London Borough of Hackney (202439703)

Decision
Case ID	202439703
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hackney
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	11 November 2025

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy started on 21 April 2003. The property is a 2 bedroom maisonette in a 4 storey block. The resident’s son has a mental health diagnosis and suffers from chronic back pain.
On 27 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report repair issues including windows, the canopy over the front door and the door itself. The resident also reported that she was experiencing issues heating the property. Repairs to the windows and door were completed during 2025.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request for repairs.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs.
2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Request for repairs.

There were unreasonably long delays in carrying out repairs to the property. The resident was caused distress and inconvenience including having to repeatedly chase progress.
The landlord’s offer of compensation during the complaints process was proportionate to the failures identified in this report. However, it failed to demonstrate learning and identify what it would do differently.

Handling of the complaint.

The landlord identified its complaint handling failures. The compensation it offered to put things right resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 09 December 2025
2	Take Specific Action order The landlord must contact the resident to find out if any of the works are outstanding. If they are it must arrange an inspection. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. It must write to the resident to set out the outcomes. If works are required it must include an action bound timescale.	No later than 09 December 2025
3	Case Review order The landlord must review the failures identified in this report. It should identify what went wrong and what it will do differently. A copy of the outcomes should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 23 December 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £940 as offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling failures if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 February 2023	The resident made a formal complaint as follows: Works done to reduce the breeze from the front door were unsuccessful. The single glazed windows had rotten wooden frames and needed to be replaced. She was struggling to heat the property and the cold was impacting on her son’s health. When the old heating system in the kitchen was made obsolete it was not replaced. The canopy over the front door was rotten and damaged. Holes behind the kitchen cupboards needed blocking up.
27 February 2023	The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint. It said it would respond within 10 working days.
10 March 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, the main points were: It set out the works it had carried out to the windows and front door to date. It confirmed it had raised a works order for a surveyor to attend on 20 March. Its surveyor had approved a quote to repair the canopy. It would contact the resident to arrange an appointment as soon as possible. It apologised for the delay. It said it had escalated the issue to its commercial team and head surveyor to improve its service in future. There was not enough space in the kitchen to install a radiator. It would attend on 16 March 2023 to address the holes behind the units and would monitor until completion. It apologised for any inconvenience and offered £180 compensation.
15 March 2023	The resident emailed the landlord because works including the windows and canopy were outstanding. She asked it to review the compensation it offered and to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
11 January 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to ask to escalate her complaint. She said the property was too cold due to the rotten windows, issues with the front door and holes behind the kitchen cupboards. She said it was impacting on her finances and health.
12 January 2024	The landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the delay in contacting her. It asked her to provide specific information to support her request. This was provided on 3 February 2024.
12 February 2024	The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge receipt of her stage 2 complaint. It said it would respond by 4 March 2024.
5 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response which said: It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint. The outstanding windows were replaced on 5 March. The repair to the canopy was carried out on 22 February. It acknowledged the resident’s assertion that it should be replaced. Its position regarding the kitchen radiator had not changed. It apologised that repairs to the windows, front door and canopy were not carried out until February and March. A surveyor attended the property on 4 March 2024 and the works raised had been passed to its contractor. These would be completed by 25 March 2024. When the resident first asked to escalate her complaint it attempted to resolve the repairs. However, it failed to confirm that the complaint would not be escalated. It apologised for the delay. It increased its offer of compensation at stage 1 to £2,240 comprised of: £500 for failure of service. £250 for vulnerability issues in relation to her son’s health. £550 for the avoidable delay. £940 for the delay in escalating the complaint.
28 September 2024	The resident emailed us and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said some works were outstanding and the landlord has stopped communicating with her.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Response to request for repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

Canopy.

