Haringey London Borough Council (202307195)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307195

Haringey London Borough Council

9 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair in her home, including the need for a decant.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a Local Authority. She lives in a 2-bedroom flat with 5-children aged between 2 and 19. The resident also suffers with asthma and arthritis which were highlighted to the landlord as vulnerabilities.
4. The resident originally reported issues at the property in 2019 and a structural survey was conducted. After a period of monitoring a final report survey for structural damage was conducted and recommendations were made to repair the property. The structural engineer told the landlord to decant the resident as work could not be completed while she was living there.
5. On 15 August 2022 the resident reported plaster on the ceiling of a bedroom had come off. The resident called the landlord on 25 October 2022 to report that more of the ceiling had come down, and that she wanted to raise a formal complaint about the condition of her home. This included cracks throughout the property and rising damp.
6. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 8 November 2022. It said that it had received confirmation from the structural engineer that a decant was required to complete the necessary remedial repairs. Once a decant was arranged the work was expected to take around 4 to 5 months to complete. It said it was working to find a suitable property and would update the resident once one was found.
7. On 26 January 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said that no contact had been made since December 2022 and that the situation was causing a lot of distress. The resident was concerned about the damp and mould impacted her and her children’s health. She also asked for a move to a more suitably sized home.
8. We contacted the landlord in February 2024 as the resident had not received a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord asked the resident on 12 February 2024 to provide the details of why she wanted the case to be escalated. On 21 March 2024 it sent its stage 2 complaint response and said:
   1. it apologised for the poor communication throughout the process and failure to keep the resident updated
   2. no update could be provided regarding the decant – while this had been approved, its team had been unable to source a suitable property
   3. the decant will be to a property on a like-for-like basis
   4. the initial scope of works was to underpin the front wall and general refurbishment, but it could not provide a detailed scope of works until the resident was decanted – this was because it needed to complete a more intrusive survey
   5. in recognition of the severe impact to the resident it would offer £500 compensation
9. The resident has not been decanted since the stage 2 response was issued and the works remain outstanding as of the date of this report.
10. The resident confirmed that she wanted us to investigate the complaint in July 2024. To resolve the case she would like to be moved to a different, larger property. She wants the repairs to be completed, and compensation paid for the impact to her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. Although it is noted there is a long history of repairs at the resident’s property, the Ombudsman can only investigate issues that are raised promptly as part of a landlord’s formal complaint procedure. Therefore, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from April 2022, which were dealt with during its complaint process.
12. Similarly, we recognise that the issues faced by the resident are ongoing. However, in the interest of fairness the scope of this investigation will deal with the landlord’s actions up to its stage 2 complaint response sent on 21 March 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to review its service and put things right before we can become involved. If the resident is unhappy with the service she has received after 21 March 2024, she can raise a new formal complaint with the landlord.
13. We also note that the resident has asked the landlord for a priority to move due to the issue of overcrowding. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) considers complaints about housing allocations. This includes applications for re-housing and decisions on banding or the award of points. We have not seen evidence that the resident has made a complaint about this issue, but if she has then the LGSCO would be better placed to consider these issues.

