Haringey London Borough Council (202313032)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313032

Haringey London Borough Council

27 March 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of penetrating damp and mould in the property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder under an agreement dated 14 February 2017. The landlord is a local council. The resident lives in a three bedroom sixth-floor flat in a purpose-built block with three young children.
3. The resident attended an estate surgery on 30 November 2022 where she reported issues of damp and mould in her property. The landlord’s operative inspected the property on 13 December 2022 and advised that there were signs of penetrating damp. This would require repointing work to the external brickwork and there were some missing bricks. A surveyor and roofer would need to visit to ensure there was no further damp other than the defective pointing.
4. The resident’s MP raised a complaint on the resident’s behalf on 8 February 2023. The MP advised the landlord that the external brickwork needed replacing as it was causing damp and mould in the resident’s property. The MP said that the resident had been reporting the issues for three years and it was concerning to hear that there was significant damp in the resident’s son’s bedroom.
5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 23 February 2023. It said:
   1. It was sorry for the delays in progressing the external repairs advising that a staffing issue and supply chain issues had impacted on the timely completion of the work.
   2. It recognised the urgency after considering the resident’s photographs and had escalated the case. It had asked for a plan to resolve the repair aiming to supply this to the resident within 5 working days.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 11 July 2023 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She advised that there had been two surveyor inspections since December 2019. She questioned the necessity for the landlord’s suggestion of a third inspection. As an outcome she requested that the landlord take immediate action and to provide clear details of the work and a timeframe to complete the repairs.
7. The landlord issued its final response on 10 August 2023. It said that staff changes and being unable to trace progress had caused a delay in raising a works order. It said that the work remained outstanding due to supply chain issues and a backlog of scaffolding orders. It had not received a target completion date, and it had contacted its contractor who would notify the resident. It said no further update could be provided until a joint inspection had taken place.
8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred her complaint to us on 20 November 2023. As an outcome, the resident requested that her landlord resolve the brickwork issue to a satisfactory standard and in a timely manner. The resident has requested a detailed schedule of works to clarify the repair requirements and the likely cost to her as a leaseholder. She requested that the landlord provides regular updates.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

9. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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 matter arising. The resident advised us that she had raised an earlier complaint on 3 March 2021 relating to an earlier report from 2019 that did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident subsequently reported the damp again at a surgery on 30 November 2022. The resident’s subsequent complaint that she referred to us was sent to the landlord on 8 February 2023. As such, the Ombudsman will not be able to investigate the issues from 2019.
10. The resident advised us during the investigation that she had carried out some internal works to her property and would like to claim the cost back from the landlord. This did not form part of the resident’s complaint that we have investigated. However, the resident may wish to raise a further complaint to her landlord if she is not satisfied with her landlord’s handling of this matter.
11. For the avoidance of doubt, the Ombudsman’s investigation and assessment will focus on the incidents which occurred from November 2022 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response on 10 August 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of penetrating damp and mould in the property

12. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case. The landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs to the structure of the building under its leasehold repairs policy and under the terms of the lease. Its leasehold repairs policy says that the landlord is responsible for the external fabric of the building. The leaseholder is responsible for the interior of the property.
13. Though it is acknowledged that the resident reported the damp issues at an earlier point, the resident’s subsequent report of damp was made at a surgery on 30 November 2022. The landlord’s initial response was to send an operative on 13 December 2022 who reported back that there was issue with repointing that was causing rain penetration. The appointment was attended to in line the landlord’s routine repair policy timescales which was appropriate. There was a need for a follow up surveyor inspection.
14. According to the landlord’s repairs policy it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 days. For planned works, it will inspect within 28 days and advise at the inspection when the work will be completed.
15. The landlord’s damp and mould policy came into force in April 2023 which postdates the resident’s report of damp on 30 November 2022. However, this policy was in force over part of the resident’s complaint journey and as such is referenced in this report. This is because it would be expected that when it came into force, the landlord would follow its policy in the action taken from that point to address the resident’s reports of damp.
16. The policy broadly aligns with our Spotlight report on damp and mould. It says it will undertake preventative measures to keep the fabric of its building in good condition to prevent rain penetration. The landlord will aim to complete as much of the work required within one visit (right first time). It will prioritise cases where there are children and/or residents with vulnerabilities.
17. There was delay in the landlord’s surveyor’s follow up inspection following its operative’s visit of 13 December 2022. The resident had to chase up the landlord on several occasions prior to her attending her MP’s surgery on 1 February 2023. As she did not get a response, this led to her stage 1 complaint being made by her MP to the landlord on 8 February 2022. The delayed inspection was completed on 13 March 2023 which was three months’ later. This was an unreasonable delay.
18. Whilst it is understood that the landlord reported that its surveyor had left the organisation, the landlord needed to ensure that its record keeping was robust to keep track of any repairs and follow on work. It was inappropriate that this did not happen. Good record keeping allows a landlord to ensure progress of works and to provide detailed and accurate information to its residents. Our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website gives recommendations for landlords to improve records management.
19. At a similar time to the resident’s complaint journey, we carried out a special investigation under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. This recommended that the landlord self-assessed against the Spotlight report. The landlord also said it was completing further work to improve its systems processes. This would be a positive step forward which is welcomed.
20. During this time the resident said that she was trying to mitigate the excess moisture by keeping her windows open to ventilate. This was during the winter period and would have meant not only that the property would be colder, but also that where heating was used, that it would cost more to maintain a reasonable temperature. Had the landlord completed the works within a reasonable timeframe then the resident would not have needed to do this.
21. Following the 13 March 2023 inspection the landlord passed the works to its contractor. When the resident’s councillor sent a chase up email on 27 March 2023 the landlord said its contractor would contact the resident the following week to advise the date that a scaffold would be erected and the works completed. No evidence has been seen that this happened and according to the resident’s timeline, she said that she tried to contact the contractor on several occasions without success.
22. The landlord advised in its stage 1 complaint response of 23 February 2023 of supply chain issues in sourcing scaffolding and it could not say when the scaffolding would be erected. It said in its 13 March 2023 email to the resident’s councillor that it was trying to source additional scaffolding contractors to work through a backlog. We understand that it can take time to procure contractors and that this could impact the overall timescale. However, the landlord could have considered alternative options at this earlier point. For example, the use of a cherry picker or boom lift, especially since it recognised in its stage 1 complaint response that it needed to tackle the damp and mould issues urgently. The evidence shows that the landlord only considered alternative options around three months after its final complaint response of 10 August 2023. This was therefore inappropriate.
23. There was also a delay in the landlord’s contractor acknowledging the order which did not happen until 13 June 2023. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why it took nearly two months for its contractor to acknowledge the order and whether a procurement process had impacted on the timeframe. Either way, it would have been appropriate to expect that the landlord provided suitable updates to the resident throughout this time. It failed to do this which was unreasonable.
24. By this time the landlord’s damp and mould policy was in place. According to the policy, the landlord should have risk assessed the case, but there is no evidence that this happened which was unreasonable, given the landlord knew that the resident had small children in the property. The policy says that cases will be prioritised where there are children and where there are occupants with additional vulnerabilities.
25. The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication was poor. It was primarily the resident, her local councillor and MP who was pushing the landlord for updates and action to be taken to address the damp and mould issues. The landlord was therefore reactive rather than proactive in its communication. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s three emails sent between 6 and 24 January 2024. We have seen no response until the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 23 February 2023, more than two months after the December inspection. This was unreasonable causing the resident unnecessary distress, worry and inconvenience. The resident felt the need to record all events and contacts with the landlord on a timeline. This should have been unnecessary had the landlord provide appropriate updates and completed the works in a timely manner.
26. The landlord also promised in its stage 1 complaint response of 23 February 2023 that it would provide an update within five working days. We have seen no evidence that this happened. The landlord also promised the resident’s councillor five times that it would send updates to the resident between 27 March 2023 and 13 June 2023. However, there is no record of an update being provided which was unreasonable. The evidence considered shows that there was no overall case management of the resident’s repairs case with internal staff passing responsibility for providing an update to operational staff. Then following this, there was no follow up internally to check if any action had been taken which was inappropriate.
27. When the resident reported that the landlord’s contractor had visited the property in her email of 11 July 2023, work had still not been completed. The landlord’s contractor required further funds to do the repairs. On this occasion the landlord did respond the same day which was reasonable. However, it said that a joint inspection was required to confirm the scope of the works. The landlord said that it expected its surveying team to contact the resident, again passing ownership to another team to respond. There is no evidence of a response being sent by the landlord’s surveying team at this time. This was inappropriate.
28. The landlord also displayed a lack of ownership once the resident had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. In an email of 17 July 2023, the landlord said that it was disappointed following its recent communication that the resident felt a need to request a formal complaint. It said that it’s housing feedback team would handle all communication from this point. This was an inappropriate and dismissive response given that the landlord had not provided regular updates up that point.
29. By the time the landlord sent it stage 2 complaint response on 10 August 2023, nearly nine months had passed from the initial November report. The landlord had still not completed the works to repair the brickwork to prevent the penetrating damp in the resident’s property. The resident has advised us during this investigation that to date the landlord has not completed the works to complete the repointing work to remedy the damp penetration. It is now over two years since the resident reported the issue to the landlord in November 2022. This is completely unacceptable and not in line with the landlord’s obligations as set out in its leasehold repairs policy and in its damp and mould policy.
30. The landlord did not consider whether compensation would be appropriate for the service failings identified in line with its compensation policy. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may consider compensation up to £500 in respect of service failures that have occurred over a longer period that had a high impact on the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this given that the repairs were still outstanding and that there had been persistent service failings over this period.
31. In summary:
    1. The landlord failed to progress the required works to repair the defective pointing that was leading to the damp penetration in the resident’s property in line with the lease and its repairing obligations. It’s record keeping did not enable it to keep track of the progress of works and its communication with the resident was inadequate. It failed to give appropriate and timely updates to the resident.
    2. There were unreasonable delays in carrying out any works which were still outstanding at the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 10 August 2023. According to the resident the work remains outstanding to the date of this determination.
32. The Ombudsman considers that the failings identified amounts to severe maladministration for which orders have been made.
33. Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified maladministration or service failure by the landlord. In considering this we take into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
34. To calculate a fair level of compensation we have used a figure of £50 per week to reflect the landlord’s identified failings including the lack of effective communication and ownership, and the excessive unreasonable delays in completing repairs. This has been taken over a 36-week period minus a four week period allowed in the landlord’s repairs policy for routine repairs up until the landlord’s final complaint response of 10 August 2023. This gives a figure of £1,600.
35. In addition, a further payment of £350 is ordered to reflect the distress, worry and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. A further £300 is ordered to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the landlord for a resolution.
36. This results in a total compensation payment of £2,250 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of penetrating damp and mould in the property. This is consistent with our remedies guidance where severe maladministration has been found. This appropriately recognises the upset and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

