Haringey London Borough Council (202332472)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332472

Haringey London Borough Council

17 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 reports of:
1. Concerns about their housing allocation.
2. Low water pressure.
3. Excessive cold temperatures in the property.
4. Damp, mould, and condensation in the property.
5. Anti-social behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident occupies the property under a secured tenancy agreement and has done so since 2014. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat which the resident shares with their child.
The resident first reported to the landlord that the property has low water pressure in 2014. The property has a history of leaks, and the resident has previously reported water ingress via the windows. On 23 February 2023 the resident reported there was mould in the property. On 18 March 2023 the landlord conducted a damp, mould, and condensation inspection.
On 21 March 2023 the resident emailed their local Member of Parliament (MP) about the property. The resident’s MP forwarded this email onto the landlord on 27 March 2023. The landlord handled the MP’s email as a complaint.
In the resident’s email to their MP, they said:
1. Since moving into the property, they had been bathing their child with a bucket and cup because the low water pressure meant the bath and shower did not work sufficiently to wash.
2. The landlord had previously said the water pressure was low as the property was on the ground floor, and it would not install an electric pump to assist with the water pressure due to the associated costs.
3. They struggled to heat the property adequately.
4. There was mould in the property, and the resident felt this had an impact on their health as they been prescribed to use steroid inhalers.
5. Previous leaks in the property had caused damage to the flooring, and the property constantly smelled damp.
6. People took drugs outside of the property, this caused them to feel intimidated and distressed.
7. They wanted to move to a 2-bedroom home. They wanted to move from their current property due to the issues and because they wanted their child to have their own bedroom. They had tried to apply for a 2-bedroom property, but they had not been successful.
On 16 May 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident’s MP. The landlord said:
1. The resident had been allocated as band C for housing priority, and this was appropriate for their circumstances. There was a significant wait time for rehousing band C residents.
2. The resident had been provided with information about how to report ASB, and the resident had been assigned a caseworker to support them during this process.
3. The repairs team would provide a response relating to the water pressure and property condition concerns.
After the landlord provided its stage one response on 16 May 2023 its repairs team did not send an additional response.
On 15 June 2023 the resident escalated their complaint as they were unhappy with how long the issues had been ongoing for.
In its stage 2 response dated 21 July 2023, the landlord said:
1. The resident had been allocated a band C priority for housing since 2019, and it had previously advised them of other options they could consider.
2. For it to act on the ASB allegations, the resident needed to provide specific details about times, dates, locations, and the persons involved. It said ASB concerns needed to be reported via the landlord’s dedicated ASB channels and concerns should not be reported via its complaints procedure.
3. The resident had spoken with a housing officer on 4 May 2023 about the ASB. However, the housing officer had not passed on any details to the ASB team, so an ASB case was not opened. The landlord apologised for this.
4. The resident had discussed the ASB with the landlord on 20 July 2023, and the landlord had agreed to pass on the resident’s concerns to its safer neighbourhood team.
5. Following an inspection on 15 March 2023, the landlord had arranged for a damp and mould wash and for a plumber to investigate the water pressure.
6. On 11 and 12 July 2023 the landlord completed a damp and mould wash and installed dehumidifiers. It planned to collect the dehumidifiers on 25 July 2023, and following this, it would continually monitor the property.
7. The landlord was looking into installing a water pump to rectify the water pressure issues.
8. The landlord needed to conduct an inspection in relation to the resident’s concerns around heating the property.
On 17 January 2024 the resident brought their complaint to this service. The resident said they lived in constant fear of damp, mould, and leaks and they felt the condition of the property was unliveable.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall under the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) are responsible for investigating complaints about a local authority’s allocation of housing and priority banding.
The resident has cited concerns over the local authority’s allocation of housing, and of their priority banding; however, this complaint would fall under the jurisdiction of the LGSCO.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s housing allocation is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has advised that they had been reporting issues with the water pressure for several years prior to their formal complaint.
The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of the matters arising. This is normally considered to be 12 months. This is so the landlord can formally investigate the concern and take appropriate action.
The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s earlier reports of the issue; however, in line with the Ombudsman’s approach, this investigation has focused on the period beginning 27 March 2022, being 12 months prior to the formal complaint made by the resident’s MP.
The Ombudsman is also unable to consider matters that have not first been responded to through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This is so the landlord has the opportunity to formally provide its position on a complaint and take action to rectify any identified failings.
The resident has advised that when the landlord installed the water tank to resolve the pressure issues, this caused new issues with the hot water supply.
While the Ombudsman does not doubt these reports, given that these issues occurred after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process, the landlord has not been able to formally respond. These issues are therefore outside of the scope of this investigation. The resident has the option to raise these concerns as a new formal complaint should they remain concerned.
Finally, the resident has expressed distress over the damp and mould affecting their health. While this has been noted for context, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, a resident’s health and wellbeing. Claims of personal injury are more appropriate for an insurance claim or a determination by a court after considering medical evidence. However, consideration has been given to the resident’s general distress associated with the landlord’s service delivery.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of low water pressure

