London Borough of Hackney (202227662)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227662

London Borough of Hackney

28 February 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and subsequent repair issues.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. At the time of the complaint, the resident did not occupy the property and sublet it to tenants.
3. The resident reported on 22 November 2022 that the roof was leaking into one of the bedrooms. On 9 December 2022 the resident reported that the leak was getting worse, the ceiling was bowing, and there was damp in the property. The landlord attended the same day, and the contractor noted the issue seemed to be severe condensation, the ceiling was safe, and there were no leaks. The landlord inspected on 27 January 2023.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 30 January 2023 as the landlord had not arranged an appointment to inspect the leak in line with its guidelines. He said the delay caused damage to the property and safety concerns due to the proximity of the leak to the electrical outlet and the black mould present. He disputed the outcome of the visit on 9 December 2022. The landlord had not completed any temporary repairs, and the leak remained ongoing.
5. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 20 February 2023. It apologised for the delay in attending after the resident’s initial report but said it applied the correct repair priority based on the information available regarding whether the leak was containable. It tried to reschedule the appointment to an earlier date but was unable to due to resourcing issues. It authorised an appointment to make safe any issues on 9 December 2022 and the contractor reported there was no leak. It attended on 27 January 2023 and confirmed the roof was new, so it needed to refer the repair back to the original contractor as it was under warranty. The contractor attended on 16 February 2023 to assess the drip edge above the bedroom. It provided liability insurance details and advised that the building insurance had a 90-day notification period to make a claim.
6. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 February 2023. He was dissatisfied the landlord failed to identify that the roof was under warranty and who the original contractor was at an earlier date. He also said the landlord provided misinformation about the insurance details and deadlines. Following correspondence from the resident, the Service asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 25 April 2023. In a call on 2 June 2023, the resident said as an outcome of the complaint he wanted the roofing repairs completed as soon as possible so he could progress the internal works with the insurer. He also wanted compensation for loss of income, time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience.
7. In the stage 2 response on 19 July 2023 the landlord said:
   1. It recognised that it initially raised the work order using the incorrect priority code, so it took and unreasonable amount of time to assess the roof.
   2. It did not use the assessment management datastore in good time to establish that it had recently replaced the roof. A cyber-attack in October 2020 had affected all its systems so it lost information about the roof replacement.
   3. There were delays in February 2023 as the contractor was not able to access the loft space to complete the dye test as it did not meet health and safety requirements and there was no lighting or water source.
   4. It completed a survey on 17 March 2023 and raised the works with its subcontractor on 23 March 2023. The contractor should have supplied the landlord with a survey and estimate within 4 weeks of being allocated. The estimate was not supplied until May 2023. It completed the works on 7 July 2023. It had requested a dye test to ensure the water ingress had stopped.
   5. It provided the incorrect insurance information at stage 1 and should have referred him to its website for the correct information. The resident should pursue the claim for loss of income through the landlord’s liability insurance.
   6. It offered £1032.52 compensation comprised of £310 for avoidable delays, £497.52 to reimburse 50% of the service charge between December 2022 and June 2023, £100 for time and trouble, and £125 for the complaint handling failure.
8. On 25 July 2023 the landlord agreed to offer an additional £200 at the resident’s request for costs incurred from international calls dealing with the issue.
9. The resident told the Service he remains dissatisfied as the leak has been ongoing for over 2 years. He said following the completion of the complaint there was a short duration when the leak stopped, which was due to good weather conditions, but the landlord has not resolved it in full. He said the landlord determined the issue to be cold bridging and it was not taking any further action. He wanted the landlord to install a z-trim on the roof, as recommended by a contractor, and pay additional compensation for the ongoing impact.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. Following the completion of the complaints process, the resident reported a further leak in November 2023. The resident said it was a recurrence of the initial leak, however the landlord’s contractors reported that condensation was the cause of the issue. There is insufficient evidence for the Service to determine the cause of the second leak and therefore whether it is a continuation of the original leak or a new issue, particularly as the resident reported the location of the leak has shifted following repointing works the landlord completed.
11. As the second leak occurred after the completion of the complaints process and the landlord fulfilled the promised actions set out in its final response, the landlord has not had the opportunity to address its handling of the November 2023 leak as part of a formal complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. This is in line with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
12. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and subsequent repair issues

13. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the block in good repair condition. Further to this, the leasehold guide sets out that if the resident believes the leak is coming from the roof or guttering, they should contact the landlord’s repair team, and it will attend to assess the issue and then complete any repairs it is responsible for. The landlord’s website states that it will complete urgent repairs within 5 working days, which it defines as “work where the fault or failure does not cause danger to occupants or the public, but needs to be put right to prevent inconvenience to you and keep the property in a reasonable condition”. It will complete normal repairs within 21 working days.
14. The resident initially reported the leak on 22 November 2022 and the landlord scheduled an appointment for 27 January 2023. As the leak was impacting one of the bedrooms, in line with the landlord’s repair response timeframes it should have handled it as an urgent repair and attended within 5 working days. In its final response, the landlord said it applied a 60-day repair timeframe, which it introduced following COVID-19, but recognised it incorrectly applied it in this case. The landlord acknowledged it took an unreasonable amount of time to assess the roof as it had applied the incorrect repair priority. It was reasonable that the landlord learned from the outcome of the complaint and took steps to prevent a recurrence of the issue as it said it would remind its staff of the correct repair priorities.
15. On 9 December 2022 the resident reported that the ceilings were bowing and the leak, damp, and mould had gotten worse. It was appropriate that the landlord attended the same day to assess the issues. The contractor noted that the problem appeared to be severe condensation, the ceiling was safe, and there was no leak. The resident disputed the findings of the appointment. The landlord typically is entitled to rely on the findings of its appropriately qualified contractors when determining how best to proceed with handling repairs. However, in this case it is of concern that the contractor reported there was no leak, which contradicts both the resident’s reports and the findings of subsequent contractors who confirmed the leak. As a result, there may have been a missed opportunity to resolve the leak at an earlier date.
16. The resident also said he engaged the services of 2 private contractors, and both confirmed a significant roof leak, which they could not remedy as they had no right of way or access due to the leaseholder conditions. This further brings into question the validity of the findings of the appointment on 9 December 2022. However, the Service has not seen any evidence that the resident informed the landlord of this prior to the complaint escalation on 21 February 2023, so it did not have the benefit of such information when determining how to proceed with the repair issue.
17. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said following the appointment on 27 January 2023, it identified that it had recently replaced the roof and needed to pass the work to the original contractor as it was under warranty. The landlord should have identified this when the resident initially reported the issue. The repair records show that the landlord obtained the original contractor’s details on 10 February 2023. The contractor attended on 16 February 2023 to assess whether they could safely access the roof without scaffolding. The resident was dissatisfied with the time taken to establish the original contractor, which is understandable given it caused an additional 5-week delay.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that following a cyber-attack in October 2020 it lost all information about the roof replacement. It is recognised that this was largely outside of the landlord’s control. The Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, states that “Landlords also need to have contingency plans in place in the event of unforeseen critical data incidents, such as cyber-attacks.” A recommendation has been made below for it to consider how it can safeguard its information systems and plan how to minimise disruption to its service delivery in case of any further attacks. The landlord said it is working on a project to collate all information relating to assets, including roofs and windows, into an accessible area. It has since shared the information with the relevant service areas. While this does not mitigate the impact on the resident, it is positive to note that the landlord now has the necessary information infrastructure to prevent a recurrence of the issue.
19. The repair records on 9 March 2023 show that the leaseholder reported the contractor could not access the water tank room as it did not have a lighting or water source. This was likely an unforeseen delay, but nonetheless, the landlord should have sought to resolve it within its repair timeframes so it could proceed with repairs to the leak. The landlord told the resident on 23 March 2023 that it was attempting to reinstate the water tank room lighting, and its priority was completing the leak test. It is unclear whether the works to the water tank room have since been completed.
20. A surveyor attended on 17 March 2023 and the landlord subsequently referred works to the contractor to renew the defective watershed edge trim / gutter, as the external brick façade to the side elevation was saturated with rainwater. The repair records state the landlord passed the works to the contractor on 23 March 2023 and they sent the variation on 10 May 2023. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said once it allocates work to a contractor, they should supply a survey and estimate within 4 weeks. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord chased the contractor when they exceeded the timeframe, so it failed to take appropriate steps to ensure the works were completed within a reasonable timeframe.
21. The landlord raised a work order on 10 May 2023 to:
    1. Rod through the drain outlet.
    2. Clear the roof of moss and debris.
    3. Apply reflex coating to the edge of the roof.
    4. Renew the defective pointing to the top floor brickwork.
    5. Apply water sealer to the whole top floor brickwork.
22. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that although it received the report on 10 May 2023, it did not approve the estimate until 2 June 2023. On 15 June 2023, the resident said the repair team told him the works had been raised but not approved and he was dissatisfied that the contractor had been able to ask for variations on the work, despite sufficient time to prepare and evaluate the original report. The landlord completed the works on 7 July 2023, so it therefore took more than a further 3 months to complete after identifying the work it required to resolve the leak, which was an unreasonable delay. It appears the delays were largely due to administrative obstacles, and it is recommended that the landlord reviews this process to prevent a recurrence of the issue.
23. It was reasonable that the landlord completed a dye test on 9 August 2023 to satisfy that the works had resolved the leak. It subsequently told the insurer on 17 October 2023 that it had completed the external repair as it had not received any reports from the resident of any ingress following the dye test.
24. Overall, it is clear that there were significant delays in completing the necessary repairs to the leak between November 2022 and July 2023. The landlord has identified several failings in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak which ultimately meant it did not repair it within a reasonable timeframe. In total, the landlord offered £1,232.52 compensation to recognise its failings in its handling of the matter. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
25. It is evident the delays had a detrimental impact on the resident. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident did not occupy the property at the time of the complaint and sublet it to tenants, but as a leaseholder he has a responsibility to provide satisfactory living conditions to his tenants. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively updated the resident, so it failed to manage his expectations and placed the onus on him to continually chase the works, causing him additional time and effort. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards above £1000 are appropriate in cases where there have been serious failings by the landlord. The landlord’s compensation offer exceeded this and it is the Ombudsman’s view that the level of compensation awarded reasonably redressed the failings identified in the handling of the complaint.
26. The resident also requested compensation for loss of income, as he had subsidised his tenants’ rent due to the repair issues. The landlord determined that as the resident collected rent through a limited company, he should raise a claim with its liability insurance. It was reasonable that the landlord sought advice from its insurance team to ensure it provided the correct information. The landlord is entitled to have insurance in place to assist it with the cost of such claims and it would not be expected to provide compensation for this element of the complaint outside the insurance process. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to assess the handling or outcome of insurance claims and therefore we cannot comment on this further in our investigation. Similarly, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to insurance to complete the internal repairs, which would typically fall within his remit of responsibility.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has reasonably redressed its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and subsequent repair issues.

Recommendations

28. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £1,232.52 as offered in its final response.
29. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether he wants to raise a complaint about its handling of the repair issues from November 2023 onwards.
30. The landlord should consider how it can safeguard its information systems and plan how to minimise disruption to its service delivery in case of any further cyber-attacks.
31. The landlord should review its process of referring repairs to contractors and approving works to prevent a recurrence of the failings identified in this report.