From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Haringey London Borough Council (202329072)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329072

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. a leak into her property
    2. damp and mould
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. complaint handling
    2. record keeping

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor of a block of flats. She shares the property with her husband and 2 young children.
  2. On 9 May 2023, the resident reported a leak into her property through the bathroom ceiling. On 14 May 2023, the resident reported that the leak was affecting the electrics in the property. The leak was from the property above owned by the landlord.
  3. On 17 May 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She said that 3 days previously she reported that the leak was continuing, but the landlord did not attend. She was unable to use her bathroom lights which affected her children. The resident sent the landlord an invoice that she had paid for a safety check on the lights. She said that dirty water was dripping into the bathroom, and it was a health and safety hazard. She reported that the leak had caused internal damage to her property.
  4. On 1 June 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It confirmed that the leak was no longer occurring, however, acknowledged that the resident wanted assistance with progressing her claim. As a resolution, it said it would liaise with its insurance team to assist with the claim. It apologised for the inconvenience caused when it failed to notify her that it had repaired the leak. It advised that it would not carry out a mould wash as it did not carry out internal repairs to leasehold properties.
  5. On 9 October 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said that the landlord had left her in toilet wastewater for weeks which caused drain bugs. This caused safety concerns and stress to her children. She was unhappy that she had to live in the flat for 5 weeks while the insurance company made good the internal damage caused by the leak. She also reported having to take baths in the dark for weeks because water had built up in the bathroom light. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted £15,000 compensation. She said that although the repairs were completed, she could still smell mould.
  6. On 8 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the distress caused to the resident. The landlord advised the resident that her building insurance claim was ongoing, and the insurance company could consider her claim for compensation. It acknowledged that the smell of damp persisted after the repairs, however, it said that the smell should go away in time as the dampness clears.
  7. When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She was unhappy with the delay in repairing the leak and the damp and mould in her property. As a resolution, she wanted compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings 

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained how the landlord’s response to the leak caused emotional distress to herself and her children. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. We have however considered general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. The resident placed an insurance claim for internal damage due to the leak, however she was unhappy with how the insurance company handled the repairs. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on this aspect of the complaint as we can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurers.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property

