London Borough of Hackney (202333300)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333300

London Borough of Hackney

9 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block which the resident let to her own tenants in the complaint timeframe.
  2. The resident previously made reports in 2021 about a roof leak that caused cracks and damp in 1 bedroom. On 21 November 2023, she then made further reports about a roof leak that affected both her bedrooms. She also queried what happened with the 2021 leak.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 21 and 25 November 2023. She was unhappy the landlord only gave limited information about the 2021 leak and questioned if this was ever resolved. She was unhappy it had not scheduled an appointment to investigate the recent leak until 14 December 2023. She raised concerns about the impact of the leaks and mould on her property and tenants. She asked it to urgently repair the leak and cover the costs to remedy mould and water damage.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 29 November 2023:
    1. It noted there was a roof leak inspection in 2021, but said there were no further records after the resident had chased the outcome to this in September 2021.
    2. It said the 14 December 2023 roof inspection timeframe was in line with its policies, and that any necessary works would be raised after this.
    3. It told the resident to contact the building insurer and its insurance team about damages.
  5. The resident asked to escalate the complaint the following day.
  6. The landlord’s contractor inspected on 14 December 2023. They found no signs of roof or gutter defects. They said a new appointment was needed to investigate the resident’s flat, after they were unable to access it when they inspected the roof.
  7. The landlord corresponded about this with the resident, who said her contractor could provide access, and it arranged for a roofer to attend on 4 January 2024. The landlord’s roofer subsequently noted they were unable to access the resident’s flat when they attended, but they sent photos of the roof to the landlord and her contractor.
  8. The landlord provided its final response on 9 January 2024.
    1. It apologised that the resident did not receive a response to an update request in 2021, but it noted no follow–on work was recommended or raised after an inspection, and it had no record of further reports for 2 years.
    2. It noted that its roofer did not see any roof defects and were unable to access the resident’s flat when they attended on 14 December 2023. It noted the roofer did not gain access to the resident’s flat when it had arranged for them to visit on 4 January 2024.
    3. It said that it would arrange a further visit, to establish if any external issues impacted the property, if the resident provided a suitable date and time.
  9. The landlord arranged with the resident for its roofer to attend on 19 January 2024, but they did not get access to the property, and so a further visit was arranged for 2 February 2024. This found that scaffold was required to repair brickwork at the front of the property, and a request was submitted for this. On 23 February 2023, the landlord raised a further repair to trace and remedy the leak, which was noted to require for scaffolding at the rear, and this was erected on 28 February 2024.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord multiple times for an update on when works would be done. She raised concerns that scaffold had been erected on one side but bedrooms on both front and rear of building were affected by damp. She also asked the landlord to clarify if a 3 April 2024 appointment required internal access, which she received no reply to. Its contractor did an external inspection on 3 April 2024, noted they found no leaks, and referred the issue to a surveyor.
  11. On 22 April 2024, the landlord told the resident that it had been trying to arrange for its contractor to attend to confirm if scaffold was required to do repairs at the front of the block. The same day, the contractor said they had experienced difficulty contacting the resident to arrange access, but they intended to cold call that day. The resident later noted that her tenants said an operative visited that day and took pictures. She raised dissatisfaction that she was not told about difficulty contacting her when she had contacted the landlord over the past few months. She noted she had no record of missed contacts.
  12. The landlord liaised with the resident to arrange an internal visit by its contractor on 1 May 2024, but she reported that they did not attend. The landlord later updated her in mid May that the contractor had done an external inspection. It also said that its repairs team had requested a surveyor’s inspection before it committed to extensive external work.
  13. This inspection took place on 22 May 2024. The surveyor noted slight damp and mould at the top of the walls in 2 bedrooms. They noted that there appeared to be an external crack and loose mortar between some rear brickwork and recommended for 1.7 metres of mortar to be replaced. They also recommended to treat and paint internal areas affected by damp and mould if this was the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord reviewed the recommendations on 20 June 2024, completed the repairs on 14 July 2024, and removed the scaffolding on 19 July 2024.
  14. The resident says the landlord carried out an inspection of her second bedroom in May 2025 and said no further works were required. However, she is unhappy with how long the repairs took and that the landlord did not inform her they were completed until early 2025. She said she sought compensation for lost rental income, her distress and inconvenience, and her time trouble chasing the landlord to progress the works and obtain updates.
  15. The landlord has subsequently written to the resident on 9 July 2025 and offered her £805 in recognition of the delays, her time and trouble, and her distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has been previously told that we may not investigate as far back as 2021. The Ombudsman’s Scheme, which sets out how we investigate complaints, says we normally expect complaints to be about issues that occurred within 12 months of when the complaint was made. This investigation’s main focus is on events from 21 November 2023, as there is no evidence that the resident reported leaks in the 12 months before then, up until July 2024. This is because works for the leak the resident reported were completed then, and because the landlord’s complaints team continued to correspond with the resident up until at least then.

