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

Haringey London Borough Council (202341320)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341320

Haringey London Borough Council

24 April 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 handling of the resident’s report of water ingress.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a lease on a 3-bedroom flat owned by the landlord, a local authority. The flat was let to tenants at the time of the complaint. The resident’s block has a managing agent.
  2. In May 2023 the managing agent for the resident’s property completed a routine inspection. The agent found water penetrating gaps around newly installed windows and issues with the balcony, blistered plaster and noted high moisture readings in some areas. The agent requested an urgent joint inspection with the landlord.
  3. Following a no-access appointment on 25 July 2023, an inspection was conducted by the landlord on 1 December 2023. The inspection recommended a mould wash and plaster repairs. The damp and mould were attributed to insufficient heating and ventilation, rather than water ingress.
  4. On 14 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord, expressing dissatisfaction with the lack of action regarding the water ingress. The resident provided photographs that he claimed showed water penetrating the bricks and originating from the balcony area. On 17 February 2024, the resident inspected the mortar flaking and cracks, questioning the landlord’s conclusion.
  5. A stage 1 response on 28 February 2024 confirmed that window glazing was scheduled to be replaced on 11 March 2024. Additionally, repairs to renew the plaster and mould washes would be completed as the December 2023 inspection recommended. The resident responded the same day, dissatisfied with the response, as he felt it did not address the water ingress issue.
  6. Following the resident’s dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response, he provided additional photographs that he said showed water ingress, prompting the landlord to arrange for a bricklayer to inspect on 29 February 2024. After this inspection, the landlord stated it had scheduled a further inspection to assess the asphalt roof and for the bricklayer to determine if he needed scaffolding to complete the repair.
  7. The resident requested to escalate his complaint again on 8 May 2024. He was unhappy that the landlord was planning to complete internal repairs to the damaged areas before addressing the water ingress issue. He said the scaffolding had not been erected on 24 April 2024, as the landlord had stated it would.
  8. On 13 June 2024 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It confirmed repairs were scheduled on 17 July 2024 to address the damaged brickwork and a further internal inspection was scheduled for 23 July 2024 to check the plaster had not been affected by external works. It acknowledged the delays, offered £350 compensation, and confirmed that it had learned from the complaint relating to its repair management and the coordination of the works.
  9. The resident contacted us in July 2024 due to dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. He stated that the scheduled brickwork for 17 July 2024, had not been completed, and it did not seem logical for the landlord to have replastered before addressing the underlying cause of the leak and asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of the issue.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord confirmed that work to repair the defective brickwork, including relaying, rebuilding, repointing, filling, and sealing, was completed on 20 January 2025.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord must keep the structure of the property in a good state of repair, including the roof, brickwork, and guttering. The resident is responsible for the internal decoration of the property.
  2. According to the landlord’s repairs handbook, residents will receive an appointment within 28 days of reporting a repair, unless it is an emergency that poses a risk to individuals or property, in which case a response will occur within 24 hours. Roof leaks for example are categorised as an ‘agreed appointment’ that will also be addressed within 28 days.
  3. The resident is responsible for maintaining the inside of his property, including decorating. The landlord’s website confirms that if the outside of the building (which the landlord is responsible for repairing) is faulty and this then affects the inside, the interior work is likely to be the landlord’s responsibility.
  4. It is not disputed that the landlord must keep the exterior of the building in good repair, as per the lease agreement. This includes the roof, brickwork, and guttering. When a leak is reported, the landlord must investigate it within 28 days and complete any necessary repairs. We would also expect it to inform the resident of its actions and the outcomes.
  5. On 15 May 2023 the managing agent for the resident inspected the property. During this inspection, they discovered blistered plaster on multiple walls and noted elevated moisture levels. The agent identified 3 potential causes for the water ingress and requested a joint inspection with the landlord. However, the landlord did not confirm that a visit was booked until 10 July 2023, which was scheduled for 25 July 2023, resulting in a 50-working-day delay This was unreasonable and departed from the stipulated 28-day response time outlined in the repairs handbook.
  6. A joint inspection scheduled for 25 July 2023 did not occur because the resident’s tenant was unaware of the appointment, causing further delays. The landlord did not contact the resident or managing agent after the failed visit, to confirm the inspection had not gone ahead. The landlord only relayed it after the managing agent requested an update regarding the inspection. Although the managing agent sought a new appointment, the landlord made no effort to reschedule. This resulted in an additional 4-month period without actions or updates, which was a failure to adhere to the repairs policy timescales and keeping the resident and/or managing agent updated.
