London Borough of Hackney (202319682)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319682

London Borough of Hackney

27 September 2024

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to various disrepair issues in the property and the resident’s related concerns about the conduct of its operatives.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant and his tenancy began in 1985. The property is a studio flat in a low-rise block. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his mental health. They include depression and anxiety. The evidence suggests these conditions also affect his physical health and wellbeing.
3. The parties are engaged in a long-running dispute over the property’s condition. They both acknowledge it needs a significant amount of repairs but the works remain outstanding. Although the resident’s current complaint relates to events from 2022 onwards, the following information provides some important context:
   1. In October 2018 a surveyor found the property was unfit for habitation and there was a large quantity of goods stored in every room. They felt repairs could not take place with the resident in situ and the property needed to be cleared.
   2. In April 2019 the landlord made a decant property available to the resident to facilitate the repairs. It provided the temporary accommodation even though the resident had not completed the landlord’s relevant paperwork.
   3. In September 2019 the Ombudsman determined a related complaint from the resident (our reference 201812371). We noted the resident had not moved to the decant property. We found there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to disrepair in the resident’s home.
4. In relation to the resident’s current complaint, the landlord’s correspondence shows it was unable to access the property in May 2022 to replace the boiler. Additional correspondence shows the landlord’s disrepair surveyor was also unable to access the property in August 2022.
5. On 28 November 2022 a support worker (SW) contacted the landlord’s executive team on the resident’s behalf. They said 2 of the landlord’s housing operatives should be removed from the resident’s case. They stressed the property was in poor condition and the resident wanted “to move forward with his life”.
6. From December 2022 onwards the landlord emailed the resident’s SW several times to progress the works. There was no indication the SW replied to its correspondence. The resident subsequently called the landlord in July 2023. The parties held a conference call soon afterwards. In an email on 2 August 2023, the landlord asked the SW if the resident was willing to be decanted.
7. The SW replied the resident was disappointed with the landlord’s email. With reference to the recent meeting, the SW felt the parties had agreed that the landlord’s 2 operatives would not be involved in the resident’s case. They said the resident was “committed to” the decant but he was frightened due to a break-in that occurred in 2020.
8. The resident complained to the landlord around 22 August 2023. The landlord has supplied limited information about his complaint. A related record said “caller claims [named landlord operative] has broken [their] word”. The complaint referred to a different operative (not one of the caseworkers that was mentioned in November 2022). Over the next few months, the resident and the SW chased the landlord several times for its complaint response. The resident approached the Ombudsman in early September 2023.
9. In November 2023 the resident cancelled a prearranged conference call with the landlord. Later that month, the landlord’s disrepair specialist was unable to access the property on 2 occasions. The resident subsequently agreed to facilitate a gas inspection on 4 December 2023. On this date, a gas engineer completed a service but the disrepair specialist was unable to gain access.
10. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 December 2023. It said it had been working to progress the outstanding works. It felt delays had occurred due to a lack of communication from the resident’s SW. The resident escalated his complaint through the Ombudsman the following day. In an email on 21 December 2023, the landlord asked the resident to engage with its complaint investigation.
11. In January 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It asked the resident when he would provide access. The landlord said it needed clarification “on all the points of [the resident’s] complaint” and it had been unable to obtain this. The landlord said it had not been allowed to access the property. It confirmed it would hold a “case conference” in due course and write to the resident to “[set] out the way forward”. It awarded the resident a total of £330 in compensation. Most of its compensation related to complaint handling failures.
12. The resident remained unhappy following the landlord’s response. In July 2024 he raised a further complaint with the landlord about disrepair in the property. The landlord declined to investigate his new complaint. This was on the basis his concerns were covered by an ongoing legal disrepair case. In September 2024 the landlord told us internal discussions about the resident’s situation were ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. It also shows the resident has several concerns about the landlord’s activities. In addition, the landlord previously took legal action against the resident and social services are involved in his case. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
14. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the amount of time that has passed since the events in question. Residents must also bring their complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months after the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure). In line with our remit and out of fairness to both parties, we focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s current complaint. Any events that occurred before May 2022 are out of scope for our investigation (1 May 2022 was more than 15 months before the resident complained to the landlord).

