London Borough of Harrow (202345085)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345085

London Borough of Harrow

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. The condition of the property, including the external communal area and the building’s structural integrity.
2. A carbon monoxide leak and remedial works.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been the landlord’s secure tenant since 8 January 1997. The property is in a block which has commercial premises on the ground floor and split level maisonettes on the first and second floors. External staircases at either side of the block lead up to a concrete walkway, communal yard, and the maisonette front doors on the first floor.
On 21 January 2024 the resident reported that the walkway and yard were showing signs of deterioration, including cracks and holes in the concrete. She said it was giving off a strange smell which was so strong it was hard to breathe when she was outside. She also raised concerns that it may contain Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) which presents a safety risk and asked the landlord to carry out an inspection. The landlord responded on 1 February 2024 and asked the resident to send photos, which she did.
The resident emailed the landlord chasing a response on 8 and 12 February 2024. In the latter email she also raised concerns about the structural integrity of the property. She emailed a local councillor with her concerns and asked them to intervene on 14 February 2024. They forwarded the resident’s email to the landlord and the landlord responded to say it had logged the email as a stage 1 complaint. The complaint said:
1. In July-August 2023 the launderette directly beneath her home had used a pneumatic drill as part of refurbishment works. Ever since then there had been creaking sounds in her living room and kitchen and external brickwork had been displaced.
2. In October 2023 she started to notice the communal yard was deteriorating.
3. When it rained the fumes were extremely strong and made her feel ill. She had started feeling unwell in November 2023 and had a hair mineral test in January 2024 which showed a high level of metal toxicity.
4. She had raised concerns about RAAC and asked the landlord to inspect the walkway and yard.
5. There was also green mould in the external areas which was spreading and she wanted environmental health to inspect it.
The resident emailed the landlord via the councillor again on 4 March 2024 and asked it to add the following to the stage 1 complaint:
1. She had asked 3 different staff members to contact environmental health but they had not acknowledged her request.
2. Owners of the shops downstairs told her they had reported numerous leaks and the landlord had not taken any action. They also showed her signs that their roofs were deteriorating including leaks, damp, black mould, and a terrible smell.
3. The landlord’s contractor had inspected her home on 13 February 2024 and recommended a structural survey but had not followed up with her.
The landlord attended on 12 March 2024 to inspect the walkway, yard, and structural issues. On the same day the resident reported signs of a carbon monoxide leak in her home. The gas provider attended the same day, stopped the leak, and shut off the gas. The landlord attended later in the day and turned the gas back on after checking it was safe. The landlord said it would remove and seal up a redundant gas fireplace at a later date, as this could be the source of the leak. The resident later had private medical tests which confirmed she had been exposed to carbon monoxide. On 21 March 2024 the resident chased the landlord for an update following the inspection and said she was also concerned about asbestos.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 April 2024 saying:
1. It would arrange an asbestos survey.
2. It was trying to establish when the building was built as it may have been before RAAC was in use.
3. It had checked the boiler and found no escape of carbon monoxide.
4. It had arranged to remove the gas fireplace.
5. It would arrange to repoint small areas of external brickwork.
6. The inspection had found the longitudinal ceiling cracks were not cause for concern and could be sealed by redecorating. However, it would arrange for a structural engineer to inspect and give a second opinion.
7. There were no visible cracks or defects on the walkway but it would jetwash algae on it.
8. The smells the resident reported were not the result of any building defect.
9. It would contact the resident with appointments for all the works.