Reports of disrepair

14. The landlord’s repairs policy has 4 repair categories these are:
    1. out of hours – 24-hour response time to make the issue safe
    2. emergency repairs – 24-hour response time to make the issue safe
    3. agreed appointment – 28-day response time
    4. planned – inspection within 28 days
15. Following a structural survey it was discovered that work was needed to the property which required the resident to be decanted. On 14 April 2022 the landlord sent a request for a decant to the relevant internal team. This was the first time that the landlord knew a temporary move was needed. It was reasonable for the landlord to request this, and the request was made promptly after receiving the engineer’s recommendation.
16. On 15 August 2022 the resident reported that some plaster had fell off her bedroom ceiling. This was attended to by the landlord on the same day and made safe. The landlord noted that structural engineers were dealing with a more permanent fix. The landlord’s response to this repair request was reasonable, it followed its own policy timescales and made safe.
17. The resident reported further issues on 25 October 2022. She told the landlord that further plaster from the bedroom ceiling had fell in the bedroom, there was an issue of damp and cracks throughout the property. A surveyor attended on 2 November 2022 and confirmed that this was due to structural damage. On 8 November 2022 the landlord chased for a response to the earlier decant request.
18. The landlord’s actions in dealing with the repairs at this stage were reasonable. It sent a surveyor to inspect the property within its 28-day timescale. Once it was established that the issues related to the structural problem, it chased for the decant to be approved. It was at this stage that the landlord flagged the structural issues as “urgent”.
19. On 18 November 2022 the landlord confirmed that the decant had been approved by its Housing Decision Panel. The resident was not told about this decision or provided any updates on her repair until 31 January 2023. This was only after she had chased the landlord twice. This was unreasonable, the resident had made clear to the landlord that she was very distressed at the situation. The failure to proactively communicate with the resident increased this distress.
20. Following the resident telling the landlord she was worried about how the damp and mould may be affecting the health of her family, it conducted an inspection on 31 January 2023. This was within the 28-day timeframe for an inspection as set out in its repairs policy.
21. The inspection found among other things that there were damp and mould issues, cracks throughout the property and issues with the resident’s ceiling. All the repairs needed were attributed to the structural issue of subsidence. The landlord said that it would fix all repair issues once the resident was decanted.
22. Between February 2023 and March 2024 (13 months), the resident continued to report the same repair issues. It is noted that the landlord did arrange operatives to attend the property to try and complete temporary repairs, such as a mould wash or renewing ceiling plaster. However, each time the operative was unable to complete the work because of overcrowding in the home. The operatives recorded that a decant would be required to complete any work due to the resident’s living situation.
23. During this period the potential dangers of the property were highlighted by the resident who reported that the bedroom ceiling had fell onto a child’s bed while they were sleeping. She continued throughout to highlight the distress she felt and the worry that the condition of the property was negatively affecting her and her children’s health.
24. Despite this, the landlord remained consistent stating that no suitable property was available for the resident to be decanted, and therefore no repairs could take place. The landlord’s decant policy says that in “exceptional circumstances properties may be procured from a private landlord where this is needed.” However, there is no evidence to show that it has ever considered or investigated the possibility of a decant to a private property for the resident.
25. Considering the landlord knew that the resident required a decant in April 2022, it is unclear why this option was not investigated at some point during the 2-year period this investigation covers. The landlord’s decant policy does not define what an ‘exceptional’ circumstance is, but given the nature of the resident’s situation we would expect to see some evidence that this was considered by the landlord. The failure to consider this was unreasonable.
26. There is also limited evidence to show the landlord considered the individual circumstances of the resident’s household in its decision making. The resident told the landlord that the property condition was affecting her and her family’s health, but there is little evidence that this was considered in its decision making. For example, we have not seen any risk assessments conducted or specific conversations internally about the resident’s individual circumstances and whether this affected the landlord’s decision making. The fact that the landlord was unable to complete any patch or temporary repairs or treat the damp and mould should have highlighted the need for the landlord to think of alternative ways it could help the resident.
27. In addition to the above, there was a lack of proactive communication with the resident. Throughout the period, the resident had to chase the landlord for updates. The failure to keep the resident updated increased the distress felt and added to the resident’s feeling that the landlord did not take the repairs seriously. The actions of the landlord were unreasonable and did not follow its repair policy aim of “sorting the problem out as efficiently as it can”.
28. The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing and advises that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category 1 under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. This system sets out guidance for landlords on finding hazards in a home. This explains that mould is a threat to physical and mental health. It also set out that structural collapse and falling elements is a hazard which can cause potential injuries.
29. The evidence shows it has been unable to fix any of the disrepair in the resident’s home due to the significant delay in finding a temporary move for the resident. This has become more serious over time as the property has continued to deteriorate with damp and mould present and situations such as plaster from the bedroom ceiling falling on the resident’s child.
30. The evidence does not show that the landlord took any actions to satisfy itself that it was meeting its statutory obligations in relation to the disrepair. The Ombudsman appreciates that temporary moves can be expensive and challenging for the landlord where pressures on the availability of properties is already high. However, this does not excuse the landlord from meeting its obligations. Taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman considers this is severe maladministration.
31. When considering a remedy to this complaint, we have considered the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her home and the distress and inconvenience caused.
32. In our view, it is fair that we consider a rent-based calculation to compensate the resident for the loss of enjoyment of her home between November 2022 to March 2024. While we understand that the issue affected the resident prior to November 2022, this was the point that the repairs became more serious, and the landlord was unable to complete patch or temporary repairs.
33. We have decided that a fair figure to calculate the compensation based on the resident’s rent is 30%. This figure considers the significant loss of enjoyment, but also that the resident was able to still utilise all rooms in her property to some extent. Our remedies guidance suggests that a rent based calculation is considered when there is a loss of enjoyment. This is mirrored in the landlord’s compensation policy which says that it would make such a payment for the loss of a “room, amenity or service”.
34. The calculation of compensation for the loss of enjoyment totals £2,780. This is not meant to be an exact figure but covers the 73 weeks between 1 November 2022 and 21 March 2023. The compensation is rounded up, and broken down as:
    1. £788 for the period between 1 November 202 and 31 March 2023 where the resident was paying £119.26 rent per week.
    2. £1,992 for the period between 1 April 2023 to 21 March 2024 where the resident was paying £130.17 rent per week.
35. In addition to the above, the failings by the landlord caused the resident some significant distress and inconvenience. This was heightened by the lack of effective communication throughout. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered the resident £500 to compensate for this impact. However, when looking at our remedies guidance if there have been serious failings by the landlord that have caused a severe long-term impact a payment of £1,000 and above is suggested.
36. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay an £500 on top of the amount already offered. This suitably recognises the added distress and inconvenience the resident suffered between April 2022 and March 2024 as a result of the landlord’s poor communication.

