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

Haringey London Borough Council (202423177)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423177

Haringey London Borough Council

23 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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to the front entrance door.
    2. Reports about leaks and associated damage.
    3. Concerns about the condition of brickwork.
    4. Reports of faulty radiators.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She occupies a 2-bedroom terraced house with her daughter and grandson. The resident is disabled and has mobility issues. The resident’s daughter also has health conditions and the resident’s grandson has breathing difficulties. The resident’s daughter acted as her representative during the complaint – both will be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
  2. In September 2021 the landlord raised a work order following a report of a leak from the shower affecting the bedroom, and work including renewing bath and flooring appeared completed around March 2022. In November 2021, the landlord raised a work order following a report of water ingress when it rained affecting the top floor bedroom. The landlord carried out work to the roof in June 2022.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 October 2023. She said the leak from the bathroom, which was previously attended, now continued and affected the kitchen and hallway. The resident said the landlord did make efforts to resolve the matter including retiling, changing flooring and re-plastering, but the household now continued to experience water ingress into the ground floor when using the shower. The resident advised the leak caused damage to her kitchen which she installed herself. She also complained about deterioration of masonry at the front of the property, that bricks were falling apart, and a piece of brick recently fell on her. The resident added that she had experienced continuing issues with the front entrance door. She said the door often stopped locking and did not close properly which she felt posed a security risk. She added that, despite her efforts to address the matter, this was not fixed. As an outcome, she wanted the repairs completed and compensation.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 March 2024. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the delayed response. Regarding the leak, the landlord said it had carried out repairs in June 2022, but received further reports that the leak was unresolved. Its plumber had attended a repair in the bathroom on 24 November 2023 but further remedial repairs were required. The landlord arranged a survey for 16 April 2024 and said it would book any recommended works. With respect to damage to brickwork, it said an inspection took place in November 2023 but follow on works were not booked. It said it now planned external remedial works for 22 May 2024. Regarding the front door, it arranged another inspection for 26 March 2024 as a result of which it may adjust/repair the door. It awarded compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience due to the delays in repairs. It also noted that, separate from the resident’s complaint, she said she had not had a working radiator in the living room since summer 2023 and informed her it would treat this matter as urgent.
  5. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 16 August 2024. She said despite multiple promises from the landlord that it would complete the works, repairs were still outstanding and had been for over 3 years. She said the household was vulnerable and that she had spent money to handle repairs herself.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 27 September 2024. It apologised for the delay in progressing the outstanding work. It said its surveyor attended on 16 April 2024 to identify the scope of works following report of leak from the bathroom to kitchen and hallway but the occupants advised they were not well enough for an inspection, and a card was left to rearrange the appointment. It said it had not been contacted to rearrange this appointment, but an operative attended on 24 September 2024 and said that wall repairs would be looked at under the leak repair job. It added it would contact the resident within 10 working days regarding an appointment for follow on remedial works. Regarding the radiator repair, it apologised that this was not actioned sooner. It added its contractor attended on 13 September 2024 where it found radiators were faulty and resolved them on 20 September 2024. As regards the outstanding door repair, it apologised for the delay and said that the job was initially raised against an incorrect address. It said a new job would be attended on 18 October 2024, and that its team had identified a number of unread emails from the resident which likely delays matters. It apologised and provided a link for the resident to update a repair or log a new one. In recognition of delay in progressing radiator and door repairs, it offered a further £100 compensation.
  7. In the resident’s referral to the Ombudsman, she advised that works remained outstanding including front entrance door and leaks. The resident said there were two leaks, one from the main roof into the bathroom, and another from the bathroom down into the kitchen. She said the household had no heating for over 4 days while the faulty radiators were being fixed and noted that the radiator in the living room was not fixed for several years. She added that she herself paid for the repair of the radiator in the living room in 2024. She stated that the front entrance door remained a security risk as the handle can be pulled off and the door pushed open.
  8. The resident advised that the landlord and its contractor attended in March 2025 and agreed the whole door needed changing. In March 2025, the landlord indicated a survey would take place to produce a schedule of works to ensure outstanding issues were resolved. The resident added the landlord promised scaffolding in the first week of April 2025, but this was not done. As an outcome, she wanted the issues fixed and further compensation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint to us, she said that issues including leaks and faulty radiators had been going on for several years since 2020. While this may be the case, we think it would be reasonable for the resident to raise a complaint about the issues at an earlier time, and how the time that has since passed without doing do impact the Ombudsman’s ability to reliably assess the facts. Accordingly, this report will focus on the relevant events from the resident’s formal complaint of October 2023 to the landlord’s final response of September 2024 and any commitments it made. Events outside this period are referred to for contextual background
  2. The Ombudsman also notes the resident’s assertion that the situation negatively impacted the household’s health. It is beyond the expertise of the service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health.
  3. Where there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused, and this investigation will consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and obligations and whether it acted fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the front entrance door