The landlord’s response to various disrepair issues in the property and the resident’s related concerns about the conduct of its operatives

15. Around May 2022 the landlord responded to an enquiry from a local councillor. It said its gas engineers had been unable to access the property on 5 and 11 May 2022 to replace the boiler. In addition, a social worker was trying to help the resident clear the property. The landlord also said the social worker had confirmed they would notify the landlord when access was available. Later, the landlord’s disrepair surveyor reported they were unable to access the property on 5 August 2022. The above information shows the landlord was trying to progress the repairs and it was coordinating with relevant external parties. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
16. On 28 November 2022 the resident’s SW emailed the landlord’s executive team. They wanted the landlord to confirm that 2 of its (named) operatives would not be allowed to “interfere in” the resident’s case. The SW said the operatives had traumatised the resident by taking him to court in 2020. They also said the resident felt they were involved in a break-in that occurred around the same time. In relation to repairs, the SW said there was no heating or hot water in the property, it lacked ceiling lights, and the resident used a bucket to flush the toilet. The SW also mentioned some less serious repair issues. They did not say the operatives were a barrier to progressing the repairs.
17. There was no evidence to show there had been any serious failures by the caseworkers in question, so there was no indication the landlord should have changed them based on proportionality considerations. On that basis, it was for the landlord to decide whether it was reasonable to comply with the resident’s request at this point. The SW’s correspondence shows the matter was important to the resident. The landlord should have engaged with his concerns and communicated its decision and rationale clearly (regardless of the outcome). Subsequent events suggest the landlord reallocated the case but did not clearly explain its actions.
18. The landlord replied to the SW on 8 December 2022. Its email was not issued by any of the operatives the SW had previously named. The caseworker began the email by introducing themselves. This suggests they were new to the case. The landlord said it wanted to progress the outstanding repairs but access had been a problem. It asked the SW to confirm the best way of arranging access to the property. The landlord sent follow up emails to the SW on 16 and 19 December 2022. During this correspondence, the landlord confirmed a decant property was already available to the resident. It also asked if he needed any help to move. This was a reasonable and proactive approach by the landlord. The landlord chased the SW again in January and March 2023. There was no indication the SW replied to any of the landlord’s emails.
19. The landlord held a meeting in late May 2023. Its related notes suggest the resident was not present. The notes show the resident had told the landlord he would not progress the repairs until the operatives that he mistrusted were removed from his case. The notes also show the landlord had been providing financial support to help the resident declutter the property. In addition, the resident had been referred to “a high risk panel” due to concerns about his welfare. The notes confirm the landlord decided to regain possession of the decant property by issuing the resident a notice to quit (NTQ). Other records said the NTQ was subsequently delivered to the resident on 13 June 2023.
20. The landlord’s meeting notes show it was monitoring the situation, offering solutions, and mindful of the resident’s welfare. Based on the period between April 2019 and June 2024, its decant property had been available to the resident for around 4 years when the NTQ was issued. This was an exceptional timeframe and it likely involved a significant cost to the landlord. The situation suggests the landlord was committed to helping the resident and addressing the disrepair. Ultimately, the meeting notes show the landlord’s approach in May 2023 was largely reasonable in the circumstances.
21. However, the meeting notes also show the resident was still concerned about the same operatives that were mentioned in the SW’s email from November 2022. They also show the resident had told the landlord he felt these operatives were a barrier to progressing the repairs. This suggests his position had changed since the SW’s email to the landlord’s executive team.
