Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Haringey London Borough Council (202343873)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343873

Haringey London Borough Council

20 December 2024


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 handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould due to disrepair.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling will also be investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat at the end of a terrace. She lives with her partner. The landlord had no record of vulnerabilities for the household.
  2. On 25 January 2023, the resident sent the landlord a copy of an independent damp and mould survey she had commissioned. This said high moisture readings in the bedrooms, living room, and kitchen suggested penetrating damp. This was attributed to rainwater ingress from cracked and de-bonded external render, disrepair to the windows, and misaligned and blocked gutters. There were also high moisture readings suggestive of rising damp in one of the bedrooms, attributed to the damp proof course being bridged by the front step, and a blocked gully. The resident told the landlord that the walls in the affected rooms were wet, with bubbling paint, efflorescence, and mould. Her bedroom was the worst affected.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord 4 times in February and March 2023 because she had not received a response to her 25 January 2023 email. On 20 March 2023, the landlord carried out its own damp and mould inspection. On 25 May 2023, it inspected the resident’s guttering. On 5 June 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update as she had not heard anything further since the 25 May 2023 inspection.
  4. On 27 June 2023, a borough councillor sent a member’s enquiry to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident as a matter of urgency.
  5. On 12 July 2023, the landlord told the resident that it could not find a record of its damp and mould inspection in March 2023. It carried out a further inspection on 28 July 2023. This identified that there was high severity damp and mould in the living room and both bedrooms, caused by rainwater ingress as a result of:
    1. Damaged and cracked render to the side wall and the bottom left-hand side of the front wall.
    2. Misaligned and blocked guttering.
    3. Defective silicone to the window reveals in the bedroom and living room.

The investigation report also said that mould odour in the kitchen cupboards was due to lack of adequate heating and ventilation and the resident had been advised about how to treat this.

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 and 19 September 2023 as she had not heard from it since the 28 July 2023 inspection. She reported an overpowering smell of damp and mould, and bubbling internal paintwork. She advised that she and her partner had respiratory problems, and they were unable to use the bedroom. They were sleeping on a sofa–bed in lounge as a result. They were also unable to rent out their spare room which caused them financial difficulty. The borough councillor also made a further member’s enquiry on 12 and 29 September 2023, which asked the landlord to respond to the resident following the 28 July 2023 inspection.
  2. Between September and December 2023, the landlord carried out the following work:
    1. 27 September 2023 – repairs were carried out to the guttering, downpipes, and a windowsill.
    2. 28 September 2023 – a carpenter attended for repairs to the window seals but said that a bricklayer was needed to do the work.
    3. 29 September 2023 – the render on the side wall was inspected by a plasterer and they recommended for the job to be done by contractors, as scaffolding was needed.
    4. 5 October 2023 – a bricklayer inspected the windows and said that a full day appointment was needed to re-seal the windows.
    5. 24 November 2023 – an appointment had been booked for further repairs to the guttering, but no one attended.
    6. 30 November 2023 – 3 windows were re-sealed.
    7. 7 December 2023 – further guttering repairs were carried out, following which, the scaffolding was taken down.
  3. The landlord responded formally to the member’s enquiry on 9 October 2023. It summarised the work done and advised that a further appointment had been booked for November 2023.
  4. On 19 January 2024, the resident and the borough councillor contacted the landlord to say that the cracked render had not been repaired.
  5. On 6 February 2024, the resident submitted a complaint via the landlord’s website. The landlord advised that she could escalate the earlier member’s enquiry directly to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. The resident confirmed that she wanted to escalate.
  6. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 7 February 2024 and on 8 February 2024, an appointment was booked for the remaining work to be completed on 22 and 23 April 2024.
  7. On 26 February 2024, the resident provided further information to the landlord about her complaint. She complained that:
    1. The 7 February 2024 inspection was not thorough and seemed to contradict the findings of the private survey she had commissioned.
    2. The landlord had delayed in responding to her and carrying out works, and it would be 14 months by the time the works in April 2024 were completed.
    3. The landlord’s communication had been poor.
    4. The complaint handling had been poor.
    5. She had not been given a single point of contact.
    6. She wanted the landlord to repair all of the bedroom walls and inspect the lounge and kitchen walls properly. She wanted the works to be carried out to a decent standard.
    7. She wanted compensation for loss of rental income, replacing furniture, and the cost of internal repairs and redecoration.
  8. On 28 March 2024, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2, as follows:
    1. It acknowledged that “unfortunately works did not progress” after its 29 September 2023 inspection. It accepted it had handled the matter poorly, which had caused frustration for the resident. The repair to the render was due to be carried out on 22 and 23 April 2024 and this would be carried out earlier if possible.
    2. It would not allocate a single point of contact, as requested by the resident. 
    3. It acknowledged that its communication had been poor and that the resident had to chase it for updates.
    4. It acknowledged its complaint handling had been poor.
    5. It offered £200 compensation in recognition of the impact of the delays on the resident. It could not compensate her for damage to her personal belongings under its complaints process and advised her to contact its insurer.
  9. The repair to the render was not carried out on 22 and 23 April 2024. The landlord did not inform the resident that the repair would not be going ahead. The resident emailed the landlord 4 times in April 2024, but no evidence has been seen that the landlord replied. The repairs began on 10 May 2024 and the landlord carried out a post-inspection on 17 May 2024.
  10. On 28 May 2024, the resident reported problems with the quality and completeness of the work that had been carried out, including that there were still cracks in the render. On 3 July 2024, the landlord told the resident it would arrange another post-inspection of the works and provide further feedback regarding additional work needed. The resident has informed this Service that the post-inspection has not yet been carried out. She has stated that she wants the landlord to fully re-render the external walls, rather than patching them up, and to inspect, and, if necessary, repair the damp proof course.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. In her correspondence, the resident has stated that she has experienced issues with damp and mould going back to 2015. She has said that the landlord had previously carried out repairs to the render, but the issues had reoccurred. When a complaint is referred to the Ombudsman, we must consider what is fair in all the circumstances, including whether the matters should have been escalated to our Service at an earlier stage to receive a determination. This is to ensure that events can be clearly recalled, and that appropriate evidence will still be available to support the investigation.
  2. For this reason, it is not fair to either party to consider matters that have not been escalated previously over this extended period. In this case, the determination will only consider matters from 6 months prior to the initial member enquiry. This is in line with this Service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) and the Scheme current at the time.

