Haringey London Borough Council (202500917)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202500917

Haringey London Borough Council

30 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

a.     reports of a roof leak and associated damp and mould.

b.     reports of window disrepair.

c.      request for bathroom and kitchen replacement.

  1. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident and her partner have held a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority, since 2009. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house. The resident lives with her partner. The resident has vascular dementia and her partner has cancer. The landlord is aware that the household is vulnerable.
  2. The resident’s representative brought the complaint to this Service on behalf of the resident. The representative also sent correspondence to the landlord throughout the complaint. For ease of reference, we will refer to the resident and their representative as ‘the resident’.
  3. On 2 August 2021 the resident reported that the roof leaked every time it rained, affecting the ceiling. In February 2022 she further reported that the windows in the house were rotten and many of the window locks were broken. She continued to report these issues to the landlord, who undertook some inspections of the property.
  4. In April 2024 the resident raised a complaint. She said:

a.     the roof had been leaking for years, and the landlord’s remedy had only been to put in buckets to collect the water. It needed fixing.

b.     the windows needed replacing. They were draughty, rotten and many of the locks were broken.

c.      the property needed a new kitchen and bathroom.

d.     the landlord needed to fix the outside gate, and the property required new radiators.

  1. The landlord raised some repairs in response. On 31 May 2024 it upheld the complaint at stage 1, it said:

a.     it had arranged for a roofer to attend on 16 July 2024 to inspect and complete any immediate repairs. If it could not complete any repairs on the day, it would arrange a follow-on appointment.

b.     it had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 13 June 2024 to assess the kitchen, bathroom and windows. The landlord would raise any repair, or replacement works from the recommendations.

c.      it apologised for a delay in completing the fence repairs. It had rescheduled completion for 18 July 2024.

d.     its gas team would respond to her directly.

  1. On 28 October and 25 November 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She said:

a.     the landlord had taken no action following the survey completed on 13 June 2024 in relation to the roof, the bathroom or the kitchen. The leak was causing damp and mould.

b.     the windows and radiators needed replacing.

c.      the landlord’s major works team did not answer her calls. She said the conditions at the property were unacceptable.

  1. On 23 December 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:

a.     it had surveyed the roof, and a full renewal was required. This would sit with the major works programme team. It was waiting for quotes to be approved from major works to commence repairs. It could not treat the damp and mould until it had addressed the water ingress from the roof.

b.     it had not actioned window repairs following an inspection on 15 March 2022, nor after the survey in June 2024. It had arranged a repair appointment for 2 February 2025.

c.      a surveyor did not recommend renewing the bathroom or kitchen, but the resident could raise repairs to the team as necessary.

d.     it had asked its heating contractor to contact the resident to replace her radiators.

e.     it accepted that there was no repair progression until the stage 2 complaint, and it took responsibility for this delay. In recognition of the failure to complete works to address the leaks and damp, it offered the resident £500 compensation.

f.        it would recommend to its repair service to monitor communication and repairs more closely and improve communication.

  1. In September 2025 the resident told this Service that repairs to the roof and windows remain outstanding with no confirmed completion dates. She said she believed the kitchen and bathroom were due for renewal. She said the household is increasingly vulnerable. To resolve the complaint, she would like the repairs completed as soon as possible, and for a higher level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The landlord’s internal complaint procedure investigated and responded to several issues. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to this Service that she only considers the issues defined above to be outstanding, and that the fence and radiator repairs have been resolved. Accordingly, this investigation has only assessed the aspects outlined in the complaint definition.
  2. The resident also told this Service that she had been reporting the roof leak for 10 years. It is not possible for this Service to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back to 2015. The Ombudsman will only consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. Therefore, the focus of this investigation will only consider events from August 2021 onwards.

Relevant policy and legislation

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook from 2015 states that it will attend and complete repairs for roof leaks and glazing issues within 28 days. It says planned repairs will be inspected within 28 days but may take longer to rectify. In September 2024 the landlord approved a new repairs policy which said it would treat leaks as an emergency repair and attend within 24 hours, complete routine repairs within 28 days and planned repairs within 80 days. It says it will confirm to the affected parties any anticipated timescales for remediation and advise of any delays.
  2. The landlord’s major works programme is a strategy that sets out how it will use funding and surveys to identify the condition of properties, with a goal of bringing all council homes up the Decent Homes Standard by March 2028.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy from 2023 states that as soon as it is made aware of damp and mould, it will categorise it according to severity, with the most serious cases prioritised for immediate action. All referrals relating to damp and mould will be reviewed and the tenant will be responded to within five working days. It says repairs will then be completed within target set out in the repairs standard.
  4. The landlord’s vulnerable tenant’s policy in place from July 2024 says that it will prioritise its response to damp and mould reports by certain vulnerable households. It says whenever a resident has a disability or limiting health condition, it will consider referring them for an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment to understand whether adaptations to the home are needed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking roof and associated damp and mould