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord has an obligation to keep the structure, exterior and common parts of the building in good repair and to keep in repair and proper working order the installations for space heating as provided by the landlord. The landlord’s repair handbook dated September 2024 states emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 calendar days, and routine repairs within 28 calendar days. The landlord’s repair responsibilities state external door repairs and a lock not working should be treated as an emergency. In the event a door is usable but has a sticking lock, this should be treated as an urgent repair for vulnerable tenants. The Ombudsman recognises that this policy was not available at the time of the resident’s complaint in October 2023, but is referenced to as a sensible guide.
  2. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of repairs with the front door. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. As part of the resident’s complaint on 6 October 2023, she said there was “an ongoing issue with the front door” and that “there are times when the door simply stops locking”. She added that on two occasions the household was unable to exit the property due to the door issue and had to call the fire brigade for assistance. From the landlord’s records, we cannot see any evidence that this was raised with the landlord prior to 6 October 2023. 
  4. In the stage 1 response, the landlord advised that it could not see an open job for this repair. Given that such an issue with an external door should have been treated as an emergency repair or at least an urgent repair, the landlord should have swiftly arranged for a repair or renewal of the door. The landlord did not arrange for an inspection of the door until 26 March 2024 and, even then, it was raised against an incorrect address. Indeed, the resident confirmed in April 2024 that the landlord did not attend this repair on 26 March 2024, and there is no evidence per its records that it attempted to do so subsequently. The resident continued to chase on 17 June 2024 regarding outstanding repairs.
  5. Despite the resident escalating the complaint in August 2024 and approaching the Ombudsman for assistance, the landlord did not raise a correct work order for the resident’s front entrance door until 20 September 2024 – almost 1 year after the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord attended on 6 December 2024 and said the door needed adjusting. Yet, in its submissions to the Ombudsman in March 2025, the landlord confirmed this job was outstanding. This amounts to over 570 calendar days after her initial complaint and represents a significant delay.
  6. From the outset, the resident had expressed her concern about security risks, potential break-ins, and the vulnerable nature of the household. It is unclear why the landlord did not treat the matter with more urgency particularly considering the resident reporting in her formal complaint that she had had to resort to contacting the fire brigade on more than one occasion. The landlord’s final response stated it raised a new job to attend on 18 October 2024. However, it is unclear if this was attended. It is noted the resident said in December 2024 there were several recent visits where a member of landlord staff attended, but advised the door could not be changed and opted for a repair.
  7. Additionally, the landlord confirmed in its final response that its repair team located a number of emails in a team inbox which were unread. The landlord considered that, had these emails been read, works may have progressed sooner and acknowledged this service failure. While the landlord apologised for this and said its team were working on how they can better manage their mailbox, the resident’s front entrance door issues remained outstanding despite her concerted efforts to progress matters. Moreover, the Ombudsman has seen that the landlord appeared to have no record of the resident’s queries raised – only details of the repairs report. This likely affected the landlord’s ability to determine what had happened and when, which is indicative of poor record keeping.
  8. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. In this case, the inadequate record keeping has hindered the service from being able to fully ascertain what took place and, therefore, the full extent of the detriment. However, no orders have been made in this respect as the Ombudsman published a special report on London Borough of Haringey in July 2023 where we made recommendations regarding Knowledge and Information Management. We have seen the landlord has since taken steps to improve this.
  9. Overall, the landlord failed to treat this an either an emergency or urgent repair; it was informed in October 2023 and it confirmed the job remained outstanding in March 2025 – well over a year after the landlord was definitively on notice. This caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident who was concerned about the security and safety of her household. The landlord missed a number of opportunities to resolve the door issue sooner and it is apparent that it failed to co-ordinate works appropriately.
  10. While the landlord offered some compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays with the front entrance door repair, it is unclear what the breakdown of compensation related to. Additionally, the compensation offered was insufficient considering the extent of the delay and resulting detriment to the vulnerable household. The resident confirmed to us that the £150 offered at stage 1 was paid to her. However, she did not accept the £100 offered at stage 2. This has been considered as part of the orders.