 

Damp and mould

  1. The lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the exterior and structure of the building, including the walls, windows, gutters, and rainwater soil pipes. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy set out its commitment to preventing damp and mould by carrying out repairs and responding to leaks in a timely and appropriate manner. The policy stated that all referrals relating to damp and mould would be reviewed and the tenant would be responded to within 5 working days.
  2. Despite this, the landlord was slow to respond to the resident’s report of damp and mould on 25 January 2023. The resident had to chase it for a response, and it did not reply at all until 17 February 2023, 17 working days later. This was unreasonable and the landlord did not meet its policy timescale.
  3. The landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection on 20 March 2023 and a further inspection of the guttering took place on 22 May 2023. While it was appropriate that the landlord carried out its own inspections in response to the private survey provided by the resident, no evidence has been seen that it communicated with her regarding the outcome of either inspection or the planned next steps. There was also an unexplained delay of 2 months between the 2 inspections with no evidence of contact with the resident in between. This was especially unreasonable given that there is no evidence seen that the landlord considered any mitigating steps, such a providing a dehumidifier.
  4. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 5 June 2023 and was told that the repairs team would get back to her. This did not occur, and so a borough councillor made a member’s enquiry to the landlord on her behalf on 27 June 2023 asking the landlord to respond to the resident as a matter of urgency. On 12 July 2023, almost 4 months after the March 2023 inspection, the landlord told the resident that it could not find a record of a surveyor’s visit in March 2023, and a new inspection was booked for 28 July 2023. The landlord’s poor record-keeping, and lack proactive management of the case caused an unreasonable delay. The resident reported living in damp and mouldy conditions, with damage to her decorations and furniture, and a smell of mould. She was left not knowing if or when the landlord intended to carry out repairs.
  5. The 28 July 2023 inspection identified that there was disrepair to the render, guttering, and windows, that the landlord was responsible for remedying, and that this resulted in high severity damp and mould in both bedrooms and the living room. However, there is no indication that the damp proof course was inspected. Given that the private survey report had stated the damp proof course had been bridged it was unreasonable that this was not done. 
  6. No evidence has been seen that the landlord informed the resident of the findings of the inspection or the next steps in a timely manner, or at all. This was poor communication on the part of the landlord. No evidence has been seen that the landlord was proactive in planning how it would carry out the necessary repairs. It was only after the resident and the borough councillor had contacted the landlord 4 times to chase a response that it contacted the resident on 26 September 2023 to make appointments for work to be done. The resident had reported respiratory problems and being unable to use the bedrooms. The landlord did not respond to this report and provide its position. Bearing this in mind the delay was especially unreasonable.
  7. Between September and December 2023, the landlord carried out repairs to the guttering, downpipes, windowsill, and window seals. This was appropriate. However, there was an unexplained delay between 5 October 2023, when a carpenter attended and identified that a bricklayer was needed, and 30 November 2023, when a bricklayer attended and carried out the work. There was also a missed appointment on 24 November 2023 and the landlord did not warn the resident or explain the reason for this. This was unreasonable. Furthermore, the render was not repaired, and the scaffolding was taken down after the repair of the guttering, despite this being necessary for the repair of the render. 
  8. On 19 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and pointed out that the render had not yet been repaired. She said that the damage inside her flat was getting worse. Despite the landlord having inspected the render on 20 March 2023, 28 July 2023, and 29 September 2023, its internal correspondence following this shows that there had been poor record-keeping and a lack of clarity regarding the work to be done, and whether this was to be done by contractors or in-house. There was a lack of proactive management of the matter to ensure that all of the necessary works were completed. This was unreasonable and as a result the resident experienced inconvenience and distress.