  1. On 2 August 2021 and 24 October 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the roof leaked every time it rained. There is no evidence the landlord undertook visits in response to these reports. The landlord closed both repair orders several weeks after they were raised, with no associated notes or actions. This was inappropriate when assessed against its repairs handbook.
  2. On 4 March 2023 the landlord’s records show it raised a repair order to erect scaffolding. It closed the repair order on 8 July 2024 with no associated notes. It is reasonable to conclude that scaffolding was erected around this period either to inspect or complete roof repairs. However, the poor record keeping has prevented this Service from meaningfully assessing the landlord’s actions. This was a failing.
  3. In April 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord with details of the vulnerability of the household. She requested that the landlord replace the roof as soon as possible. She said that the scaffolding it had erected was preventing her from using the back garden, her only access outside. The landlord did not respond, which was inappropriate when assessed against the repairs handbook and the vulnerable tenants policy.
  4. The resident approached her local MP, who received an email response from the landlord on 9 June 2023. The landlord said it was going to refer full roof renewal to its major works team and would let the resident know once a decision was made. It said the property was not in the current programme of major works. It said it would respond in more detail by 20 June 2023. There is no evidence it did this, which was unreasonable.
  5. There was another gap of nearly a year with no action from the landlord, which was a significant failing, given it was aware that the resident had reported several concerns about the condition of the roof.
  6. On 29 April 2024 the resident again requested a roof replacement and emphasised the household’s vulnerability. She said the buckets the landlord had provided to collect the water in the property were difficult to empty. She said the property was cold and damp. On 9 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident with a roof inspection appointment for 16 July 2024. This was outside the 28-day timescale outlined in the repairs handbook, which was a failing.
  7. On 12 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident with a damp and mould inspection appointment for 13 June 2024. It did not categorise the severity, respond within 5 working days or complete an inspection or repair within 28 days, which was inappropriate when assessed against its damp and mould policy.
  8. The survey was completed on 12 June 2024, and the landlord found no evidence of damp and mould, aside from a patch of damp around the roof leak area. It was reasonable that the landlord inspected, but it did not communicate the outcome of the survey to the resident, which was a failing.
  9. It is reasonable to conclude that a roof survey took place sometime between July and August 2024. However, there are no survey reports or operative notes in relation to this, which is a record keeping failing. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord said the surveyor recommended a full roof replacement. It said it was with the major works team and pending quote approval. It said it could not progress with any damp and mould treatment until the roof was repaired.
  10. It is reasonable for landlords to schedule major works such as replacing a roof in a property to manage their budgets. However, it is not reasonable to leave the roof with an active leak, in a state of disrepair, for an undefined period.
  11. There is no evidence that the landlord undertook routine checks to monitor the state of the leak or the damp and mould, despite the vulnerability of the household. The resident has told the landlord that she felt ignored by the major works team. She said the roof continues to leak, the whole corridor ceiling is damp, and she does not know when the roof is likely to be repaired. That the issue remains unresolved is inappropriate.
  12. The landlord acknowledged that it had communicated poorly with the resident and apologised for the time taken to identify the issue, complete the works and address the leaks. It offered her £500 in compensation. It was reasonable that the landlord took some responsibility for its failings. It also passed on the failings identified to internal teams to encourage organisational learning.
  13. The resident said the landlord also empties the buckets on request, which is a fair temporary response to address the physical vulnerability of the household. However, this does not remove the requirement for the landlord to address the leak and any necessary repairs in line with its repair obligations.
  14. Overall, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking roof and associated damp and mould. This is because there were a series of significant failures which have impacted the resident. The landlord’s lack of clarity and failure to act for several years has exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship, for example:

a.     the resident has been reporting the issue for at least 4 years, and the landlord has taken no meaningful action to repair the roof.

b.     the landlord’s communication in response to the resident’s service requests and after inspections was poor.

c.      the landlord continues to fail to issue the resident with a timeframe for repair completion or monitor the leak.

d.     the landlord’s record keeping has prevented this Service from being able to undertake a thorough investigation of its actions.

e.     the landlord has not meaningfully taken account of the household’s vulnerabilities.

