Haringey London Borough Council (202315658)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315658

Haringey London Borough Council

12 May 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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about a roof leak and a rotten window ledge.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. At the time of the issues in 2022 the resident told the landlord that she was 84 and lived alone.
The resident told the landlord on 12 July 2022 her bedroom window ledge was rotten. She also said on 25 October 2022 that water was entering the property through her bedroom ceiling. The landlord sent contractors to carry out a repair to the window ledge between August and December 2022. Works did not go ahead during this time due to the wrong contractor attending and because scaffolding was required for both the window and repairs to the roof.
The resident made a complaint about the lack of repairs via her councillor on 13 February 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint at stage 1 and said it had experienced difficulties sourcing scaffolding. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this response. The landlord sent a second stage 1 response addressing the lack of scaffolding.
The resident escalated the complaint on 14 May 2023. She chased a response on a number of occasions. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 23 October 2023 and apologised for the delays to complete the repairs. As part of its response it clarified the roof leak had been fixed. It said it had inspected the window and had decided to replace it. It offered £500 compensation for the effect of the delayed repairs on the resident.
The resident referred her case to us on 24 October 2023. She said as follows:
1. Scaffolding had been put up on 2 June 2023. She had been unable to open her windows since. She felt “depressed and caged” in the property. She was concerned about the health implications of this.
2. She asked for the window to be replaced at the landlord’s expense, the scaffolding removed and for compensation.
On 3 November 2023 the landlord recorded the window work had been completed. The resident confirmed this to and said the work had been completed satisfactorily.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Within her communication, the resident said the situation had harmed her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to this through the courts. While we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, if we identify a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result.

