Haringey London Borough Council (202213901)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213901

Haringey London Borough Council

27 February 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Report of damp and mould within her property.
2. Concerns about an accumulation of pigeon faeces in her loft.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. She has a physical disability which affects her movement, which the landlord was aware of. The resident occupies a house (the property).
On 30 March 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that there was a hole in her roof which was allowing pigeons to enter her loft. It recorded this repair complete on 29 June 2021.
On 29 September 2022, and 27 June, 8 August, and 19 September 2023, the resident relayed to the Ombudsman that she was unhappy with the condition of the loft. She said she had been reporting pigeon faeces in her loft from the pigeon infestation to the landlord. However, it had not done any work to clear the faeces.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 11 April 2024. She said she was unhappy that she had needed to chase it to clear the pigeon faeces in her loft since 2021. The resident said the landlord had not considered the effect of the pigeon faeces on her health and possessions. She said she had a water tank removed from her loft last year and there had been a “powerful” smell of damp in her property for the past 3 months. The resident said there was “thick black mould covering the entire (wall)” and she had since developed a cough. To resolve her complaint, she wanted compensation for her time and trouble in chasing work and the damage to her possessions.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident dated 25 April 2024. It said it would carry out a damp survey on 25 April 2024 and a roof inspection on 23 May 2024, and follow up with the repairs it identified. The landlord said it was not liable for the damage to the resident’s possessions in the loft as she was required to keep the area clear and not use it for storage. It provided its liability insurance details for her to make a claim for any possessions caused by the damp in her property.
The landlord inspected the property on 25 April 2024 and its roofing contractor attended on 23 May 2024. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s process on 14 June 2024. She said that she was still awaiting repairs for the leak and for the mould inside her property, which was affecting her breathing. The resident wanted the landlord to confirm when it would clean the pigeon faeces from the loft.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 15 July 2024. It confirmed that its damp survey had found a leak and penetrating damp. The landlord also said its roof inspection had found roof and guttering defects, but it had not scheduled these repairs until the resident escalated her complaint It apologised for this and offered her £100 compensation. The landlord said it had arranged for the roof work to be done on 31 July 2024 and a follow up damp inspection on 1 August 2024 to confirm the damp had been resolved. After this was complete, it would carry out a mould wash, redecorate and remove the pigeon faeces.
The landlord’s repairs log showed that the roof repairs were completed on 14 November 2024, and it noted that internal repairs were to follow. The resident told us on 15 January 2025 that the landlord:
1. Treated the mould inside the property in November/December 2024.
2. Attended on 6 January 2025 and found that it needed to repair brickwork to prevent water entering.
3. Attended on 15 January 2025, as she had reported the damp persisted, and found that a section of plaster needed to be replaced.
4. Had yet to clear the pigeon faeces and had not told her about any plans to do this.
To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to resolve any remaining pigeon infestation in the loft and clear the faeces. She also wanted it to complete the repairs for damp and mould and pay her compensation for the delays.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with the landlord in a timely manner, while the issues are still ‘live’. This is because with the passage of time it is not possible to make a reliable determination on historical events as the evidence may not be available or complete.
In this case we have used discretion to consider the resident’s complaint about pigeon faeces since 2021. This is because there was evidence that she had been reporting the issue regularly to the landlord since then.
Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
The resident told us that she believed that the mould and the pigeon faeces in the loft were having a negative effect on her health. While we acknowledge her concerns, it is beyond our remit to determine if any action or inaction of the landlord had a direct effect on the resident’s health.
The reported damage to the resident’s health is a matter better suited to a personal injury insurance claim or court and she may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould within her property

