
19. Despite acknowledging some of its failings, the landlord did not offer the resident compensation. This was not consistent with its Compensation policy that allows discretionary awards of up to £500 where the resident has experienced a considerable degree of distress or inconvenience. In recognition of the landlord’s delays and poor communication, compensation would have been a fair way to recognise the inconvenience it caused the resident.
20. On 7 October 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord’s response did not go far enough in acknowledging the impact the delays and poor communication had on his family. The repairs still had not been completed, and white goods and cabinets had to be stored in the living room. He asked it to finish the repairs as soon as possible.
21. The contractor completed the repairs on 3 November 2023, 5 weeks after starting the work. Due to poor workmanship, the landlord’s initial timeframe of 1 week had been significantly exceeded. The white goods and cabinets in the living room would have affected the household’s use of the room, causing them disruption. Given the family’s need for stability in the home, the unreasonable delays would have compounded the distress and inconvenience the household experienced.
22. The landlord honoured its stage 1 commitment and completed a post-inspection of the repairs on 7 November 2023. However, it did not retain a copy of the survey report. Accurate records are essential for the landlord to reflect on what has happened at the property and to satisfy itself of the condition and quality of the completed works. Failing to keep clear records limits its ability to demonstrate what was assessed and whether the repairs met the required standards.
23. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 November 2023 and acknowledged that it had not kept the resident updated because of staffing issues. It apologised for the delays in completing the repairs and confirmed that the work had been completed. The landlord offered £50 compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience it had caused.
24. While the landlord apologised, explained the delays, and offered compensation, its response did not go far enough to put things right. It failed to show it had fully considered the family’s circumstances or the impact of the delays, disruption, and poor communication. It did not acknowledge its poor contractor management or the resident’s partial loss of the living room. The landlord’s Compensation policy allows payments of up to £500 for significant impact and up to 10% of the rent for partial loss of a room. However, its offer did not reflect its policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered an increased offer of redress for its failings.
25. Overall, the landlord failed to act promptly to arrange and complete the kitchen repairs. It did not follow its Repairs policy, as it did not agree a repair date with the resident after all 4 inspections. The repairs took 292 days to complete from the point they were identified as ready to be scheduled, which was an unreasonable delay. The resident had to chase for updates, and the landlord did not follow through on its promises to contact him. This would have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to complete the repairs.
26. Further, the landlord was aware of the vulnerable family member but did not demonstrate how it considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010. These missed opportunities compounded the resident’s distress. Considering the landlord’s poor communication, and the extent and impact of the delay, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to kitchen repairs.
27. When considering an order for compensation, we have taken into account the landlord’s Compensation Policy. The policy allows awards for time, trouble, distress, inconvenience, delays in completing repairs, and partial loss of rooms. Adding these awards together under the landlord’s policy broadly aligns with the totals set out in our remedies guidance. We have made an order for compensation with both in mind.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the complaint.
Finding	Service failure

28. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. Our findings are:
29. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
30. On 25 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to log a complaint, but it failed to do so. He followed up on 11 September 2023 before the landlord acknowledged his complaint on 15 September 2023. This was 15 working days after his initial request. This delay was outside the landlord’s policy and the Code, which requires it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. This failure caused the resident avoidable time and inconvenience in contacting the landlord for an update.
31. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 September 2023, within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. This met the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code.
32. When the resident escalated his complaint on 7 October 2023, the landlord failed to acknowledge it within the 2 working days as required by its policy. Instead, the resident had to contact the landlord again on 16 October 2023. On 20 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged the escalation, 9 working days after the resident’s initial request. This delay and lack of communication added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
33. On 10 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response, 24 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This exceeded the 20-working day timeframe in its policy and the Code, showing a pattern of it failing to follow them. This further undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation for its delays and poor communications.
34. Overall, the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. It offered £50 at stage 2 for its overall failings, and we consider it reasonable to apportion £25 of this to the landlord’s complaint handling. While this was a step towards putting things right, its offer did not go far enough reflect the inconvenience, time, and trouble it caused the resident. The landlord’s offer fell short of what we would have considered to be reasonable redress. Therefore, we have found service failure. A further compensation order of £75 has been made in addition to the £25 already offered, totalling £100.

Learning

35. The landlord’s approach to completing the repairs issues has been slow. It could consider whether it has adequate systems in place to identify issues that have been outstanding for prolonged periods of time. It missed multiple opportunities to progress the repairs and did not demonstrate urgency, even after acknowledging the impact on the resident’s family.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord did not keep a copy of the post-inspection survey, or evidence that it had contacted the contractor for an update. There is no record of appointments, or notes documenting if and why delays had occurred. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate records that provide a clear audit trail demonstrating actions.

Communication

37. The landlord’s records do not show that it provided regular updates to the resident during the repairs process. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords keep residents informed about repair progress and expected timescales.