Haringey London Borough Council (202232465)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232465

Haringey London Borough Council

25 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roofing issue, and subsequent water ingress, damp, and mould, in the property.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property, for which the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of the 6-storey building. The resident lives at the property with his family, including 2 young children, one of which was born in November 2022.
In March 2023, the resident emailed his councillor to raise concerns that he had started noticing ‘‘very wet patches’’ along the ceiling directly under the balcony roof and had reported this to the landlord to investigate. The resident said that:
1. After numerous attempts to get this investigated, someone came out in October 2022, at which point the issue had ‘‘gotten a lot worse’’. The resident said that the landlord was not able to reach the roof as it did not bring the keys and said it would d be back in 1 weeks’ time. The resident said that that was the last they heard from the landlord.
2. Since then, they had reported this and asked for follow up approximately 50 times, to no avail. The resident said that they kept getting replies stating that ‘this will be escalated to the back office’, and then months would go by without anything happening. The resident said that they had now reached a point where they were unable to live in their home as the dampness had spread all over the walls.
3. This was a serious health concern to their newborn, and without any action being taken by the landlord, they feared that this could lead to a potential illness or worse.
The resident’s councillor forwarded the resident’s concerns to the landlord, which responded on 14 April 2023 to say that it had attended on 29 March 2023. The landlord said that the roofer requested that the roof be revisited and that a joint inspection with a surveyor be carried out, as they could not identify any obvious defect with the roof. It had arranged for the roofer and bricklayer to attend to identify appropriate remedial measures, which was scheduled for 21 April 2023, and that this had been confirmed with the resident. The landlord said that once the assessment had been completed it could then arrange the necessary remedial works.
On 21 April 2023, the landlord noted that the wrong keys were given to the operatives and so they were unable to access the roof. In an email to their councillor on the same day, the resident said that they were still unable to move back home, but hoped the landlord would find the reason for the damage so that this could be moved forward.
On 21 June 2023, the resident contacted this Service to say that they had been trying to reach out to the landlord but it was not replying. The resident said that in the meantime, the wall was ‘‘getting worse by the day and with an infant in the flat, they were increasingly worried about her health’’. The resident said that:
1. They were ‘‘quite literally at the end of (their) tether trying to find a resolution for this issue’’ and that all they wanted was for the landlord to investigate, find the source and rectify the situation.
2. They were not able to stay in their home due to the risk to their children and that they had had to pay for sealant and paint ‘‘in a futile attempt to try to remedy the situation (themselves), or at the very least to buy some time’’.
This Service forwarded the resident’s complaint to the landlord stating that the landlord must provide the resident with its response by 12 July 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 26 June 2023 and provided its stage 1 response on 13 July 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for how long the issue had been outstanding, and for the delay providing its response. The landlord also acknowledged that it had previously logged an enquiry from the resident’s councillor, which it responded to, but the repair remained unresolved. The landlord went on to:
1. Apologise for its poor communication and the delay in completing the repair and any inconvenience this would have caused.
2. Say that it had arranged for the roof to be inspected on 29 August 2023 and had liaised with the housing team to ensure the roof access keys were available.
3. Say that once the inspection had been completed it would book in the necessary remedial works ‘as soon as its diaries will allow’ and would confirm the appointment with them.
4. Advise that it would not undertake any making good works inside ‘sold properties’ and advised the resident that once the roofing works/cause of water ingress were completed, they could pursue a claim for damages to personal items, fixtures & fittings by emailing its Insurance Team.
5. Said that it was sorry that it had ‘failed to provide a good service’ and said that it repairs service had recently recruited additional staff to assist improve the management and planning of repairs and complaint responses.
On 29 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say that they were expecting the landlord to attend that day but ‘‘no one showed up’’. The resident said that they had had to take the day off work but all they received was a text telling them that the appointment had been rescheduled for 8 September 2023. The resident went on to say that they had ‘‘desperately’’ tried to get this investigated and repaired since July 2022, stating that it was ‘‘a severe mould and damp issue, and as pointed out many times, (they had) small children in the flat’’. The landlord apologised and confirmed that a new appointment had been scheduled for 8 September 2023.
On 8 September 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say that they had been expecting the landlord to attend that day by no one had. The resident said that they had been asked to stay at home for two Fridays in a row and that it had failed to attend on both occasions. The resident said that they were missing out on income in order for the appointments to go ahead, that the issue had been ongoing for 15 months and that it was ‘‘painfully obvious that this is not of high priority even though it involves children and damp/ mould’’.
The resident escalated their complaint on 14 November 2023. The resident said that the landlord had attended on 10 November 2023 but as no scaffold had been raised it was unable to carry out any work. The resident went on to say that:
1. They had been told the roofer was now on holiday and so immediately contacted the landlord but received no response.
2. The wall was now ‘‘in such a state that we may have to vacate our flat with two small children to avoid serious health issues, which I have reported for 18 months by now’’.
3. The resident said that it was ‘‘very clear that the lack of maintenance of the building is the direct cause of this issue, and the bricks needs repointing at the most urgent level’’.
4. They could not proceed with an insurance claim to rectify the damage in the flat until the landlord had resolved the issue, which they said it did not ‘‘seem to be interested in doing’’.
On 22 December 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the following works would be carried out on 6 and 7 February 2024:
1. A roofer was to:
  1. Clear outlet to balcony roof and on main roof.
  2. Investigate balcony plastic pipe connection to balcony roof outlet and renew or refix.
  3. ‘Liquid’ balcony roof and upstands as required.
  4. Repair any felt to main roof, where required, subject to roof installed.
2. A bricklayer was to:
  1. Point brickwork, and mastic, under living room window cill.
  2. Repoint brickwork to balcony roof and front elevation, and above window as required.
The landlord issued its final response on 22 January 2024, in which it:
1. Confirmed that the roof inspection, referred to in its stage 1 response, was scheduled for 29 August 2023 but had to be rescheduled due to ‘capacity issues’ and was attended on 8 September 2023.
2. Acknowledged that in their escalation request, the resident alerted it to the scaffolding having not been erected, which meant the roofer could not attend. The landlord said that its repairs team apologised for these delays, stating that the team rely on an external contractor to erect scaffolding and so that cannot always guarantee it will be erected on time. The landlord said that the process had been reviewed to reduce delays.
3. Said that the roof and brickwork repairs were expected to be completed on 6 and 7 February 2024 and that, once completed, the resident could continue with their insurance claim. The landlord acknowledged that the repairs had not progressed since the resident first raised their complaint but could not offer an earlier appointment ‘due to capacity issues’.
4. Apologised for the delays that occurred and offered £150 compensation for those delays and for the time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the complaint.