Complaint handling

37. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it will respond at stage 1 of its process within 10 working days and at stage 2 of its process within 20 working days. If an extension of time is needed, it will contact the resident and provide an update.
38. The landlord’s response at stage 1 to the resident’s formal complaint was reasonable. It acknowledged and responded to the resident within its policy timeframes.
39. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 January 2023. This was incorrectly treated as feedback causing the resident some inconvenience. Even after the landlord contacted her on 8 March 2023 and said she could escalate her complaint, her continued dissatisfaction was not treated as an escalation. This failure to correctly escalate the complaint continued until February 2024 when we asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 complaint response. This failure caused the resident distress, inconvenience and time and trouble.
40. Taking all the circumstances into account, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s escalation is maladministration. Where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact on the case, our remedies guidance suggests a payment of between £100 to £600 is fair.
41. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for the failure to escalate the complaint. This appropriately recognises the impact caused to the resident by the time taken (over 12 months) to receive a stage 2 complaint response

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair in her home, including the need for a decant.
43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

44. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. write an apology to the resident from its senior leader responsible for housing
    2. pay the resident compensation totalling £3,480 (in addition to the £500 already offered), broken down as:
       1. £2,780 for the loss of enjoyment of her home
       2. £500 (in addition to the £500 already offered) for the distress and inconvenience caused due to handling of the disrepair and decant
       3. £200 for the impact of poor complaint handling
45. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide a specific and detailed action plan to the resident and the Ombudsman that shows what steps it will take to address the disrepair within the resident’s home. This should include but is not limited to:
    1. a specific point of contact for the resident and a communication plan which sets out how and when the landlord will provide updates
    2. the specific reasons why no temporary property is available and how it intends to address this
    3. the alternative options available to the resident to enable the repairs to take place
    4. the timescales involved in any actions
46. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review its offer of training to staff handling complaints. Specifically, it should ensure staff are aware of what constitutes an escalation under its complaint policy. It should provide evidence of this review and any actions taken to the Service.

Recommendations

47. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns and consider if any further compensation is due.