London Borough of Hackney (202443817)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443817

London Borough of Hackney

16 July 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:
1. Repairs to the lifts.
2. Leaks in the communal areas.
3. Individuals sleeping in the communal areas.
4. The resident’s housing application and banding.
5. Reports of statutory overcrowding in the resident’s property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant in a 1 bedroom property in a block on floor 8. The building has 2 lifts, both installed in the 1980s. Both lifts had partial modifications completed in 1998 to the controllers and also around 2010 for the door operators. The resident lives in the property with her 4 children.
The landlord wrote to the residents several times between August 2023 and July 2024 to explain that a lift was out of service. It also completed several routine services of both lifts. On 1 November 2024, the resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said that the lifts were out of service again, she was 38 weeks pregnant and forced to carry her child up the stairs along with her shopping. She told the landlord the situation was incredibly challenging and unappreciable. She asked that the landlord address the issue promptly and ensure the safety and wellbeing of all residents.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 November 2024. The landlord apologised for the disrupted lift service the resident received. It confirmed:
1. Both lifts in the block needed renewal, and it was procuring new lift contracts which would include modernisation of the 2 lifts.
2. Until the contracts were in place, and the start of the upgrade programme began, it had instructed its existing repair contractor to monitor the lifts and carryout all the necessary repairs to keep the lift in service.
3. In relation to assistance for her and her family during the shutdown of the lift, it had a procedure in place called the lift protocol. The housing officer would reach out to all vulnerable residents and look at any added support they may need while the lift was out of service.
4. If she had not received a call, she should contact it and provide a telephone number, to discuss further and make arrangements for any future shutdowns.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 21 November 24. She expressed her frustration with the current situation with the lifts. She said she lived on floor 8 with 4 children, with one being an infant. She explained her vulnerability, and the difficulties the issue with the lifts caused her such as navigating the stairs with a pushchair and doing the school run with 2 children. She raised concerns around fears of her getting stuck in the lift. She also raised concerns about her child navigating the stairs on their own and not being aware of the condition of the stairs as individuals loitered on the steps.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 January 2025. It sympathised with the issues her household faced but said it could not find a service failure in its handling of the service provided to her in handling the lift breakdown around its attendance to repairs. It understood her frustration around the lifts as sometimes its contractors did not restore functionality during the initial visit. However, its contractors attended within agreed timeframes. Its member of staff did not follow the procedure within its Lift Breakdown Protocol, and it apologised. It offered the resident compensation for its service failures and the effect on her household. It offered the resident £825, which it broke down as:
1. £350 for the time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. £275 in recognition of the household’s vulnerabilities mentioned.
The resident continued to raise concerns with the lifts throughout January 2025. She also raised concerns with homeless individuals sleeping in the communal areas and taking part in inappropriate activities.
The resident told us between January 2025 and June 2025 about her concerns and the impact this had on her and her family. She told us the issues remained outstanding and continued to breakdown. She told us that she accepted the landlord’s compensation offer in June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns about the impact of the situation on both hers and her family’s health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions have had an effect on a person’s health and wellbeing. These are matters that require expert consideration and the courts can consider and decide on such issues. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on these matters.
After the conclusion of her complaint, the resident continued to raise concerns about homeless people sleeping in the communal areas of the building. We can see that the landlord has raised an ASB case about the issue. Any issues raised outside of the complaints process will not form part of this investigation. Should the issue continue, and the resident has concerns with the landlord’s handling of the situation, she may wish to raise a formal complaint with the landlord.
The resident raised concerns with us in June 2025 about reimbursement for her pushchair due to damage caused by taking it up and down the flights of stairs. The resident did not raise this as part of her initial complaint nor is there any evidence it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, so we cannot consider the matter in this investigation. As such issues require a determination of liability an insurance process or the courts may be better placed to deal with such concerns. Therefore, the resident may wish to seek independent advice about her damaged possessions.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is known as the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs the complaints which we can consider. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the following issues are outside of our jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s housing application and banding.
2. Reports of statutory overcrowding in the resident’s property.
Paragraph 41.d. of the scheme says that we cannot consider matters in respect of a Local Housing Authority which do not relate to the management or provision of social housing. Local authorities have a statutory duty to consider applications for allocation under their allocation policy. They also have a responsibility to consider concerns around overcrowding under their policies. This is not in connection with its housing activities so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing and therefore such issues are not matters for the Housing Ombudsman.
Therefore, these are matters which fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Repairs to the lifts

