From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Haringey London Borough Council (202500562)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202500562

Haringey London Borough Council

22 September 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Damp and mould and draughts in her property.
    2. The information held on its records.
    3. Her request to be rehoused.
    4. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord in her sole name. She is a single parent, and her child is 13 years old. The property is a one-bedroom house, and she sleeps in the living room. She said she has health problems, including asthma.
  2. On 13 January 2025 the resident told the landlord she had black mould in her property. She said it was on the windows, front door, and walls in the kitchen and hallway. She also said there was a draught coming from the front door which affected her when sleeping on a sofa bed in the living room. She said the conditions were worsening her health issues. She asked the landlord to rehouse her to a new development nearby.
  3. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her housing issues on 14 January 2025. She said the landlord ignored her health concerns and request to be rehoused. She also alleged a staff member added other people to her online tenancy account. She said she never requested this information to be added.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 January 2025 and formally responded the next day, on 16 January. It said it would inspect the damp and mould and draught from the door. It said she would need to register for housing from its allocations scheme to be considered for a new property. It gave her a link to its website and advised her about other housing options.
  5. The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its first complaint response in emails on 16 and 22 January 2025. She said it had not addressed her concern about the incorrect information on her account. In its response on 29 January the landlord said its staff had not made amendments to her account. It asked her to complete a form to remove the details. The resident was unhappy with its reply and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint on 17 February 2025 and responded on 7 March. It readdressed the issue about the incorrect data it held on its records. It confirmed its staff had not added the information and it had not received a request from anyone else. It reiterated its advice about completing a form to confirm who lived in her household. It apologised for its delay in scheduling the damp and mould inspection and booked this for 12 March 2025.
  7. The resident contacted her MP about her housing issues, and the landlord confirmed it opened an MP enquiry in its final complaint response. She also escalated her complaint to this Service in April 2025. She said the landlord surveyed her property as planned in March, but it had not scheduled any of the recommended works.
  8. When investigating this case, we contacted the landlord and the resident. The resident confirmed the landlord treated the mould in her kitchen and hallway. However, she said there is still a draught from her front door, and mould on her door and windows. She said the works were incomplete, as the landlord had ignored the surveyor’s recommendations. She said the landlord removed the incorrect information from her account, but she remained unhappy with its handling of this. She wanted the landlord to explain how it happened, to apologise, and carry out the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We cannot decide on causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. However, we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to rehouse her because of the impact her housing conditions were having on her health. Councils have a range of housing responsibilities. For example, under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 they must have a scheme which decides how they will prioritise, nominate, and allocate housing in their area. We can only consider complaints about a council’s housing management activities. A council’s decision about who gets medical preference under its allocations scheme is not a housing management activity. As such, we cannot consider complaints about this.
  3. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her housing application she may complain to the landlord about this. If she remains dissatisfied with its response to this complaint, she may raise this issue with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), and we have given her the details. We have however, considered the landlord’s general response to the resident’s request to be moved.
  4. The resident also raised concerns about data protection. Complaints about this issue can be raised with the Information Commissioners Office and we do not investigate specific complaints about it. However, we have considered the landlord’s handling of her concerns about the information it held on her account and its overall response to this.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould and draughts in her property

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021) says, “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. In this case, the landlord failed to respond quickly to the resident’s report of damp and mould. In its first complaint response on 16 January, it said it would arrange to inspect her home. However, it did not go to the resident’s property until almost 2 months later. This was outside of its policy timeframe, which says it will respond within 28 days.
  2. The landlord apologised for not booking an inspection sooner in its final complaint response on 7 March 2025. When it subsequently inspected the resident’s property on 12 March, it identified the mould as a “category 2 hazard”. It recommended repairs, but there is no evidence it attempted to promptly schedule these in. The works included:
    1. Rendering and painting the walls and works to the hallway door.
    2. Installing a vent, treating a wall, and insulating a pipe, in the living room.
    3. Treating the mould and installing a kitchen extractor fan.
  3. Inspections and repair works can be unavoidably delayed for various reasons. However, where works cannot be completed within planned timeframes, we expect landlords to keep residents fully updated throughout. They should also consider if there is anything they can do to lessen any impact the delays might have on the resident. This could include providing dehumidifiers, particularly when residents say they have breathing difficulties. There was no evidence the landlord kept the resident fully updated during the delayed periods, or that it considered any temporary remedies. This represents a failure.
  4. The landlord logged the repairs on 10 April 2025, but there is no evidence it told the resident when it would do them, in line with its policy. This says where it finds a “Category 2 (moderate) hazard” it will respond within 5 working days and within 28 days for “slight/typical” cases. Nor did it take any interim steps to lessen the impact on the resident’s reported health concerns. This is contrary to its policy which says, “where it is appropriate, mould washes will be undertaken, and dehumidifiers will be provided”. It is evident that the resident was frustrated with the landlord’s delayed response. She asked us and her MP for support, and we contacted the landlord on 10 June 2025.
  5. Our intervention prompted the landlord to contact the resident on 2 July 2025. Its record says, “Recorded as HOS request”. This demonstrates the landlord’s lack of customer focus to ensure the works were completed. It attended the resident’s property on 31 July. However, there remains a dispute about what work is needed to resolve the damp and mould and drafts. Whilst there is no clear evidence of this, the resident also said the landlord suggested her windows and door needed replacing. She said the mould remains on them and the landlord has not taken steps to address this, or to resolve the draught from the door.
  6. We found maladministration in this case. The landlord failed to take action to resolve the resident’s repair issues through its complaints process. This goes against our Dispute Resolution Principles; to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. When determining a suitable remedy for this complaint we considered the landlord’s delay in attempting and failing to fully complete the repairs. We also considered the unnecessary levels of distress, inconvenience, and frustration the resident has been caused. Also, her time and trouble raising and escalating her complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the information held on its records