The landlord removed the fireplace on 17 April 2024 and said it would return to fill in the hole. On 19 April 2024 the resident had a Level 3 Building Survey carried out by an independent contractor, which recommended the launderette be inspected. On 24 April 2024 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf asking it to send the stage 1 response by 2 May 2024. The landlord emailed the resident on 30 April 2024 and said its email of 9 April 2024 was to be treated as the stage 1 response, and that it had not upheld her complaint.
The landlord jet washed the algae and carried out an asbestos survey on 8 and 10 May 2024. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 16 May 2024. She said:
1. She wanted the landlord to review the independent building survey report and arrange a meeting to discuss the next steps. She was particularly concerned about the flooring issues which the landlord had not picked up at its own inspection.
2. She wanted to add the carbon monoxide leak to the complaint. She had had to seek private medical treatment since the leak and attached medical evidence, including test results showing heavy metal toxicity.
3. Given the numerous repair issues, she did not feel her home was fit to live in. They had impacted her quality of life and she felt overwhelmed with it all. She hoped the landlord would consider taking legal action against the launderette owner as she believed the refurbishment was the cause of all the issues.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 November 2024 which said:
1. Its contracted structural engineer had inspected the property on 21 May 2024. It attached their report which stated that it was a specialist visual structural report rather than a full structural survey, which included accessing the launderette. Its findings included:
  1. Based on the limitations of a single visual inspection, the structure of the flat was in sound condition and fit for purpose.
  2. The launderette owner had broken out concrete plinths but there was no visible evidence to suggest that the vibrations from this had caused any significant structural issues
  3. None of the visible cracking was considered to be structural and could be classed as minor architectural damage that could be easily repaired at next redecoration.
  4. The external pointing to the front elevation and chimney stack required local repointing to slow deterioration.
  5. The slight sloping of floors was considered minor and within acceptable limits.
  6. The unevenness to the kitchen floor could be rectified when the floor finish was next replaced.
  7. The cause of alleged dampness through the window subframes needed to be investigated by a damp specialist to assess the cause and recommend treatment.
  8. The structural engineer did not believe that RAAC had been used.
2. The landlord had carried out a gas safety test, which did not find any issues, and an asbestos survey, which did not show any high priority asbestos.
3. It was sorry that works had not been done so far which it said was because the landlord had needed to gather the information the resident requested and that works were initially refused.
4. It agreed to do the following works within 20 working days unless follow–on external works required additional scope following investigation, which could be up to 90 days:
  1. Repointing of external wall at front of building.
  2. Replace the kitchen floor.
  3. Make good the hallway ceiling plaster and redecorate.
  4. Block up the fireplace.
  5. Carry out a post inspection.
5. The landlord had failed to provide the resident with information within 28 days for which it offered the resident £30 compensation.
The resident remains dissatisfied as she feels the landlord has not displayed any compassion or empathy and the work remains outstanding. She says the situation has worsened and that building defects have allowed water ingress, leading to damp and mould within the property. She is also concerned that the landlord will not carry out internal decorations in rooms where there are cracks. As a resolution she would like the landlord to:
1. Arrange another inspection by a qualified surveyor.
2. Carry out a risk assessment.
3. Complete all the required work.
4. Transfer her to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated in her complaint that the issues had affected her health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond our expertise to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements, which is not within the Ombudsman’s remit.
Our decision not to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, which says we may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. We have, however, considered the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to the concerns she raised about her health.

