Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Haringey London Borough Council (202329469)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329469

Haringey London Borough Council

31 October 2024


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:
    1. Reports of water ingress and the associated repairs.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. He lives in flat situated in a larger block with his wife and son.
  2. On 30 January 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said that he had been raising an issue with water ingress above his flat, which he believed was caused by blocked gutters, sporadically since 11 December 2020. He said that no action to clear the gutters had been taken. He said he had raised a repair again in July 2022, since which he had sent “countless emails”. He raised a new repair in December 2022, but the works had not progressed. He explained that excessive water ingress was causing continuous damage to the property, including damp and mould, which was causing his son breathing problems, and asked the landlord to put things right.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 13 February 2023. It explained that the blockage had been partly cleared on 27 July 2022 but scaffolding was required to complete the works. The landlord “regretted that there had been delays” in erecting scaffolding and would be attending with a “sky vac” on 20 and 21 March 2023.
  4. The resident thanked the landlord for its response on 27 February 2023 and asked to escalate his complaint. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not responded to the element of his complaint regarding damage to the interior of the property and resulting damp problems. He said that water ingress continued. He requested the internal damage and decor be remediated.
  5. The resident chased the landlord on 9 and 20 March 2023. The gutters were cleared on 20 and 21 March 2023.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 23 March 2023 explaining that the works were now done but that it was not responsible for the internal repairs as the resident was a leaseholder. It  directed the resident instead to both his own and the landlord’s insurer.
  7. On 27 April 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said the reasons the resident remained unhappy were that “the sky hoover has made the issue worse” and that water was still leaking into the property. It said that it identified some works to ensure rainwater was correctly falling into gutters. It added that “the main resolution to water spilling over the gutters is to carry out regular clearances (a Preventative Maintenance Program), this was also a recommendation made by the Major Works team after they completed their works. Unfortunately, [the team] failed to plan this in and only reacted to the reports of damp water ingress”. It said that a preventative maintenance program should have been created and that it “found fault” with how long it had taken to put that in place. It said further clearances were now scheduled for dates in 2023 and 2024. Details of a further inspection of the guttering would be provided by 15 May 2023.
  8. The resident chased the landlord frequently between 4 May 2023 and 5 July 2023. He explained that water ingress and damp issues were getting worse and that his 2-year-old son had developed a “persistent cough”. He requested urgent health and safety inspections to the building and action to be taken. He reminded the landlord he was legally unable to hire his own contractors because the structure of the building was the landlord’s responsibility.
  9. On 28 July 2023 the landlord told the resident that scaffolding was awaiting sign off and an urgent reminder had been sent to management that day. It said that once the roofing works were complete, it would arrange remedial works and damp treatment inside the property.
  10. On 18 December 2023 the resident approached the Ombudsman. He wanted the landlord to fix the guttering (and resolve any water ingress issues), maintain the gutters regularly, and complete remedial works inside the property.
  11. The landlord wrote to all residents of the block to say that it had completed some works to the rear of the building on 25 January 2024 but some further works remained outstanding.
  12. The works to the guttering and structure of the building were completed on 14 March 2024. The resident reported that the landlord completed internal repairs to his property in approximately August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident reported throughout the period of assessment that the landlord’s handling of the water ingress issues and the subsequent damp and mould directly caused or contributed to illnesses or health conditions. The Ombudsman cannot draw any conclusions as to the likely cause of any adverse health impacts experienced by the resident. This is better suited to the courts, where cross examinations of medical evidence can be conducted by appropriate medico-legal expert witnesses.
  2. The resident’s wife explained that the stress caused by the landlord’s actions/inaction directly contributed to her suffering a miscarriage during the period of assessment. We were very sorry to hear of this and have the deepest sympathies. As above, we are unable to draw any conclusions as to the causes of the miscarriage suffered. The Ombudsman has however taken an overall view of the adverse effect suffered by the resident and his family, including distress, for which this description of the levels of distress experience has been duly borne in mind.
