We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Hackney (202342556)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342556

London Borough of Hackney

27 August 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 electrical repairs following a leak. 

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom flat. She has vulnerabilities including mobility issues.
  2. On 20 September 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said this was due to her having had leaks for 2 weeks which affected the lights in the property. She said that her plugs did not work, and she was unable to cook. She said that her family were having to care for her.
  3. On the same day the landlord recorded that it visited the property and fixed all electrics apart from the cooker. It said it needed to deliver a temporary cooker and raise a job for a cooker rewire.
  4. On 26 September 2023, the landlord attended to rewire the cooker. It said it could not complete the appointment because it asked the resident to move the cooker, and the resident became abusive. The resident reported that the person who came to the property was unable to move the cooker.
  5. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 16 January 2024. It confirmed that the resident reported that there was no electrics in her property on 20 September 2023 and that the landlord attended the next day. It said that it attended again on 26 September 2023 to rewire the cooker, but it could not complete the appointment due to the resident’s behaviour. The landlord noted that the cooker had begun working 4 days ago, however it said it still wanted to rewire the cooker to make sure it did not break again. It advised that it had raised a new order for it to complete the work. It offered £450 for complaint handling.
  6. The resident responded to the complaint response on the same day. She said she was dissatisfied with the response. She said the engineer that came out on 26 September 2023 could not do the job because he hurt his back. She also said she was unhappy that the landlord noted she was aggressive and asked for details of this. She said she spent 4 days without electric in her home, and she was concerned that the electrics were still not correct and could be dangerous. She raised a concern that she was being discriminated against.
  7. At the resident’s request, to try to resolve the complaint, the landlord wrote an email to the resident on 18 January 2024. It said that the operatives made the comment regarding aggressive behaviour, but that the landlord confirmed the resident had not been aggressive to it. It also said that its operatives could not move a cooker as damage would become their responsibility. The resident confirmed on 22 January 2024 she still wanted the matter escalated.
  8. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 22 February 2024. It said it was arranging appointments to ensure it completed the outstanding works. The landlord said its records confirmed it had delivered a temporary cooker on 22 September 2023. The landlord said that it had attended an appointment for 13 December 2023 to address issues with the resident’s lighting, but as the resident still had concerns around her electrics, it would arrange a further inspection. It said the resident was not being discriminated against. The landlord offered £150 for delays to repairing the cooker, and £150 for the resident not having electric for 3 days.
  9. The Ombudsman has been informed by the landlord that the resident moved out of the property on 17 March 2024. The cooker was not fixed at that time. She has requested that the Ombudsman still investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has not provided its repairs policy from 2023. However, its current repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. As the resident had no electric, and she had known vulnerabilities, the landlord should have considered the appointment to be an emergency. The landlord attended within 24 hours, and as such it responded within appropriate timescales.
  2. When the landlord realised it could not fix the cooker, it acted appropriately by arranging a second appointment to complete the repair, and provided temporary cooking facilities as an interim resolution.
  3. The resident and the landlord’s operatives have given conflicting information regarding the appointment on 26 September 2023. The resident states she was not aggressive, and that the operative told her that the reason the appointment could not go ahead is that he had hurt his back. The landlord said that the resident became aggressive when the operative asked her to move the cooker. Both parties agree that the operative did not repair the cooker as it needed to be moved and this was not done. The Ombudsman is unable to substantiate what happened between the resident and the operative, during the appointment.
  4. When a resident needs to move an appliance before a landlord can do a repair, it would be best practice from the landlord to discuss this with the resident prior to the appointment going ahead. This would have been particularly useful in this case, as the resident had known mobility issues, and she was unable to move the cooker herself. Had the landlord informed the resident, alternative arrangements might have been made, which may have meant the appointment went ahead. We cannot see the landlord held any discussions with the resident regarding this.
  5. Once the appointment had failed, the landlord should have taken action to reschedule this with the resident and ensured that something was in place for the cooker to be moved. The landlord noted that it attempted to call the resident on 5 and 6 October to discuss this but it could not speak to the resident.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 October 2023 to say that she had a temporary cooker but that she still had an ongoing leak. We also understand that it had not repaired the main cooker at this time. The landlord did not respond to this email which was a failing.