The condition of the property, including the external communal area and the building’s structural integrity

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will:
1. Contact residents within 3 hours of a repair report to make an appointment.
2. Carry out non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. These are defects which are not likely to cause serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance and includes repairs to floors, external walls and paths, and plasterwork.
It also says that internal decorations are the resident’s responsibility. However, the case of Bradley v Chorley Borough Council (1985) found that landlords have a responsibility under the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) to make good any damage resulting from repairs which were the landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord should have responded to the resident’s initial report about the condition of and smell from the walkway and yard by contacting her within 3 hours to make an appointment. The evidence indicates it did not contact her until 13 days later when it emailed to ask for photos of the affected areas. This was a failure to follow the repairs policy. After the resident sent photos the landlord did not follow up with her to make an appointment. This was inappropriate.
When the resident chased the landlord, she said the fumes/smell outside was getting worse and suggested environmental health attend. She said the fumes were making her and her dog unwell and that medical tests had shown high levels of metal toxicity in her system. Considering this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought advice from environmental health. This would have been a reasonable step, particularly as the resident requested this 3 times, including in the stage 1 complaint.
The resident raised her concerns about the structural condition of the property on 12 February 2024. The resident said in her email of 4 March 2024 that the landlord had attended on 13 February 2024 to inspect both the inside of the flat and the walkway and yard. This was within the appropriate timeframe for a non-urgent repair. However, the landlord did not provide us with any evidence of the inspection, and we only know it took place because of the resident’s email. This highlights a gap in the landlord’s records.
The Ombudsman expects landlords and their contractors to maintain comprehensive records of all contact with residents, repair requests and services provided. This should include details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance a landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The resident had asked her councillor to intervene because the landlord had not responded to her reports in good time. The landlord did not acknowledge this. She had complained about the delay arranging a follow up inspection and the landlord’s failure to respond to her requests to involve environmental health.
The landlord also failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about her health. We would expect the landlord to discuss this with the resident and find out the resolution she was seeking as a result. It then may have been appropriate for it to signpost the resident to its liability insurer so she could make a personal injury claim, if she wished to do so.
The stage 1 response asserted that the fumes were not the result of any building defect but did not explain how the landlord had come to that conclusion. The landlord did not propose any further investigation into the issue either.
The response said that the landlord would jetwash algae it had found when it inspected the walkway on 12 March 2024. It also promised to conduct an asbestos survey in response to the concerns raised by the resident on 21 March 2024. It would have been appropriate for these actions to take place within 20 working days of them being identified. They were completed 3 weeks and 4 weeks past this timeframe respectively which was inappropriate. The landlord also said it would seek a second opinion on the property’s structure. This had been recommended when it first inspected in February so by the time the structural inspection took place on 21 May 2024, it was 2 months overdue, a delay that could have been avoided.
We consider it a reasonable expectation for landlords to share the outcomes of surveys and inspections with the resident. This helps residents to have confidence in the investigation and diagnosis and to understand the next steps.
The landlord did not follow up with the resident after the asbestos and structural inspections or provide the reports until it sent the stage 2 response 4 months later. The resident chased the outcomes at least 4 times in that period and the landlord did not respond with any meaningful update, despite the fact that she had escalated the complaint to stage 2. Additionally, evidence indicates she provided the landlord with a copy of the independent survey she had commissioned sometime prior to June 2024 but the landlord did not respond to this either. This is likely to have been frustrating for the resident.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request for it to review the building survey report she had commissioned. The report identified repairs which it said required attention but were not serious or urgent. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to review the recommendations, explain what work it could or could not do, and the reasons why.
The independent survey and the landlord’s survey both identified uneven floors. The independent survey report said that structural alterations in the launderette could potentially have caused this and, if so, it would be particularly concerning. It recommended the launderette be inspected by a qualified structural engineer or chartered building surveyor to check if any major structural works had been carried out and, if so, whether they had been carried out to the correct standard.