  3. The resident expressed dissatisfaction to the Ombudsman about some aspects of the landlord’s handling of other issues, such as remedial works in the summer of 2024. We have however been unable to investigate these concerns. This is because paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. If the resident has any outstanding concerns, these should be raised with the landlord via its internal complaints procedure.
  4. The resident explained that the issues investigated in this case date back to 2020. The resident reports having completed the internal complaints process on a number of occasions in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Paragraph 42.b of the Scheme however states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. The resident first approached the Ombudsman in November 2023, meaning that complaints which were concluded prior to November 2022 are not investigated here. The landlord has provided evidence relating to this complaint, raised on 30 January 2023, from July 2022 onwards. The Ombudsman has determined this to be the most appropriate starting point for this investigation.

Water ingress and the associated repairs

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (DRP’s) are to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right, and to ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that a blocked or leaking drain will be attended within 1 working day. A leaking roof will be attended within 7 working days. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook for Residents sets out than most reactive repairs should be completed within 28 days.
  3. The causes of water ingress in this case are at times unclear, and there is suggestion that multiple factors may have contributed, including works being needed to drains/guttering, and the structure/roof of the block. Works were reported in July 2022, but ultimately were not completed until 14 March 2024. It would not be reasonable given the scope of these works to expect the landlord to have adhered to the 28-day timescale set out in its Repairs Handbook. However, the delays were nevertheless significantly excessive, unreasonable, and represent a failing.
  4. The reasons for the delays were varying, complex, and at times unclear. There is evidence of a number of mitigating factors, including that the works required were complex, and that inspections carried out by the landlord often revealed the need for further works or repairs to be scheduled. However, there were also long delays which were unreasonable. Examples of some of the factors which contributed to the delays seen by this investigation included:
    1. Roofers attended to clear a blockage in the guttering on 18 August 2022 but needed scaffolding. The evidence shows that scaffolding had already been raised in July 2022, however the landlord’s contract with its scaffolder had come to an end. Scaffolding was due to be erected by a new contractor in September 2022 but was not erected until December 2022 due to a “change in requirements”. It is unclear what this meant.
    2. The landlord later said that it had already decided that the works could instead be carried out by a “sky vac” machine, which did not require use of the scaffold, but the machine had not yet been purchased. It is unclear when the machine became available to the landlord. It is unclear why it continued to opt for this option once the scaffold was already in place. The communication about this repair was poor. The evidence shows that this job was not reraised until 17 December 2022 and the landlord did not complete it until 21 March 2023. This was a failing. No other works or investigations, which it later transpired were necessary, took place in the meantime. Further works were required after this to further repair the guttering.
    3. The repair logs show that the operatives who attended to complete an inspection on 27 February 2023 noted the need for repointing and roof works. It is unclear if this was contributing to some of the water ingress experienced, or if this repair was required before other works could take place. No works were completed before the scaffolding contractor ceased trading in May 2023, leaving the scaffold in situ and causing further delays.
    4. A new contractor took ownership of the scaffold in June 2023 but works were not booked in until September 2023. The reason for this delay in starting the works is unclear.
    5. A survey which appeared to be needed was not completed until 8 November 2023. Various changes in requirements of the scaffolding were raised after this time, each contributing to further delays in completing the works, which were eventually completed on 14 March 2024.
  5. The scaffolding situation appears to be an unusual occurrence where multiple events and legal considerations contributed to delays. This has been borne in mind as a mitigating factor, however the delays were ultimately excessive and unreasonable, and water ingress and the resulting adverse effect to the residents continued during this time. There is little evidence that the landlord took steps to reduce the delays, or to try and speed works up where possible, during this time. This was a failing, because the resident was chasing frequently and advising that the resulting damp and mould was having a significant health impact on his young son during this time.