  7. We have seen internal emails from 6 December 2023, in which the landlord was discussing whether it had completed repairs to the cooker. It noted that due to the resident’s behaviour at the appointment it had not completed the repair. In a case where behaviour has prevented an initial appointment, we would still expect the landlord to work with the resident to complete the repair. We have not seen evidence that it did this, at that time.
  8. On 6 December 2023, the resident reported that she had issues with having no lighting, due to a leak. The Ombudsman has not been provided evidence regarding these repairs. However we note the stage 2 complaint responded to a concern that there had been no electric in the resident’s property for four days, and that this was rectified on 13 December 2023. It awarded £150. Due to limited evidence the Ombudsman is unable to determine why the resident had no electric, and why the landlord did not complete the repair within 24 hours, as this would likely have been an emergency. Based on the stage 2 response, we accept that the matter has since been repaired, and compensation awarded in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration over a short duration. However, we would recommend the landlord consider its record keeping to ensure that an accurate timeline of repairs are kept by the landlord.
  9. On 12 January 2024 an internal email was sent confirming that due to mobility issues, the resident could not move the cooker. It suggested that the housing officer contact the resident to see if it could offer any support with this. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider any additional support it could provide to the resident, given her vulnerabilities and that moving the cooker had prevented the landlord completing the repair previously. However, we consider the landlord could have taken this action earlier. Further we have not seen any evidence that the landlord offered support to the resident after its internal communications or discussed this with the resident if it was unable to do this.
  10. The stage 2 response noted that due to the previous appointment, two operatives would need to attend. This was due to the note regarding aggressive behaviour, and the landlord also said it hoped this would make the resident feel more comfortable. This was appropriate from the landlord.
  11. The stage 2 response noted that it had raised a new appointment for 22 March 2024. It said that it hoped by sending 2 operatives, this would allow the cooker to be moved. The resident moved out before the landlord completed this appointment.
  12. The Ombudsman has been provided little information regarding the cause of the electrical issues, which the resident repeatedly associated with leaks in the property. There is no evidence which supports that the landlord investigated the underlying causes of the electrical difficulties. We note that during the time the complaint was outstanding, the resident made at least 3 reports of electrical issues. We consider the failure to investigate or document its investigations into the underlying causes to be a service failing. However, we recognise the resident has now moved out and as such will not make any orders for the landlord to investigate this.
  13. The landlord offered a total of £750 compensation. £450 was for complaint handling, which the resident did not bring as a complaint point to the Ombudsman, and as such is not being assessed by us. £150 was for the time spent without electric, which the Ombudsman has considered to be appropriate, given the short duration.
  14. In respect of the cooker repair, the landlord offered £50 for fault and £100 for delay. It said this was because the first appointment to fix the cooker was unsuccessful, due to the incident that occurred during that appointment. The Ombudsman accepts that this may have caused some delay, however the cooker was not fixed at the time the resident vacated the property on 18 March 2024. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took enough action to try and reschedule the repair.
  15. The landlord was aware the resident had a vulnerability. While we have seen internal communications suggesting that the landlord wanted to source support for the resident, we have not seen evidence that it offered this to the resident or discussed this with her directly. We further note that despite a number of concerns with the electrics in the property, the landlord has not demonstrated that it investigated the underlying cause. We recognise that it provided temporary cooking facilities to the resident promptly, and this will have reduced the impact the faulty cooker had on her. However, we consider that the delay to the repair took too long, and the landlord has provided insufficient reason to support why this was. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of electrical repairs following a leak.
  16. As the resident has moved out our orders will focus on an apology and compensation. We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We consider that the matter is likely to have caused stress and inconvenience to the resident, although we do not consider there was a permanent impact. This is because temporary cooking facilities were provided, and the landlord responded to new electrical faults as they arose. We consider that a compensation award of £400 is appropriate. This is inclusive of the £150 the landlord offered for the time the resident was without electric. We have increased the compensation for fault in the case and delay to the repair to £250 in recognition of the failings identified in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of electrical repairs following a leak.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to provide an apology to the resident for the length of time the repair was outstanding, and its failure to support the resident despite known vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay £400 compensation for the handling of electrical repairs following a leak. This is made up of £150 for the time the resident spent without electric and £250 for the distress and inconvenience due to the delayed cooker repair.
  3. The landlord may deduct any compensation it has already paid in relation to the electrical repairs. However it may not deduct the separate award of £450 it made for complaint handling.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report being issued.