The landlord’s structural engineer inspected the launderette but it is not clear how thorough this inspection was. The landlord did not mention this in the stage 2 response. If it was satisfied it had inspected the launderette and ruled it out as a cause it should have said so. Alternatively, if it had not, it should have either agreed to do so or explained why it did not think it necessary. It also failed to address the resident’s comment that she hoped the landlord would take legal action against the launderette owner.
The landlord apologised that the recommended works had not been done yet which was positive. However, the reasons it gave were unclear. It attributed the delay to gathering information the resident asked for but did not explain why this had taken so long and why this delayed the works. It did not give any explanation for its statement that works had initially been refused and there is no evidence that the resident ever refused works. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had undertaken any investigation into the delays and as a result the apology did not feel sincere.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation starting from £10 where service falls below standard and up to £50 for poor complaint handling. The landlord offered the resident £30 compensation for failing to provide the resident with information within 28 days. It did not specify the information it was referring to but from the evidence available, it is reasonable to conclude it meant the RAAC.
The offer was appropriate in line with the compensation policy. However, despite acknowledging that the works had not been completed in good time, the landlord did not offer any compensation for this element of the complaint. This was not appropriate.
The works remain outstanding to date, almost 11 months after the structural inspection identified them. The resident told us that operatives have attempted some of the works but have been unable to complete them due to damp and mould. She says that the failure to repoint the external brickwork has allowed water ingress into the property which is causing further deterioration to the interior and a chemical-like smell. She is also concerned about electrical safety as power sockets are located on water damaged walls. She has since commissioned a water damage survey which confirmed water damage and concluded the likely cause was water ingress through external defects to the property.
There were a number of failings in this case that have led us to make a finding of maladministration:
1. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial report in line with its repairs policy and did not arrange an inspection until after she had logged a complaint.
2. It is unclear what, if any, investigation the landlord carried out in regard to the fumes in the communal areas and it failed to consult environmental health at any stage.
3. Following the initial inspection the landlord was not proactive in arranging the structural inspection, which took place more than 2 months later.
4. The landlord then failed to communicate the outcome to the resident for almost 5 months and the recommended works remain outstanding to date.
5. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about her health.
The resident told us that, as a resolution, she would like the landlord to rehouse her. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance explains that we cannot order a remedy that would put things right for the resident but would adversely affect other individuals, or that would mean the resident had received preferential treatment compared to others in the same situation. This means that we are unable to order a landlord to transfer a resident. This is because it could adversely affect other transfer applicants if the resident were to be prioritised for a move ahead of them. It would also mean the resident had been given preferential treatment if her request to move was not assessed in line with the relevant policy, as other applicants would have been.
To help put things right, the landlord should pay the resident compensation. When deciding an appropriate sum, we will consider the impact the maladministration has had on the resident.
The resident commissioned a water damage survey in March 2025 which confirmed water damage, including multiple areas of staining and damaged wallpaper. The surveyor concluded that the likeliest cause was water ingress through the external defects to the property. Multiple defects were noted which they considered to have the potential to permit water ingress into the property. The surveyor also observed elevated levels of airborne fungal activity which suggested hidden mould growth.
The resident has also reported poor air quality and smells in the flat due to the water damage, which makes breathing uncomfortable. She has experienced distress through worrying about her health and spent time and trouble progressing her complaint. The outstanding issues have also affected her enjoyment of her home and she reports feeling embarrassed to have visitors because of the condition of the property.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends compensation in the region of £800 for maladministration where this has significantly impacted the resident. Considering the above, we consider this to be an appropriate sum.
While the landlord had a structural engineer inspect the resident’s property their report included a disclaimer that it was not a full structural survey and that there were limitations to their visual inspection. It is also unclear how thoroughly they inspected the launderette. We have therefore ordered the landlord to arrange a full structural survey as well as other actions related to the repairs.