The landlord’s handling of reports about leaks and associated damage

  1. The landlord’s repair handbook states it will treat leaks as an emergency repair and it aims to visit the property, inspect the damage, and repair the leak and affected areas if needed, within 24 hours. The handbook goes on to say other damage might take longer to repair depending on drying time and scope of works. If there is damage to tenants’ belongings from a leak, they will need to claim this from their household contents insurance.
  2. The landlord confirmed a leak from the roof was reported in 2021 and resolved this in June 2022. Subsequently, the resident reported in October 2023 that a leak came through the bathroom and had extended to the kitchen and hallway. She added that, when using the shower in the bathroom upstairs, water leaked into the ground floor. In the resident’s referral to this service, she said there were two leaks – one from the main roof into the bathroom and one from the bathroom into the ground floor kitchen. The resident said she felt this was due to a piping issue with the bath and that the roof was slanted which may affect run off.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that a plumber attended 24 November 2023 and carried out a repair in the bathroom; however, it is unclear exactly what actions were taken. The landlord went on to say that the resident explained the leak was resolved but there were subsequent remedial repairs and damage to be put right. It arranged for an appointment for 16 April 2024 to survey the works needed; however, the landlord said the resident was unable to provide access as she was not well enough. 
  4. Given the emergency nature of the leak, the landlord should have proactively contacted the resident to rearrange the appointment at a mutually convenient time. In the resident’s escalation request of August 2024 she said she had been waiting for over 3 years for the leak to be repaired, although the resident could have also requested an appointment when she was better.
  5. Following this, the landlord’s said its repairs team arranged an appointment for a surveyor to attend on 24 September 2024 when it said it would need to raise further appointments for follow on remedial works. Given the initial complaint of October 2023, the landlord did not act with the relevant urgency particularly considering it should have treated a leak as an emergency and considered the vulnerable nature of the household. Instead, it seemed to arrange follow on appointments after its attendance and did not take any meaningful action to address the root cause of the leak and resolve it within its policy timescales. Additionally, in the landlord’s final response, while it recognised and apologised for the delays, it did not offer any further compensation to put matters right. This would have been appropriate considering the length of delay in resolving leaks.
  6. In the landlord’s submissions to us, it said that regrettably no works have taken place since the surveyor’s inspection on 24 September 2024. It said it found evidence of damp in the bathroom and kitchen, and a plumber was required to check pipework and a roofer was required to check the roof. The landlord’s repair service acknowledges poor record keeping in that it had been unsuccessful in locating the surveyor’s report and a new appointment was arranged for March 2025. This was an avoidable error which contributed to the delays. It is unclear what was the outcome of this inspection. The landlord recognised that its poor record keeping and poor job management resulted in delays which the Ombudsman consider were inordinate.
  7. Having spoken with the resident in April 2025, she advised that the leak is still ongoing. This is very concerning given that it was then well over a year after the resident’s report and complaint of October 2023. The resident told us in December 2024 the bathroom leak continued and the damage caused was severe. We have seen as part of her initial complaint she advised the landlord that the leak caused damage to her kitchen which she installed herself and she had incurred costs. There is no evidence across the landlord’s formal responses that it reached out to her and advised how she could claim under either her contents insurance or the landlord’s liability insurer for damage to the self-installed kitchen. As such, an order has been made below.
  8. Overall, the landlord failed to take ownership of the repair in that it did not carry out necessary work within its policy timescales. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation from £600 should be considered where there has been a failure that significantly affected the household. Noting the impact this has had on the living conditions in the property, the time and effort spent pursuing the matter, and the landlord’s compensation award at stage 1, the Ombudsman has made several orders below. The landlord advised the Ombudsman in May 2025 that works were due to start in early May 2025 subject to scaffolding being erected.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about the condition of brickwork

