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 (202342863)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342863

London Borough of Hackney

17 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 landlord’s handling of reports of a:
    1. Leaking pipe in the kitchen and subsequent remedial works.
    2. Damp and mould due to the leaking pipe.
    3. Complaints handling

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. On 1 March 2022, the resident reported a pipe was leaking. She also raised damp and mould concerns. The landlord’s records said that contractors had already visited the property as part of an ongoing complaint. We have not been provided a copy of the resident’s initial complaint, and as such have not seen its contents.
  3. On 28 March 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident. The response was in relation to a kitchen fan repair. It did not refer to the leaking pipe. The stage 1 response said that the resident had complained about damp and mould, however it did not provide any response to this.
  4. On 6 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She mentioned a failed appointment on 1 March 2022, in relation to the kitchen extractor fan. She subsequently said that she had reported a leaking pipe twice. She said that the landlord had previously redecorated where the leak was but had not fixed it. She said that the landlord had left the pipe exposed, and that it had been dripping for 2 weeks. She also said that the landlord had cut the lagging around the pipe away. She requested the landlord advise her what was happening with the pipe work.
  5. On 19 April 2022, the landlord’s repairs records said that it had removed a board and plaster near the pipe and ripped out some boxing. It said it had replaced a section of the pipe. It noted that a multi-trader was needed to board the pipe back in.
  6. On 2 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She said that despite her complaint, the landlord had not completed the works to the pipe. The resident said she had 2 visits from carpenters and neither had the equipment to lag the pipes. She had told the landlord that due to a cold pipe being directly above a hot pipe, the pipes needed lagging to prevent condensation. The resident said she expected contact from the landlord with an appointment for the lagging, boxing, plaster boarding and painting.
  7. On 21 September 2022, the resident’s MP forwarded a complaint from the resident, detailing what had happened with her piping to date. The resident also raised that the landlord had missed 2 scheduled appointments.
  8. The landlord responded to the MP on 21 October 2022. It said it was not standard procedure to lag pipes, however it understood the resident‘s concerns regarding condensation. It said it needed to source an insulation material, for the repair. The landlord said it was disappointed that the original plumber did not keep the piping or insulation material when it completed the initial fix on the pipe. It also apologised for the missed appointments and said that this had been due to annual leave.
  9. On 25 November 2022, the landlord attended the property to carry out remedial works to the pipe and its boxing. The landlord said that it could not complete the job, due to the resident’s refusal. The resident emailed her MP on the same day and said that a contractor had been out twice that day. On the first appointment she said he did not have the correct materials. She also said that he advised the plasterboard and boxing from the whole pipe needed to come down, so that the full pipe could be replaced. On the second visit, the resident said that the contractor told her the full pipe and boxing did not need replacing. The resident said that the contractor had failed to line up the boxing and she stated it needed to be plaster boarded. She said that this had left her kitchen looking a mess, and that it affected her wellbeing.
  10. On 14 May 2024 the Ombudsman forwarded the resident’s original correspondence regarding the pipework to the landlord and requested a complaint response.
  11. A stage 2 response was issued on 28 May 2024. It said that the original stage 1 response, was not related to the pipe work. It said it should have advised the resident to raise a new stage 1 complaint for the pipe work. It said that the resident made an escalation request on 2 August 2022, which referred to the pipework. The landlord said it did not act on this.
  12. The response noted that the landlord visited the property on 15 December 2022. It said a supervisor had visited the property and was unhappy with the standard of the work that had been carried out to date. It suggested the contractor return and fully box the pipework with a removeable panel for future maintenance. It said the resident was unhappy with this, as she wanted it plastered as before. The landlord said it had refused this request as it wanted to ensure there was access to the pipe in the future. It said the resident asked the landlord to leave. The landlord said the remedial works had been outstanding since April 2022. It advised that it had sent a surveyor on 21 May 2024, and identified further works which it needed to complete. It said it was waiting on an appointment for these works. The landlord offered a total of £2,550 for compensation. This replaced a previous £50 offer made to the resident at stage 1 for the kitchen extractor fan. The landlord said that £960 of the compensation award was due to complaint handling. £50 was due to 2 missed appointments and the remaining £1,540 was due to the delays in completing the repair.
  13. The resident remains unhappy with the works carried out to date, and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate how the landlord handled the repairs.

Assessment and finding

The landlord’s handling of a leaking pipe in the kitchen and subsequent remedial works.