  1. In accordance with our remedies guidance, we may consider compensation equivalent to a partial rent refund for the period in question. Given the severity of the failures identified and the impact on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,734 compensation. This is equivalent to 5% of the resident’s rent for the period assessed in this investigation. This reflects the distress and inconvenience caused and the loss of enjoyment of the property, whilst the issue remained unresolved. The landlord can deduct the £500 offered within the complaints procedure, if it can evidence it has already paid this.
  2. The landlord must conduct an updated inspection of the roof and the damp and provide the resident with a written summary of its findings. It must include an assessment of whether any it can undertake any temporary repairs to stop the leak. It must also consider whether it can address the signs of damp, in line its damp and mould policy. It must provide the resident with an update on when the property is due for roof renewal, and how she can monitor the progress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of window disrepair

  1. On 16 February 2022 the resident told the landlord that the window frames at the property were rotten, most of them did not open and the locks were a hazard. She said that the household was increasingly vulnerable and the situation difficult to manage. The landlord did not respond, which was inappropriate when assessed against its repairs policy.
  2. On 3 March 2022 the resident chased the landlord. In response, the landlord raised a repair request and attended on 15 March 2022. It was appropriate and in line with the repairs handbook that the landlord inspected the issue.
  3. The operative’s notes from the inspection state that the windows were rotten and coming apart, the front room windows had been painted shut and new windows were needed. There is no evidence the landlord raised any follow on works to put things right, or communicated this finding to the resident, which was inappropriate.
  4. In April 2023 the resident raised the window disrepair again and the landlord failed to respond, which was unreasonable. In June 2023 the landlord advised the MP that its repairs service had recommended window renewal. It had not communicated this to the resident previously. The lack of transparency around inspection outcomes and repair plans likely led to a loss of trust between the resident and the landlord.
  5. On 30 May 2024, a month after the resident had included draughty and broken windows as part of her complaint, the landlord booked an inspection for 13 June 2024. This was outside the 28-day repair target outlined in its repairs handbook, which was unreasonable. Additionally, it likely caused frustration for the resident that the landlord was undertaking a second inspection, having taken no action following its inspection in March 2022.
  6. The survey inspection report on 12 June 2024 stated that the property’s original timber casement windows were in good condition, aside from a broken window sash cord in one of the bedrooms. There is no evidence the landlord repaired the sash cord. It also failed communicate its findings or confirm its position on the window disrepair to the resident, who escalated her complaint on 28 October and 25 November 2024.
  7. In the stage 2 complaint response issued in December 2024 the landlord apologised that it had taken no action following the March 2022 inspection or the June 2024 survey. It was fair to have acknowledged its failure to act. It said it would attend the property on 28 February 2025, a further 8 weeks, to progress repairs. There is no evidence any works were completed on this date, which was inappropriate, given the length of time the issue had been ongoing.
  8. In correspondence with this Service the landlord said that external paintwork to the windows required redecoration. It said a survey carried out in August 2024 found no major internal improvement works were necessary as the property met the Decent Homes Standard. This Service has had no sight of the August 2024 survey or any subsequent surveys, which is a significant record keeping failure.
  9. Additionally, the landlord’s position on the windows is inconsistent. In 2022 an operative found that they were rotten to the point of needing replacement. Two years later a survey in June 2024 found them in “good condition”, despite no repair work having been undertaken. The landlord told this Service that the property is not scheduled for inclusion in the planned external works programme until 2030 or later, but there is no evidence it has communicated this to the resident. The resident is unclear on what the landlord has planned to do to address the windows, which is unreasonable.
  10. There is no evidence within the landlord’s records that it satisfied itself that the window locks were safe. It never considered the possible increased risk posed by the resident’s vulnerability, nor whether it should consider any reasonable adjustments in response to the resident’s concerns. This was a failing when assessed against its vulnerable tenants policy.
  11. The landlord never acknowledged or responded to the resident’s concerns that the draughty windows meant that the property was cold and expensive to heat. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced under the Housing Act 2004 addresses ‘excess cold’ as a major hazard, focusing on the health impact of sub-optimal indoor temperatures. A landlord must ensure a property is adequately heated and insulated to provide a safe and healthy environment. It was not reasonable that the landlord failed to engage with this element of the complaint.
  12. It is reasonable for landlords to schedule major works such as replacing multiple windows in a property to manage their budgets, it is not reasonable to leave windows in an advanced state of disrepair in the interim period. The landlord failed to undertake repairs to the windows to remove the immediate hazards they presented. Not conducting the required make safe repairs was a failure to comply with its own policies, the resident’s tenancy agreement and its legislative obligations.
  13. Overall, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window disrepair because:

a.     it has not undertaken any repairs to the windows since the resident raised the issue in February 2022. This is a significant delay of over 3 years. It has not provided an explanation for this delay.

b.     the resident has had to spend time and trouble chasing the issue and is still unclear on what the landlord is going to do to put things right.

c.      though it has completed at least 2 inspections over the last 3 years, it has failed to communicate the outcome of the inspections or any repair plans to the resident.

d.     it has not considered the vulnerability or safety of the household in its response to the resident’s concerns about the faulty locks.

e.     it has not engaged with the resident’s assertion that the property is cold and expensive to heat because of the draught caused by the windows.

