Haringey London Borough Council (202314857)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314857

Haringey London Borough Council

20 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak from the roof and subsequent damp and mould.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities.
The landlord had carried out repair works to the roof of the resident’s building in May 2022.
On 23 October 2022 the resident reported a leak from the roof. Water had leaked into all 3 bedrooms and the bathroom in her flat.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 7 November 2022. She said when the leak happened she had to stay at her sisters house for a few days and her belongings were damaged. She asked the landlord to fix the roof earlier than the date it had given of 7 December 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 November 2022. It said:
1. It attended the resident’s property on 25 October 2022 to make it safe.
2. It could not bring the appointment to fix the roof forward due to its operatives availability. Once the roof was repaired it would complete internal repairs.
3. It would contact the resident to arrange an asbestos survey.
4. On 6 January 2023 it would carry out a mould wash and redecorate.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 7 July 2023. She said:
1. No repairs had been carried out.
2. There was further deterioration of the areas affected by the leak, and mould was growing.
3. It had not updated her regarding the removal or containment of the asbestos.
4. The situation was impacting her physical and mental health.
5. She wanted the landlord to prioritise the repairs, instruct a professional company to assess the asbestos and pay compensation for her damaged belongings.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 August 2023. It said:
1. It could not establish from its records whether it had completed a mould wash. It had booked one in for 6 September 2023.
2. A dehumidifier would be delivered on 14 August 2023.
3. The asbestos survey had been carried out, it would liaise with its asbestos team to ensure there were no further delays with the plastering works.
4. It could not establish from its records what internal repairs were needed, therefore, it would carry out another inspection.
5. It acknowledged it had got things wrong and said it would review its processes, its communication with residents and record keeping. It offered the resident £563 compensation for the delays and time and trouble.
6. It provided the resident with its public liability insurers details so she could make a claim for the damage to her belongings.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told us she has made several complaints to the landlord about leaks and damp and mould. This investigation has focussed on the issues the resident raised in her complaint to the landlord dated 7 November 2022. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of these issues from October 2022 to the end of its formal complaint’s procedure in August 2023.
The resident raised concerns about the impact of the leak, damp, mould and asbestos on their health. We can consider whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action has caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, we are unable to establish whether the resident’s health and wellbeing was impacted. This would be down to a court to decide.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof and subsequent damp and mould

