Haringey London Borough Council (202442926)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442926

Haringey London Borough Council

30 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:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the property, including:
  1. the bathroom
  2. a leak in the kitchen
  3. grey water in the taps
  4. the electrical sockets
  5. the fire door
2. The resident’s rent account.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy began in July 2023. The resident is vulnerable due to his mental health and physical health and is supported by carers.
A damp and mould inspection was raised on 3 April 2024, and carried out on 25 April 2024. The inspection did not identify any damp or mould, but noted that there was water pooling in the resident’s wet room style bathroom. On 27 May 2024, the resident reported an uncontained leak in the kitchen. The landlord attended on or around 31 May 2024, its records state that the leak may have been coming from the water tank above the property but the resident did not grant access for an inspection.
On 9 June 2024, the resident complained about the condition of the property. He stated:
1. The bathroom flooded every time the water was on.
2. There was a leak outside of the kitchen which was coming in through the window.
3. There was grey water in the taps.
4. The electric sockets did not have enough voltage.
5. The front door was a fire door and was in poor condition.
On 17 June 2024, the resident made a separate stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of his rent account. The resident stated that he was repeatedly getting letters saying that he was in rent arrears when he was not. The landlord had “interfered” with his universal credit (UC) account which had resulted in a payment block on his account. The resident explained that the letters were negatively affecting his life and exacerbating his disabilities.
On 24 June 2024, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property. It apologised for the lack of communication from its repairs team. It outlined:
1. The bathroom was surveyed on 25 April 2024, but the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the inspection. It would arrange for the bathroom to be reinspected.
2. It attended on 27 May 2024 to inspect the grey water in the taps, it believed this was caused by a leak in the water tank, but the resident did not grant access to the water tank.
3. It would attend on 27 June 2024 to inspect the brickwork around the kitchen window, now that it had determined the water tank was not leaking.
4. An electrician would attend on 25 July 2024 to inspect the plug sockets.
5. A new fire door had been measured and would be ordered. There was a lead time of up to 12 weeks for this to be manufactured.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day. He stated that the bathroom surveyor had outlined it was not fit for purpose. The resident stated that he did not want to live on a “construction site” while the work was completed, and that his disabilities made it hard for him to cope with people coming in and out of his property. The resident also asserted that he did not refuse access to the water tank and did not understand why the landlord had said this.
On 3 July 2024 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the handling of his rent account. It outlined that the resident’s rent is covered by universal credit, but payments were received after the date on which the rent is due. The rent account shows as in arrears until the universal credit payment is received. Additionally, it outlined that a staff error had meant that a request had been made for direct payments to be made to the landlord from the resident’s standard allowance. It would ensure this was cancelled.
On 24 July 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response relating to the condition of the property. It advised:
1. It would be in contact later that week to schedule an appointment to discuss a permanent solution to the drainage issues in the bathroom.
2. A roofer would attend on 27 September 2024 to check the fascia boards and cladding for water penetration which could be impacting the windows.
3. There was no change in the time frames for an electrician to attend, or for the fire door to be replaced.
4. A contractor inspected the water tank on 25 June 2024 and found no leak. The grey water may have been caused by the roof guttering overflowing.
5. It offered £150 compensation for the delay in repairing the wet room and water ingress issues.
On 2 August 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response for the resident’s complaint about the handling of his rent account. It confirmed that the resident was not in arrears but would show as in arrears until the universal credit payment was made. It advised a senior manager would monitor the resident’s account to make sure no further changes were made. It offered the resident £100 for the distress caused.
On 27 February 2025, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about its handling of his rent account. He stated he was still receiving letters saying he was in rent arrears and this was causing distress. The landlord responded on 12 March 2025 and told the resident it could not stop the letters being sent because its system sends them automatically.
The resident escalated his complaint on 12 March 2025. He said that the rent arrears letters were causing him trauma and asked for compensation for the letters received. He also asked the landlord to credit his account with 1 month of rent so that his account does not show as in arrears.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 May 2025. It stated that its letters were automatically generated because it was in a resident’s best interests to be told of rent arrears at the earliest possible opportunity. It placed an escalation suspension on the resident’s account until July 2025 and advised it would do its best to delete any letters automatically generated. Additionally, it advised it would complete a discretionary housing payment application for the resident, if this was approved by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) it would mean the resident would not show as in arrears.