Carbon monoxide leak and remedial works

Landlords are responsible for ensuring the gas supply and appliances are in a safe condition and arrange for annual safety checks. The landlord carried out a gas safety check in November 2023 which did not find any issues with carbon monoxide.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will contact residents within 30 minutes to make an appointment for an emergency repair and carry out the repair within 4 hours. Emergency repairs include gas leaks.
There is no evidence available to show whether the landlord responded to the resident’s report of carbon monoxide within the appropriate timeframe, although it did attend the same day. It should have returned within 20 working days to remove and seal up the gas fireplace, in line with the repairs policy for non-urgent repairs. It removed the fireplace 25 working days later, a minor delay, but did not block up the resulting hole or make a follow up appointment to do so. This was inappropriate.
The resident only added the issue to her complaint at stage 2, complaining about the impact on her health. The landlord’s response said that the most recent gas safety tests did not find any issues. It did not acknowledge the fact that the gas provider confirmed there had been a leak on 12 March 2024. Nor did it address what the resident had said about her health, including test results she provided which confirmed exposure to carbon monoxide.
While there is no evidence to suggest the landlord was at fault for the leak, it should have acknowledged the resident’s comments about her health. We would expect the landlord to discuss it with her, determine the resolution she was seeking and provide a response, and signpost her to its insurers to make a personal injury claim if appropriate. It would also have been good practice to show some empathy for the resident having gone through what must have been a distressing experience.
The stage 2 response apologised for not having completed the works yet but did not offer any compensation, despite the fireplace work being 7 months overdue at that point. This was inappropriate. It said the landlord would block the fireplace up within 20 working days but it remains outstanding 12 months after the fireplace was removed. This is an unreasonable delay.
In summary, the landlord fulfilled its obligations by carrying out annual gas safety checks and responding the same day when the resident reported a leak. However, it failed to follow its repairs policy in relation to the remedial works and to address the resident’s concerns about her health. It also missed opportunities to show empathy for the resident’s situation. This amounts to maladministration.
To help put things right the landlord should pay the resident £400 compensation. This is in the recommended range in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration with a non-permanent adverse impact.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) both define a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” They also say that the landlord must:
1. Acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days.
2. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
3. Respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
4. Provide an explanation of any delays and agree an extension where possible.
The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on 14 February 2024 when the resident expressed dissatisfaction via her local councillor. This was appropriate and in accordance with the definition of a complaint. However, the landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement to the councillor only and not the resident. It would have been more appropriate to share this with the resident also.
The landlord should have sent the stage 1 response within 10 working days. The landlord failed to meet the deadline and the resident chased it for updates at least 4 times. She also contacted this Service for assistance. At no time did the landlord apologise for the delay or seek to agree an extended deadline. This was a failure to act in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
We wrote to the landlord on 24 April 2024 and said if it did not respond by 2 May 2024 we may issue a Complaint Handling Failure Order. The landlord emailed the resident on 30 April 2024 and it said it was treating its email of 9 April 2024 as the stage 1 response.
The Code states that landlords must include certain information in the in the stage 1 response, including:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The complaint definition.
3. The reasons for any decisions made.
4. The details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the response.
The landlord’s email did not contain the information above which meant the resident had not recognised it as the stage 1 response. By the time the landlord told her this, the response was 2 months overdue. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay, which was inappropriate.
The landlord did include most of the necessary information in the email of 30 April 2024, but it still did not confirm the reason that it did not uphold her complaint. This was another failure to act in line with the Code.
The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The stage 1 response failed to address several elements of the resident’s complaint, as detailed earlier in paragraphs 21, 22, 44, and 45.
The landlord also failed to respond to the stage 2 complaint within the appropriate time. The resident escalated the complaint on 16 May 2024 and the landlord responded on 14 November 2024. This was 5 months overdue. It also failed to apologise for the delay. The combined delays meant the resident had to wait an extra 7 months to receive a final response to her complaint and to able to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The Code states that landlords must use clear, plain language in their responses. Part of the stage 2 response was unclear due to typos. It said the landlord had not upheld the stage 1 complaint because “the technical report is clear on cavity and the present of no damp, surface moisture, and cosmetics” and that the resident’s request for a meeting had “been picked up within the surveyors and confirm with the structural report”. This made the landlord’s response difficult to understand. Landlords must have processes in place to ensure the quality of responses.
These failures amount to maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. To remedy this the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation. This is line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends compensation of this amount for complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
1. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, including the external communal area and the building’s structural integrity.
2. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a carbon monoxide leak and remedial works.
3. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks:
  1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the identified failures. The apology should come from a senior member of staff and be in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
  2. Pay the resident £1,400 compensation broken down as follows:

(1) £800 in relation to the handling of resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.

(2) £400 in relation to the handling of the carbon monoxide leak.

(3) £200 in relation to the complaint handling failures.

Have a full structural survey carried out by an independent qualified chartered surveyor.
Review the water damage survey report the resident commissioned and confirm in writing whether it will carry out the recommended work. It must provide explanations for any work that it decides not to do.
Carry out a risk assessment to identify any health and safety risks, including whether water ingress near power sockets is dangerous. If risks are identified the landlord should consider whether it is necessary to move the resident to temporary accommodation and provide its decision in writing.
Contact the resident to discuss options for permanent rehousing and ensure her transfer application has been correctly assessed and activated, if applicable.

Within 8 weeks:
1. Carry out any works recommended in the structural survey report that are the landlord’s responsibility under the repairs policy or the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985). This should include redecoration or other works to ‘make good’ any resulting damage. It should also consider any other recommended works and provide a decision in writing on whether it will carry out these repairs.
2. Inspect the launderette if this is recommended in the structural survey report. It is assumed that the landlord is the freeholder. If it is not, it should attempt to contact the freeholder to request access. The landlord should then share its findings with the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Review staff training in relation to its repairs policy. This is to ensure staff are aware of and respond to repair reports within the appropriate timeframes.
2. Review staff training in relation to its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This is to ensure staff respond to complaints within appropriate timeframes, address all points of the complaint and provide clear reasons for their decisions.