22. In July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and the parties held a telephone conference around a week later. Although we asked for this information, the landlord was unable to supply a record of the meeting. This meant the Ombudsman was unable to confirm what happened during the call. Subsequent events show there was a dispute over what had been agreed. Since the meeting notes were key evidence in this case, the landlord’s inability to provide them was concerning.
23. The landlord exchanged emails with the resident’s SW between 2 and 3 August 2023. The landlord asked if the resident was willing to be decanted. The SW replied the resident was unhappy with its email. They felt the resident was waiting for the landlord to take action. Specifically, they claimed the landlord had agreed to provide an email confirming that the 2 operatives would not be involved in his case. The SW questioned whether the landlord had an adequate record of the parties’ meeting.
24. The resident complained to the landlord around 22 August 2023. There is conflicting evidence as to whether his complaint was raised by phone or via email. In any case, the landlord’s brief record was not sufficient to explain his complaint by itself. Its related notes said “caller claims [named landlord operative] has broken [their] word”. It is assumed this related to the dispute over what was agreed during the recent meeting. The parties’ correspondence confirms the resident was dissatisfied with a different operative at this point.
25. On 19 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident’s SW. It said the resident was already on his second caseworker. The landlord also said it was prepared to allocate the resident a new caseworker if he moved into the decant property, cleared his home, and allowed the landlord to place any remaining items in storage. Other key points were:
    1. The landlord was willing to arrange storage and dispose of items.
    2. The storage firm would not “store items [it considered to be] hoard or clutter”.
    3. If the case returned to court, it was likely the landlord would ask its 2 named operatives to give evidence.
26. The wording of the landlord’s email shows there were conditions attached to its offer (to allocate the resident a new caseworker). While there was no indication a conditional approach was unfair, the evidence shows it had taken the landlord around 10 months to fully engage with the resident’s concerns about the 2 operatives. This was based on the period between 28 November 2022 and 19 September 2023. This was an unreasonable timeframe in the circumstances. It is reasonable to conclude the delay was distressing for the resident.
27. On 28 September 2023 the landlord chased the SW about its conditional offer to reallocate his case. There was no evidence to show the support worker replied. Records from 31 October 2023 show the landlord had arranged a meeting with the resident to “discuss [the] sequencing of the repairs”. A separate record from the same date shows the landlord had called the resident to confirm the 2 operatives would no longer be involved in his case. This indicates the landlord had revised its position by removing its conditions. Subsequently, the resident cancelled a prescheduled conference call on 6 November 2023. His SW said he was “experiencing overwhelming stress”.
28. In mid-November 2023 the landlord sought legal advice about the resident’s case. Later that month, it was unable to gain access to the property on 2 occasions. Records from 4 December 2023 show the resident allowed an engineer to complete a gas inspection but he declined to provide access for the landlord’s disrepair specialist (who attended the property at the same time). The specialist reported the resident was willing to arrange a conference call but he “refused” to agree to a full inspection at a more convenient time.
29. The parties’ subsequent correspondence shows the landlord spoke to the resident on 5 December 2023. It also shows the resident ended the call without reaching any agreement over the repairs. The landlord’s actions between 19 September and 5 December 2023 show it made reasonable efforts to progress the repairs. For example, the landlord took legal advice and tried a different approach to access the property. It also took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about its operatives at this point.