In her email to the landlord of 27 February 2023 the resident said there were nails and beading hanging down from the rotten front door canopy. An internal email dated 28 February said a works order was originally raised on 24 October 2022. It asked for works to be approved. An internal email dated 8 March 2023 confirmed the approval. While this was positive the reason for the delay is unclear therefore the delay was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 10 March 2023 apologised for the delay in its response. It said it would attend to make safe within 24 hours and would carry out the repair as soon as possible. The resident’s email to the landlord of 15 March 2023 confirmed the make safe had been actioned.
An internal email dated 16 March 2023 confirmed that the repair to replace the canopy had been issued to a contractor who’d get it “booked soon.” The landlord failed to monitor progress of the repair. This caused time and trouble to the resident who emailed to chase on 3 July 2023. An internal email of the same date asked for an update. The contractor replied the next day to say they may reallocate the works to another subcontractor. By now 9 months had passed since the original works order was raised which was inappropriate.
The landlord chased the contractor again on 21 July 2023 because it was concerned works were still outstanding. On 24 July the contractor replied to say it had to reallocate the repair because it was cancelled by the previous subcontractor. The landlord asked that it be prioritised.
The landlord chased the contractor again on 27 October 2023. While this was positive it was 3 months after the last update. It did not adhere to its repairs promise to complete all repairs within an agreed timescale which for “normal” repairs was 21 working days. Its inaction compounded the delay. The contractor replied to say it needed to provide an estimate but it had gone to the wrong address. They would visit again.
On 5 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord photographs of the condition of the canopy and asked it to post inspect. It replied to say this would be arranged. It’s unclear if the request was to post inspect after the make safe works or whether further repairs had been carried out since then. This is a record keeping failure which has impacted on our assessment of the landlord’s response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 5 March 2024 said that its surveyor attended on 4 March and that all works could be completed by 25 March 2024. It’s unclear if this included works to replace the canopy.
The landlord has not responded to our request to confirm if and when works were fully resolved. However, the evidence shows that as of 27 October 2023 the works were outstanding. This was a year after the original repair was raised causing distress and inconvenience to the resident who kept chasing.

Windows and front door.

In her email to the landlord of 27 February 2023 the resident said the windows and front door were draughty. She said it had promised to replace both but had not done so.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 10 March 2023 confirmed its surveyor would inspect the door and windows on 20 March. The landlord failed to monitor progress of the repair causing time and trouble to the resident who emailed to chase on 3 July 2023. An internal email of the same date said it could not see that follow on works were raised after the appointment on 20 March 2023.
An internal response of 6 July 2023 said it had chased the contractor. This was 5 months after the resident first raised the issue as part of her complaint and the delay was unreasonable.
The landlord’s email to the resident of 21 July 2023 said it was trying to include replacement of the windows with other works. It’s understandable that the landlord would try to be as efficient as possible. However, it failed to provide updates and manage the resident’s expectations around the process.
This caused time and trouble to the resident who emailed the landlord on 20 November 2023 to chase. The landlord sent an internal email to seek an update on works. While this was positive it was inappropriate that it only did so when the resident chased. It did not adhere to its repairs promise to complete all repairs within an agreed timescale. Its inaction compounded the delay. An internal reply confirmed the matter was “in hand.”
The landlord’s email to the resident of 8 January 2024 advised that the door was being manufactured and would be delivered on 10 January. It confirmed the windows were in hand. The update about the windows was of little value to the resident because it gave no updates regarding timescales.
An internal email dated 5 February 2024 chased an update on the front door. The contractor replied to say works had not been allocated to them. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to say the repairs were in hand. However, it said it understood it was taking a long time so it was chasing updates. Without giving any idea of timescales it failed to reassure the resident it took the repair seriously.
On 12 February 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm an appointment was booked for 23 February to measure up for the door. While this was positive it was 12 months after the resident first requested the repair. The delay was unreasonable.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 February 2024 to confirm she received an apology and explanation that it had confused her case with another. This meant it told her the door was being manufactured by mistake.
A file note dated 21 February 2024 confirmed the windows would be installed on 5 March and that the appointment was confirmed with the resident. The resident’s email to the landlord of the same date confirmed the living room window was outstanding.
The landlord’s update to us dated 15 July 2025 confirmed the final window was replaced on 3 February 2025. While this was positive it was 22 months after the resident first raised the repair during which time she had chased to progress the issue.
An internal email dated 21 July 2025 said the door installation was booked for 28 July. This was more than 2 years after the resident raised the repair which is an unreasonably long delay. The landlord has not responded to our request to confirm if and when the door was replaced.