Complaint handling

37. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days from acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaint responses were generally sent within the policy timescales with the stage 1 complaint response being sent within 12 working days of the complaint being made. Its stage 2 response was made within 18 working days of the complaint being made which was reasonable.
38. There was, however, a lack of detail or information in both stage 1 and stage 2 responses that would assure the resident that the outcomes she sought would be achieved. The landlord promised an update at stage 1 that was not subsequently delivered as mentioned above. The landlord in its final complaint response said it would not update the resident until it had carried out a joint inspection. However, no date was given for this joint inspection. The landlord’s final response would have given the resident little assurance that anything was going to happen to resolve the issues she had raised with damp penetration. This was not appropriate.
39. The landlord gave no apology in its final complaint response of 10 August 2023 for the additional delay which was unreasonable. It failed to answer the resident’s identified outcomes. To complete the work and to provide a timeframe for this.
40. Section 9.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether service improvements can be made because of any learning from the complaint. The landlord did not demonstrate learning from the complaint to prevent failings from recurring which was inappropriate.
41. The Ombudsman considers that these failings amount to service failure for which orders have been made.
42. In considering what is a fair level of compensation in respect of the identified service failings, in line with our Guidance on Remedies, as above, compensation of £100 has been ordered to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s identified complaint handling failings.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of penetrating damp and mould in the property.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

45. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident from a senior leader in respect of the failings outlined in this report.
46. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £2,250 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of penetrating damp and mould in the property, comprising:
    1. £1,600 for the lack of effective communication and ownership, and the excessive unreasonable delays in completing repairs.
    2. £350 in respect of the associated distress, worry and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
    3. £300 in respect of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in providing appropriate updates.
47. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident in respect of the lack of information provided in its complaint responses and lack of identified learning.
48. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a detailed schedule of works outlining the anticipated completion dates.
49. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a senior management review of the case to identify what learning it can take from the case to prevent similar failings from occurring.
50. The landlord should send evidence of compliance with the above orders to us within the timescales given.