London Borough of Hackney (202315535)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315535

London Borough of Hackney

30 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:
   1. Reports of smells, steam, noise, and fluff entering from a neighbouring property.
   2. Reports of damp.
   3. The complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of a 1 bedroom property at the top of a 2 floor block. His tenancy started in April 1991.
3. The resident had a representative during his stage 1 complaint. For the purposes of this investigation, we shall refer to both the resident and his representative as “the resident.”
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 April 2023. He said he had ongoing issues which he had previously reported to his housing officer and the landlord’s complaints department. His previous complaint predated a cyber-attack in 2020 on the landlord. He raised concerns with fluff and steam entering his property from his neighbour’s ground floor flat. He said the steam caused damp in his home which was a patch in the bathroom on the outside wall. He said it also made the doorframe to the bedroom swell, so the door stuck, and the plaster became damaged in some areas. He further explained:
   1. A surveyor previously visited the property and had reported that there was some damp above where his downstairs neighbour’s boiler was. When the steam cooled, his flat got very cold as the damp condensation then became cold water, especially during the winter months. He has seen steam coming out of the front door of the ground floor flat, and condensation coming down the windows as a result.
   2. The steam had created black marks on his walls, as it had pushed ordinary dust up from the floor. The steam also affected electrical wiring in the property, as the light in the kitchen flashed on and off and there was damp around plug sockets.
   3. Fluff came up into the flat 5 to 6 times per week. He has Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and his doctor has told him that he should not be breathing in fluff or dust as it is very bad for his condition. He continually sneezed from the fluff and had to wipe it off his surfaces daily.
   4. There was a structural issue with the floor of his property and the roof of the ground floor flat (his neighbour’s property). He could smell the cooking of the residents in the ground floor flat and had reported smelling cooking meat at 1:30am because of the steam coming into his flat.
   5. On a previous occasion, the neighbour on the ground floor approached him as there was a leak coming from his property into theirs. He saw that paint was coming down off their ceiling when they allowed him to look in at the leak.
   6. One of the landlord’s operatives attended to fix the leak, however the resident said that the ground floor resident refused access.
   7. There were holes in the floor of the front room that was previously cemented over, and existing holes in the bedroom floor and bathroom walls. It is unclear who cemented over the holes in the floor. These holes had allowed bugs to crawl up from the ground floor into his property, in addition the fluff and steam. He asked that repair operatives attended the property urgently to thoroughly assess the disrepair issues and any potential structural damage and promptly create a schedule of works to rectify the situation.
5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 19 April 2023. It said it found that due to a cyber-attack, it did not have access to repair reports that residents may have previously raised. Therefore, to investigate further, it raised an urgent surveyor’s inspection. It scheduled this for 28 April 2023. Once completed, it would raise the necessary repairs. It would contact him directly to schedule any further appointments.
6. Following ongoing issues with appointments, and updates, between April 2023 and July 2023, the landlord provided a further stage 1 response. It is however unclear when this was. It provided the results of a survey it completed on 2 June 2023 which identified no issues. It explained:
   1. it found cobwebs on the corners of the living room and bedroom walls, and tiny particles of dust on the floor of the property.
   2. The resident told it that his neighbour used an industrial oven embedded in the wall causing the dust and continuous steam when in use. It could not consider this as disrepair as it was a complaint about his neighbour’s lifestyle. Based on this there was no further action needed.
   3. There were also no structural issues found with the property, and he was free to begin decorating his property as he wished.
   4. It had lost some repair history due to the cyber-attack, but the information available showed that it addressed and completed all required works by the resident within the necessary timescales.
   5. Due to the resident’s mental health, it recognised the service failure may have affected him more. Therefore, for the loss of confidence and disappointment that it caused by the delay in providing an update on the surveyor’s findings, it awarded £100 compensation.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 13 July 2023. He said the issue remained unresolved after a surveyor visited on 2 June 2023 as it took no further action. The surveyor agreed to book in required works, and they had contacted them several times for an update but received no response. He said he was very concerned about the state of his property and that there may be structural damage occurring. He told the landlord the situation also affected his mental health. He requested compensation of £1,000 and over to reflect the landlord’s “maladministration” in line with our guidance.
8. The parties continued to communicate about the issue. The resident reconfirmed he wanted to escalate his complaint in September 2023. The resident also contacted us on 27 September 2023 and explained the situation to us.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 23 October 2023. It said:
   1. It empathised that the situation had caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It attended his property and the neighbouring property with the Area Surveying Manager on 20 October 2023 to investigate the issues raised in his complaint.
   2. They identified works to take place in the below property that should minimise the issues he raised. They also recommended for him to install a floor covering which would also help to reduce the issues.
   3. In relation to other issues like cooking smells/noises, it did not consider these to be repair issues and it referred them to his Housing Officer for further investigation.
   4. There were delays in providing the original surveying report and it acknowledged this at stage 1. It offered £100 compensation but there were further delays in attending his property and the neighbouring property on 20 October 2023 which found additional works to take place. It increased its award to £230.
10. The resident wrote to us between November 2023 and March 2024 he said that the landlord attended his property and said it could not identify any structural damage. It said it would contact him, but no one did so. He was unhappy it did not offer him any compensation. He raised further concerns and said the issues he complained about remained ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident explained in his complaint to the landlord that he had raised his concerns for a while. He said he raised his concerns prior to the cyber-attack which affected the landlord in 2020. The landlord explained that it could not find any evidence of the resident raising his concerns prior to his complaint in 2023. It explained it had checked its legacy systems. As the issue is historic in nature, and the landlord cannot provide evidence to support any investigations due to the impact of the cyber-attack, we can only consider the landlord’s actions from the resident’s latest complaint.
12. Further our scheme says we cannot consider matters which a resident did not bring to our attention within 12 months of them exhausting a landlord’s complaints process. As the resident raised the issues in 2020 as part of another complaint, we would not have been able to consider them within this investigation.
13. Within correspondence to us, the resident raised concerns about draughts from his windows, and skirting boards. He said he believed the windows need reinstallation or replacement. He raised further concerns with the installation of his kitchen, and masonry falling down the inside of the chimney. He also raised concerns around disrepair in the property with us during a call on 16 July 2025. These issues did not form part of the resident’s original complaint to the landlord in April 2023 which he referred to us.
14. Our scheme says we may not consider issues which have not exhausted a landlord’s complaint’s process. We have seen no evidence these issues have exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s process. As such we shall not consider them within this investigation.
15. The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the situation on his health. While we sympathise with the resident, we cannot consider such issues. This is because such matters require a legally binding decision on causation and liability. The courts can make such decisions. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice.