  1. The landlord’s repair handbook sets out that repairs to concrete should be treated as a routine repair and completed within 28 calendar days. In the resident’s complaint of October 2023, she advised that brickwork and masonry had been falling and felt this posed a health and safety risk and needed urgent attention. She added that a fallen brick had injured her grandson.
  2. Following her complaint, the landlord raised a work order 19 calendar days later, on 25 October 2023. It then inspected the property on 24 November 2023, where it found water ingress under the seal of the windows, but no signs of damage to render or brickwork. While this was broadly within its routine repair policy timescales, remedial works were not completed within 28 calendar days. It did however say that a painter was required to inspect and scrape off cracked paintwork before repainting as well as to reseal the exterior living room bay windows. The painter appeared to have attended on 14 December 2023 when they found that walls had cracks and water damage and they needed to redecorate the front of the property.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said the necessary remedial works were not booked in. This was a failing which again indicates the landlord did not have proper oversight of its jobs and their status. It advised external remedial works were planned to be completed on 22 May 2024. The landlord’s record show this took place as planned, with repairs completed on the planned date. Nevertheless, this was over 7 months after the landlord was first on notice and there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed about delays. This caused distress and inconvenience to the members of the household who were concerned about the risk of injury from falling brickwork and masonry.
  4. In the resident’s escalation request of August 2024, she said ““dealing with a wall that is falling apart on the outside” was still outstanding. In this regard, it appears there were further works needed after the work was completed in May 2024, and this may indicate that the landlord failed to thoroughly inspect and to carry out an effective or lasting repair. In the landlord’s final response, it said that since the wall repair was reported as outstanding, it would look at this within the leak resolution job which also remained outstanding. It added the resident would be contacted in October 2024 with an appointment.
  5. Despite the resident making concerted efforts to progress the repair and having exhausted the complaints progress, this did not serve to move matters forward. Indeed, both the landlord and resident confirm that matters are outstanding as of March 2025.
  6. The landlord failed to carry out the necessary work within its routine repair timescales. Indeed, it also recognised that it failed to raise follow on works after its November 2023 inspection. This was an avoidable delay that caused stress to the resident. Despite some works being completed in May 2024, the resident and the landlord appear to agree that work remains outstanding to date – over 18 months after the resident’s initial complaint.
  7. The Ombudsman notes that the inspection undertaken on 24 November 2023 suggested there were no signs of damaged render or brickwork. It did however arrange for a painter to inspect, scrape off and renew cracked paint work well as to reseal the exterior living room bay windows. In this regard, the landlord likely considered the risks of not carrying out the work promptly as low. However, it should have endeavoured to carry out this work within its repair timescales, but it failed to do so. While the risk of falling masonry and brickwork did not affect the resident’s occupation of her home, it was understandably a concern as the resident had mobility issues and a young child occupied the home. This has been considered in our orders.