  6. The landlord acknowledged that some of the water ingress caused by the guttering issue were caused because it failed to complete regular maintenance and clearance of the guttering as needed. The landlord was right to acknowledge this and put it right by implementing a new Preventative Maintenance Program. However, some of these scheduled appointments could not be completed because of the ongoing works, such as on 16 February 2024. Furthermore, although the landlord was clear in multiple pieces of correspondence that it should and would take responsibility for this going forward, there is no evidence that any further regular clearances took place after the works concluded in March 2024. The resident reported that living nearby to a park, this posed problems in the autumn months due to falling leaves and they were worried issues would reoccur. This was a further failing. There is no evidence that this oversight has led to any adverse effect yet. The landlord is thereby ordered to produce and adhere to a new schedule of maintenance.
  7. During the period in question, the evidence shows the resulting impact of the landlord’s delays in resolving the water ingress was significant. Some records of correspondence are missing, though the resident’s account that he had been reporting damp and mould from a time before the period of assessment appears highly likely. This investigation saw images of some of the areas of the property affected, which showed significant fungal growth present. Both parties were aware and in agreement that internal remedial works could not reasonably be considered until the causes of water ingress were comprehensively addressed. Regardless of the landlord’s responsibilities as the freeholder, the landlord could have taken a number of steps to mitigate the adverse effect such as conduct regular interim mould washes, provide a dehumidifier and contribute towards running costs, or give the resident advice on treating the mould in the meantime. This is especially concerning as the resident had repeatedly advised of the adverse effect to health at the property. The resident also made requests that a health and safety inspection (of the damp and mould) be conducted, but there is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request. Some inspections and internal works did eventually take place, but significantly outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s Repairs Handbook. Overall, there is little evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concerns about the impact the leak and resulting damp was having on the household seriously. This was a failing.
  8. The resident also reported that he suffered extensive damage to interior of the property and his belongings. Although the extent of this is unclear, it is evident that the resident suffered a significant and prolonged period of lost enjoyment of his property due to the damp. It was also unreasonable that the resident had scaffolding on the building for approximately 18 months, which further impacted the resident’s enjoyment. As a reflection of the notional loss of enjoyment caused by the extended water ingress and subsequent remedial works, an order is made below that the landlord pay £600 compensation to the resident.
  9. When internal remedial works later took place, the resident reported excessive disruption due to further failings by the landlord in its handling of those works. This has not been factored into the above compensation, because the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of remedial works did not complete the internal complaints process.  
  10. The resident was also frustrated that the landlord initially appeared to imply it would take responsibility for internal remedial works, before later clarifying in March 2023 that, because the resident was a leaseholder, the responsibility was his. In doing this, the landlord followed its Responsive Repairs Policy which states that “if there is damage to [a] leaseholders’ belongings from a leak, they will need to claim this from their content’s insurance. If there is damage to a leaseholder’s home, they can make a claim on our building’s insurance”. The resident was dissatisfied with this however and went to extensive time and trouble to challenge the landlord’s position.
  11. The landlord’s policy also states that “if the outside condition of the property is faulty (such as a leaking roof) and this then affects the inside, the interior work is likely to be landlord’s responsibility.” The landlord later took responsibility for the interior on 28 July 2023, which was a fair decision to take in the circumstances. This delay in coming to its decision did not appear to contribute to delays in undertaking the works, as it was necessary to wait for the external works to be completed first. It did however increase the resident’s frustration and time and trouble. It should have been clear to the landlord at an earlier stage that its failing in resolving the external repair in good time meant it was reasonable for it to take responsibility to put right the damage this caused.
  12. The evidence shows that overall, the time and trouble gone to by the resident was significant. The resident emailed the landlord frequently throughout the period seen, which likely extended back to July 2022, although as above there is no correspondence available from that time. Records suggest the resident called regularly, which on many occasions led to frustration due to poor communication from the landlord, including a lack of updates or clarity on the progress of ongoing repairs. This was a significant contributing factor to the resident’s subsequent loss of faith in the landlord. The Ombudsman has determined that compensation of £500 should be paid to the resident, in respect of the time and trouble gone to during this period. This is in line with our remedies guidance that suggest amounts of up to £600 compensation should be considered where there was maladministration which adversely affected the resident, but the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.