Assessment and findings

Scope

Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response for each aspect of the resident’s complaint. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response.
The resident has made a further complaint to the landlord relating to the conduct of a member of staff in July 2024. The landlord responded to this complaint at stage 1 of its complaint response but the matter was not escalated to stage 2. We can only consider complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, this is because the landlord has not had the opportunity to provide a final response on this matter.
Part of the resident’s complaint about the handling of his rent account is that the landlord has made changes to his benefits and he wants to be moved back to his previous benefits arrangement. We can only consider the actions taken by the landlord in its provision or management of social housing, rather than in its capacity as a local authority.
This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account, rather than the administration of the resident’s benefits. This element of the resident’s complaint may be more suitable for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
It is noted that the landlord’s final complaint response regarding the resident’s rent account was sent after the case was duly made to us. Because we have received the landlord’s final position, we consider it reasonable to consider it as part of our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

The landlord’s repair policy outlines its timeframes for repairs. Emergency repairs, including flooding drains and major water leaks, will be attended to within 24 hours and the landlord will attempt to complete the repair on the first visit. Agreed appointments include other repairs which can be completed in a single visit, and will be responded to within 28 days. Planned repairs are jobs that require a pre inspection and where a job may take several days to be completed, the landlord will inspect within 28 days and tell the resident at the inspection when it will complete the works.
The landlord records indicate it attended on 25 April 2024 and noted that there was water pooling in the bathroom because the water was not draining away when the resident used the shower. It is unclear how the landlord categorised this repair, but its policy states that flooding drains are an emergency repair. There is no evidence the landlord followed up on this until its stage 1 complaint response, when it advised it would reattend. In its stage 2 response the landlord advised it would be in contact to schedule a further appointment but there is no record available of this happening. This was inappropriate and a failing by the landlord.
At the time of this investigation, the resident has confirmed that the bathroom is still flooding and the condition of the bathroom has deteriorated as a result. This is 15 months after the landlord inspected the bathroom and significantly outside of its policy timeframes. The evidence suggests that the standing water has caused damage to the flooring and fixtures in the bathroom which require additional remedial works.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that if it cannot fix an issue on its first visit, it will offer a further appointment or confirm its next steps within 10 working days. There is no evidence this was the case for the resident.
While not meeting a policy timeframe is not necessarily a failing in itself, we would expect to see evidence that the resident was being kept up to date with the progress of the repair and the reasons for any delays. We understand that some repairs can be complex and require several visits. During this time, the landlord is expected to manage the resident’s expectations and provide assurances that it is taking the repair seriously. This has not been the resident’s experience in this case and ultimately led to the resident making his complaint.
The resident continues to be distressed by the condition of his bathroom and has outlined that this distress is impacting his mental health. In his complaints to the landlord, he said he was “constantly crying everyday” and that his “conditions and disabilities are exacerbated extremely” by the ongoing issues. The resident told us that he does not want to use the bathroom and becomes upset at the sight of it.
The records show that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord did not take steps to provide support or give advice to the resident which was inappropriate. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider the needs of vulnerable residents when managing this repair. The landlord has a ‘priority needs’ service for residents who need more help during a repair, there is no evidence the landlord exploded this despite the evidence available that the resident was vulnerable
Our Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights published in January 2024, refers to the need for landlords to recognise, adjust, and respond to their residents’ individual circumstances and recommends that close attention must be given to the particular circumstances of the individual. We recommend that the landlord consider this report, if it has not already done so.