  1. The Right to Repair Scheme states that the landlord should repair a leak from a water or heating pipe within 1 day. The records indicate that the leaking pipe was reported on 1 March 2022 and not repaired until 19 April 2022, which was a total of 49 days. The landlord did not repair the pipe within the required timescales, as per the Right to Repair Scheme.
  2. The Right to Repair Scheme states how much compensation is usually paid when repairs are not completed within the timescales. Compensation is normally paid at £10 initially, plus £2 each day the matter is outstanding. This is normally capped at £50 compensation. The landlord has is own compensation policy, which states that it will award between £100 – £600 compensation where a matter had no permeant impact, but adversely affected the resident.
  3. We note that the landlord offered £1,490 for the repairs delays. The landlord said that £1,040 of that compensation was for delays between 19 April 2022 and 21 May 2024, and so this cannot be considered as compensation for the delays to fixing the initial leak. We consider that the remaining amount of £450  awarded for the repair was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and was higher than the amount that would be paid under right to repair. As such the landlord has paid a reasonable amount of compensation in relation to the delays in fixing the leaking pipe.
  4. Once the landlord had repaired the pipe, it agreed it needed to complete remedial works to box the pipe back in. The landlord first attended to do this on 28 June 2022. We understand from both the resident and the landlord that the appointment was not completed, due to the resident wanting the pipes to be lagged, and the landlord saying this was not something it would do. We have reviewed the tenancy terms and conditions, and the tenancy guide, and there is no information as to who is responsible for lagging pipes. However, we note that the pipes had been lagged previously, and that this lagging had been removed during the repair. We consider it may have been reasonable for the landlord to lag the pipes, to put the pipework back in the state that it was, prior to the leak occurring. If the landlord did not feel this was necessary, or had reasons why it could not do this, it should have provided a clear explanation to the resident. We have not seen that the landlord expanded on its reasons for not lagging the pipe, other than saying it did not normally do this.
  5. The landlord attended the property again on 2 August 2022, however it did not complete the works. It said this was because the resident refused. This was due to the landlord saying it would not lag the pipes. The resident expressed her frustration that the landlord had not listened to her in relation to lagging the pipes. While we expect residents to allow access for landlords to complete works, we would also expect the landlord to communicate clearly with the resident and manage expectations where there is a disagreement on what a repair should be. We have not seen evidence the landlord did this. We note that the landlord has recorded that it terminated calls on at least 1 occasion due to what it said was abusive behaviour from the resident. We recognise that this may have contributed to communication difficulties.
  6. When the resident contacted the landlord on 2 August 2022 to express frustration that the repairs were outstanding, she advised that the pipes needed lagging, as there was a risk of condensation. This was due to a hot and cold pipe being in close proximity. We have not seen evidence that the landlord considered this request until 3 November 2022. This was after the resident had raised a complaint through her MP. When the landlord considered the request, it agreed it needed to order works to insulate the pipes. It is positive that the landlord was able to offer a solution to insulate the pipes, however we consider that the landlord should have done this at an earlier date. This may have prevented further frustration for the resident.
  7. The landlord attended the property again on 25 November 2022 and put insultation around the pipes. However, the landlord noted that it could not complete all the works, due to the resident refusing. It said that the resident wanted plasterboard to the boxing but that the landlord felt this was not necessary. It said that the resident subsequently became abusive. It is reasonable for a landlord to leave an appointment where a resident demonstrates abusive behaviour.
  8. The resident emailed her MP on 25 November 2022 and said that the appointment was not completed as it was a 2-man job and the contractor had insufficient materials. She requested an update on the works and compensation for the delay. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the MP passed on the information to the landlord. While we would expect a landlord to communicate and manage expectations when it cannot complete works, we have not seen any evidence that the resident raised these concerns to the landlord directly. The evidence does not show that the landlord was aware of the further concerns raised by the resident, and as such it was reasonable that it did not respond.
  9. In the stage 2 response the landlord said that a supervisor visited on 15 December 2022 and noted that it needed to do remedial works. The Ombudsman understands these were cosmetic works, to box in the pipe with a removeable panel. The landlord said the resident refused these works as she wanted plasterboard put in. This would prevent future access to maintain the pipe work. Although plasterboard had been in place prior to the leak, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider how it could access the pipe for future maintenance. As such its proposal to box in the pipe with a removeable panel was reasonable.
  10. We have seen no records that the resident raised the works again with the landlord, until the Ombudsman raised the complaint on 14 May 2024. We understand the works remained outstanding during this time. The resident has subsequently stated that she feels that the delay in completing the works, particularly the insulation, has resulted in mould growth. Although there was a significant delay in completing the works, the evidence does not demonstrate that there were any functional repairs outstanding as of December 2022. This is because the pipe had been fixed, and insulation had been installed. The evidence demonstrates that the concerns remaining were how the completed works looked, particularly regarding the finishing and boxing around the pipe. The landlord demonstrated that it attempted to resolve these repairs, but that the resident did not agree with the proposed works. Due to the resident’s refusal, and the fact that the works were not essential to any function of the property, it was reasonable that the landlord did not complete the repairs at the time.
  11. The Ombudsman notes that a landlord’s record dated on 4 June 2024 states that the cold-water pipe needed to be insulated. We recognise that the resident had previously asked for the landlord to insulate pipes. There is limited information in the 2024 record as to why the cold-water pipe needed to be insulated, and we note this was more than 2 years after the landlord said it had insulated pipework.
  12. The Ombudsman has found that there were some communication issues and that the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations at times. This meant that the landlord made appointments for works that the resident had not agreed. While the landlord is responsible for determining what works are necessary, better communication may have resulted in less frustration for the resident. The Ombudsman would have found service failure for these issues.
  13. The landlord has offered compensation of £1,590. The compensation offer said this replaced the offer at stage 1. We note that the stage 1 response was regarding unrelated matters, but £50 was awarded for a kitchen extractor fan. We have therefore considered the compensation for matters relating to the leaking pipe to be £1,490 for the fault and delays to the repair, and a further £50 for 2–missed appointments. As this is significantly over the compensation the Ombudsman would award for service failure and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we consider there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leaking pipe in the kitchen and subsequent remedial works.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it had visited the property on 21 May 2024 and identified works that it needed to complete. Given the time that had lapsed from the matter first being reported, until the complaint was raised in 2024, it was reasonable for the landlord to complete a new survey to identify outstanding works. It is recommended that the landlord provide an update to the resident on the status of these works. If the resident has outstanding concerns, the landlord should consider opening a new stage 1 complaint.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould due to the leaking pipe.