  13. The landlord’s handling of the water ingress issues also caused significant distress to the resident and his family. Correspondence frequently shows high levels of distress, for example due to concern and anxiety for their son’s health, which they felt powerless to change because they had no right to engage their own contractors to make repairs to the structure of the property, which was required to start remedial works. They explained to this service that they also could not look to sell the property while structural works were outstanding. For large periods of time, there was internal damage which the residents had no assurances would be repaired by the landlord. Since the repairs have been completed, the residents have experienced anxiety about the issues recuring because the Preventative Maintenance Program has not been followed. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there have been failings that have had a significant and long-term impact on the resident, compensation of over £1,000 should be considered. This is separate from the award made for loss of enjoyment. As such, a further £800 compensation is ordered to reflect the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident. This brings the total compensation awarded in this case to £1,900.
  14. In conclusion, the landlord eventually took most of the actions necessary to put right the complaint, without intervention by this service. However, the delays experienced were excessive and the adverse effect significant, even when mitigating factors were taken into account. Some actions which were promised to prevent issues from recuring were also not taken. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress and the associated repairs.
  15. The resident explained to this service that their main priority was to ensure that the landlord has learned from outcomes. The Ombudsman has considered this extensively but has determined in this case that no further learning-based orders are warranted at this time. This is partly because some of the key factors in the delays stemmed from an unusual situation which is unlikely reoccur. There is no evidence to suggest that the failings seen in addition to this were in any way systemic.
  16. Additionally, in July 2023 the Ombudsman completed a Special Report about the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It made a number of recommendations, including about the handling of leaseholder complaints, its approach to damp and mould, the way it deals with vulnerable residents, disrepair, and record keeping. The Ombudsman also notes that during some of the time period covered, the Regulator of Social Housing had been in contact with the landlord and a number of improvements and changes to its service were due to be implemented as a result, particularly regarding its practices around damp, mould, and water ingress. It is unlikely that enough time had passed at that point for the resident to have experienced improvements based on the aforementioned interventions.

Complaint Handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the standard of complaint handling by which the landlord should adhere. The Code explains that the landlord should respond to all elements of a resident’s complaint. All complaint responses should be clearly labelled, to show which stage of the procedure the complaint is at. The stage 1 complaint response was not clearly labelled. It also failed to respond to all of the issues raised, for example the resident’s concerns about the damage that had been caused to the inside of the property.
  2. This failing was further exacerbated because the landlord took 2 months to issue its stage 2 complaint response, despite multiple chasers from the resident. This failing caused frustration to the resident, as well as causing him to go to additional time and trouble. The Code states that a stage 2 complaint response should be responded to within 20 days of it being logged.
  3. The Code defines a complaint as an “expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. Following the conclusion of the internal complaints procedure in April 2023, the resident made a number of further expressions of dissatisfaction, for example about a lack of progress on works which had been promised in May 2023. The landlord should have raised these issues as new complaints, to ensure that it had the opportunity to identify any further failings and consider how best to put things right.
  4. Although the landlord accepted that there had been a number of failings its stage 2 complaint response which had adversely affected the resident, the landlord did not do enough to adequately put things right. The landlord did seek to arrange appropriate works to resolve the issues, however it did not seek to put things right, for example by making an offer of compensation. This was a failing. In conclusion, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £75 to reflect the time, trouble, and frustration which resulted from the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £1,975 compensation, made up of:
      1. £600 to reflect the resident’s likely loss of enjoyment of the property from July 2022 to March 2024.
      2. £500 to reflect the time and trouble the resident went to.
      3. £800 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family.
      4. £75 to reflect the time, trouble, and frustration caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    2. Issue a formal apology to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must produce a Preventative Maintenance Program to keep the guttering in working order. It must then write to the resident, outlining the program and committing to adhere to it.