Following the stage 2 complaint, we can see that a contractor provided the landlord with a list of works for the bathroom but it is not clear whether the landlord accepted this. The landlord must contact the resident to outline what works it will complete and when. Given that this is the only bathroom in the property and the vulnerabilities reported, the landlord must also consider whether it is appropriate to temporarily rehouse the resident while it completes the work in line with its decants policy.
The landlord’s records show a reported leak in the kitchen on 27 May 2024. It is unclear how the landlord categorised this repair to determine what the policy timeframe was. The landlord’s records show that the leak was “uncontainable”, its policy states that major leaks will be treated as an emergency repair and attended within 24 hours.
The resident also raised concerns about grey water in his taps. The landlord’s records suggest that when it attended to inspect the taps and the leak, it could not investigate further because the resident did not allow an inspection of the water tank. It is unclear if this visit took place on 27 May 2024 or 31 May 2024 because the landlord has provided conflicting information in its records and its complaint response. The resident stated he had not denied access and did not understand why the landlord’s contractor had said this. It is not possible to determine from the evidence available whether or not the reason given by the contractor was correct.
On 25 June 2024, the landlord reattended to inspect the water tank for a leak, its records indicate it suspected this to have been the cause of the grey water in the taps, and the leak in the kitchen. The records show that no leak was identified in the water tank, and further investigation was required.
The landlord appears to have attended on 27 June 2024 to inspect the brickwork around the kitchen window, we have not been provided with the outcome of this inspection. A follow up appointment was made for 27 September 2024 for a roofing contractor to inspect the fascia boards and cladding for the source of the leak. The records provided suggest the resident did not allow access. It is unclear if this appointment was rebooked or remedial works completed to resolve the leak.
In its stage 1 response the landlord told the resident that the grey water might have been caused by a blockage in the gutter. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord took 4 weeks to share this information with the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed the resident of the outcome of the inspection as soon as possible, and outside of the complaint response. It is unclear from the evidence whether this issue has been resolved.
The landlord told the resident that a contractor would attend on 25 July 2024, to assert if there was any issues with the electrical sockets in the property. It is unclear from the evidence if this visit took place or what the outcome was.
The resident reported that the front door of the property was a fire door but was poor quality. By the time of the landlord’s stage 1 response, it had attended to measure the door in order to replace it. It is unclear when this visit took place. It advised the resident there was a 11 to 12 week lead time on the manufacturing of the door. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide a time frame in order to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord’s records show the door was replaced on 5 September 2024, this was within the timeframe provided.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it acknowledged that it had not kept the resident up to date on the progress of the repairs to the bathroom and offered £150 compensation to acknowledge this. It did not acknowledge the additional failures identified in this report. The landlord did not apologise or provide any learning or reflection to ensure the same issues do not happen again.
We consider that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs amounts to maladministration. The following are aggravating factors in determining the outcome of this investigation:
1. Works to resolve the issues in the bathroom remain outstanding. It is unclear if other repairs were complete.
2. The resident was not provided with meaningful updates about the progress of repairs.
3. The resident is vulnerable.
4. The evident distress caused to the resident.
5. The landlord’s failure to show it had considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
While it is noted that the landlord has made some attempt to resolve the matter by offering compensation, it has not gone far enough to fully reflect the resident’s experience. In light of the above, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £800, the landlord’s previous offer of £150 can be deducted from this sum if it has already been paid. This award is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure which has significantly impacted the resident.
We would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
Therefore, the landlord is encouraged to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, if it has not already done so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account