  1. When the leaking pipe was reported on 1 March 2022, the landlord recorded that damp and mould was reported. There is no further information regarding this damp and mould, and it is unknown if this related to the leaking pipe. We have not been provided further evidence of reports from the resident about damp and mould until the resident contacted the Ombudsman in early 2024.
  2. When the resident contacted the Ombudsman regarding damp and mould in 2024, she advised that the failure to correctly repair the pipe was causing mould to grow. This appears to be a new report of mould growth and not related to the previous complaint. The Ombudsman raised this with the landlord and the landlord responded to this in its stage 2 response. It said that it would raise a damp and mould survey. This is an appropriate response from the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s records show that an assessment was completed on 17 May 2024 and a subsequent schedule of works to address remedial works was produced on 10 June 2024. The landlord has demonstrated that it honoured its commitments in the stage 2 response.
  4. The landlord responded appropriately to reports of damp and mould due to the leaking pipe, and as such there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of damp and mould due to the leaking pipe.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord has provided a stage 1 complaint response with the same reference number as the stage 2 complaint. However, the contents of the stage 1 response were unrelated to the stage 2 response. The landlord only addressed the complaint points for this investigation at stage 2 of the complaints process. This prevented the resident from benefiting from a review by the landlord, which may have resulted in an earlier resolution.
  2. On 6 April 2022, the resident wrote an email in which she stated that she was unhappy with the pipe work repairs. She noted that she was not happy to close the complaint at this time. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said that the resident first escalated the complaint on 2 August 2022. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Code, we consider that a landlord should log the complaint when the resident expresses dissatisfaction, and we therefore recognise the date the complaint should have been logged as 6 April 2022.
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will address complaints in 10 working days at stage 1 and in 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord took 541 working days which is significantly out of target, regardless of whether the complaint was handled at stage 1 or stage 2.
  4. The landlord offered £930 compensation for the delay. This is above the amount the Ombudsman would have awarded, in line with its remedies guidance, for maladministration. As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould due to the leaking pipe.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of a leaking pipe in the kitchen and subsequent remedial works.
    2. The complaint

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £2,550 compensation offered at stage 2.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord confirm whether the schedule of works have been completed. If there are any works outstanding, it should confirm to the resident what these are, and when they will be completed.