Matters the occurred following the landlord’s final response.

The landlord’s records note that on 6 February 2024, roofing and brickwork operatives attended the property and completed the roofing repairs. The repair to the external pointing began on that day and was completed on 7 February 2024.
The external pointing was completed on 1 March 2024. On 14 March 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to advise of an appointment on 16 April 2024 but provided no details.
On 3 May 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say that they been advised on 18 April 2024 that the remedial works had all been completed and that they would receive a details report so that they could pursue an insurance claim. The resident asked that the details of the date the works were completed, what works were carried out and what the cause was, be sent to them so that they can start their insurance claim, noting that ‘‘the inside of their walls were completed ruined’’. The resident chased the landlord for this again on 8 and 14 May 2024 stating that they could ‘‘barely breathe’’ in the property, reminding the landlord that they live with ‘‘a 1 year old baby and a 7 year old little girl’’.
On 17 June 2024, the resident emailed this Service to advise that the block insurer had arranged for its loss adjuster to inspect the property 2 weeks previously and he concluded that the full responsibility for the damage was with the landlord. This being due to the lack of maintenance and that the issue should have been dealt with in a timelier manner. As a result, the block insurer would not proceed with the remedial works, explaining that this should be carried out by the landlord.
The resident advised the landlord of the outcome of their claim on the block insurance on 24 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes.’
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. We will consider the severity of the situation, the length of time involved, any disabilities or particular vulnerabilities of the resident and any other relevant factors. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
Under the lease, the landlord had an obligation to maintain and repair the structure and outside parts of the property (such as walls, roofs, windows). This does not include the interior surfaces of those walls within the demise of the resident’s property, which are the resident’s responsibility. These obligations are confirmed in the landlord’s leasehold repairs policy.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to handle repairs, for which they are responsible appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion.
The resident has said that they had initially reported the repair in July 2022. Whilst this Service does not doubt this, the first record of the resident reporting the presence of water damage to his property, from the roof, seen by this service was on 6 September 2022.
At the time of the landlord’s stage 1 response, of 13 July 2023, some 10 months later, neither a meaningful inspection nor any works had been completed. In its response the landlord apologised for its poor communication, the delay in completing the repair and any inconvenience this would have caused. It confirmed that the roof would be inspected on 29 August 2023 and that any necessary remedial works would be completed ‘as soon as its diaries would allow’.
This response failed to evidence the level of urgency that would be expected given that it had been aware of the issue with the roof by almost a year by that time. In addition, the resident had raised concerns about the impact of the resultant damp and mould issue on their young children, and that the resident had on multiple occasions advised that they had had to leave the property due to those concerns.
There were then further delays, with the promised inspection of 29 August 2023 not being attended, despite being arranged with the resident and him taking a day off work to be present. It was also not until 29 August 2023 that the resident was advised that the appointment had been rescheduled for 8 September 2023.
In its final response the landlord said that the roof inspection was attended on 8 September 2023. However, it has provided this Service with no evidence of that inspection. It was then not until 22 December 2023 that it confirmed to the resident what works were to be carried out and that they would be carried out until 6 and 7 February 2024. Again, the landlord’s response showed a lack of urgency, given the circumstances of the case and the assurances given in its stage 1 response, some 5 months earlier, that it would complete the works.
In its final response of 22 January 2024, the landlord again acknowledged that the repairs had not progressed since the resident first raised their complaint. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for the delay and for the time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the complaint. The landlord also reaffirmed that the works to the roof and brickwork were to be completed on 6 and 7 February 2024.
Whilst works were carried out over the course of 6 and 7 February 2024, these were not fully completed until 16 April 2024, some 20-22 months after the resident first raised concerns with it about water water ingress into his property.
In the period between the landlord’s final response and it completing the works the resident reported ‘‘black mould and green sludge seeping through the ceiling and walls’’ to the landlord and again made reference to their serious concerns about the safety of their children. The resident also said that the stress and anxiety levels they were ‘‘having to endure’’ was ‘‘incomprehensible’’, and the property was now likely unfit for human habitation due to ‘the intolerable levels of mould and damp.’