30. On 11 December 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It included the landlord’s timeline of events from December 2022 onwards. The landlord said its executive team had forwarded the resident’s case to one of the landlord’s other managers (in a different team) at this point. With reference to its timeline, the landlord said its (new) case manager had been “diligently working to progress the outstanding works”. It also said delays had occurred due to a lack of communication from the resident’s SW. The landlord did not identify any failures in relation to disrepair or the conduct of its operatives.
31. The Ombudsman told the resident about the landlord’s stage 1 response during a call on 12 December 2023. Our call notes show he told us there had been no repairs to the property and he was waiting on a decant. He also said his concerns about the landlord’s new case manager had not been resolved and the landlord was “lying”. Following the call, we asked the landlord to respond to his complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure.
32. The landlord’s complaint records show its stage 2 case handler had a difficult call with the resident on 19 December 2023. In a follow up email to the SW, the landlord asked the resident to engage with its complaint investigation. It said, if it was unable to clarify the resident’s complaint, it would base its investigation on a summary that it received from the Ombudsman. The evidence shows the landlord was unable to access the property on the following day to complete an inspection.
33. On 11 January 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said, as a matter of urgency, the resident should confirm a date when the landlord could access the property. It also said the landlord would convene a case conference and notify the resident about the outcome in writing within 10 days. In addition, the landlord had been unable to obtain the “required clarification” about the resident’s complaint. The landlord referred to a detailed timeline of events that ran from December 2022 onwards. Other key points from the response were:
    1. The resident had not allowed the landlord to access the property to complete the outstanding repairs.
    2. The landlord had an urgent need for decant properties. It had withdrawn the resident’s decant property because he had not moved in. It would discuss alternative decant arrangements when the resident was willing to move.
    3. The landlord awarded the resident £50 in related compensation. It felt its award reflected the resident’s circumstances, the impact the situation had on him, and its “level of fault”. The landlord’s rationale for awarding compensation was unclear because the response did not identify any failures.
34. The evidence confirms the landlord had failed to complete the required repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It is reasonable to conclude this was the rationale behind the landlord’s offer of £50 in compensation. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord. However, the evidence shows it failed to recognise the above identified engagement/communication failure or the corresponding delay of around 10 months. As a result, it failed to redress the resident accordingly for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by repeatedly raising the issue (without receiving a clear response). This shows the landlord’s stage 2 response was unreasonable in the circumstances.
35. The evidence shows events followed a similar pattern from February 2024 onwards. This is because the landlord made various attempts to progress the repairs. For example, during internal correspondence on 20 February 2024 the landlord said it was waiting for the SW to propose a suitable appointment date. Subsequently, the landlord chased the SW by email on 9 and 26 April 2024. It sent the SW a further chaser about the repairs on 30 July 2024. In September 2024, the landlord told us it was about to offer the resident its original decant property again. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord was making reasonable efforts to progress the repairs during this period.
36. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord made consistent efforts to progress the required repairs throughout the timeline. It also shows the landlord monitored the situation, offered solutions, coordinated with relevant external parties, and was mindful of the resident’s welfare. However, the evidence suggests it failed to fully engage with his concerns about its caseworkers for around 10 months. It also failed to redress the resident for the distress and inconvenience that arose from raising the issue repeatedly (without receiving a clear response). Overall, there was service failure in respect of this complaint point. This is a proportionate finding given the landlord’s efforts to progress the repairs.