The landlord’s handling of reports of faulty radiators

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installation of space heating and water heating. This means the landlord has an obligation to repair and maintain the central heating system including radiators. 
  2. The resident did not initially raise concerns about faulty radiators as part of her October 2023 complaint. From the evidence, it appears the landlord contacted the resident around March 2024 and she explained that radiators in the living room and bathroom were not heating up and had been like this since summer 2023. In this regard, the household did not suffer a total loss of heating, and radiators in other rooms were functioning. However, the landlord’s repair handbook states that a partial loss of heating should be treated as an emergency repair for vulnerable tenants.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said “…have referred this to our Gas Team… to treat this as urgent”. The resident was entitled to believe that this matter would be properly and completely dealt with, at least within the landlord’s urgent repair timescales. However, the landlord did not attend to the radiators within a reasonable time. Indeed, the resident chased as part of her escalation request in August 2024, almost 5 months later. This was a failing on the part of the landlord and a vulnerable household was left without working radiators in the bathroom and living room.
  4. The landlord’s submissions state its contractor attended on 13 September 2024 following a report of a faulty boiler. The contractor found valves were faulty in the bathroom and living room radiators, but the resident had heating in other rooms and hot water. They attended again on 20 September 2024 when lock shields and faulty thermostatic radiator valves were changed and the system was balanced. They confirmed all radiators were heating up as intended. 
  5. This was around 6 months after the resident had advised the landlord of the issue with the radiators. While it is appreciated that much of this time was in the summer months, it was understandably frustrating for the resident that the repair was not actioned within its policy timescales, particularly as the household was vulnerable. The landlord failed to engage with the request for repair and only did so when chased. The Ombudsman notes the resident said she paid for one radiator repair herself but there is no mention of this in the landlord’s submissions.
  6. In the landlord’s final response, it apologised that the matter was not picked up sooner and offered £100 for both radiator and door repairs delays. While the landlord attempted to put things right, its offer did not go far enough to put matters right and, in the Ombudsman’s view, did not adequately reflect the extent of the delay. The heating and hot water systems in the property appear to function currently; nevertheless, an order has been made for financial compensation to reflect the delays.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s customer feedback policy sets out that it aims to resolve any service failure that the resident has experienced and provide the service required. It will raise a formal complaint as having been made by the resident following an expression of dissatisfaction in respect of, for example, its failure to provide a service or failure to respond to an initial enquiry. When a formal complaint is logged at stage 1, the landlord aims to issue a written response within 10 working days. If the resident remains unhappy, they can ask to escalate the complaint to stage 2. An independent review is then undertaken by an officer who was not involved in reviewing the stage 1 complaint, and it aims to issue a written response within 20 working days of the request to escalate.
  2. The resident’s complaint was first made by email on 6 October 2023. The landlord subsequently acknowledged the complaint on 16 October 2023, after the resident chased on 11 October 2023. The landlord promised to issue its stage 1 response by 25 October 2023. However, the landlord missed this deadline and contacted the resident on 31 October 2023, apologising for the delay and stating that its repair service would “respond to you as a matter of urgency”. Yet, it failed to do so and only provided its stage 1 response on 25 March 2024. Given the resident’s first expression of dissatisfaction was made in October 2023, this was a timeframe of almost 120 working days later, which was significantly outside the landlord’s timescale of 10 working days as set out in its customer feedback policy. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord reached out to the resident to inform her of the delays or manage expectations. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who felt her concerns were ignored. While the landlord recognised and apologised for its delayed stage 1 response, the apology on its own did not go far enough to put matters right, particularly considering the length of the delay and its lack of communication with the resident between October 2023 and March 2024.
  3. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 16 August 2024. As she did not hear back from the landlord, she chased again on 5 and 9 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 12 September 2024, promising a response by 23 September 2024. However, the landlord failed to meet this commitment as it issued its stage 2 final response on 27 September 2024. This was 30 working days – outside its policy timescale which aims to issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This caused further distress and inconvenience as well as time and trouble for the resident who went to the effort of chasing the landlord twice.
  4. The landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations as to when she would receive formal responses. Where there is a delay, landlords should endeavour to keep residents updated and inform them of the reasons for the delay and the extended timescale. However, this did not happen, nor did the landlord apologise for the complaint handling delays in its final response.
  5. Overall, there were avoidable delays and inadequate communication with the resident. These failures would have likely undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord to satisfactorily resolve matters for her. Its apology in its stage 1 response was insufficient to put matters right and did not reflect the true extent of detriment caused by the delay at that point which was well over 100 working days. The landlord missed an opportunity to offer financial compensation across its formal responses for its complaint handling, and an order has been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front entrance door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about leaks and associated damage.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the condition of brickwork.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of faulty radiators.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,900 made up of:
      1. £100 offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already.
      2. A further £600 for the failings in its handling of repairs to the front entrance door.
      3. A further £600 for the failings in its handling of reports about leaks and associated damage.
      4. A further £200 for the failings in its handling of concerns about the condition of brickwork.
      5. A further £200 for the failings in its handling of reports of faulty radiators.
      6. £200 for the failings in its complaint handling.
    3. Inspect the front entrance door including frame, locking mechanism and handle. It must share the inspection report with both the resident and the service, outlining any works identified and provide anticipated timescales to resolve these.
    4. Carry out a survey of the leaks, if it has not done so already, and provide a schedule of works to both the resident and the Ombudsman setting out how it will carry out permanent and lasting repairs. It must then carry out works within its repair timescales.
    5. Assess any damage to the resident’s belongings and décor caused by leaks and write to the resident explaining whether it is willing to reimburse her for any costs incurred or, if not, its reason for declining to do so and how she can pursue an insurance claim, and address promptly any queries she has about making a claim.
    6. Carry out the repair to the wall as noted in its final response.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days to confirm that it has complied with these orders.