Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Haringey London Borough Council (202346537)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346537

Haringey London Borough Council

03 January 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom second floor flat, where she resides with her partner and infant son. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 3 November 2023, stating that she had concerns about a roof leak, and damp and mould in her home. She explained that she was due to have her baby imminently and was concerned about the effects of damp and mould.It had advised her that it would inspect the roof on 7 December 2023. She found the delay unacceptable and asked it to complete the repairs sooner.
  3. In its stage 1 response on 15 November 2023, the landlord confirmed that it had appointed a roofer to carry out an inspection on 7 December 2023. Due to the resident’s circumstances, it had liaised with its operational team to see if it could bring forward the appointment. It explained the reasons it had been unable to do so and apologised for the inconvenience. It said that if an earlier appointment became available, it would make contact.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 18 January 2024. She said that it had been aware of damage to the roof and the water leak since 3 November 2023. Its roofer had confirmed the presence of the leak and it had failed to resolve it within a reasonable time. She said that the insulation in the loft was wet and there was damage to her ceilings and belongings. She was experiencing financial hardship due to increased energy bills from having the heating on constantly and running dehumidifiers. She stated that there was damp and mould in every room and repeated her concerns about the impact on her 9-week-old baby.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 4 March 2024, the landlord said that it had raised an inspection on 3 November 2023, with an aim to complete repairs by 4 March 2024. Following its inspection, it found that scaffold was necessary to complete the work which was planned for April 2024. However, due to her concerns it brought this forward to 15 March 2024. It apologised for the delay in addressing the repair and subsequent damp and mould. It advised the resident to contact its insurance team with regard to her damaged belongings and offered compensation of £730 which comprised:
    1. £100 for the delay in completing the repair.
    2. £630 toward her increased energy costs.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould

  1. The lease states that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building including the roof, foundations, and external walls. Its website also confirms that it is responsible for maintaining the outside of the building, structure and all communal areas. Where the outside of the property is faulty, such as a leaking roof, and this affects the inside, the interior work is likely to be its responsibility.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that the most significant way it can reduce incidents of damp, mould and condensation is to minimise the risk of them developing in the first place. It will undertake preventative measures to reduce damp and mould. This includes making sure that the external fabric of the building is kept in good repair to avoid rain penetration, that rainwater goods and drainage are correctly installed, and through tackling reports of leaks in a timely manner.
  3. It is not disputed that there were delays in resolving the leak, damp and mould to the resident’s home. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. In the resident’s complaint she expressed concerns that the landlord was not carrying out an inspection of the roof until 7 December 2023. This was over 1 month after she had reported the leak, damp and mould.
  5. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged her concerns and attempted to bring forward the appointment. It explained that it was unable to do so due to capacity within its roofing trade. It said it had recently lost 2 staff members and was recruiting new trades to support its repairs service.
  6. While the landlord demonstrated that it had attempted to bring forward the appointment, it failed to consider any alternative solutions or the likely detriment that may have been caused over the following month. It could have considered appointing an external provider to identify the source of the leak where it had limited resources of its own. While this would likely have been at greater cost to the resident as a leaseholder, it should have discussed this with her. It may also have been able to put in place a temporary repair while planning a permanent remedy. By leaving the appointment for a month after the resident’s initial report, it would likely have caused further damage to her home. This was not in line with its damp and mould policy which says that it will tackle leaks in a timely manner.
  7. In the resident’s escalation request she said that the landlord had been aware of the leak since 3 November 2023. While it had completed an inspection, it had failed to resolve the leak. She now had a 9-week-old baby and reiterated her concerns about the effects of damp and mould on her baby’s health. At this point the leak had been ongoing for 2 months and 15 days since she first reported it.
  8. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection at the resident’s home on 19 February 2024. The report identified that she had removed the mould but that it kept returning due to lack of adequate heating and ventilation, further exacerbated by the lack of adequate insulation in the loft. There was a damp patch on the kitchen ceiling which had a red meter reading showing that it was wet. It said that the loft insulation was likely to be wet, indicating a roof leak or moisture condensing in the loft. The report identified no vulnerable persons in the property.
  9. It was appropriate for the landlord to complete an inspection of the resident’s home to assess the severity of the damp and mould. However, it would have been reasonable to have completed this at an earlier stage given she reported her concerns on 3 November 2023. The fact that the report did not identify any vulnerable household members is concerning. An infant would be considered at risk to the effects of damp and mould, and more likely to suffer from physical conditions such as respiratory problems. This indicates that the landlord did not give due regard to the potential vulnerability of the household.
  10. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it had raised a job on 3 November 2023 with a target completion date of 4 March 2024. It said that it had inspected the roof on 7 December 2023 and found that scaffold was necessary to complete the work. Due to her concerns, it had brought forward the work, scheduled for 15 and 16 April 2024, to 15 March 2024. It had sent its damp and mould surveyor to assess the condition of her home and a mould wash treatment had been recommended. It asked her to confirm if she wished the work to proceed.
  11. The landlord apologised for the length of time taken to address the repair issue and subsequent damp and mould. It acknowledged her concerns for the health of her family, especially her very young son. It said that although it was still within the target for completing the roofing works, the appointment it had scheduled was outside of this timeframe. It offered £100 compensation for the delay. It also awarded an additional £630 towards the increased electrical costs of using dehumidifiers. It calculated the award from 12 December 2023 to 3 March 2024 at £7.50 per day. It advised her to contact its insurance team with regard to damage caused to her personal belongings.
  12. The landlord’s response showed empathy and it apologised for the delay. Its compensation offer of £630 for the use of dehumidifiers was reasonable. It was also appropriate to refer the resident to its insurance team with regard to her damaged belongings.
  13. However, its compensation offer of £100 was not proportionate to the delay or detriment experienced by the resident, of over 4 months, while the leak remained unresolved. It also did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint or say how it would prevent similar delays in the future.
  14. Following the landlord’s final response, on 14 March 2024, the resident asked when it would replace the loft insulation. She also did not believe that £100 for the delay was adequate considering the risk to her family and baby. She asked for her complaint to be re-opened as the leak was ongoing. The resident wrote again on 17 March 2024 stating that work was due to commence on 15 March 2024, however, no work had started.
  15. The landlord responded on 26 March 2024 apologising that work had not commenced. It said it would ask a member of its team to contact her regarding the loft insulation. It noted her request for further compensation and for the complaint to remain open until the work was complete. It said that as it had already sent its final response, she had exhausted its complaint process.
  16. The evidence shows that the resident wrote again on 11 April 2024 repeating her concerns and said that there was still no sign of work commencing. The landlord responded the following day stating that the job had been rearranged due to capacity issues to 15 April 2024. It noted that it had not contacted her to inform her and apologised. It repeated that it was unable to carry out a new investigation of her complaint.
  17. While we appreciate that the landlord had provided its final response, it could have considered the further delay and awarded additional compensation. Given that it was aware it had resource capacity issues, it again failed to consider alternative solutions to resolve the leak.
  18. The resident wrote again on 23 May 2024 stating that the roof was yet to be fixed and it had failed to carry out any of the actions.
  19. In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that the external work was completed on 15 April 2024 after the gutters were cleared. The internal work to remedy the damp and mould was completed on 29 August 2024. It had received no further reports of damp and mould since it cleared the gutters in April 2024. It said that the delays were due to poor job management.
  20. Given that the landlord’s explanation identified that the leak, damp and mould was as a result of blocked gutters, had it inspected earlier, it may have prevented the distress caused and resolved the matter at an earlier stage.
  21. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould in her home. We have, therefore, made an order for additional compensation to be paid to the resident of £400 which is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration in the range of £100 to £600.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord did not provide a copy of its complaints process as part of its evidence to this Service. However, its website states that complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code and we have, therefore, used this information to determine how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.
  2. The resident asked to raise her complaint on 3 November 2023 and the landlord responded 8 working days later in line with its complaint process. She asked to escalate her complaint on 18 January 2024, acknowledged by the landlord on 23 January 2024. It provided its response on 3 March 2024, 32 working days later, and 12 working days later than its complaint policy timescales.
  3. While the delay was not significant it would likely have added to the resident’s frustration. The landlord apologised for its late response, however, failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint or say how it would prevent delays in the future. It also failed to offer any recompense. We, therefore, find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak resulting in damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident the sum of £1,180 broken down as follows:
    1. £400 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble for the delays in completing repairs.
    2. £730 offered in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.
    3. £50 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord must send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  3. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider, where it has resource challenges and capacity issues, how it can put measures in place to resolve repairs in a timely manner.