  1. The resident told this Service that the cold living environment is costly. She told this Service that the confusion around what the landlord’s position is has created stress for the household. There were severe failures by the landlord that had a seriously detrimental impact on the household. Within the internal complaints procedure, the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings in respect to the windows, it has not offered any compensation or evidenced it has learned from the outcomes.
  2. In accordance with our remedies guidance, we may consider compensation equivalent to a partial rent refund for the period in question. Given the severity of the failures identified and the impact on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £2,131 compensation. This is equivalent to 7% of the resident’s rent for the period assessed in this investigation. We have also ordered the landlord to undertake an inspection of the windows and identify an action plan for outstanding repairs, with indicative timescales.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for bathroom and kitchen replacement

  1. The resident first raised that the house “needed” a new bathroom and kitchen on 17 April 2023. The resident did not outline any specific repairs. At this stage it was not clear that the landlord had any responsibility to undertake works. However, it would have managed the resident’s expectations and provided clarity had the landlord requested more details from the resident on why she raised the request. The landlord did not respond, which was unreasonable.
  2. The resident raised it again on 29 April 2024 and the landlord said it had passed the requests to the major works team. Though it was fair for the landlord to refer the issue to its major works team, it did not explain to the resident what this meant, when and whether she would be contacted, or how to progress her concern. This was unreasonable.
  3. In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord agreed to undertake a survey of the kitchen and bathroom in June 2024. It said following this it would raise any relevant repair or replacement works. The surveyor report states that they found no damp and mould in the bathroom or kitchen. There is no further mention of the bathroom or kitchen in the report. The landlord did not clarify its position on the replacement request to the resident following this survey, which was a failing.
  4. The resident included the bathroom and kitchen as part of the complaint escalation because the landlord had taken no action. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord confirmed that the June 2024 survey did not recommend a renewal of the kitchen or the bathroom. It was fair for the landlord to take this position. However, it would likely have saved the resident time and frustration had it communicated its position sooner.
  5. In correspondence with this Service the landlord said that the property was included on a programme which covers the renewal of kitchens and bathrooms in 2025. However, it said it carried out a survey on 2 August 2024 and found no major internal improvement works were necessary. It is unclear why the landlord would undertake a second survey 2 months after the first one and then fail to mention this in its complaint response. There is no evidence of this survey within its records. This was a record keeping failure.
  6. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new bathroom and kitchen because:

a.     it failed to respond to the resident’s initial request.

b.     it failed to update the resident on its position, and its communication was poor throughout.

c.      it has not acknowledged these failings in its complaint procedure.

  1. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. Though there is no permanent impact for the resident, it has failed to try to put things right. The landlord must also share the outcome of the survey in August 2024 to the resident, which found the bathroom and kitchen to meet the Decent Homes Standard.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy is compliant with the Code.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 29 April 2024. It is unclear from the records when the landlord sent its acknowledgement, but it is clear there was a delay of at least 4 working days, this is a small delay outside its policy. The landlord sent its stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgment, which was appropriate.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 October 2024 in an email. The landlord did not acknowledge this which was a failing. On 25 November 2024 the landlord accepted the resident’s escalation request following a telephone call. It then issued its stage 2 complaint response within the prescribed timeframe.
  4. We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Though the delays were relatively minor, it did not acknowledge them in its responses. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of a roof leak and associated damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of window disrepair.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for bathroom and kitchen replacement.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:

a.     provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This apology must come from the CEO.

b.     undertake a review of its actions in response to the resident’s reports of disrepair. As part of this review, it must consider its record keeping and its response to the vulnerability of a household. It must share this written review and learning with the relevant staff, the resident and this Service.

c.      pay the resident £4,115 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified. This is broken into:

  1. £1,734 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her roof and associated damp and mould.
  2. £2,131 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window disrepair.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for bathroom and kitchen replacement.
  4. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

d.     the landlord can deduct the £500 already offered in the complaints procedure if it can evidence it has already paid this. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.

e.     undertake an inspection of the property with a focus on:

  1. the leak in the roof.
  2. the damp and mould.
  3. the state of the windows, including the safety of the window locks and their heat retention.
  1. Within 42 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:

a.     write to the resident and this Service outlining its findings. It must clarify its position on each issue and provide a schedule of any works identified, with indicative timescales. It must consider undertaking temporary repairs to the leaking roof and the windows. It must consider whether any of the remedies outlined in its damp and mould policy can be applied to address the damp.

b.     outline the process and estimated timelines for major repairs and provide the resident with information on how to monitor the progress.

c.      share the outcome of the August 2024 survey it referred to in its decision to not include the resident’s property for bathroom and kitchen renewal.

  1. It must provide this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord signpost its employees to familiarise themselves with the Ombudsman’s report on learning from severe maladministration, published in August 2025, which focuses on complaints made about windows. This can be found on our website.