Heating in kitchen.

In her email to the landlord of 27 February 2023 the resident said it failed to install an alternative form of heating in the kitchen when the old one became obsolete. An internal email dated 2 March said there’d never been communal heating. It suggested that an inspection be carried out which was appropriate in the circumstances.
An internal exchange of emails followed its inspection on 3 March 2023 in which it concluded there was no space to install a radiator. A request was made to consider if a different heater might be suitable or if it could remove cupboards to fit a radiator.
On 17 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it would install a radiator in the kitchen and would contact her to make an appointment.
There’s no evidence of any further communication until the landlord’s email to the resident of 6 July 2023 which confirmed it would be replaced on 14 August 2023. It’s unclear why there was a delay of 5 months therefore it was unreasonable.
The landlord’s email to the resident of 21 July 2023 confirmed the appointment was moved to 18 August 2023. The resident replied to ask the appointment to be rearranged. The landlord has not responded to a request from us to confirm if and when works were fully resolved.

Holes in kitchen.

In her email to the landlord of 27 February 2023 the resident said there were holes behind the kitchen cupboards which were an access point for mice and cold draughts.
An internal email dated 28 February 2023 said that an order to block the holes was raised on 24 February 2022 following pest treatment. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 10 March 2023 confirmed it had arranged an appointment for 16 March. It said it would monitor works through to completion.
While this was positive it failed to provide an explanation as to why works were not completed in 2022. Its inaction resulted in a delay of over a year which was unreasonable causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Its stage 2 complaint response of 5 March 2024 said that works were carried out as arranged. However, the resident’s email to the landlord of 23 July 2024 said the holes had not been filled. The landlord has not responded to our request to confirm if and when works were carried out.

Heating the property.

In addition to the repairs set out above the resident explained she was finding it difficult to heat the property. This included emails to the landlord on 27 February 2023 and 7 January 2024. She set out how this impacted on her and her family. On 11 January 2024 she asked that the compensation be reviewed to reflect this aspect of her complaint.
There’s no evidence that the landlord considered the impact of the delays on the resident’s ability to keep her home warm. This applies to distress and inconvenience and increased heating costs.

Summary.

Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord acknowledged the delays and indicated that it would learn from the complaint.
It’s disappointing that it failed to use the complaints process to swiftly resolve the repairs. However, it reviewed its stage 1 offer of compensation on 17 March and 24 July 2023 to try to ensure its financial remedy was proportionate to the ongoing issues. It also reviewed the compensation at stage 2.
Its offer of compensation was in line with our Remedies Guidance where a landlord repeatedly fails to provide the same service which has a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
It’s also acknowledged that although it was outside of the complaints process the landlord offered additional compensation of £780 after the window replacements were completed.
The landlord’s offer of compensation made at stage 2 is considered proportionate to the failings identified in this report. However, it has not demonstrated its learning from the complaint and how it will do things differently. Therefore this has not prevented an adverse finding.
Considering the offer of compensation and lack of learning the landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
On 27 February 2023 the resident made an online complaint. The landlord sent an acknowledgement the same day. It said it would respond within 10 working days. It responded on 10 March which was within time.
In her email to the landlord of 15 March 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 and 17 March to provide an update on repairs and its offer of compensation. However, it failed to respond to her request to escalate to stage 2.
This was inappropriate because the resident was caused time and trouble when she emailed on 11 January 2024 to make another request. On 5 February 2024 the landlord replied to say it could not escalate her complaint because over 6 months had passed since its stage 1 response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 5 March 2024 appropriately acknowledged its failure and the distress caused to the resident. It explained what it had done wrong and offered the resident £940 compensation to put things right.
The amount of compensation offered was above the guidelines set out in our Remedies Guidance. This investigation considers that the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved. However, it recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Learning

The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 10 March 2023 apologised for the delay in repairing the canopy. It said the matter had been escalated to its commercial team and head surveyor to consider how it could learn from the complaint. While this was positive there’s no evidence that it identified outcomes which were communicated to the resident. This was a shortcoming which has been addressed in the orders above.