Under the landlord’s repairs policy, if a repair is classed as an emergency, it will attend within 24 hours. When a repair is not an emergency, then the landlord will aim to attend within 28 days via an agreed appointment.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer compensation when a resident is adversely affected by the landlord’s actions or lack of actions. The landlord can offer residents £5 to £10 per week in recognition of time and trouble experienced. Or it can offer a resident £10 to £40 per week to reflect exceptional circumstances, or for compassionate reasons.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective, and lasting repairs once it becomes aware a repair is required. Under this act, landlords must keep in good repair and working order installations which supply running water. This includes bath facilities and other fittings which use the supply of water.
The Housing Act 2004 incorporated the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) into law. The HHRS is a system for assessing housing conditions via a list of 29 matters and circumstances that could give rise to hazards. Included in the list of potential hazards is water for domestic purposes. This includes the quality and adequacy of the supply of water for purposes of cooking, washing, and bathing.
The landlord’s records show the resident reported poor water pressure on 15 December 2014, 30 August 2016, 17 October 2022, and 18 March 2023. The landlord was asked to provide details of actions it took following the above reports. The landlord has told this service it has no records of actions taken.
In the resident’s complaint, they said they had been washing with a bucket and cup for several years due to the low water pressure making their shower and bath unusable. The resident said they wanted the issue rectified so their child could wash independently as they were getting older.
Considering the content of the Housing Act 2004 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1984, the landlord should have identified the resident’s lack of bathing facilities as a serious concern. It should have taken quick and decisive steps to investigate and rectify the issue.
The landlord was again notified of its responsibility to investigate on 27 March 2023 when the resident’s MP contacted the landlord. On 22 May 2023 a plumber conducted an inspection. This was 57 days after the resident’s MP contacted the landlord. The timing of the inspection was unreasonably long considering the landlord’s repairs policy and the impact the issue was having on the resident.
During the inspection, the plumber recorded that the water pressure issues were a known problem in the wider block, and that some flats had already had water pumps installed. The plumber said the only way the issue would be rectified was by installing a water pump.
Given that other residents had works completed to rectify the issue, it is unclear why this was not considered for the resident’s property. This is of particular concern to the Ombudsman as the resident had first reported the issue in 2014. Meaning, the landlord would have been aware that the resident had been living in the property without an adequate flow of water for several years.
Internal communications from the landlord show that on 6 July 2023, it began to arrange for a water pump to be installed. This was 46 days after the inspection occurred. The landlord then discussed if installing a new boiler rather than a water pump would rectify the issues. Following this conversation, the landlord did not take any concrete actions to rectify the water pressure, and the issue went unresolved. This was unreasonable considering how long the issues had been outstanding for. The landlord’s lack of action would have caused the resident to feel unheard.
The resident has told this Service the landlord repaired the low water pressure on 14 August 2024 by installing a new water tank. The landlord has said they have no records to identify when or how the low water pressure was resolved. When it was asked to provide details of the work taken, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm if the repair had been resolved and what work it had conducted. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have ensured it kept adequate records rather than relying on the resident.
The details provided show that the landlord was aware of the water pressure issues for the 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint. The issues were not then resolved until 506 days after the landlord received the resident’s complaint. This was an unacceptable length of time for the resident and their child to be unable to adequately bathe.
In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord did not offer the resident an apology or any redress for the water pressure issues. This was inappropriate considering the long-term impact on the resident. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said any required repairs for the water pressure issues were subject to an inspection. It did not provide the resident with any details on its decision making or on its projected timescales.
The landlord’s response to the complaint was inappropriate, and it was not in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles. The Ombudsman expects when responding to complaints landlords are to be fair, learn from mistakes, and put things right. The landlord did not act in this manner.
In summary, there were considerable delays in the landlord completing an adequate investigation of the resident’s reports. It is not evident it considered the impact on the resident or their family, nor did it consider whether any alternative washing facilities were required prior to completing any works. The landlord’s communication and record keeping were also insufficient. When considering the length of time that the resident was unable to use their bathing facilities and the impact this had, the Ombudsman considers severe maladministration occurred.
The Ombudsman has used the landlord’s compensation policy to determine adequate compensation for the lack of bathing facilities in the property. There was a period of 124 weeks from the beginning of this investigation until the matter was rectified. Therefore, an order for £1,240 compensation has been ordered to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The Ombudsman finds the upper scale to be appropriate considering the finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the property is excessively cold