  1. The landlord’s website advises leaseholders that it is responsible for maintaining the outside of the building and if the outside of the building is faulty, for example, a leaking roof, which has affected the inside of the property, the interior work is also likely to be the landlord’s responsibility.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy sets out the following timescales:
    1. Emergency repairs (including major water leaks) – completed within 24 hours.
    2. Agreed appointment (works that the landlord can complete in a single visit) – completed within 28 days.
    3. Planned repairs – initial inspection within 28 days. At the inspection, the landlord will tell the resident when it completes the work.
  3. Where a landlord receives a report of water ingress, it has an obligation to investigate it within a reasonable timeframe and to complete any necessary repairs. The Ombudsman would also expect it to keep the resident informed of its actions and the outcome. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as water ingress. It can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset, especially where more than one property may be involved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failing. A landlord must manage investigations effectively and with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible.
  4. On 17 May 2023, when the resident raised a complaint with the landlord, she said that the leak had started on 9 April 2023. Based on the landlord’s repair records, the resident reported the leak to its out of hours service on 9 May 2023 and on 14 May 2023 she further reported that her electrics had been affected by the leak. Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the leak was reported to the landlord on 9 May 2023.
  5. On 17 May 2023, in her initial complaint to the landlord, the resident reported that the leak was ongoing with “dirty waste pipe water dripping on us” causing a “severe health and safety hazard for my family”. On the same date, the landlord attended. This was an appropriate response time by the landlord when it received a report of a potential health and safety hazard. However, the landlord’s repair records do not document if the leak was a health and safety hazard, or the extent of the damage caused by the leak. This is a record keeping failure which has been assessed separately below.
  6. It is not clear when the landlord repaired the leak. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it was sometime between 9 May 2023, when the resident reported the leak, and 19 May 2023 when the resident emailed the landlord and confirmed that the leak had stopped. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it failed to confirm to the resident that it had fixed the leak. It apologised and assisted with her insurance claim. While these were appropriate actions for the landlord to take, it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. It should have considered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  7. Personal hygiene, sanitation, and drainage are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). If a hazard is a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety, this is known as a category 1 hazard. The complaint from the resident indicates that the risk may have been a category 1 hazard. The evidence indicates that the landlord attended and confirmed that the leak had stopped, however, given the nature of the risk, the landlord should have carried out a risk assessment given the report of a potential sewage leak into the property. It should have considered if the property was habitable or if it could have taken any remedial action to remove or lessen the risk. The landlord’s failure to carry out a risk assessment was inappropriate.
  8. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak. The landlord identified its failure to advise the resident that it had repaired the leak, in response it apologised and assisted with progressing her insurance claim. While these actions were reasonable, it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident.
  9. Based on the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, we cannot determine if the leak was a health and safety hazard, or the exact timeframe it affected the resident. However, the resident reported that she believed it was a health and safety risk, and the leak affected the property for some time between 9 May 2023 and 19 May 2023. This delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident which was not considered by the landlord in its complaint response.
  10. An order for compensation of £250 has been below to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Guidance on Remedies.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The terms of the lease agreement describe the responsibilities of the resident and the landlord in relation to the upkeep of the property. This confirms that the resident is responsible for the upkeep of the internal fixtures and fittings, which would include plasterwork to internal walls and that the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the fabric of the building.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Service published a spotlight report on damp and mould report prior to this complaint. This stated that landlords should have a ‘zero tolerance approach’ to damp and mould. In April 2023, the landlord introduced a damp and mould policy. This policy sets out how it will address damp, mould, and condensation within its tenanted and leasehold housing stock. It sets out that cases of damp and mould will be categorised according to severity. Category 1 hazards are the most serious and the landlord will aim to remove the immediate risk. Actions it will take include mould washes, assessing household vulnerabilities, and temporary accommodation if it cannot remove the immediate risk.
  3. When the resident raised a complaint, she reported a smell of damp from her storage cupboard. The landlord inspected the damp on 24 May 2023, but confirmed in its complaint response that this inspection was raised in error because it was not responsible for internal repairs/making good to leasehold properties. The landlord was responding to a report of a leak for which it was responsible. As such, its position that it was not responsible because resident was a leaseholder, was unreasonable in the circumstances and it did not adhere to its policy.
  4. Based on the landlord’s records, the Ombudsman cannot determine the level of risk. The resident reported “dirty waste pipe water” which indicates a potentially serious risk to which the landlord did not appropriately respond to. The landlord should have determined the level of risk, and considered what actions were required to put things right. Its failure to take any immediate action was unreasonable in the circumstances and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s property. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably. The landlord acted fairly when it helped with the resident’s building insurance claim. The evidence shows that the landlord provided the resident with the leaseholders building insurance details to pursue a claim for the internal damage to her property. The resident confirmed that the insurance company made good the damage in July 2023. While this did put things right for the resident, the landlord’s initial response and reason for not treating the damp and mould was unreasonable.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. While it helped the resident with her insurance claim, it did not respond appropriately to the report of damp in line with its damp and mould policy. This failure caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. An order of £100 compensation has been made below to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.

Complaint handling 

  1. Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights providing an early warning system for significant problems and acting as a catalyst for organisational learning. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right.
  2. Through its complaint process the landlord identified its failure to inform the resident that it had repaired the leak. It apologised and assisted with the resident’s insurance claim. While these were reasonable steps to take it should have identified the potential health and safety hazard and its failure to implement its damp and mould policy. It also failed to consider a compensation offer for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord failed to effectively use its complaint handling process to identify failings and implement learnings to reduce the likelihood of the same failing reoccurring. This represents a service failure.

Record keeping 

  1. This investigation was hampered by the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its repair works. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  2. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted appropriately in line with its obligations. We could not establish what actions the landlord took when it visited the resident’s property or establish the extent of the damage caused to the property. The landlord could not confirm to the resident or the Ombudsman when it repaired the leak or provide evidence in the form of repair notes and records which clearly set out how it responded to the report of a leak.
  3. In this particular case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, the omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. This represents maladministration.

Housing Ombudsman Special Report on London Borough of Haringey

  1. In July 2023, while this complaint was ongoing with the landlord, the Ombudsman issued a special report on the landlord. This report identified failures and made recommendations for improvement for failings including, management of damp and mould, complaint handling, and record keeping. The landlord issued a learning statement with a commitment to improvement in these areas. As such, no orders have been made in this report that would duplicate the landlord’s commitment. A copy of the report and learning statement can be found in the link below.
  2. https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/2023/07/04/ombudsman-uncovers-culture-of-apathy-at-london-landlord-after-special-investigation-report/

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.  
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders 

  1. It is ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £350, compromising:
    1. £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in responding to reports of a leak.
    2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in responding to reports of damp.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.