Haringey London Borough Council (202502673)

Decision
Case ID	202502673
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Haringey London Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat in a high-rise block of flats. The resident has complained to the landlord about disrepair at her property since a leak in 2021. The resident has provided evidence of her asthma to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reported damp, mould and plastering repairs.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reported damp, mould and plastering repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp, mould and plastering works

We found that the landlord:
1. Delayed in responding to evidence of required works in March 2024.
2. Failed to complete repairs as agreed in October 2024. This was over 12 months from the date of our investigation.
3. Delayed in completing a survey and arranging follow-on works to complete recommendations. It did not provide the resident with reasons for these delays.
4. Kept poor records of its appointments with the resident.
5. Failed to consider its response to the resident’s vulnerability.

Complaint handling

The landlord delayed in issuing the resident with a stage 2 complaint response. It did not make a proportionate offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by having to chase and seek support from this Service.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by the CEO The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 21 November 2025
2	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the decoration works are completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	21 November 2025
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,300 compensation made up as follows: £1200 for the distress and convenience caused by the failings identified in its response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and plastering works. £100 for the distress and convenience caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct the £300 it offered in its stage 2 responses from the total figure if it has already paid this.	21 November 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The resident told this Service that she is unsure whether the landlord has outstanding repairs logged for her property that are unrelated to this complaint. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to clarify whether other repairs are currently pending and, if so, what they are and when they are due to be completed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
March 2024 – January 2025	The resident paid for an independent survey of the property in March 2024. The inspection found damp in the bathroom, mould in the hallway and bedroom and condensation between panels in several windows at the property. It found damaged plaster and decorations to the kitchen, as well as black mould, due to the historical leak. It recommended mould washes, redecoration and new double-glazing units. The resident sought support from a housing disrepair solicitor to make a disrepair claim against the landlord. The landlord offered the resident an out-of-court compensation settlement of £1500 alongside an agreement to complete repairs. The resident has told this Service that she accepted the compensation but that the landlord did not complete repairs.
13 January 2025	The resident reported damp and mould throughout the property. In response the landlord arranged an inspection.
10 February 2025	The resident told the landlord’s complaints team that it had still not completed repairs and redecoration to her kitchen ceiling or bathroom. She said she was unable to cook in the kitchen for 3 years due to debris, mites and disrepair. She wanted the landlord to repair the issue.
27 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it had tried to inspect on 27 January 2025 but could not gain access. it had re-booked and successfully completed a survey on 17 February 2025 and would contact her to arrange follow on works. it had booked a painter to attend on 10 and 11 March 2025 to finalise decoration works. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She said despite the 17 February inspection, the landlord had still not organised the repairs. She said the recurring kitchen leak meant she had to catch water using a bucket under her cooker for 6 months. She said she had been complaining for 7 years, contractors had attended but not completed any meaningful work. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to: complete repairs to her property. take responsibility for its failings. offer appropriate compensation.
09 July 2025	The landlord upheld the resident’s response at stage 2. It agreed that repairs should not have taken over 4 years and that the plastering in the kitchen was of poor quality. It apologised for the impact on her mental health, the delays in issuing a response and raising works after the survey. It said: it had completed mould washes over 2 sessions. an electrician attended on 17 April 2025 to rectify a faulty light caused by a heavy lampshade. it had installed double glazing to address the damp on 11 June 2025. a plasterer attended on 25 April 2025 to inspect the damaged areas. and final works were booked for 23 July 2025. It offered her £300 in compensation as a financial remedy.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked this Service to investigate the landlord’s actions. To resolve her complaint she would like the landlord to accept responsibility, complete the repairs and make a higher offer of compensation.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to damp, mould and plastering repairs at the property
Finding	Severe maladministration

