Haringey London Borough Council (202420057)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420057

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for a bathroom and kitchen replacement.
2. Reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property since August 2017. The landlord is a council. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 15 February 2024 because she had received a letter saying that a major works scheme had finished and that her home had been included in this. She said the work mentioned had not been done in her house. She complained that her kitchen and bathroom were very old and needed updating. She also said that there was damp and mould in her property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 March 2024. It said that electrical works and a renewal of the boiler were completed as part of the scheme. It also said there was “still enough life left” in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. It said a surveyor would visit to identify any new works needed. It did not uphold the complaint.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 13 March 2024. It found the presence of damp and mould and produced a list of works required.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 3 June 2024. She said that the works needed to resolve the damp and mould had not been done by the landlord. She also said she did not agree that the kitchen and bathroom “still have life left”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 July 2024. It did not change its position from stage 1. It said a mould wash to the bedrooms and bathroom and repairs to the bathroom floor had been done. It confirmed that there the bathroom had “20+ years of life remaining” and the kitchen had “10+ years of life remaining”. It also said the following would be done:
1. A member of the gas team would contact the resident within one week about the radiator repair.
2. A further inspection would happen on 7 August 2024.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman because the repairs had not been done by the landlord.

Events after the end of the complaints process

The resident has advised us that the bathroom was replaced around December 2024. No evidence has been provided to show why this was done by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident’s concerns about asbestos were also investigated. The resident has since confirmed to this service that the only issues that remain unresolved are the ones set out above. As a result these are the only issues we’ll be investigating.

Kitchen and bathroom replacement

The resident was unhappy that her bathroom and kitchen were not replaced as part of a major works scheme that ended in 2023. She felt that her bathroom and kitchen were not fit for purpose.
As part of the landlord’s major works scheme, surveys of the bathroom and kitchen were carried out by 2 separate contractors. These were done to decide if work on these rooms was needed. Both surveys found that the kitchen and bathroom were in a decent condition and did not need to be included in the scheme.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged to inspect the bathroom and kitchen to see if they could be included in a future scheme. After completing this inspection, the landlord found there was no need to replace these.
In accordance with the Decent Homes Standard guidance, the expected lifespan of a kitchen is 30 years, and a kitchen less than 20 years old is considered “reasonably modern”. A bathroom has an expected lifespan of 40 years, and a bathroom under 30 years old is also considered “reasonably modern”.
While we have not been provided with the date of installation of the bathroom and kitchen, the landlord told the resident they “still had 10+ years life left” and “still had 20+ years life left”. This language suggests that it likely had regard to the Decent Homes Standard when deciding whether to renew the kitchen and bathroom.
The landlord arranged for 3 inspections of the kitchen and bathroom to help it decide whether an upgrade was needed. 2 of these were completed during the period that the scheme was in place, and one after the resident complained. Each of these found the kitchen and bathroom did not need replacing. This suggests the landlord took reasonable steps to check the condition of the property and used expert advice in making its decision.
It is not for this service to decide whether or not the resident’s kitchen and bathroom should have been replaced. Instead, it’s for us to consider whether the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, acted reasonably, and had regard for the relevant Decent Homes Standard guidance.
Considering the above, the landlord appears to have had regard for the Decent Homes Standard guidance and took expert advice in deciding that the kitchen and bathroom did not need replacing as part of the resident’s complaint. We find the actions taken by the landlord were reasonable and the resident’s concerns appear to have been taken seriously.
Overall, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom replacement.

Damp and mould

The resident reported her concerns about damp and mould to the landlord when she raised her complaint on 15 February 2024.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out its approach to dealing with reports of damp and mould. It explains that after being advised of a report of damp and mould it will:
1. Respond to the report within 5 working days.
2. Carry out an inspection to identify the cause and severity of the damp and mould. This will take place within 1 day for “serious hazards”, within 5 days for “moderate hazards”, and within 28 days for “slight/typical hazards”.
3. Agree an action plan with the resident following the inspection.
4. Complete the agreed repairs within 28 days for routine repairs and with a target of 80 days for larger planned repairs.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection at the resident’s property on 13 March 2024. This inspection found damp and mould was present in the bedrooms, the bathroom and the kitchen. It made recommendations on how to resolve this, which included:
1. Renewal or replacement of loft insulation.
2. Renewal or refit of eaves ventilation.
3. Repairs to the tiling and flooring in the bathroom.
4. Repair to sealant by the kitchen sink.
5. Replacement or repair of the bathroom radiator.
6. Mould wash in the affected rooms.
The landlord has not provided evidence that an action plan was agreed with the resident following this visit. This was not in line with its policy.
A mould wash was completed to the bedrooms and the bathroom on 26 June 2024. This was 105 days after the inspection was completed. This was outside the timescales given for a responsive repair under the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that the other repairs identified by the damp and mould inspection have been completed. This has had a substantial impact on the resident, who has been in contact with the landlord throughout this process to find out what’s happening with the repairs. She has also explained the concern she has over the impact of damp and mould on her family.
This is a failure on the part of the landlord as it has not followed its own policy on damp and mould. No action plan was agreed with the resident and most of the issues identified by the inspection have apparently not yet been resolved.
Overall we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of damp and mould. This is because:
1. The landlord failed to agree an action plan with the resident as set out in its policy.
2. The landlord has failed to resolve many of the issues highlighted by the inspection.
3. The mould wash that was completed was done outside the timescale given in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the levels of compensation it can offer and the criteria that apply. The “High Impact” bracket has an upper limit of £500. This is for situations where there has been “a persistent failure over a long period” and where “the claimant will have suffered a considerable degree of inconvenience or distress”. This is also in line with our own remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom replacement.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is for its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
3. Arrange to complete the works identified by the damp and mould inspection that took place on 13 March 2024. It must provide a timebound schedule of works to the resident and this service within the 4 weeks, confirming that the works will be carried out within its policy timescales.