  9. The resident submitted a complaint via the landlord’s website on 6 February 2024. On 7 February 2024, the landlord’s operational team leader carried out a further inspection of the cracked render. This identified that scaffolding was required to enable repair of the render on the side wall. On 8 February 2024, an appointment was made for the works to be carried out on 22 and 23 April 2024. It was appropriate that the landlord acted promptly to do this following the inspection; however, the landlord’s communication with the resident was still unclear. In correspondence between the resident and the landlord between 8 and 29 February 2024 the resident pointed out that statements made to her during the 7 February 2024 inspection seemed to contradict the findings of the private survey she had commissioned. While the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its own inspections, no evidence has been seen that it clearly communicated why it disagreed with the private surveyor regarding the cause and extent of the damp. This was unreasonable and left the resident uncertain about the landlord’s position regarding the findings of the private survey.
  10. It was appropriate that the stage 2 response acknowledged that the landlord had handled the matter poorly, and that its communication and complaint handling had been poor. It was appropriate that the landlord accepted that its handling of the matter had caused frustration for the resident. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the impact of its failings in terms of the damage caused by the water ingress inside the resident’s flat during the time it delayed carrying out the repair.
  11. It was appropriate that the landlord directed the resident to make a claim to its insurer. However, given the failings identified, the length of the delay, and the impact on the resident, the £200 compensation offered was also too low. The landlord’s compensation policy allowed it to pay non-statutory compensation for loss of a room, damage to decorations, missed appointments, and where the resident experienced inconvenience and distress as a result of landlord service failure.
  12. Considering the landlord’s handling of the matter overall, multiple failings have been identified, including:
    1. Slow response to the resident’s report of disrepair, damp, and mould.
    2. Poor communication and lack of responsivity.
    3. Unreasonable and unexplained delays.
    4. Poor record keeping.
    5. Lack of proactivity.
    6. Poor oversight and management of repairs.
  13. Cumulatively the above failings constitute maladministration on the part of the landlord. As a result, the resident experienced reduced use and enjoyment of her home, significant inconvenience and distress, and expended time and trouble chasing works. Had the landlord not acknowledged and apologised for its failings and offered compensation at stage 2 of the complaints process, there would have been a finding of severe maladministration.
  14. Therefore, the landlord is ordered apologise and pay £1,000 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for maladministration where the resident has been significantly impacted by the landlord’s failures, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. The landlord has also been ordered to apologise to the resident and undertake a review of learning from this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s member’s enquiry procedure stated that it would record each member enquiry and within 2 working days send an acknowledgement to the member confirming when they would receive a response. The landlord would aim to respond to member enquiries within 10 working days. Where not possible, such as in complex enquiries, the landlord would write to the member to explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new date when a final response was expected.
  2. The records provided by the landlord show that a member’s enquiry was made on 27 June 2023, when a borough councillor asked the landlord to respond to the resident regarding her reports of damp and mould. No evidence has been seen that the landlord acknowledged this within 2 working days, as required. The landlord contacted the borough councillor on 11 July 2023, 10 working days later, apologised for the time taken to investigate, and promised a response by 25 July 2023. It did not explain the reasons for the delay. No evidence has been seen in the records provided by the landlord that it provided any further response. The landlord therefore did not act reasonably and in line with its policy.
  3. A new member’s enquiry was made on 12 September 2023, and repeated on 25 September 2023, in which the borough councillor highlighted the lack of contact since the 28 July 2023 inspection. Once again, no evidence has been seen that the landlord acknowledged this within 2 working days. On 9 October 2023, 19 working days after the initial enquiry, the landlord provided a response setting out the work carried out and the further work needed. However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord wrote to explain the reasons for the delay and provide a date when a final response was expected. This was not in line with its policy.
  4. A further member’s enquiry was made on 19 January 2024, when the borough councillor informed the landlord that the cracked render had not been repaired and this had been ongoing for a year. The landlord contacted the borough councillor on 26 January 2024 to say that it was awaiting a response from its repairs team, but no further response was provided. This was not in line with its policy.