The resident also said that they could not move ahead with a home insurance claim, to replaster the walls and ceiling until they had had feedback from the landlord that the work had been completed. The resident urged the landlord to finish the work and confirm that to them, so that they could move ahead with insurance and/ or compensation claims.
Having considered all the evidence, there was an excessive and unreasonable delay in the landlord carrying out any meaningful action to address the water ingress into the resident’s property. Even taking into account the later date of when the water ingress was first reported to the landlord, this being September 2022, this would mean that the landlord took over 20 months to complete the repairs for which it was responsible.
There were long gaps between actions being taken and there is no evidence of the landlord taking any proactive steps to investigate what was happening with the roof repairs nor of the landlord providing the resident with regular and meaningful updates. There were also appointments arranged with the resident which were either not attended or which failed, for example because the keys needed to gain access where not provided.
It is understandable that the resident was caused substantial distress and inconvenience by the ongoing roofing issue, and subsequent water ingress, damp, and mould, in the property. It is also understandable that this was exacerbated by the excessive delay in the landlord completing the required repairs, its failure to effectively manage the process and its poor communication with them.
Further, both the landlord’s actions and complaint responses failed to reflect severity of the situation or that there were small children living at the property, despite these matters being repeatedly raised by the resident throughout the period covered by this report.
Damp and mould are health hazards, as confirmed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, and the landlord has an obligation to identify and mitigate any such hazard. Having been put on notice by the resident that the water ingress was resulting in damp and mould in their property, which has not been disputed, the landlord would have been expected to have had added urgency in its attempts to resolve the leak to enable to the resident to progress the necessary repairs inside his property, but it did not do so.
It is not disputed that the resident is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the interior of his property, and as such it was reasonable for the landlord to advise him, to make a claim against the properties building insurance with regards to the damage to his flat. This was appropriate advice by the landlord, following which the resident made a claim under the building insurance. However, there were unreasonable delays in the landlord providing the resident with the necessary information for him to make that claim.
The combination of all these failures amount to severe maladministration by the landlord. To be fair to the resident and to make this right the landlord has been ordered to arrange for an apology to be given to the resident by its chief executive and to pay the resident £2,500 compensation. This is inclusive of the £150 compensation it offered in its final response offered in its final response, if this has not already been paid, and is made up of:
1. £1,000 for the excessive and unreasonable delay in the landlord carrying out any meaningful action to address the water ingress into the resident’s property.
2. £500 for its failure to reflect severity of the situation or that there were small children living at the property.
3. £500 for the unreasonable delays in the landlord providing the resident with the necessary information for him to make an insurance claim to address the damage, damp, and mould in his property.
4. £500 for the time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the complaint.
Given that it has evidenced limited, if any, learning from the outcome of this complaint, the landlord has also been ordered to carry out a senior management review of the failures identified in this case. This review is to consider both the findings in the case, and the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report on Damp and Mould. The evidence gathered during this investigation showing the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in our report. The landlord is to provide this Service with a copy of its review which is to include details of what learning it intends to take a result.
On 17 June 2024, the resident emailed this Service that the property’s building insurer had arranged for its loss adjuster to inspect the property and he concluded that the full responsibility for the damage was with the landlord, due to the lack of maintenance and that the issue should have been dealt with in a timelier manner. As a result, the block insurer would not proceed with the remedial works, explaining that this should be carried out by the landlord. The resident advised the landlord of the outcome of their claim on the block insurance on 24 June 2024.
As this occurred following the landlord’s final response, it is unclear whether having been notified of this the landlord advised the resident that they could submit a claim against its own insurance. That being that case and given the seriousness of its failures in this case, an order has been made for the landlord to provide the resident with information and, if requested, support in regard to making such a claim, if it has not done so already.
The landlord has also been ordered, as part of its review of this case, to consider what action it intends to take were its insurer to refuse the resident’s claim, or if there was likely to be an excessive delay in that claim being considered by its insurer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress which led to damp and mould in the property.

