Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Haringey London Borough Council (202212612)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212612

Haringey London Borough Council

3 October 2023


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 reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat. She has physical health conditions, including breathing issues as well as anxiety and depression.
  2. On 15 July 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In summary, she said that she had experienced consistent damp in the property for the last 8 years and that it was still ongoing. She explained that the landlord was supposed to move her so that it could carry out repairs to her property but that it was unable to find suitable alternative accommodation. She added that there was a lack of communication from the landlord and that she felt discriminated against as the landlord had evidence of her health issues.
  3. On 9 August 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said that a surveyor attended her property 2 weeks ago and that the resident had stated that she was willing for the repair works to be completed while she remained in the property. However, it further explained that the works could not start until her neighbour had removed their canopy.
  4. In the resident’s escalation request she said that the landlord does not listen to her and that it was aware of her health conditions. She added that because of the damp and mould she had to throw her belongings away and that her property was never properly repaired. She asked the landlord to move her to a suitable property.
  5. The landlord issued its final response on 21 October 2022. In summary, the response said:
    1. The remedial works were delayed as her neighbour had erected a canopy that prevented access to the roof.
    2. The canopy was now removed; however, remedial works were yet to be arranged.
    3. That due to the scope of the works needed it was sourcing a contractor to assign the works to, but it was unable to provide a timescale on when the works would be completed.
    4. That it may need to temporarily relocate the resident while the repair work is completed.
    5. That it had offered to move the resident to several properties which she had refused, but that it was still actively looking to move her.
    6. It partially upheld her complaint and apologised for the delay in completing the remedial works which it said had been exacerbated by having to source a new contractor.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she said that her health had deteriorated because of these issues and that there had been a lack of communication from her landlord. As a resolution to her complaint, she wanted the landlord to resolve the damp and mould as a matter of urgency or for it to move her to a suitable property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated that her health had deteriorated because of the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. Although the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments and acknowledges that the situation must have been distressing for her, unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman has been provided with correspondence relating to historical reports of damp and mould from 2014 and 2016. However, under the Scheme the Ombudsman, may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 6 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 15 July 2022, the investigation will not consider the events that occurred from 2014 because these did not occur within a reasonable period of normally within 6 months of the complaint. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to reports from July 2022 up to the landlord’s final response in October 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.         Put things right, and; 

c.         Learn from outcomes. 