Through our investigation, we identified failings with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns. We identified that it failed to appropriately consider the family’s vulnerabilities, and did not follow its lift breakdown protocol around this. This is because it should have identified vulnerable individuals and families and identified any support needs during lift breakdowns. It did not take the necessary action around this until after the completion of the complaints process.
We also identified that it did not appropriately consider the distress and inconvenience, caused to the resident, especially around her concerns around health and safety. It also did not take appropriate consideration of the time and effort that she spent repeatedly raising the issues with the lifts and explaining the impact on her family.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the failings in its approach and offered the resident compensation. As such we shall consider whether the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable, and if there were any other failings in its approach which it has not recognised.
The landlord wrote to the resident several times between August 2023 and July 2024 about the lifts. In February 2024, it confirmed that it would renew the lifts in the building. Despite this however, due to the frequent lack of service, the resident raised a complaint. The evidence provided shows that the landlord appeared to have acted in line with its lift breakdown protocol by undertaking monthly safety checks, of the lifts and arranging regular servicing, before and after the resident’s complaint.
The routine service visits for both lifts provided recommendations for them as early as June and July 2024. Later visits in January 2025 also identified the same recommendations with both lifts. Between June 2024 and February 2025, the landlord has not shown that it acted on the recommendations provided for lift A for a period of 8 months. Between July 2024 and February 2025, it did not act on the recommendations for lift B for a period of 7 months.
The landlord’s lift breakdowns policy says it will replace major components and replace complete lifts when needed. The landlord has not provided any reason for why it did not act on the recommendations. However, we understand that it has decided to renew the lifts. Given the frequent breakdowns of both lifts, it would have been proportionate for it to consider if it needed to act on the recommendations or complete them as a temporary measure to reduce the frequency of the breakdowns. There is no evidence of the landlord’s assessment of the repeated nature of the recommendations and whether it meant it should bring the renewal process forward.
The landlord awarded the resident compensation of £875 in total during the complaints process. This was in recognition of its failings including some of those we have identified within this report, such as its inappropriate consideration of the vulnerabilities in the household, the distress and inconvenience faced by the resident’s family, and the time and trouble she faced in reporting and chasing the matter.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it uses the policy to reinforce the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes. It uses 4 tiers in awarding its compensation, and its offer falls within the third tier, which awards £600 to £1,000. The policy also says that it will consider the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience, the seriousness of any other unfair impact, which either mitigated or contributed to distress, inconvenience, or unfair impact. It will consider the impact on the resident’s living arrangements.
In this instance, in line with its policy the landlord has demonstrated that it tried to put things right. It has considered the level of distress and inconvenience on the resident. It appears to have considered the seriousness, and the impact of the situation on the resident. While there were further matters, we would have liked the landlord to demonstrate it considered in its handling of the situation, it has ultimately arrived at the correct decision around renewing the lifts and appears to be taking the necessary actions to get this completed.
The evidence provided shows that it also had contingency strategies in place within the lift breakdown protocol around actions it would take while the lifts were out of order while trying to return the lifts to working order. This included taking steps such as contacting the fire brigade where lifts were out for several hours. Checking the list of residents with additional needs where the lifts are likely to be out for more than 1 working day and proactively contacting any residents where it has flagged a lift outage is likely to cause them a particular challenge.
The landlord explained in its response that its contractors had acted in line with its lift breakdown protocol and attended during each breakdown. However, they had not always managed to restore service at each visit. It is important to note that the renewal process takes some time to complete, and the landlord’s approach in having its engineers attend to ensure that the block had at least one working lift until it got the renewal contracts in place was reasonable.
Whilst we appreciate this was not always possible, it is important to note that sometimes repairs may take longer to complete due to the need for specific parts which contractors may need to order which can cause delays. However, based on the landlord’s actions around the resident’s concerns and its offer of redress, we find that there was reasonable redress.
Following the conclusion of the complaints process the resident also continued to report issues with the lifts until the end of January 2025. These included breakdowns, strange noises, and a trapped relative. The landlord also explained to us that it hoped to renew the lifts by the end of 2025. It has however updated us in June 2025 that it now aims to renew the lifts in the 2026/2027 financial year but has provided no information around the further delay. We have recommended below that the landlord provide the resident with a clear schedule around when it aims to complete the renewal.

