Haringey London Borough Council (202427762)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427762

Haringey London Borough Council

21 October 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 resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. Complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy which began in 1995. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The housing records confirm the resident is dyslexic and has a brain injury and experiences anxiety.
The resident told the landlord on 8 November 2023 that the roof was leaking and rainwater was entering the bedroom. The landlord arranged an appointment on the same day to inspect the ceiling but it was unable to gain access. It also noted scaffolding was required at the front of the house so that the roof could be inspected.
The resident reported a leak on the toilet on 20 June 2024. The landlord attended on the same day and repaired the leak.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 21 June 2024 and raised concerns about the condition of the property and the delays in carrying out the work. The landlord treated the MPs enquiry as a complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 July 2024 and said:
1. It repaired the toilet leak on 20 June 2024.
2. An appointment had been arranged for 16 August 2024 to check the roof. It was unable to bring the appointment forward but would do so if another job was cancelled.
The resident’s MP asked for the complaint to be escalated on 1 August 2024. She said the resident had advised her that no work had been carried out and the condition of her property was deteriorating. She asked the landlord for an update on 29 August 2024 and 10 September 2024.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on 17 September 2024 and said it would provide a response by 15 October 2024.
The resident’s MP told the landlord on 20 September 2024 that the leak was affecting the electrics and causing subsidence and damage to the flooring. She also said there was damp and mould in the bedrooms and the resident believed the property was uninhabitable.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 17 November 2024 and said:
1. A job was ordered on 8 November 2023 to repair the roof, with a target completion date of 18 December 2023. It visited the resident’s home on 1 December 2023 but was unable to gain access.
2. It carried out an inspection on 29 February 2024 and it was determined that scaffolding needed to be erected before the repair could be completed. It failed to arrange for the scaffolding to be erected and did not book the work in. It also failed to provide the resident with updates.
3. It arranged an appointment for 1 March 2024 to make safe the bedroom ceiling but was unable to gain access. A card was left asking the resident to make contact so that the appointment could be rescheduled.
4. It raised an emergency repair on receipt of the resident’s report of a leak on the toilet on 20 June 2024. The leak was repaired on the same day.
5. A further appointment was arranged for 16 August 2024 to repair the roof, but this did not go ahead due to issues with staffing. The appointment was rescheduled for 10 October 2023. The repairs were not completed on this date because the scaffolding needed to be adjusted. It would arrange for this to be done during the week.
6. It had undertaken a restructure of its repairs planning team to ensure roofing repairs were prioritised.
7. It was sorry for the delays and lack of communication. It would award the resident £500 compensation.

Post complaint events

The resident told this Service in November 2024 that her property was in a poor state of repair and she felt isolated as no one could sleepover due to the condition of the bedroom. She also noted the landlord had visited her several times but she was not at home because she was in hospital. She said the landlord did not leave any no access cards.
The landlord told the resident’s MP on 10 January 2025 that the roof repairs were completed on 22 November 2024. It also said it arranged for the plastering work to be completed on 16 December 2024, but the resident refused access.
The landlord arranged for the property to be inspected on 17 January 2025. It was noted during the inspection that a large area of plaster in the bedroom had failed and was at risk of falling off. It was noted there were cracks in the bathroom ceiling. The surveyor also identified a number of repairs. No damp or mould was identified during the inspection.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service acknowledges the resident experienced ongoing delays with the roof repairs after she had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
This Service is unable to investigate recent incidents because our investigation is focused on the period up until the landlord gave its final response to the complaint in October 2024. The Ombudsman can only investigate matters which have been reported to the landlord as a formal complaint and have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the problems after it issued its final complaint response, she can raise a new complaint about this through the landlord’s internal complaints process. She may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied and has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
In considering the landlord’s response to the issues raised by the resident, it is noted that she has referred to a possible impact upon her health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant. It is this Service’s view that landlords should take urgent action following reports of damp and mould.
This Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould (published October 2021) recommends landlords adopt a zero-tolerance approach to reports of damp and mould. It also highlights the importance of landlords taking a proactive approach to identifying problems and communicating clearly with residents to ensure they have confidence in it and understand the next steps. This includes explaining if follow up work is required and providing a clear timetable for any future works. If there is any slippage to the timetable, landlords are encouraged to inform residents as soon as possible and explain why the timetable has changed.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It is also responsible for keeping installations for water and sanitation in proper working order. The resident is responsible for providing access.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete repairs within its repair timescales. Repairs are prioritised into the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs are attended to within 24 hours. This includes repairs that put a resident or property at risk. Leaks are considered an emergency repair. The landlord aims to complete emergency repairs on the first visit.
2. Urgent repairs are completed within 7 days.
3. Routine repairs are carried out within 28 days.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says it takes a zero-tolerance approach towards damp and mould. It responds to reports of damp and mould within 5 working days, with the most serious cases prioritised for immediate action. Inspections are carried out and a plan of action is agreed with the resident. Where appropriate, mould washes are undertaken and a dehumidifier is provided. Work is carried out in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 10 working days. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer compensation when it gets things wrong. Awards between £350 and £500 are made where there has been a serious failure and the resident has suffered a considerable degree of inconvenience or distress.

Reports of leaks.