  1. The resident alleged the landlord’s staff added people to her online account on 14 January 2025. The landlord did not proactively investigate and resolve this part of her complaint. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 16 and 22 January. She said, “I’m very concerned who added this false information to my account”. Its response on 29 January was partly reasonable. It offered some explanation by saying its staff had not amended or updated the record. It advised her to complete a form. However, it failed to tell her it found no evidence of her requesting the change, nor did not offer a remedy for what appeared to be an internal systems error.
  2. The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve this part of the complaint at a much earlier stage. It was not until its final complaint response on 7 March 2025 that it confirmed it asked its technical support team to check the system to make sure the issue was not repeated. Despite this acknowledgement of a possible systems failure, it did not offer a suitable remedy. This could have included an apology and/or compensation for the inconvenience and upset this was clearly causing the resident.
  3. It is unclear when the resident returned the form to the landlord requesting it remove the people from her account. The evidence shows the landlord received it by 8 May 2025.However, it was not until we contacted the landlord on 10 June 2025 that it resolved the matter. It updated the record on 24 July which was unacceptable as this was over 2 months after it received the form. This represents a failure, as its policy says, “Any identified inaccuracies will be amended or removed without undue delay.”
  4. The landlord offered us an explanation for how the issue may have occurred. It confirmed it expects residents to submit a “Change of Circumstances form along with valid identification for the individual being added. No such documentation exists in this case”. It apologised to us for its possible “historical clerical error, potentially linked to a data migration process”. However, it did not show it had explained this, nor apologised directly to the resident. This leaves this part of the complaint unremedied and therefore leads to our finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of her request to be rehoused

  1. The resident asked the landlord to consider moving her to a property in a new development on 14 January 2025. As this was a service request, it was appropriate that the landlord initially responded to this outside of its complaints process, by advising her on housing options. The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of this the same day. Therefore, it was right that it addressed the issue within its stage 1 complaint response. It said to be considered for another property she would need to complete an online form to apply for housing from its allocations scheme. As this was in line with its process, its response was reasonable.
  2. In its first complaint response, the landlord empathised with the resident’s struggle trying to mutually exchange with another resident. However, it explained this option was a quicker way of moving. It also explained how she could look to exchange with another tenant by searching on the “Home Swapper” website. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of her request to rehoused. Its explanation and advice resolved her issue, which is evident as the resident did not ask the landlord to escalate this part of her complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This complies with our Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code).
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint on 14 January 2025 was within its policy timescales, on 16 January.  The landlord failed to fully address all the resident’s complaint points in its first complaint response. For example, it did not address the resident’s issue about the handling of the information on her account. This represents a failure, as the Code says, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”.
  3. In her complaint on 14 January 2025 the resident said the landlord’s staff had given her poor advice in the past about a mutual exchange. The landlord’s policy says “Complaints about members of staff are investigated by the person’s line manager. There is only one internal stage. The line manager will discuss the complaint with the employee”. In this case, the landlord did not acknowledge or show it attempted to get more information from the resident about her staff conduct concerns to determine if it needed to carry further investigations. It failed to address the issue in either of its complaint responses which left this part of the complaint unresolved.
  4. The Code also says, “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.” In this case the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its first response on 16 and 22 January 2025. Whilst the landlord attempted to resolve some of the unaddressed issues, it was not proactive in escalating the resident’s complaint in line with the Code. It also gave the details of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman twice on 19 January and 3 February, rather than our Service, which was incorrect for the main issues the resident was escalating.
  5. When the resident clearly asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 29 January 2025, the landlord’s response on 17 February was delayed by 8 working days. It is evident that this was frustrating for the resident, as she chased it for a response on 3 and 10 February. She told the landlord she intended to escalate the complaint to us, and she also contacted her MP.
  6. When acknowledging her escalated complaint on 17 February 2025, the landlord’s response was reasonable when it apologised for the delay. It also agreed in its final complaint response on 7 March that its stage 1 response “lacked detail”. However, despite it recognising some of its complaint handling failures, it did not acknowledge all of them or offer an appropriate remedy in its final complaint response. This was not in line with the Code which says, “Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.” Examples of how it can do this include apologising and offering compensation.
  7. In summary, we found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling as it missed an opportunity to acknowledge or offer any redress for the full extent of its failings. This leaves the issue unremedied. The landlord’s overall complaint handling was frustrating for the resident. She spent time and trouble trying to get all the points addressed and to get a response to her escalated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and draughts in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the information held on its records.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report we order the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from a senior manager, for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £800 which is made up as follows:
      1. £400 for its handling of damp and mould and draughts in the resident’s property.
      2. £250 for its handling of the information held on its records.
      3. £150 for its complaint handling.
    3. Explain to the resident why it thinks incorrect information was held on its records.
  2. The resident said she is still experiencing damp and mould and draughts. Therefore, within 4 weeks the landlord must consider any interim steps it could take to mitigate the resident’s health and safety concerns, in line with its policy.
  3. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Inspect the resident’s property and inform the resident and us if any work is outstanding.
    2. If it identifies works are required, it must provide the resident and us with a schedule of these, including timescales of when it estimates it will complete them by.
  4. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of complying with these orders by their respective deadlines.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, we recommended the landlord contacts the resident to clarify the full extent of the household’s vulnerabilities. It should then update its records accordingly so it can take them into consideration when responding to the resident, in line with its policies.