Our decisions are published as part of our commitment to being open and transparent. The decisions are anonymised so residents’ names are not used, but landlords are named. The decisions date from December 2020, and are published 3 months after the final decision date. In some cases, we may decide not to publish a decision if it is not in the resident’s or landlord’s interest or the resident’s anonymity may be compromised. You can read more in our guidance on decisions.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of damp and mould in the property. Reports of draughts entering the property through the front and rear doors and electrical consumer unit. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
REPORT COMPLAINT 202427921 Haringey London Borough Council 9 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 […]
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the property above. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about: anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour. staff conduct. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s report of a leak and the associated repairs in the property. The complaint. In its stage 1 acknowledgement the landlord informed the resident that it would usually take 10 days to respond. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 60 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint, which was not appropriate. The landlord said the reason for the delay was due to it waiting for information. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have updated the resident when it became apparent it would not meet its deadline and provide the reasons for its delays. In not doing so, this would not have managed the resident’s expectations. And it likely caused her significant time and trouble in chasing a response. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 21 working days after the resident’s escalation. This was slightly outside of its 20-day timeframe. However, the landlord has provided evidence of it keeping the resident updated and it provided the reasons for the delay. These actions would have reasonably managed her expectations. The landlord acknowledged both delays in its complaint responses and apologised for the impact on the resident. It offered £150 for the delay in providing the stage 1 response. The Ombudsman finds the amount offered was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy for where there was no permanent impact but it adversely affected the resident. In her stage 2 escalation, the resident had referred to it not being the first time she had been impacted by the deteriorating service pipework within the communal ducts. In its response, the landlord stated that the last record of a reported leak was from 2018. It appropriately explained that the resident did not bring a complaint to it at the time. It said that as over 12 months had passed since the report, it would not be able to include it in its investigations. The response was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. As stated, the compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable. The landlord committed to awarding further compensation after the stage 2 response if there were any further delays and costs for the dehumidifier. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have awarded the additional compensation sooner. But it was appropriate for the landlord to have followed up on its promise following completion of the works. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 1. However, the landlord showed fairness in its stage 2 response. It addressed each concern raised and put things right by offering compensation in line with its compensation policy. It was positive that it reviewed its compensation upon receiving more information which may have altered the impact on the resident. And it followed up on its commitments made regarding further delays and compensation. As a result, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that carpets and flooring were contaminated and the smelt of urine. The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Works to a wet room at the resident’s property. The resident’s concerns about the quality of works completed to the wet room.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of anti social behaviour (ASB).