Complaint handling

37. The resident complained to the landlord around 22 August 2023. Its case evidence contained conflicting information about the date the complaint was raised and how it was received. Significantly, the landlord’s brief summary note only said “caller claims [named landlord operative] has broken [their] word”. This vague summary did not capture adequate information about the content of the complaint. Later, during its investigation at stage 2, the landlord told the resident it needed clarification “on all the points of” his complaint.
38. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates a landlord’s complaint processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policies and procedures and adhere to them, as should contractors or managing agents.
39. The evidence shows the landlord missed an opportunity to clarify the resident’s concerns when he first complained to the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s subsequent investigation was partially hindered by its poor initial complaint record. It was also noted the landlord was unable to supply a record of the parties’ telephone meeting from July 2023 (which took place before the complaint was raised). This record was relevant to the resident’s complaint. Overall, the evidence confirms the landlord’s record keeping was inadequate. It is reasonable to conclude the missing information reduced the quality of the landlord’s complaint investigation and the resident was impacted as a result.
40. Following the resident’s complaint, it took the landlord around 4 months to issue a stage 1 response. This was based on the period between 22 August and 11 December 2023. The landlord’s website shows it should respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. This confirms there was an inappropriate delay. The evidence shows the resident approached the Ombudsman because the landlord had not responded. It also shows the resident and his SW chased the landlord at least 3 times for its response. The Ombudsman’s intervention should not have been necessary to prompt a response from the landlord.
41. The situation was both avoidable and inconvenient for the resident. Since he was unable to progress his complaint while the delay was ongoing, it is reasonable to conclude it was also distressing. Given the duration and impact of the delay, the landlord should have awarded the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. The landlord did not recognise the delay in its stage 1 response. This was unfair in the circumstances. The landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every investigation so it can address any procedural delays or failures accordingly.
42. The Ombudsman notified the landlord about the resident’s escalation request on 12 December 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 11 January 2024. This was around 19 working days later. The landlord’s website shows it should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. The above information confirms there were no inappropriate delays at this point. In its response, the landlord awarded the resident £280 to address the previous delay at stage 1. This was a proportionate figure given its duration and impact.
43. The evidence shows there was a procedural issue with the landlord’s stage 2 response. It did not contain a clear complaint outcome or rationale. The same error was also present at stage 1. Both of the landlord’s responses were contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as published in March 2022. Sections 5.8 and 5.16 confirm a compliant response must include a clear decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made. Given these requirements, the landlord’s responses were inappropriate. The resident was impacted because the responses were lacking in clarity.
44. The evidence shows there was a further issue following the landlord’s stage 2 response. The response said the landlord would hold an internal case conference and notify the resident about the outcome in writing.The landlord’s case evidence to the Ombudsman did not include a follow-up letter at stage 2.When we asked it to provide a copy of the letter, the landlord told us it had not written to the resident as promised. This shows it failed to completea key complaint resolution. This was inappropriate in the circumstances.In mitigation, it was noted the landlord was trying to progress the repairs in February 2024 (the following month). This suggests its failure had a limited impact on the resident.
45. In July 2024 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord through an advocacy service. The complaint was similar to his previous complaint from August 2023. The landlord issued a formal reply several days later. In summary, it declined to investigate the new complaint because there was an ongoing legal case about disrepair in the property. The landlord said it would notify the resident’s solicitor about his complaint. It also said the resident could contact the Ombudsman if he was unhappy with its decision. Subsequently, the resident told us he felt the landlord’s approach to his new complaint was unfair. The landlord’s case evidence to the Ombudsman included a screen shot. It shows the resident has a legal disrepair claim open with the landlord.
46. In 2021 the Ombudsman issued “New guidance for landlords on disrepair claims”. The full guidance can be found on our website. We said, upon receipt of a legal disrepair claim from a resident, landlords should not disengage from their internal complaints process (ICP) or the repair issue itself. Our subsequent internal guidance expanded on this approach. It says landlords should ensure that all disrepair issues raised in subsequent correspondence (by the resident) should form part of any existing proceedings. This is so they do not need to be addressed via another route such as ICP. This approach should maximise efficiency and ensure consistency (by avoiding fragmentation or duplication).
47. In this case, the landlord responded to the disrepair aspect of the resident’s 2023 complaint through its ICP (even though it had an open legal claim from the resident).This approach was fair and consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations.As mentioned, the evidence also shows the landlord has made consistent efforts to progress the repairs to date. This shows the landlord did not disengage its complaints or repair processes unfairly. Ultimately, it was reasonable for the landlord to try and avoid any duplication or fragmentation in respect of the resident’s complaint. In addition, there was no indication the resident was adversely impacted by the landlord’s approach in July 2024.
48. In summary, the landlord awarded the resident a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation to address its considerable delays and failures at stage 1. However, its inappropriate record keeping hindered its complaint investigation and impacted the quality of its responses. The landlord’s responses were also inappropriate and contrary to the Code. Subsequently, the landlord failed to complete a key complaint resolution as promised.Each of its failures impacted the resident and they amounted to maladministration overall.

Determination

49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to various disrepair issues in the property and the resident’s related concerns about the conduct of its operatives.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

50. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £530 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The calculation is consistent with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The compensation comprises:
    1. £100 to address the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to the disrepair and the resident’s related staff conduct concerns.
    2. £100 to address the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. £330 which the landlord previously awarded the resident at stage 2. The landlord is free to deduct this amount if it has already paid the resident.
51. The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. The landlord should share a copy of its internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
52. The landlord to arrange a conference call with the resident and his support worker. This is so the parties can discuss solutions to the ongoing disrepair issues. The landlord should ensure the resident understands how it intends to address the serious situation in his home.