The HHRS list of potential hazards also includes if a property has excessively cold indoor temperatures.
In their complaint, the resident said below their property there is an empty garage. They said this means the floors are cold and they struggle to heat the property as the radiators are old.
On 20 July 2023 a surveyor attended the property to assess the resident’s heating concerns. This was 116 days after the landlord received the resident’s complaint. This response time was inappropriate, as it was significantly outside the timescales within the landlord’s repairs policy.
In its stage 2 response dated 21 July 2023 the landlord said the heating issues were subject to an inspection, and its repairs team would be in touch with the resident about this. It did not provide any timeframe for an update. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest this inspection occurred.
The resident has said the landlord has not taken action to assist with heating the property, and it has only advised them to contact local charities regarding the associated costs. It is not evident that the landlord assessed if there were steps it could have taken to insulate the property or garage or otherwise provided a position on the adequacy of the insulation of the property. While it was helpful to signpost to charities, this advice alone was not sufficient and likely made the resident feel their concerns were being dismissed.
The Ombudsman has asked the landlord for an update on the steps it has taken to address the heating issues. The landlord said it installed new double-glazing windows on 6 May 2025 and new extractor fans on 20 May 2025. The landlord did not provide an explanation to how this related to the resident’s concerns about heating, as the works appear to be linked to its response to reported damp and mould
In summary, while the landlord appropriately arranged an inspection, this did not occur in a timely manner. Additionally, while it appropriately signposted the resident to support, it failed to provide meaningful updates following any inspections despite raising expectations in its formal responses. It also failed to provide any position on the adequacy of the insulation and its responsibility for any improvements.
Considering the failings identified, the Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred. Orders have been made for the landlord to inspect the property and the garage to assess if any steps can be taken to improve the heating issues. The Ombudsman has also ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400.