The resident has referred the matter to us because he is receiving letters saying he is in rent arrears when he is not, which is causing distress. The landlord has advised on several occasions that the resident is not in ‘true arrears’ but his UC is paid into his account after the rent is due, so the account will show as in arrears until the UC payment is received.
The landlord’s Income Management procedure is dated September 2023. It states that in the first week of the arrears, the landlord will phone or email the resident to advise of the arrears and the need to repay, check if the resident is in receipt of benefits such as UC, and identify any support needs for the resident. If the resident is still in arrears in the second week, it will send its first notice of rent arrears letter.
In its first stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised that it had requested an alteration to the resident’s UC and accepted that it had done this in error. It advised it would make sure this request was cancelled so it did not impact the resident further. It outlined it could not stop the letters being sent because its system was automatic. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, it has not provided evidence that it made the cancellation request. The landlord must confirm to the resident when this request is made, if it has not done so already.
Additionally, the landlord offered the resident £100 for the distress caused by this alteration. We consider that this offer was appropriate at the time.
In line with its policy, the landlord was within its rights to send letters to the resident to notify him of the arrears. There is no evidence available that the landlord took steps to contact the resident in the first week of the arrears to discuss the matter before the letter was sent, this was not in keeping with its policy and was inappropriate.
The resident outlined that he was vulnerable and the letters were impacting his mental health. In his second stage 1 complaint, the resident stated that the letters were “depressing me so much I no longer want to live.” While the landlord assured the resident he was not in ‘true arrears’, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took steps to offer information, support, and advice as per its policy.
The landlord’s policy states that it can suspend its arrears procedure indefinitely, if a resident is in a mental health crisis. The policy outlines it will implement this when it receives a ‘breathing space’ application. The information provided to us does not explain how the landlord determines whether this process is required, but there is no evidence that it considered this for this resident in light of his distress.
In its second stage 2 response, the landlord explained that a member of its staff would monitor the resident’s account to delete any further letters that were autogenerated, but it could not alter its internal system to stop the letters completely. We do not have information about the landlord’s system to know whether this advice was correct, but it was reasonable for the landlord to make this suggestion. It noted it was reviewing the wording of its arrears letters to avoid further confusion, which was appropriate.
The landlord also outlined that it would complete a discretionary housing payment application on behalf of the resident, with the aim to ensure that the resident’s rent account was in credit even when the UC had not yet been received. This was a reasonable step by the landlord and we welcome its attempts to put things right, although it is unclear whether it did make this application. We recommend that the landlord advise the resident of the outcome of this, if it has not already done so.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer these steps at an earlier opportunity. The resident first expressed distress at receiving the letters in June 2024 but the landlord did not offer this resolution until May 2025. Had the landlord made this offer sooner, it may have gone some way to repairing the resident’s trust in the landlord.
Overall, while the landlord was entitled to alert the resident to the rent arrears showing on his account, it did not demonstrate that it had followed its policy by discussing the matter with the resident first. It also did not consider the resident’s circumstances and whether any additional support should have been provided. The impact on the resident was exacerbated by his mental health vulnerability, and the landlord has not evidenced it took this into account.
Its final response included reasonable steps it intended to take, including monitoring the resident’s rent account to stop future letters being sent, making a discretionary housing payment application, and rewording its rent arrears letters. Had the landlord not offered these steps, the finding in this case would be maladministration.
In the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account, we find service failure on the basis that the landlord did not always follow its policy or demonstrate consideration for the resident’s vulnerabilities. Its offers of action in its stage 2 response go some way to redress and reflect the failures identified. The landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation, its previous offer of £100 can be deducted from this amount if it had already been paid. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has made attempts to put things right but has not gone far enough.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to us that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident in writing for the failures noted in this determination.
2. Paid the resident a total compensation of £800 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the repairs in the property. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or debt owed. The landlord’s previous offer of £150 can be deducted from this amount, if already paid.
3. Paid the resident a total compensation of £200 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the resident’s rent account. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or debt owed. The landlord’s previous offer of £100 can be deducted from this amount, if already paid.
4. Confirmed to the resident that it has requested that the alteration made to his UC account is cancelled.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord must:
1. Carry out an inspection of the property and set out its position on any repairs required in relation to the bathroom, the leak in the kitchen, the grey water reported in the taps, and the electrical sockets.
2. Write to the resident with the outcome of the inspection and include time scales of when the work identified will be completed.
3. Confirm whether, on review of its decants policy, it considers it appropriate to temporarily rehouse the resident while works are carried out.
4. A copy of this should be provided to us.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide the resident with an update on the discretionary housing payment application and the alteration to the rent arrears letters, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Attitudes, Rights, and Respects report, if it has not already done so.