The resident told the landlord on 2 November 2023 that rainwater was entering the property through the roof. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord visited the resident’s home on 8 November 2023 and noted the roof was not leaking. It said someone needed to access the roof to identify the cause of the leak. It raised a job on the same day to make safe the bedroom ceiling, with an appointment booked for 10 October 2023. The landlord attended on this day but was unable to gain access. There is no evidence the resident responded to the landlord’s request for access. Whilst the landlord noted that scaffolding was required to inspect the roof, there is no evidence it progressed the matter. This caused delays.
The resident reported a leak on the toilet on 20 June 2024. The landlord attended on the same day in accordance with its repairs policy and repaired the leak. This was appropriate.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 July 2024.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
In this case, the landlord confirmed the leak on the toilet was repaired on 20 June 2024 and an appointment had been arranged to repair the roof on 16 August 2024. Whilst this provided clarity, the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in inspecting and repairing the roof. Neither did it offer any compensation. This was not consistent with its compensation policy.
The landlord did not attend the appointment booked for 16 August 2024. There is no evidence it notified the resident that the appointment had been cancelled. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord.
The resident’s MP chased the landlord up on 29 August 2024 and on 10 September 2024. She told the landlord on 20 September 2024 that the leak was affecting the electrics and structure of the house. She also said the flooring and skirting boards were damaged by the water.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded to these concerns, including arranging for the electrics and flooring to be checked to ensure they were safe. The landlord’s lack of prompt engagement with a potential serious safety concern demonstrated a lack of concern for the resident’s safety. This was a further failure.
The landlord raised a job on 20 September 2024 to inspect the bedroom ceiling, with an appointment booked for 2 October 2024. This was some 11 months after the previous job had been cancelled. There is no evidence the landlord raised any roof repairs at this point.
The landlord visited the resident’s home on 2 October 2024 but was refused access by the resident. This caused further delays.
The landlord noted on 17 October 2024 in its final complaint response that it was unable to gain access to the resident’s home on 1 December 2023 to repair the roof. No details of the visit were shared with this Service. It also failed to provide details of the inspection it said it carried out on 29 February 2024 during which it was identified that scaffolding was required. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have foreseen the need for scaffolding given the type of property and nature of the repairs required.
It is unclear if the inspection addressed the potential hazards identified by the MP and hence, this Service has been unable to reach an informed view on this. In addition, the landlord failed to provide information about the appointment that was arranged for 1 March 2024 to repair the bedroom ceiling, during which it said it was unable to gain access.
This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents.
The landlord noted it did not attend the appointment booked for 16 August 2024 due to issues with staffing levels. It said it was sorry for this and noted the appointment was rescheduled for 10 October 2024. It also noted the works did not commence on this date as the scaffolding needed to be adjusted.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the electrics and the other damage she said was caused by the leak. This was not consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code). This says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord offered the resident an apology for the delay in resolving the roof leak. It also noted that it failed to keep the resident updated. It said it had undertaken a restructure of its repairs planning team to ensure roof repairs were treated as a priority. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint. It offered the resident £500 compensation. This was consistent with its compensation policy.
In summary, there were delays in resolving the roof leak responsibility for which was shared, and the landlord failed to keep the resident updated. The situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. She told the landlord on a number of occasions the property was in a poor condition and she did not feel safe. The landlord offered an apology and compensation in accordance with its compensation policy. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in her home.

Reports of damp and mould

The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 20 September 2024 and noted that she had reported there was damp and mould in her property. The resident said this was because the windows were poorly insulated.
There is no evidence the landlord arranged for a damp and mould survey to be completed. Given the history of water ingress in the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done this. The lack of engagement around the potential damp issue was contrary to the approach required under the HHSRS and the landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear on what action was being taken by the landlord to address her concerns.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in its final complaint response issued on 17 October 2024. This was not in accordance with the Code and supports the resident’s view that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
In summary, the landlord failed to act on the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This caused the resident distress, avoidable time and trouble, and inconvenience. Her MP told the landlord on a number of occasions that she was concerned about the condition of the property and felt unsafe in her home. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, for which it is ordered to pay £300 compensation.

Associated complaint

The resident’s MP told the landlord on 21 June 2024 that there was a leak in her home and she wanted the appointment arranged for 8 July 2023 to be brought forward. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the MPs enquiry as a complaint, there is no evidence it was acknowledged. This was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy and meant the resident did not know what action was being taken by the landlord to address her concerns.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 July 2024. This was consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The MP asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint on 1 August 2024. The landlord confirmed on 5 August 2024 that it would contact the resident and confirm it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. This was appropriate.
There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident. This led to the MP chasing up the landlord on 29 August 2024. She told the landlord on 10 September 2024 that the resident had not received a response to her complaint and the situation was affecting her physical and mental health. She asked the landlord to escalate the complaint, as previously requested.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on 17 September 2024. It apologised for the delay and said it would provide a response by 15 October 2024. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 17 October 2024. This was some 11 weeks after the MP requested the resident’s complaint was escalated and was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord did not acknowledge or offer compensation for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. This was a failure.
In summary, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s escalation request in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It also failed to keep the resident updated and did not acknowledge the service failure in its final complaint response. The situation caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, for which it is ordered to pay £50 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in her home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
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 and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her complaint.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm if there is any outstanding work required in her home. If further work is required, the landlord must agree these in writing and provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the action plan, including timescales for completing the repairs.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to undertake a review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices in relation to reports of damp and mould. The review must include:

A review of its approach and application of its policies in dealing with reports of damp and mould, including how it strategically prioritises cases, undertakes damp inspections, plans, records and acts on their findings.
A review of the efficacy of its ongoing management oversight arrangements on identified reports of damp and mould through to successful remedy.
A review of its record keeping practices in cases such as this, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management.

Recommendations

Pay the £500 previously offered to the resident, if not already done so.