The landlord’s handling of damp mould and condensation in the property

The landlord introduced a damp and mould policy in April 2023. When a resident reports damp and mould, the landlord commits to responding within 5 working days. The landlord will assess the risk and the severity of the situation, and this will inform how it responds:
1. If the matter is assessed as a slight or typical hazard, the landlord will attend within 28 working days in-line with its repairs policy.
2. If the matter is assessed as a moderate risk, a surveyor will attend within 5 working days and agree a schedule of works with the resident. The landlord will keep the matter under review once the works have been completed.
3. If the matter is assessed as a serious hazard, the landlord will conduct an emergency inspection within one working day, and it will apply a mould wash. It will aim to fully complete any associated repairs within 3 months.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer compensation when a resident is adversely affected by the landlord’s actions or lack of actions. The policy also advises residents to take out contents insurance.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
2. Identify complex cases at an early stage.
3. Regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken to resolve reports of damp and mould.
The landlord’s and the resident’s records indicate there were leaks into the property on 25 January 2018, 16 December 2019, 1 May 2022, 8 February 2023, and 29 November 2023.
On 3 November 2022 the resident also reported that water was leaking through the windows when it was raining. On 23 February 2023 the resident reported that there was condensation within their double-glazed windows. This indicated that as well as the leaks, there was additional moisture entering the home.
Following the 23 February 2023 report and due to the recent leak, the landlord arranged for a damp and mould inspection to occur, this was appropriate.
The landlord inspected the property on 18 March 2023, this was 24 days after the resident’s reports of condensation. Given that this was prior to the introduction of the landlord’s dedicated policy, this response time was appropriate and in-line with the landlord’s repairs policy, which at the time informed its response to damp and mould. The inspector considered the mould to be medium in severity, and they raised works for the landlord to replace the defective windows and conduct a mould wash.
Following the inspection, the landlord did not progress the repairs to the windows. It is also not evident it provided the resident with a position on any repairs or an expected timeline. This would have caused distress for the resident.
Where there are immediate issues with damp and mould in a property, it is reasonable for landlords to consider interim mitigating works. In this case, the landlord conducted a mould wash on 11 and 12 July 2023. However, this was 116 days after the issue was raised. This response time was unreasonable, and it was not in-line with the landlord’s policies. This also meant the resident had to live with the damp and mould present in their property for considerably longer than they needed to.
The landlord also delivered a dehumidifier to the resident’s property. This was appropriate given the property was damp. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord said it would be collecting the dehumidifier on 25 July 2023. Given that it had not yet determined the caused of the damp and mould or taken steps to provide a permanent solution, it was unreasonable that the landlord removed the dehumidifier without reassuring the resident about a permanent resolution to the issues.
On 11 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say they had removed flooring from the property as it was damp. In such circumstances, the landlord’s compensation policy notes it will consider compensation for damage caused by its actions or lack of actions. Additionally, it may refer the resident to their insurer or its own liability insurer. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports of damage or subsequently provided any position or advice regarding insurance. This was a failing. As such, the Ombudsman has ordered for the landlord to outline its position on the damaged items.
In its complaint responses, the landlord did not offer an apology or any redress for its handling of the damp and mould issues. This was inappropriate as the landlord had not handled the damp and mould issues in-line with its policies, and this would have caused the resident distress.
It is evident that the landlord took additional steps in 2025 to address the damp and mould; however, this was only after the resident referred their complaint to this Service.
On 17 March 2025 the landlord conducted an inspection of the property. Following the inspection the landlord completed the following works:
1. On 7 April 2025 the landlord completed a mould wash. It then completed redecoration works on 16 April 2025.
2. On 6 May 2025 the landlord installed new double-glazed windows.
3. On 20 May 2025 the landlord installed new extractor fans.
The resident has told this Service that the landlord’s recent repairs have largely been successful. Currently there is only a small amount of mould in the property which is located behind the wardrobes.
While it is positive that the resident now feels comfortable with the state of their property, the Ombudsman considers the landlord was too slow in addressing the damp and mould:
1. The landlord should have identified the matter as a complex case and acted accordingly at an early stage.
2. It delayed in taking mitigating action such as the mould wash.
3. It unreasonably removed the dehumidifiers prior to determining a permanent solution to the issue.
4. It took 550 days to replace the windows following the works being raised by its surveyor.
Ultimately, it took the landlord 785 days to address the damp and mould following the resident’s complaint. Given this significant delay, and the impact it had on the resident, a finding of severe maladministration has been made. The Ombudsman has made orders for the landlord to pay compensation of £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience this caused, and for it to inspect the mould the resident has identified behind a wardrobe.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that ASB can be reported in person, by phone, by email, and through its dedicated reporting channels.
When it receives a report of ASB, the landlord will:
1. Assess the associated harm and risk.
2. Categorise the ASB as low or high level.
3. Assign the resident a case handler who will keep the resident updated on steps taken.
4. Produce an action plan.
5. If applicable, it will work with third parties, use preventative measures, and consider legal action to address the ASB.
In the resident’s complaint, they said ASB was occurring in the vicinity of their property, and this included drug taking. The resident said they were scared to open their windows because of the ASB.
After receiving the resident’s complaint on 31 March 2023, the landlord said it discussed with the resident how they could report ASB concerns. On 4 May 2023 the landlord spoke with the resident about their ASB concerns. Notes from this call show the resident provided descriptions of perpetrators, as well as details of the locations of where the ASB had occurred. On 20 July 2023 the landlord and the resident discussed the ASB again, and it advised the resident to contact the police for serious incidents.
After speaking with the resident on each occasion, the landlord did not risk assess the allegations, categorise the ASB, or make an action plan. This was a failing. The lack of action from the landlord would have caused the resident to feel their concerns were not being taken seriously.
In its formal responses, the landlord said the resident would need to report ASB via its dedicated reporting channels, and they would need to include details of times, dates, and locations. While it was helpful to explain the best way to report ASB, this approach ignored its policy, which allows for numerous ways to report ASB. Given that the resident had previously provided the landlord with details of perpetrators, times, and locations during the 4 May 2023 call, the landlord should have followed up on the resident’s reports, which it failed to do.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for its failure to progress the resident’s ASB concerns following the 4 May 2023 phone call. It said after the call, its housing officer had not passed on details to its ASB team, and a case was not opened. The landlord said in recognition of this failing it had arranged for a housing officer to speak with the resident on 20 July 2023. While it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failing and take action to progress matters, given that it had identified a failing, it missed the opportunity to consider if any other remedies were necessary to repair the landlord/tenant relationship. It also still not evident that the landlord has since followed its policy to address the ASB.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The landlord did not follow its ASB policy after the resident made reports on 4 May 2023 and 20 July 2023.
2. The landlord asked the resident to supply evidence of the ASB when they had already done so.
3. The landlord admitted failings in how it handled the resident’s reports on 4 May 2023, but it did not appropriately remedy the situation by then addressing the resident’s concerns in-line with its policy.
Considering the finding of maladministration, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £400. This amount is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where a landlord’s failings have negatively impacted the resident.
The resident has told this Service the situation has not improved and there are ongoing issues in the neighbourhood which cause them distress. The resident said they had given up reporting ASB, as they felt the landlord has continually let them down. To address this, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to meet the resident in person to discuss the ASB and create an action plan.