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

  1. The evidence shows that after the resident reported a leak on 21 November 2023, the landlord took steps for its contractor to visit on 14 December 2023. This was 17 working days later and within a 21 working day target timeframe for normal repairs.
  2. The landlord’s 29 November 2023 stage 1 response said the inspection timeframe was in line with its policies, said any necessary works would be raised after this, and said the resident should contact the building insurer and its insurance team about damages.
  3. The landlord appropriately shows it reviewed the repairs priority to confirm it was satisfied with this. Its policies do not indicate that it will attend earlier for leaks, unless they are uncontainable. This is not evident here. The landlord made appropriate commitments to raise necessary works after the inspection. The landlord provided appropriate advice about who the resident needed to contact for internal damage. This was in line with its policy that while customers are responsible for contents insurance, it will signpost them to its insurance department. The landlord’s response therefore reasonably addressed the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
  4. The resident then escalated the complaint. The landlord’s contractor inspected the roof soon after on 14 December 2023 and recommended an internal inspection, as no roof defects were identified. This was attempted on 4 January 2024 but did not happen as the resident’s contractor did not provide access.
  5. The landlord’s 9 January 2024 stage 2 response confirmed it would arrange a further visit, to establish if any external issues impacted the property, if the resident provided a suitable date and time.
  6. The landlord could have been clearer to the resident that an internal inspection may be required if no issues with the roof were found, but it shows it sought to progress the issue in a timely manner. It took steps to inspect if there were any roof issues, then took steps to arrange an internal inspection when it was unable to inspect the resident’s flat the same day as the roof inspection. The 4 January 2024 visit being unsuccessful was through no fault of its own and it made appropriate commitments at stage 2 to investigate further if the resident provided availability.
  7. The landlord would be reasonably expected to resolve matters in an effective and timely manner after the resident’s reports and complaint, and it was implicit in its complaint responses that it committed to do so. However, the landlord’s subsequent handling and communication was not as effective and timely as it could have been.
  8. The landlord’s contractor inspected the resident’s flat on 2 February 2024 and requested scaffold to repair front brickwork. It is not clearly evident why rear scaffold was progressed and erected soon after. This shows there was an unclear approach at points.
  9. The landlord would have been expected to progress the works in a timely way after the scaffold was erected in late February 2024. However, there was no action until an external inspection on 3 April 2024, over a month later.
  10. The landlord’s contractor then recommended a surveyor inspection at their 3 April 2024 visit. However, the contractor did further visits on 22 April and 1 May 2024, which it is not evident significantly progressed matters, before a surveyor visit was finally done on 22 May 2024. This was over 1 month later. The landlord then did not review the surveyor findings until 20 June 2024, almost 1 month later, when it took steps to progress the works.
  11. The landlord completed the external works, understood to be repointing of 2 metres of brickwork, on 14 July 2024. This was around 163 working days and almost 8 months after the resident’s original report of leaks. This is significantly longer than the 21 working day timeframe of the landlord’s least urgent repairs priority. This is not satisfactory. The resident not living at the property will have been challenging and impacted some visits such as the 4 January 2024 visit. However, the repeated external inspections and delayed action at points clearly contributed to the time the repairs took.
  12. The resident also requested updates multiple times from the complaints team, who referred her queries to its repairs department. They often delayed or failed to reply, which led to poor communication and protracted or no updates to the resident. She faced delays receiving details of a surveyor report. The complaints team internally confirmed the works were completed in July 2024, but she was not told this until early 2025, over 7 months later. The contractor reported difficulty contacting her, but her regular contact to the landlord indicates there were missed opportunities for more effective communication and a more coordinated approach with the contractor for some visits.
  13. The works themselves seem reasonable, despite the unclear approach for the scaffold evident in February 2024. The works were confirmed by first-hand inspection of the landlord’s surveyor, whose professional opinion the landlord is entitled to rely on. The landlord inspected the block and the resident’s flat again in May 2025 and confirmed that no further external works were required, apart from vegetation removal that was not considered to be linked to any issues.
  14. The landlord was also reasonable not to have done internal works in response to the resident’s report and complaint. The evidence is not clear that the property was significantly impacted, as inspections found mould and moisture levels to be low, but the surveyor recommended some internal works if this was the landlord’s responsibility.
  15. The resident is responsible for internal works under the lease, so she was appropriately provided details of the landlord’s insurance team if she held it liable for issues outside of usual lease responsibilities. She has the option to make a claim or seek independent advice if she seeks compensation for issues such as lost rental income, as this is not something we award under our remedies guidance.
  16. However, from the issues identified above, the landlord does not show it effectively managed the repairs and did enough to avoid the length of time the repairs took. The resident evidently went to time and trouble to chase updates and try to progress matters, and this, the delays and communication issues will have caused her distress, frustration and uncertainty.
  17. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has now offered the resident compensation, but we find a service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports, given the length of time the complaint has gone on.
  18. The offer of £805 is in line with amounts that our and the landlord’s remedies guidance may consider applicable for the evident service issues and impact on the resident, so we do not order any more compensation. For example, the landlord’s offer includes £200 for the repairs delays, which is in line with the amount its compensation policy says is applicable for external repairs delays.
  19. The landlord is recommended to continue to liaise with the resident to pay the compensation it offered, as this is part of the basis for not finding maladministration in this case.

Determination

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

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to continue to liaise with the resident to pay the compensation it has offered.
  2. The landlord is recommended to review:
    1. How it coordinates and communicates about similar repairs which involve leaseholders who live away from their property.
    2. How it ensures that contractor recommendations and outcomes to surveyor visits are reviewed and actioned in a timely way.
    3. How it ensures there is effective and timely communication between its repairs and complaints teams and its contractors when resolving repairs.