Reports of smells, noise, and fluff entering from a neighbouring property

16. The landlord took necessary steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. It completed a survey in 2 June 2023 which found that it did not need to take any further action. It found no structural issues and that the issues complained of by the resident related to lifestyle concerns with his neighbour and not repair issues. It confirmed in October 2023 that it had attended his neighbour’s property and found no evidence of any industrial ovens or machines which would cause any of the issues he complained of in his property.
17. The landlord also attended again in October 2023 to investigate the resident’s concerns. It found works needed to the resident’s neighbour’s property and recommended the resident installed a floor covering in his own property to help reduce the issues with the fluff and provide better sound insulation. It appropriately told him it had referred his concerns to his housing officer to investigate.
18. The landlord also recognised that there were failings in its approach. It recognised that it did not provide a prompt response following the survey on 2 June 2023, which saw the resident chasing for updates. It recognised its communication failings around this and looked to put things right. It offered him £100 compensation as a result.
19. The landlord also recognised that there were delays in it attending the resident’s property in October 2023. It offered a further £130 in compensation. It however has not acknowledged the delay in completing the initial survey and   its record keeping failings. This is because when the resident contacted it on 27 April 2023, for an update on the survey, the landlord informed him, no survey appointment had been scheduled. This misinformation caused the resident to be absent when the landlord attended on 28 April 2023, to conduct the survey. As a result of this, the landlord did not carry out the initial survey until 2 June 2023.
20. While the landlord said in its stage 2 response that it did not find fault with its survey delay, as the resident was unable to provide access after it raised inspections, the initial issue which led to the delay was due to the landlord’s poor internal communications and record keeping. We would expect a landlord to ensure that it appropriately recorded any appointments to make sure that it did not miss them, not to provide inaccurate information to resident’s which could lead to delays (as was the case here), and ensure it completed necessary works promptly. The landlord’s poor record keeping was directly attributable to the delays between 28 April 2023 and 2 June 2023. Based on this we find that there was an additional service failure.
21. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation where it has failed in its service delivery, a financial remedy may be necessary in some circumstances. This includes for avoidable distress, time, and trouble. It says time and trouble is generally related to where it finds fault in the way it has considered a complaint such as delays. If warranted this was unlikely to be less than £100 or more than £300. It says that housing repair complaints may warrant compensation for time and trouble.
22. The resident took the time to try to identify when the appointment was, and the landlord provided him with inaccurate information. This led to the missed appointment, causing him inconvenience. Based on this, we find there was an added service failure, the landlord did not recognise. We order that the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation.