The landlord’s damp and mould policy has 3 categories of response when it receives a report of damp and mould. When there is a hazard arising from damp and mould, in serious cases it will carry out an emergency inspection within 1 working day. In moderate cases it will inspect within 5 working days. In serious and moderate cases, it will do work to reduce the risk to the resident, such as carrying out mould washes or providing dehumidifiers. When there is a “slight/typical” hazard, it will attend within 28 days as a normal responsive repair. The policy is silent on how it assesses these hazards ahead of carrying out an inspection.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy acknowledges that:
1. It has a duty to assess and mitigate hazards in a property under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced in the Housing Act 2004.
2. It has a duty of care, under the Defective Premises Act 1972, to ensure that residents are safe from damage or injury resulting from defects in the property.
3. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 “considers condensation damp or mould growth as examples of defects that are prejudicial to health”.
The landlord’s records showed that it raised a damp and mould inspection on 2 April 2024, which it conducted on 25 April 2024 after 23 days. It did not record when the resident reported the issue or what she reported. This a failure of recordkeeping. The landlord is expected to 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.
The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s report of damp and mould in an appropriate timeframe in accordance with its policy above. Its response time of 23 days was in line with a “slight/typical” hazard as set out in its policy. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and assess any increased risk to her in light of her circumstances. However, there is no evidence of this.
The landlord acknowledged, in its final stage complaint response on 15 July 2024, that it delayed in scheduling the follow-on work it identified in its damp and mould inspection. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay and confirmed that it would carry out the roofing work, which required scaffolding, on 31 July 2024. This was a reasonable offer of compensation for the delay up to that point, however further delays occurred.
The landlord’s repair records showed that, while it attended on 31 July 2024, this repair did not resolve the damp. It noted on its inspection the next day that scaffolding was required to see the defects on the roof. The landlord’s records noted that the roof repairs were then completed on 14 November 2024 when the scaffolding needed to be removed. 2 weeks later it did internal work in the property to mould wash and redecorate mould-affected areas. The landlord then inspected the property on 15 January 2025 and confirmed the damp had been resolved and only plastering repairs remained to remedy damage from the damp.
The Ombudsman accepts that when specialist equipment is required for a repair, such as scaffolding, the landlord may be unable to keep to normal repair timeframes. However, if this is the case, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident updated and explain why there was a delay. There was no evidence of this, and the additional delay of 3 and a half months was likely to have caused the resident uncertainty and inconvenience.
The landlord carried out work in line with its proposed approach in its final complaint response. However, there was an unreasonable period of 7 months since the resident’s initial report of damp and mould during which the mould remained untreated.
The Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Damp and mould – It’s not lifestyle” report (published on our website) sets out that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. While it was positive that the landlord arranged repairs to identify and tackle the cause of the damp in the property, it was unreasonable that, when the work became prolonged, it did not take any temporary measures to remove the mould in the meantime. This did not reflect a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach.
The landlord’s overall response to the resident’s report of damp and mould amounts to maladministration. It was positive that the landlord recognised, in its final stage complaint response, that it had failed to schedule follow-on works and offered compensation for this. However, it delayed in carrying out subsequent work and failed to keep the resident informed about the delays. There was no evidence the landlord assessed the risk to the resident and it did not carry out temporary work in the meantime to minimise the impact of the mould on her.
The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £500 to recognise her distress and inconvenience. This is inclusive of the £100 compensation it offered her in its final stage complaint response. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available to view on our website. This provides for awards of between £100 and £600 where there have been failings by the landlord which may not have led to a permanent impact for the resident, but which had an adverse effect on the resident for a significant period.
We also recommend that the landlord review its damp and mould policy, specifically with a view to clarifying how it triages or assesses the priority of a damp and mould report.
As part of her complaint, the resident said her personal possessions had been damaged by damp and mould. The landlord provided its liability insurance details to the resident so she could make a claim for this if she wished to. This was an appropriate response. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing the cost of such claims and the landlord was not obliged to pay a claim outside the insurance process. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to assess the actions of insurance companies and therefore we cannot comment on the outcome of a claim or the claims process. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding the resident’s claim for damaged possessions.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an accumulation of pigeon faeces in her loft

The landlord’s damp and mould policy above acknowledges its duty to comply with the HHSRS, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the Defective Premises Act 1972, in the context of dealing with damp and mould. However, the same legislation applied to its obligations when responding to the resident’s report of an accumulation of pigeon faeces in her loft.
In line with the HHSRS, the landlord should have taken steps to identify and mitigate any potential health hazard presented by the build of pigeon faeces in the loft. It should also have noted that Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 defines “any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance” as a statutory nuisance. The landlord would have had a duty to address any statutory nuisance.
The HHSRS sets out that pests are a hazard capable of causing health effects such as infections, allergic responses and stress to a resident. Therefore, when the resident made the landlord aware of pigeons in her loft, it had a responsibility to carry out structural repairs to prevent their access. It was also responsible for remedying any potential health effects on the resident
The landlord did not dispute its responsibility to clear the pigeon faeces, and its final stage complaint response said it would do so after it had completed work to remedy the damp and mould. However, it did not explain why it could not do this immediately. There was no evidence to explain why the damp and mould repairs would have prevented it from cleaning the faeces. This prolonged the resolution of the issue unnecessarily and prolonged the distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The resident told us on 15 January 2025 that the landlord had still not made any arrangements with her to clean the loft. On 24 February 2025, it provided an internal document to us, dated 3 February 2025, which stated that the pigeon faeces had now been cleared.
It was a significant failure by the landlord that it was aware from at least 29 June 2021 that there was an accumulation of pigeon faeces in the loft of the property, but it did not remove it until 3 February 2025. This was a period of approximately 3 and half years during which the resident reported the matter regularly to the landlord, but it did not resolve it. This significant delay led to distress and inconvenience for the resident as she had concerns over the effect of living underneath the accumulation of faeces. It also created difficulty for her in retrieving her possessions stored in the loft. To recognise the impact on the resident over a significant period, the landlord must pay her compensation of £600. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance, mentioned above.
The landlord said that it was not liable for any damage to the possessions the resident had stored in the loft, as the area was required to be kept clear for maintenance work and not to be used as storage. This is not stated in the tenancy agreement and there is no evidence to confirm that the resident was prohibited from using the loft for storage. Since the landlord has provided its insurance details to the resident to make a liability claim for damage to her possessions from the damp and mould, we order it to extend this offer to claiming for the items stored in the loft.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s:
1. Report of damp and mould within her property.
2. Concerns about an accumulation of pigeon faeces in her loft.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,100 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in the handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould. This is £400 in addition to the £100 it previously offered her.
  2. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by its significant delay in removing the pigeon faeces.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report. This must come from a senior member of staff at director level or above and be in line with the guidance for apologies set out in our remedies guidance.
3. Provide its liability insurance details to the resident to allow her to make a claim for her possessions damaged by pigeon faeces in the loft.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its damp and mould policy, specifically with a view to clarifying how it triages or assesses the priority of a damp and mould report.
The Ombudsman understands that the remaining plastering repairs were booked for 27 and 28 January 2025. If these have not been completed, the landlord should complete these as a priority and consider paying additional compensation if it was responsible for any avoidable delays in completing these repairs.