  7. The landlord’s communication in this case demonstrates failures in responsiveness, clarity and accountability. Between 30 May to 19 October 2023, despite at least 4 requests from the managing agent, the landlord failed to provide timely updates or a clear plan of action, leaving both the managing agent and the resident without reassurance or progress. The delayed response until 23 October 2023, nearly 5 months after the initial report indicates a lack of urgency and effective communication.
  8. Furthermore, even after the issue was referred to the damp and mould team in October 2023, the need for repeated follow-ups in November 2023 underscores continued poor communication and a failure to proactively inform the managing agent and resident. Internal records confirm confusion over ownership and that the issue was ‘going around in circles’ reflecting the lack of a coordinated approach. Collectively, the failures likely exacerbated the resident’s frustration and delayed the resolution.
  9. The landlord inspected on 1 December 2023, 7 months after the issue was initially reported. While we acknowledge a missed access appointment in May 2023, the landlord has not clarified the subsequent delays, which are unjustified and have increased the resident’s time and effort in resolving the situation issues.
  10. The December 2023 survey reveals no evidence that an external inspection was carried out to identify potential issues with the building’s structure, which could have contributed to the problems reported by the resident. This situation is concerning, particularly because the managing agent identified 3 potential causes of water ingress in May 2023, which were not investigated. Furthermore, the issues raised were attributed to a lack of heating and ventilation. Consequently, the source of the water ingress was neither identified nor resolved in a timely manner which was a failure
  11. In February 2024 the landlord provided a stage 1 response. By that time, 9 months had passed without clarification on the root cause of the water ingress or any completed repairs. The response stated that a window would be replaced on 11 March 2024, and promised to arrange for internal repairs. However, it did not confirm whether the cause of the water ingress had been identified or explain how it would be addressed.
  12. Naturally, this led to concerns for the resident, who wondered why repairs inside the property would occur before the underlying problem was fixed. Our Spotlight Report on Repairs highlights the necessity for landlords to tackle the root causes of issues and to take responsibility to uphold the trust of residents. Despite the 9-month delay at that time, the landlord did not show accountability or a sense of ‘ownership’.
  13. The resident’s complaint included photos showing water entering the property and raised a question about why the landlord’s surveyor overlooked this issue. In response, the landlord scheduled another inspection of the brickwork and balcony for April 2024. The landlord was aware of potential problems as early as May 2023 but did not act proactively. Neglecting to conduct a thorough inspection in December 2023 was unjustifiable, especially after being specifically made aware about possible points of water ingress 7 months earlier.
  14. Furthermore, it was unreasonable that the resident needed to question the surveyors findings, in addition to providing his own evidence to show water ingress before the landlord reinspected to find the root cause of the issue. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) highlights the imperative for landlords to effectively utilise and act on available information without transferring the burden of proof onto residents.
  15. On 28 February 2024, a further inspection revealed water ingress from the balcony’s brickwork, potentially causing the damp issue. A bricklayer was scheduled to visit on 29 February 2024 to assess and report on the situation. Despite this assurance, the resident and managing agent contacted the landlord for updates. A response was given on 7 March 2024, confirming that a roofer needed to inspect the asphalt roof, and an appointment was arranged for a bricklayer to evaluate the scaffolding necessary for the repair of the brickwork beneath the window.
  16. Confusion arose when the landlord stated in an email on 7 March 2024, that it was not responsible for plastering and painting the affected areas of the resident’s flat. Furthermore, this response conflicts with the landlord’s earlier communications, which confirmed that it would complete the internal repairs. As a result, the resident experienced confusion and distress. We acknowledge that the landlord did later confirm it would address the internal repairs, which was a reasonable course of action.
  17. The ongoing delays in completing the repairs were the main reason for the resident’s escalation requests. In its stage 2 response sent on 13 June 2024, the landlord acknowledged its poor coordination and lack of prompt action regarding the report. It apologised for these failures which was reasonable. Additionally, it offered compensation of £350 and confirmed that it had learned lessons from the complaint in its handling of repairs.
  18. Despite reassurances that lessons had been learned from previous mistakes, delays continued even after the landlord’s complaints process was completed. Our Spotlight Report on Repairs highlights the need for prompt and coordinated repairs to avoid worsening residents’ distress. The delays and insufficient proactive communication noted in this case reflected consistent failures on the part of the landlord.
  19. The landlord confirmed that the external works were completed on 20 January 2025, despite being planned for 17 July 2024. This was an excessive and unreasonable delay in the landlord carrying out any meaningful action to address the water ingress into the resident’s property. The landlord took over 20 months to complete the repairs for which it was responsible.
  20. We have found maladministration because the landlord:

a.     delayed inspections and did not complete repairs, breaching its repair commitments

b.     did not find the source of the water ingress promptly

c.      did not adhere to its repairs policy or published information over an extended period

d.     failed to provide sufficient or timely communication, despite repeated requests for updates from both the resident and the managing agent

e.     did not show that it learned from past mistakes, as similar failures occurred after the complaint process concluded

f.        took 20 months to complete external repairs

  1. The landlord did not carry out necessary repairs, causing delays and distress for the resident. Our investigation revealed that the landlord managed the situation poorly, only responding after being prompted by the resident or managing agent. Despite acknowledging some service failures, the landlord’s compensation offer was insufficient for the 20 months of impact on the resident.
  2. In acknowledgment of the resident’s efforts to seek a resolution and the time and trouble he invested, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £300 in compensation due to the 7-month delay in completing repairs for which the landlord was responsible after the stage 2 response. This brings the total compensation to £750, replacing the landlord’s previous offer of £350. Additionally, we have ordered the landlord to identify lessons learned from its handling of this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 February 2024, and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint the same day.
  2. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 28 February 2024 which was within its 10-working day response time, as detailed in its Housing Feedback policy for complaints, compliments and suggestions.
  3. The resident confirmed his dissatisfaction with the response on the same day. Despite his email stating, ‘I’m unhappy with your response,’ the landlord did not acknowledge it as an escalation request. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) specifies that landlords must recognise and act upon clear expressions of dissatisfaction as requests to escalate the complaint to the next stage. The failure to do so was noncompliant with the Code and contributed to avoidable delays in advancing the complaint.
  4. On 8 May 2024, the resident sent another escalation request, which the landlord acknowledged on 14 May 2024. This acknowledgement occurred 5 working days past the landlord’s set target of 20 working days for responses at stage 2. Although this delay was minor, the landlord’s failure to escalate the matter on 28 February 2024 further extended the complaints process, hindering the resident’s ability to bring his complaint to us.
  5. Therefore, we have identified a service failure in the landlord’s handling of complaints and have ordered the landlord to pay £50 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in escalating his complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:

a.     apologised in writing to the resident for the failures we have identified

b.     paid the resident £750 for the time and delay caused to the resident because of its handling of the water ingress – this offer replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £350. If this has already been paid, it should be deducted from the overall amount

c.      £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling

d.     contacted the resident and confirmed that all repairs have been completed satisfactorily. If not, it has been agreed what actions are required and a timescale to complete them

e.     identified why the failures occurred and what steps it has taken or will take to prevent similar mistakes in the future

f.        identified why the escalation request was not acknowledged and how it will address complaints and escalation requests in line with its complaints policy to avoid similar delays in the future.