Response to the resident’s concerns about a roof leak and a rotten window ledge

As a leaseholder, the resident pays the landlord a service charge. This includes an amount for the upkeep and maintenance of the building. It is not in dispute that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing window frames and the roof of the building.
The landlord recorded an internal note on its systems on 12 July 2022 that a wooden window ledge at the resident’s property was “completely rotten”. It noted the issue be treated as urgent. This was on or around an inspection that took place on 31 August 2022.
The resident reported on 25 October 2022 there was water entering through her bedroom ceiling. This was the same room with the rotten window ledge.
A contractor attended on 31 October 2022 in respect of the window. However it was unable to conduct any work due to the wrong contractor having been booked. It took until on 8 December 2022 for a window contractor to attend. On that occasion, they could not carry out the necessary work as scaffolding was needed.
The resident told the landlord on 22 December 2022 about the effect the outstanding issues were having on her. She said she lived alone, was vulnerable and the landlord’s inaction had caused her “considerable distress”. The evidence shows following this update from the resident, it took the landlord almost a month to respond to her concern. It contacted her on 17 January 2023 when it apologised for the delay in responding. However, it did not provide an explanation for the amount of time it took for it to respond. It said works to address the leak would take place on 17 February 2023. The evidence shows these works did not go ahead due to not having scaffolding in place.
The resident involved her councillor, who contacted the landlord on 13 February 2023. The following day the landlord committed to try and speed up the repair and said it would treat the matter as a complaint.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 28 February 2023. It said as follows:
1. The complaint was upheld.
2. It summarised its actions taken to date and said contractors had attended on 4 occasions between 12 July and 8 December 2022. The work had not gone ahead as the jobs had been assigned incorrectly. When it had attended in December 2022, it found scaffolding was needed.
3. It had experienced difficulties in sourcing scaffolding. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused. Once scaffolding was in place, it would “expedite” the repairs.
4. Once the repairs were resolved, it would liaise with its insurance team to help progress any claim for damages caused by the leak.
5. It should have a further update within the next 4-6 weeks.
Our analysis of the landlord’s stage 1 response has identified the following issues:
1. The landlord knew the repairs the resident reported were for a leaking roof and repairs to the window ledge of a first floor flat.
2. The landlord did not identify scaffolding would be required until December 2022. This was around 6 months after the resident had reported the issue with the window. It is reasonable to assume it would be apparent from the onset of the resident’s complaint that scaffolding would be required to conduct the repairs.
The resident raised her ongoing concerns on 6 March 2023. She said as follows:
1. She had been raising the issues for 8 months and had sent a number of emails. Appointments had not gone ahead.
2. There had been scaffolding erected at other properties belonging to the landlord. She queried the landlord’s difficulty in sourcing it.
3. She asked for a refund of her management and insurance fees for the period from July 2022 to when the issues were resolved.
The landlord responded to the resident by sending a second stage 1 response on 20 March 2023. It said as follows:
1. Works had been passed to its contractor. It apologised it did not know a start date.
2. The supply of scaffolding had been intermittent with “several supply freezes” since July 2022. As such, some scaffolding had been put up for older orders predating July 2022. However, scaffolding supply has ceased as of January 2023.
Within this second response the landlord explained the difficulty in securing scaffolding. However, it failed to consider what the impact on the resident was in a way that related to her complaint. Its response did not detail when it anticipated the scaffolding supply issue to be resolved or how it would ensure it met its repair obligations. The response did not seek to acknowledge the distress or inconvenience caused by the delay. Given the already prolonged wait for the works to commence, it is reasonable to expect the landlord should of attempted to put things right for the delays at this stage.
The resident chased the work on 11 April 2023 and reiterated her vulnerability. It took the landlord 2 weeks to respond to her concern. It advised her on 25 April 2023 it had told its contractor the work was urgent. It apologised for the delay.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 May 2023. She reiterated her dissatisfaction the work had not started. She requested compensation for the “extensive delay” and the “associated stress and distress” caused.
Scaffolding was put up on 2 June 2023. The resident chased the work again on 27 June 2023. She also said since the scaffolding had been put up she could not open her windows and the property was hot.
The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. It was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales. The HHSRS states a lack of ventilation in a property could be a hazard.
Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the property is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
Whilst it is acknowledged the scaffolding was required in order to carry out the repairs, there is no evidence that the landlord considered how it could support the vulnerable resident in the circumstances, for example, by providing fans. As such, it failed to show it had considered the possible hazard posed by a property being unable to be ventilated in the heat.
The landlord completed works to the roof on 20 July 2023 works. The landlord’s repairs handbook says that “agreed appointment” repairs will be completed in 28 days. It gives an example of this type of repair as a roof leak. In this case, it took the landlord around 9 months (25 October 2022 to 20 July 2023) to repair the roof. The time taken to repair was not in line with its repairs policy.
During this time, it was aware that water was entering the ceiling of the resident’s bedroom. Damp and mould are hazards which the landlord is required to take action to investigate and respond to in a timely manner. Damp and mould have the potential to cause health issues.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the ongoing nature of the leak. The landlord has provided evidence it asked the contractor to treat the repair as urgent. However, there is no evidence the contractor did so. In the circumstances the landlord did not seek alternative options, such as approaching an alternative contractor or trying to source scaffolding elsewhere. Instead, it inappropriately relied on the lack of availability of scaffolding as a reason to leave the leak unresolved.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 23 October. It said as follows:
1. It apologised for the delayed response.
2. The roof work had been completed. It apologised for the time this had taken and the distress caused. It acknowledged that for 6 months the resident had not been able to open her windows due to scaffolding for the roof repair. It had asked the contractor to take the scaffolding down urgently.
3. It had reviewed the condition of the window and found it and another window needed to be replaced. As such, it had cancelled the work to replace the ledge. As a leaseholder, the cost of the replacement would be borne by the resident and that it would enter consultation with her about the matter.
4. It apologised for the time taken to action the repairs and remove the scaffolding. It offered £500 compensation for the impact and inconvenience of this.
Although the landlord apologised for the delays, it did not acknowledge it had contributed to the delay by not realising that scaffolding was needed. It failed to demonstrate it had taken any steps to support the resident during the time she could not ventilate the property due to scaffolding being in place. It is noted that following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord completed work to the window on 3 November 2023. It is not clear if this was replacement of the ledge or the whole window. However, we have noted the resident was satisfied with the work.
In summary, it took the landlord just under 16 months to repair the window (12 July 2022 to 3 November 2023). The length of time to resolve the issue was far beyond the landlord’s policy timescales, or the time the resident could reasonably have expected for the issue to be resolved. As such, the landlord’s delays were unreasonable.
It is noted that some of this delay was due to scaffolding being in place to address the roof repair. It was appropriate for the landlord to prioritise the roof repair due to water entering the property. However, due to its initial failures to send appropriate contractors for the window repair or put up scaffolding to repair the window, these failures contributed to the unreasonable delay in the window issue being resolved.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s offer of £500 compensation was within a range we would expect where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident but caused no permanent impact. Although this went some way to address the failures, it was insufficient to acknowledge the effect on the resident who was vulnerable and the 16 months repairs were outgoing.
We recognise the landlord did attempt to chase its contractor on a number of occasions to express the urgency of the matter, however, it failed to consider other options when it became clear the contractor had not carried out the work in a reasonable time. This was evidence of the landlord failing to manage the resident’s complaint holistically and identifying the impact the continued delays were having on her as a vulnerable person
These failures combined lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a roof leak and a rotten window ledge.
To acknowledge the effect of the failures on the resident, we have ordered an additional £200 compensation. This takes account of the period of time the issues were unresolved, the resident’s vulnerability and the landlord’s lack of proactively looking for other ways to respond. This brings the total compensation for the substantive issue to £700. This is within our range of compensation awards where there was a failure which had a significant impact on a resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within a further 20 working days. If additional time is needed, it will keep the resident informed.
The landlord treated the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction sent to her councillor on 13 February 2023 as a complaint. It responded to this at stage 1 on 28 February 2023. This was in line with the timeframe of its complaints procedure.
On 6 March 2023 the resident outlined her dissatisfaction with both the response and the delays caused by the need for scaffolding. Instead of treating this as an escalation request, the landlord sent a second stage 1 response on 20 March 2023. This was contrary to both its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 14 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged this outside of the timeframe allowed by its policy on 24 May 2023.
The resident chased a response on 27 June 2023. The landlord apologised and said it did not have “adequate information” to respond. It aimed to do so within 7 days. Our Code makes it clear it is not appropriate for landlords to delay responding to complaints on the basis that they do not have sufficient evidence.
The landlord did not send the stage 2 response until 23 October 2023. This was around 5 months after the escalation request. This timeframe was significantly outside of its complaints policy and our Code. Although the landlord apologised for taking too long to respond, it did not provide any other redress for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delayed response. The combined failures lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
To acknowledge the effect of the landlord’s complaint handling failures on the resident, we have ordered £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a failure has adversely affected a resident.
In December 2024 we identified complaint handling issues by the landlord in another case (our reference 202330177). We ordered the landlord to review its complaint handling, which it subsequently did. As such, no further order had been made in respect of reviewing its complaint handling in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a roof leak and a rotten window ledge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. Pay a total of £900 compensation to the resident. This amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £500 compensation. The landlord can deduct this amount if it can provide evidence this has already been paid. The compensation is made up as follows:
  1. £700 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a roof leak and a rotten window ledge.
  2. £200 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord update its records to reflect the resident’s vulnerability.