Orders

Within 2 weeks, and if it has not done so already, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with any information they require to enable them to move ahead with a claim against the landlord’s own insurance for the internal damage to their property. The landlord is also to provide the resident with assistance with making the claim if requested to do so.
Within 3 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered arrange for its chief executive to provide the resident with an apology for the failings highlighted in this report.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £2,500 compensation. This is inclusive of the £150 previously offered and is made up of:
  1. £1,000 for the excessive and unreasonable delay in it carrying out any meaningful action to address the water ingress into the resident’s property.
  2. £500 for its failure to reflect severity of the situation or that there were small children living at the property.
  3. £500 for the unreasonable delays in it providing the resident with the necessary information for him to make an insurance claim to address the resultant damage, damp, and mould in his property.
  4. £500 for the time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the complaint.
2. Carry out a senior management review of the failures identified in this case. This review is to consider:
  1. What learning it can take from this complaint, both in terms of the findings in this case and the findings and recommendations in our Spotlight report on Damp and Mould. The evidence gathered during this investigation showing the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in our report.
  2. What, if anything, it would be prepared to offer the resident with regards to rectifying the damage caused to their property, were its insurer to refuse the resident’s claim, or if there was likely to be an excessive delay in that claim being considered by its insurer. It should be noted that simply referring to the resident’s repair responsibilities alone, given the level of failure by the landlord and the comments made by the block insurer, would not be deemed a reasonable response in this case.

The landlord is to provide this Service with a copy of its review which is to include details of its findings and what actions it intends to take a result.

The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within the timescales given.