Reports of damp

23. The resident told the landlord in his complaint on 4 April 2023 that the steam from his neighbour’s flat caused a damp patch in his bathroom. The landlord completed a survey of the property on 2 June 2023, however there is no evidence that it took any action around the reported damp at this point. Nor is there any evidence that it took any action around his concerns with the electrics. This is because the survey results provided make no mention about any actions around these matters.
24. The landlord’s actions around the damp also does not fit with the actions it said it would take around inspecting for damp and mould within 5 days of reports, following its self-assessment against our damp and mould spotlight report.
25. We then have no evidence that it took any action to try to learn whether there was an issue with damp in the property until its visit on 20 October 2023. During this visit, it took a damp meter reading of the bathroom wall and found that it was not damp. The evidence suggests there was a delay of over 6 months in taking necessary action to learn if there was a damp issue in the resident’s property and this was inappropriate.
26. However, there is no evidence of any significant detriment caused to the resident, as the finding was that there was no damp in the property. We have also seen no evidence that the resident followed up the concerns with the electrics after he mentioned it in his complaint. When the landlord inspected the neighbour’s property however, it found no evidence of any industrial ovens or machines as reported by the resident causing the steam in his property. It also found no evidence of steam in the resident’s property at the time of its visits to his home. Based on this, we find that there was service failure.
27. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, as it is has failed to provide a service within a reasonable timeframe, which led to unnecessary distress for the resident, we order the landlord to pay added compensation.

The complaint

28. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It says it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
29. The landlord appropriately responded within the timeframes provided in its procedure at stage 1. There were however concerns with its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 2.
30. The resident escalated his complaint on 13 July 2023. The landlord however said internally that it wanted to try to deescalate and stop the resident proceeding to stage 2. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Ombudsman’s code. The landlord had a responsibility to provide the resident with the necessary response in a prompt manner. Following its attempts to deescalate, it was unable to resolve the resident’s concerns, and he asked to escalate to stage 2 again on 27 September 2023. As such its approach led to an unnecessary delay in the complaint handling process.
31. After escalating his complaint, the landlord realised it would not provide its response by the necessary deadline. It appropriately asked the resident for an extension and provided its response on 23 October 2023. As the resident initially escalated on 13 July 2023, it is fair to consider the stage 2 escalation from this date. Based on this, there was a delay of over 3 months in the landlord providing a stage 2 response and this was inappropriate. This also means that its actions contributed to a delay in the complaint handling process of over 6 months. Based on this we find that there was maladministration.
32. The landlord did not acknowledge the failings in its approach with its complaint handling and offered the resident no redress around the situation. Based on this and its compensation policy we order that the landlord pay the resident added compensation around its complaint handling.

Special investigation

33. Our special investigation into the landlord identified concerns with the landlord’s compliant handling, specifically issues around escalating complaints. We have made recommendations around the landlord’s complaint handling within the special investigation report, and as such will not make any further recommendations to avoid duplication.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme we find that there was:
    1. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of:
       1. Reports of smells, noise, and fluff entering from a neighbouring property.
       2. Damp.
    2. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology around the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £480. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £230. If the landlord has paid this to the resident it should subtract the £230 from the £480 leaving a total of £250 to pay. We break this down as:
       1. £100 for delay in conducting the initial survey.
       2. £100 for the delay in checking the damp in the resident’s property.
       3. £50 for its complaint handling.
    3. Speak with the resident and identify if he still has concerns with his electrics in the kitchen. If so, it should send a suitably qualified person to inspect the kitchen electrics.
    4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

36. Speak with the resident and identify what his concerns about disrepair in the property are. It should then decide if it needs to take any further action.