  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. The Ombudsman would reasonably expect that on receiving reports of damp and mould, the landlord should respond, arrange an inspection, and investigate to determine the causes of damp and mould and, if necessary, carry out remedial repairs within a reasonable timescale.
  3. The landlord repairs handbook states that routine repairs can be completed in a single visit such as roof leaks and extractor fans and that it will offer an appointment within 28 days. It states that planned repairs will be inspected within 28 days and that at the inspection it will inform the resident when the job will be carried out.
  4. Following the resident’s complaint on 15 July 2022 the landlord sent an internal email on 22 July 2022 in which it acknowledged that the issue was a ‘live’ disrepair case. It further stated that work was being done to the property and that it would visit her the following week. Its records also stated that it would arrange for its tenancy team to contact the resident to discuss her housing situation. While the Ombudsman has seen little evidence to confirm if either of these things happened, its stage 1 response indicated that a surveyor had inspected the property at some point in late July 2022, where it was assessed, that remedial works would be required. However, the Ombudsman has not seen details of this visit and it is unclear what remedial works were needed to resolve the issue.
  5. Additionally, there was no evidence of any action from the landlord or communication with the resident from July to October 2022. The landlord explained in its final response that the delays to the remedial works were caused initially due to a neighbour erecting a canopy, which had prevented access to the roof, and that there had been further delays as the landlord had concluded that due to the scope of works, it would need to source to a contractor to complete the job. While it was appropriate for the landlord to provide an explanation and apologise for the delays, it should have, in line with its own policy for planned repair works, informed the resident when the works would be carried out. Yet, it failed to do so. It also failed to respond to or consider the resident’s health concerns, despite the resident clearly raising this as a concern in her complaint and subsequent escalation request. This would have left the resident feeling unheard and would have undermined trust in the landlord-tenant relationship.
  6. In both the resident’s escalation request and her complaint to this service she requested that the landlord move her to a suitable property. The landlord’s final response stated that it had offered the resident a move to several properties and added that it would continue to actively explore a move for her. The resident has recently informed this service that the landlord did offer alternative properties to her but that on each occasion she did not feel that the properties were suitable for her needs. Although the Ombudsman is unable to comment on the suitability of the properties, there was no evidence that it had considered the resident’s needs. However, it was appropriate, given the circumstances and the resident’s known health conditions for the landlord to continue to explore alternative accommodation.
  7. The landlord’s final response stated that it may not be possible for the resident to remain in the property while the remedial works took place and that it would look into this and update her. However, it is unclear if it did so. In any case, the Ombudsman has seen a housing disrepair witness report from July 2023 which stated that the resident could not remain in the property as it was not suitable for human habitation, and it advised that the landlord should arrange temporary accommodation or a permanent decant. It is unclear if the landlord has considered this and therefore a recommendation is made below.
  8. Moreover, the landlord’s repair logs showed that it was not until 24 March 2023 where it highlighted that various works would be needed to the resident’s property, including mould washing and decoration of the kitchen, living room and bathroom, and the replacement of the extractor fan in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord also informed this service that a surveyor’s report was completed on 5 April 2023; this was 9 months after the resident’s complaint. This was a considerable delay, and it is unclear why these works were not raised sooner following the landlord’s initial inspection in July 2022. Further, following its visit the landlord should have completed any routine repairs in line with its policy timescales. However, there was no evidence that this happened. These were significant failures that would have caused considerable distress to the resident.
  9. The resident has informed this service that she is still living with severe damp and mould in her current property and the landlord’s record-keeping makes it difficult to determine if any meaningful repairs have been carried out to the property to resolve the damp and mould. It should review its record-keeping to ensure that it has detailed records of what repairs it completed and at what time. This forms part of this service’s wider recommendations that the landlord should assess itself against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information spotlight report.
  10. The landlord should have taken robust action at an early stage to try and identify the cause of the damp and mould. In these circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have engaged a qualified contractor that specialised in damp and mould to carry out a survey and make recommendations to resolve.
  11. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner”. It continues that “landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations”. In this case, the resident has been left exposed to damp and mould in her property for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s failure to complete remedial works to the property within a reasonable timescale.
  12. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property was poor. It failed to communicate with the resident effectively and did not act promptly to resolve the issue. Further, the landlord’s formal responses were unsatisfactory. Its stage 1 response was lacking in detail, and it consistently failed to respond to the resident’s health concerns. This highlighted a lack of empathy on the landlord’s part, and it failed to fully acknowledge the impact this situation was having on the resident. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that it apologised for delays in its final response, the landlord failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint. Furthermore, due to the landlord’s delay in carrying out remedial works to the property, the resident has lived with damp and mould for a at least 12 months. The landlord did not consider the distress and inconvenience caused by this, or the potential health implications of damp and mould.
  13. This amounts to maladministration from the landlord. In line with this service’s remedies guidance awards of between £600 to £1,000 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which significantly impacted the resident. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within the next four weeks:
    1. Pay the resident £1,000 for the distress and frustration caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
    2. In July 2023, the Ombudsman made several recommendations for the landlord to improve its handling of repairs and damp and mould. The landlord should review the failings identified in this report against its response to those recommendations, to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should confirm to the Ombudsman the outcome of this review.
    3. Provide an action plan to the resident and this service on what it intends to do to resolve the damp and mould in her property, including timescales (and then adhere to these). The landlord should consider whether it is appropriate to engage an independent damp specialist to inspect the property and report on the causes of any ongoing damp and mould.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should continue to work with the resident in exploring alternative housing options that are suitable for her needs.