The landlord’s complaints handling

This Service has requested a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy, but the landlord has not provided this document. As such, the Ombudsman will assess the landlord’s actions against this Service’s complaints handling code (the Code). The Code outlines standards landlords should adhere to when handling complaints.
Under the Code, landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord should acknowledge this request within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
On 27 March 2023 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord, and the landlord considered this email to be a complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 March 2023, this was in-line with the code. The landlord told the MP it would provide a response by 13 April 2023. On 5 May 2023 the MP chased the landlord for a response. It was inappropriate that the landlord missed its stated timeframe without providing the MP with prior notice of any delays.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 May 2023, 32 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was not in-line with the Code.
On 15 June 2023 the landlord asked the resident if they wished to escalate their complaint to a stage 2, which the resident confirmed. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 27 working days later on 21 July 2023. This was also not in-line with the Code.
Given the unreasonable delays to the landlord’s responses, the Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred.
Considering the finding of maladministration, the Ombudsman has made orders for the landlord to pay compensation of £100, being £50 for each delayed response.

Determination

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s housing allocation is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the low water pressure.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports that the property was excessively cold.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reported ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £3,140 to the resident. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £1,240 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the water pressure issues.
2. £400 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of excessive cold.
3. £1,000 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
4. £400 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of reported ASB.
5. £100 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s complaints handling.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident and:
  1. Apologise, and outline how it intends to make improvements. A copy of this document is to be provided to the Ombudsman.
  2. Confirm its stance on compensating for the items damaged by the damp and mould, it is to include details of its liability insurers should the resident wish to make a claim.
2. Arrange an inspection:
  1. Of the property and the below garage and provide a position on the heating issues.
  2. Of the remaining damp and mould in the property and arrange any works to rectify this.
Within 6 weeks of this determination the landlord is to meet with the resident in person to discuss the ASB and create a formal, agreed action plan.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within 6 weeks of the determination date.