The resident said she had been complaining to the landlord about the state of her property since 2021. Taking into account the passage of time, availability and reliability of evidence, this investigation will only consider events from February 2024 (12 months before the resident’s complaint).
The landlord did not respond to the March 2024 survey commissioned by the resident until June of that year. As part of an out-of-court settlement, it paid the resident £1500 and agreed to complete recommended repairs by October 2024. It did not do this, which was inappropriate when assessed against its repairs policy, and a failure to follow through with its actions.
When the resident re-reported the damp and mould in January 2025, the landlord booked an appointment on the same day, which was appropriate. However, the landlord did not confirm the appointment with the resident. This prevented access on the day and led to a delay in the landlord addressing the issue.
There was a further unexplained delay in re-booking the inspection, which was unreasonable. The February 2025 survey found evidence of damp and mould throughout the property, blown double glazed units and damaged plaster in the kitchen and living room ceilings. It made several recommendations almost identical to those identified in the 2024 independent survey, as well as a recommendation for an electrician to renew a light fitting. It was likely frustrating for the resident that the landlord had not acted in the 11-month period between the two similar surveys. The landlord was significantly outside its own repair target of 28 days, which was a failing.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord advised the resident of an appointment for a mould wash in March 2025. Though still outside its timescales, it was reasonable that that landlord communicated the appointment and attended as agreed.
There was a further unexplained delay in arranging all other follow-on works, during which time the resident escalated her complaint. The internal records show that the landlord was unsure why these works weren’t progressed, which suggests poor repair monitoring.
The landlord completed electrical works in April and updated the windows in June 2025. It took the landlord 15 months to complete the recommended works to address the damp and mould, which was well beyond its repair target of 28 days. This was a failing.
The landlord also told this Service that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. This was despite the resident providing a letter from her GP advising that the conditions had worsened her asthma at the end of January 2025 which required a change in the dose of her inhalers. We cannot comment on what caused a health issue. However, the landlord’s vulnerable tenants policy says that it will prioritise its response to damp and mould reports by certain vulnerable households. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the resident’s vulnerability in its response to her reports about damp and mould.
The landlord’s records in relation to the kitchen and bathroom plastering works have made it difficult for this Service to assess its actions. A plasterer inspected on 25 April 2025, but no repairs were undertaken. It was not until July 2025, after the resident reported a new leak and this Service asked the landlord to issue its stage 2 response, that the landlord agreed to attend to complete plastering on 23 July 2025.
The resident told this Service that the landlord completed the plastering in September 2025 but that it has not finished redecoration. The landlord said, in October 2025, that the repairs were still in progress, due to changing contractor and the tenant being unwell. There is no evidence the landlord communicated the changing of its contractor to the resident. Additionally, there is no record of when appointments were booked and cancelled. This has made it difficult to assess the landlord’s actions.
We acknowledge that the resident accepted £1500 from the landlord in June 2024 in an agreement settled about the repairs. However, it has been over 15 months since this payment and repairs remain outstanding. The resident told this Service that she still doesn’t know what the landlord’s position on her repairs are. She said her health has been very poor and having to continually report repairs has been stressful.
In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in raising the works. It offered the resident £300 compensation. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged some failings and tried to put things right for the resident, however the landlord failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have made orders to put things right in line with our Remedies Guidance and Dispute Resolution Principles.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

At stage 1 the landlord issued the complaint acknowledgement and its response within the timescales outlined in its complaint procedure. This was appropriate.
At stage 2 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation appropriately and agreed to issue a response by 3 April 2025. It took the landlord 91 working days and contact from this Service, to provide a stage 2 response, rather than the 20 working days outlined in its policy.
The landlord apologised for its delay in issuing a stage 2 response. But it did not provide any reason for its delay, nor acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident having to chase it. The delay would have prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation. This was not reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged its failing and the delay did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. However, the apology does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and ordered compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide this Service with appointment records for the resident. Its repair records did not consistently show what repairs were completed on which date. Email threads show that the poor record keeping led to confusion within the landlord’s teams and likely led to delays. The landlord should reflect upon what it could do to improve the monitoring of repairs through thorough record keeping.