We find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof and subsequent damp and mould. The reasons for our findings are below.
The resident reported a leak from the roof to the landlord on 23 October 2022. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will treat leaks as an emergency repair and will inspect the property within 24 hours. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 25 October 2022, this was just outside its target timescale.
In the resident’s complaint she expressed concerns that the landlord was not carrying out an inspection of the roof until 7 December 2023. This was over 1 month after she had reported the leak. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged her concerns but said it was unable to bring the appointment forward due to it’s operative’s diary being full.
While the landlord demonstrated that it had attempted to bring forward the appointment, it failed to consider any alternative solutions or the likely detriment that may have been caused. It could have considered appointing an external provider to identify the source of the leak where it had limited resources of its own. It may also have been able to put in place a temporary repair while planning a permanent remedy. By leaving the appointment for a month after the resident’s initial report, it would likely have caused further damage to her home.
No evidence was provided to show the landlord inspected the roof or investigated the cause of the leak. The landlord’s records state in December 2022 the roofer went to the wrong job, and that scaffolding was needed. In March 2023 the landlord closed the roofing repair as it said the resident had not reported any further leaks. There was no evidence the landlord told the resident what it determined the cause of the leak was. This was a failure which caused the resident significant distress.
The landlord’s records show that between March and September 2023 there was confusion between its departments on whether the roof needed repairs before it completed the internal repairs. Landlords must ensure the effective operation of communication channels between different parties. This will ensure that all parties have access to accurate and current information which can be passed to and from the resident and will avoid unnecessary delays.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged it had no record of what internal repairs were required. This was 10 months after the resident reported the leak and damage to her home. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 8 August 2023, its operative stated the ceiling in bedroom 1 was at a high risk of falling in. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities, yet it left her to deal with the leak and subsequent damp and mould with no interim measures or support for a significant period of time. There was no evidence the landlord considered a decant, and it failed to provide a dehumidifier until August 2023, 10 months after the leak. The resident was left with no clear action plan of a resolution. This caused her significant distress and impacted the residents ability to enjoy her home.
The landlord was notified that the property may contain asbestos by its operative on 25 October 2022. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to request an asbestos survey. The survey was completed on 26 January 2023, this was 3 months after the leak had damaged the bedroom ceilings. At the time the landlord was notified of the asbestos there was no evidence it assessed the potential risk, communicated this to the resident or considered all available options and appropriate mitigation measures whilst it instructed a survey. The resident raised concerns about the impact of the asbestos on her and her household’s health. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns showing a lack of empathy. If the landlord had discussed the resident’s concerns with her and showed it had considered the potential risks, this may have helped to alleviate her worries.
There was evidence of poor communication from the landlord throughout this investigation. The landlord was responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits will take place, and notifying the resident if delays were expected. The lack of communication from the landlord left the resident in a position where she did not know if or when the leak or the internal repairs would be resolved. This led her to chase updates from the landlord. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it expected all works to be completed on 6 September 2023. In it’s explanation to this Service, it said the resident had told it the leak had been resolved and the internal work to remedy the damp and mould was completed on 24 July 2024. However, it’s records show that in August 2024 the specialist asbestos team stated that works were still outstanding. The landlord has not given an explanation of the cause of the leak. It has not provided any evidence that the recommended works from the asbestos survey or the internal repairs have been completed.
Landlords are required to create and maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that they have complied with their policies and procedures. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. There was a failure in this case to record information about all of its repair appointments, and its communication with the resident and contractors. This lack of records was likely to have affected the landlord’s ability to manage its investigations into the cause of the leak, damp, and mould, and the works needed to resolve it.
The resident raised concerns about the damage from the leak to her belongings. The landlord acted appropriately by providing the resident with details on how she could make a claim through its public liability insurance. It was positive that the landlord also offered her advice and support in how to seek financial support to replace her belongings. However, if the damage had been caused due to an unreasonable delay in the landlord resolving the leak, damp, and mould in line with its repair obligations then it should have considered providing compensation to reflect this.
In summary the landlord has not provided any evidence it determined the cause of the leak. There were delays in it inspecting the asbestos and the required internal repairs. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities. It also failed to show it considered a decant, any temporary measures and it did not provide adequate support. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £563 compensation for the delay in carrying out the remedial work and for her time and trouble.
Although this redress was in line with its compensation policy, the landlord failed to show it had learnt from the complaint. There was continuing poor communication and it is unclear from the evidence if it has completed all remedial works. While the offer of £563 compensation was reasonable at conclusion of the complaints process, further compensation should be awarded given the landlord failed to resolve the substantive issue for a significant period of time after its final complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

We find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The reasons for our findings are below.
The landlord did not provide a copy of its complaints process as part of its evidence to this Service. However, its website states that complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code and we have, therefore, used this information to determine how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 7 November 2022. There was no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It did not confirm the resident’s complaint issues or the outcome she sought and did not provide a timescale for when she should expect its response.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 November 2022. This was within its target timescale of 10 working days.
The resident escalated her complaint on 7 July 2023. Again, there was no evidence the landlord acknowledged this or provided a timescale for its response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 August 2023. This was within its target timescale of 20 working days.
While the landlord complied with its response timescales in issuing its responses, there was evidence of poor communication with the resident. This would likely have added to the resident’s frustration. The landlord failed to recognise its failings or demonstrate any learning from the complaint. It also failed to offer any redress. We have ordered the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof and subsequent damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1063 compensation. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not paid onto their rent account, unless the resident requests this. The compensation is broken down as:
  1. £563 which was offered to the resident in the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 7 August 2023, if this has not already been paid.
  2. £500 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of their reports of a leak from the roof and subsequent damp and mould.
3. Write to the resident and inform them what the cause of the leak was in October 2022 and what action was taken to resolve it. The landlord should confirm whether it thinks the issue has been resolved permanently, or whether further works are required. If further works are required the landlord must provide the resident with a schedule of works and the estimated timescales for the completion of these works.
4. Write to the resident and confirm if all the recommended works from the asbestos survey and remedial works from the inspection in August 2023 have been completed. If further works are needed the landlord must agree a plan of works with the resident, including timescales for the works.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its staff’s training needs to ensure its staff:
1. Respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progresses works orders in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures. Making sure residents are updated and informed about appointments and delays.
2. Are keeping relevant records up to date and making sure information is accessible to all relevant parties.
3. Respond to formal complaints appropriately. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its policies and procedures and the Complaint Handling Code.