  5. On 6 February 2024, the resident submitted her own formal complaint via the landlord’s website. The landlord advised that to avoid duplication, rather than making a new complaint, she could escalate the existing member’s enquiry to stage 2 of its complaints procedure, if she wished. The resident confirmed that she wanted to escalate. The landlord’s approach doesn’t align with best practice and the spirit of the Code, as the landlord was, in effect, missing out stage 1 of the complaints process. However, its approach was in accordance with its policies current at the time, and it did give the resident the option of making a new stage 1 complaint.
  6. The landlord’s current complaints policy makes clear that member enquiries are dealt with separately from the complaints policy, but the version of the members enquiry policy still available on the landlord’s website at the time of writing this report still states that if a resident is dissatisfied with the outcome of a member enquiry they can escalate this to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. It has therefore been recommended that the landlord update its members enquiry policy to bring it in line with the Code.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy said that it would acknowledge requests for escalation to stage 2 within 5 working days and provide a written response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. If more time was needed for the review, it would inform the resident and provide a new response date.
  8. The resident confirmed that she wanted to escalate to stage 2 on 6 February 2024. On 23 February 2024, 13 working days later, the landlord asked the resident for an update and said that it would “formally acknowledge” the complaint and provide a timescale for response after she had provided this. The resident provided a detailed update on 26 February 2024. No evidence has been seen that the landlord provided any further complaint acknowledgement or advice regarding when the resident could expect a response. This was poor complaint handling and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  9. The stage 2 response was provided on 28 March 2024, 37 working days after the request to escalate, and 24 working days after the landlord’s 23 February 2024 email. Therefore, the stage 2 response was not provided quickly enough, and the landlord did not explain the reason for the delay or provide an expected response date.
  10. It was appropriate that the stage 2 response identified where the service provided by the landlord had fallen short, partially acknowledged the impact of this on the resident, and identified learning and areas for improvement. However, the landlord did not explicitly apologise. This was a missed opportunity to repair the landlord/tenant relationship.
  11. Considering the landlord’s complaint handling overall:
    1. It repeatedly did not respond to members enquiries as required by its policy.
    2. It was late to acknowledge and respond to the complaint at stage 2.
    3. While it acknowledged where its service had fallen short and showed learning, it did not apologise to the resident for the impact of this.
  12. Cumulatively this constitutes maladministration on the part of the landlord. The landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay the resident compensation of £150.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould due to disrepair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum Director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £1,150 (inclusive of the £200 already offered at stage 2), broken down as follows:
      1. £700 for the resident’s inconvenience and distress arising from its response to her reports of disrepair, damp and mould.
      2. £300 for the resident’s time and trouble chasing the landlord to carry out repairs.
      3. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
    3. The landlord is to commit to inspect the works carried out in April 2024 within 6 weeks, or otherwise at a time that suits the resident. This inspection should consider the resident’s 28 May 2024 email and inspect the damp-proof course. It is also to provide feedback to the resident and this Service regarding any additional work needed. If additional work is needed, it is to provide a detailed schedule of works with dates.
  2. The landlord must undertake a review of learning from this case. Specific attention should be given to:
    1. Responsiveness to reports of disrepair, damp and mould.
    2. Communication.
    3. Record keeping.
    4. Oversight and management of repairs to ensure that works are carried out in a timely manner.
    5. When and how the landlord will incorporate the findings of the review into its day-to-day operations.

The landlord must share a written report of its findings with the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that relevant staff involved in this case undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/)
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its members enquiry policy to ensure it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.