Haringey London Borough Council — case 202420680

Decision Case ID 202420680 Decision type Investigation Landlord Haringey London Borough Council Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 12 December 2025 Background The resident lives in a first floor, one bedroom flat. A recurring leak, caused by dislodged roof tiles, caused a leak into the property which the resident said caused damage to his belongings. At the time of the complaint, the resident had a representative who made the complaint on his behalf.

For the purposes of this report, that representative has also been referred to as the resident. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s: Handling of the leak from the roof. Complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We have found that there was: Maladministration in its handling of the leak from the roof. Service failure in its complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Leak from the roof The landlord delayed in inspecting and repairing the roof.

It did not follow through with the action promised in its stage 2 response. While it apologised for the missed appointments, it did not accept that it had not completed the repairs in line with the timescales set out in its tenancy handbook. Complaint handling The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with its policy or the Code. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures found in this report. The landlord must ensure: A senior member of staff provides the apology.

The apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 09 January 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay to the resident of £280, made up of the following: £30 previously offered for the missed appointments. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its failings in handling of the leak. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its failings in handling of the leak. £50 for the additional time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.

The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident less any amount previously paid. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 09 January 2026 Inspection Order. The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection should be completed by a roofing specialist. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.

What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure the surveyor: Inspects the roof of the property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey must set out: The most likely cause of the leak in the roof. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue. The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.

Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. No later than 16 January 2026 Completing the works. The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence.

It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed. No later than 23 January 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 29 February 2024 The resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the leak from the roof which he said had been ongoing since he moved into the property in 2017. The key points were as follows: He had reported the issue many times, the roof would be fixed but it did not last and within a matter of weeks the issue reoccurred.

He had collected litres of water from the leak into the bedroom, and the water had damaged his belongings. The landlord had not found any long term solutions and told him it was not a long term problem. Exposed electrical cables and wiring was a potential fire hazard especially because of the squirrels in the roof. It had arranged for a roofer to attend on 8 January and 21 February 2024, but it did not. 27 March 2024 The landlord provided its stage 1 response. The key points were as follows: It apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused.

It confirmed an operative would attend the property on 17 April 2024 to inspect and remedy the broken roof tiles, blocked guttering, and soffit. It confirmed the above works would stop the water ingress and the incursion of squirrels. It offered £30 compensation for the missed appointments. It gave the details of its insurance team for the resident to pursue a claim for his damaged belongings. 16 April 2024 The resident escalated his complaint as he said the landlord had not provided a long term solution to resolve the issue with the roof and he was unhappy with the compensation offer.

23 May 2024 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. The key points were as follows: It had attended on 17 April 2024 to inspect the cause of the leak when it had found it needed to repair the roof tiles, blocked guttering, and soffit. It had also noted there were pigeons in the loft, so it had made a referral to its contractor to remove them, and it completed the roof works on 22 April 2024. While it was unable to give an absolute assurance it would not need to complete further repairs work in the future, it was satisfied it had carried out the work to the required standard.

It had asked its repairs team to attend and inspect the internal works needed and said the team would make contact within 7 working days. It confirmed that despite the missed appointments, it had completed the works within its target timeline and therefore there was no delay in it completing the works. It offered no further compensation and reiterated its point in relation to the damaged belongings and provided the details of its insurance team again. 27 August 2024 The resident referred his complaint to us and said he wanted a permanent solution for the roof and remained unhappy with the offer of compensation from the landlord.

What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint Handling of the leak from the roof. Finding Maladministration What we have not considered In his complaint, the resident said he had been reporting the recurring leak from the roof since he moved into the property.

While we do not dispute this, we can only consider issues which were brought to the attention of the landlord as a complaint within 12 months of the issue occurring. Therefore, this investigation has considered the period from 4 January 2024 when the roof issue was raised until the stage 2 response on 23 May 2024. The resident also raised the impact the issues had on his mental health. While we do not dispute this, such a determination is more appropriate for the court as a personal injury claim.

We have considered the distress and inconvenience caused. What we have considered When the resident reported that the leak from his roof had reoccurred, the landlord raised a works order to attend and inspect the issue. The evidence shows it raised this with a target completion date of 26 April 2024. However, it is unclear why as the tenancy handbook notes that it would attend to roof leaks and tiling issues within 28 working days. Therefore, its response time was not in line with its own published timeframes.

The landlord arranged to attend on 8 January 2024 and 21 February 2024, however it did not attend either of these appointments which the landlord said was due to capacity issues. It has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the cancellations to the resident. While it apologised for this and offered compensation in its response, it is not appropriate that it did not attend twice to inspect the issue. During that period, the resident was left with a leaking roof without any idea of when the landlord would attend to resolve it.

Furthermore, we cannot see that the landlord sought to understand if it needed to provide any temporary solutions to the resident to help alleviate the effect of the leak. In his complaint on 29 February 2024 the resident raised the landlord’s lack of action and said that he had collected litres of water leaking from the bedroom ceiling over the years. Yet we cannot see that the landlord took any action to reraise the necessary works or took the opportunity to consider if it needed to provide any temporary solutions to the resident.

This was a failing. The landlord attended to inspect the issue on 17 April 2024 and completed the works on 22 April 2024. It noted that while it had missed appointments, it said it had attended within its target timescales. As noted above, it is unclear why the landlord made such an assertion when its own policy notes that it would attend to roof leaks and tiling issues within 28 days. Furthermore, if it had raised the repairs with a target completion date of 26 April 2024, given that it was 4 months after the resident had raised issue, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated that to the resident to manage his expectations.

In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would contact the resident within 7 working days to attend and inspect the internal damage and raise any required works. The evidence shows that it did not contact the resident within that timeframe causing him to chase the landlord. This was a failing. The landlord needs to ensure it has an effective communication with its residents and that it follows through with its promised actions. In his complaint, the resident raised that the leak had caused damage to his personal belongings.

In response, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurance team for him to make a claim. This was in line with its policy. The resident also raised he was concerned that the landlord was undertaking temporary fixes as the issue kept reoccurring. While we understand the concerns of the resident, the landlord attended to inspect the roof and is entitled to rely on its contractors when they determine the repairs needed. The landlord appropriately assured the resident that it was confident it had resolved the issue.

Overall, there was maladministration. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £230. This is inclusive of the £30 it offered at stage 1. Complaint The handling of the complaint. Finding Service failure The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are: The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.

The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint or his escalation request within its published timescales. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 9 days outside of its published timescales. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 6 days outside of its published scales. It did not evidence that it communicated the delay to the resident, at either stage of the complaint process, which was not in line with the Code. Overall, there was maladministration. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £230.

Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s record keeping in this case was poor. It provided no evidence of the details of the missed appointments. It did not demonstrate that it had effective record keeping in respect of its outstanding repairs and appointments needed. It should consider completing a self-assessment against our spotlight report in respect of knowledge and information management. Communication The landlord did not show effective communication in this case with the resident.

It did not manage his expectations around when it expected the repair to take place, it did not communicate the missed appointments to him and did not contact him as promised following the stage 2 response. The landlord needs to ensure it has an effective system in place to enable it to have regular communication with its resident’s where repairs are outstanding.