Leaks in the communal areas

The landlord explained to us that it does not have a specific policy governing communal repairs. It said that it considers all repairs in line with its repairs policy. The policy says it runs 4 repair priorities. These are:
1. Immediate repairs which it will attend to within 2 hours to ensure that there is no danger to residents or serious damage to property. It provides the example of flooding as such a repair.
2. Emergency repairs which it will attend to within 24 hours to ensure that there is no danger to residents or serious damage to property.
3. Urgent repairs which it will attend to within 5 working days.
4. Normal repairs which it will attend to within 21 working days.
The resident raised concerns about water on the stairs on 4 December 2024. The following day she raised this as a safety concern, and the landlord identified it believed that rain entering the building through the windows caused the issue. The issue remained unresolved despite the landlord sending an operative to investigate, and the resident raised it again on 6 January 2025, including her safety concerns. This was 33 days after raising her initial request.
We would expect the landlord to have triaged the repair and appointed a priority based on the seriousness of the issue. It has not shown that it did so and this was inappropriate. As the landlord did not provide a repair priority, based on the health and safety concerns we would have expected it to deal with the repair as either an emergency or urgent priority. The evidence does not support that it did so and this was inappropriate.
After the resident raised her concerns again with the landlord on 6 January 2025, it responded on the same day and told her it had asked to raise a repair for the damaged window which caused the issue. The landlord’s records then show that it completed a repair on 8 January 2025 and found that an overflow pipe caused the issue. This was 17 to 21 working days outside of the timescales it should have completed an emergency/ urgent repair and this was inappropriate.
This caused the resident distress as she explained she worried about the health and safety of her family whenever she needed to use the stairwell while the lifts were out of order. A slip is one of the many hazards captured within the Housing Health and Safety Rating System the landlord should be aware of and consider, especially around stairs. It has not shown that it considered the matter within such a context and this was inappropriate. Based on this we find that there was a service failure in its handling of this situation.
In line with its compensation policy, to put things right around the distress caused to the resident, we order that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

Individuals sleeping in the communal areas

From the evidence provided, the resident first raised her concerns with individuals in the communal areas in her escalation request on 21 November 2024. She however did not specify whether there was a specific issue, or if she was worried about the possibility of people being in the stairwell while her child used it. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took any action around this at the time. There is also no evidence that there was any detriment to the resident around the landlord’s inaction.
The resident then did not raise her concerns again until 7 January 2025, over 1 month later. At this time, she told the landlord that there was a homeless person sleeping in the stairwell. The landlord asked for the resident’s housing officer to attend. They did so the following day and found no evidence of a homeless person sleeping in the stairwell. The evidence shows that it appropriately investigated her concerns and could not substantiate the reports. Based on this we find that there was no maladministration.

Special investigation

The Ombudsman completed a special investigation into the landlord in May 2025. The investigation found that similar to the findings of this case, there were concerns with the landlord’s handling of vulnerabilities identified. There were also issues identified with the landlord’s knowledge and information management, with it acknowledging data gaps around vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments. There were also identified missed opportunities to fill some of these gaps. We do however acknowledge that the landlord has begun transformation work towards a change in its culture towards assisting residents with vulnerabilities.
The Ombudsman made recommendations as part of the investigation. These included the landlord implementing new systems to resolve the issues surrounding gaps in data and vulnerabilities. The landlord has committed to provide an update on this by 1 September 2025. As such, we will make no orders in relation to the landlord’s internal processes. The landlord should reflect on the failures in this case and what learning it can take to help inform any future improvements.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 41.d. the following issues are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s housing application and banding.
2. Reports of statutory overcrowding in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the lift repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of leaks in the communal area.
2. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of individuals sleeping in the communal areas.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology around its failings.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £100 around its handling of the leaks in the communal area.
3. Provide proof of compliance with this order.

Recommendations

Ensure it records its consideration of and decisions around any recommendations made by its contractors/staff.
Provide the resident with an updated schedule around the lift renewal plan as she explained the previous plan showed the works would take place in April 2025 and they remain outstanding.
As the concerns with the lift remain ongoing, consider whether additional compensation is warranted for the distress and inconvenience this may have continued to cause the resident.