Hackney Council (202118205)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118205

Hackney Council

20 May 2022

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 the resident’s report of a leak from the property above and the subsequent damage caused to her property.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder.
3. The resident reported a leak from the flat above on 14 July 2021 and the landlord raised a work order to trace and remedy it the following day. The landlord raised two further work orders on 4 August 2021 and 6 August 2021, however both were marked as cancelled.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 9 August 2021. She said she had reported the leak several times and the landlord had told her it had identified the cause of the leak, but she had not been provided with an appointment date for it to be resolved. She said the leak had caused damage to her bathroom and toilet ceilings. The resident sent a further email on 18 August 2021 advising that she had purchased a dehumidifier to prevent the ceiling from collapsing. In her complaint escalation, the resident said that the leak was uncontrollable and the landlord had not completed a temporary repair to minimise the leak, as suggested by the surveyor in 18 August 2021. She also said the landlord should have done more to stop the leak, and limit the impact it had on her.
5. In the landlord’s final response, it reiterated the actions it had taken and confirmed the leak was resolved on 31 August 2021. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and for the length of time the leak was ongoing. It said when dealing with leaks there “can be a process of elimination to locate at source” and that it experienced issues with accessing the flat above. It said it had found it was at fault, but advised her to contact the building insurance.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as it took six weeks to repair the leak and it did not implement any temporary solutions. She said she had contacted the insurance and they had only agreed to repair the bathroom, although the hall and toilet had also been affected. She also said the leak had impacted her health.

Assessment and findings

7. As the flat above the resident is a tenant of the landlord, it is responsible for ensuring that the repairs to stop the leak were completed, as it has to maintain the structure of the building. The landlord also needs to ensure that it keeps the resident reasonably updated on the progress of the repairs. The landlord explained to the resident that the repair would be raised as a ‘normal priority’ repair, and as such it should have attended an appointment within 21 working days, in line with its repair policy. Although the landlord stated in its final response that the leak was initially repaired on 27 July 2021, there is no evidence to confirm this and in correspondence between the resident and the landlord she stated several times that the leak had been consistently ongoing. The leak was remedied on 31 August 2021, so the landlord therefore exceeded its timeframe, as it took 31 working days to repair, from when the resident initially reported the leak on 14 July 2021.
8. The landlord’s repair timeframes state that an uncontrollable leak is an emergency repair, and should be made safe within 24 hours. It is unclear whether the resident initially reported that the leak as uncontainable, so it would have been reasonable to arrange a normal priority appointment. However, the landlord stated in its stage two response that the resident advised on 23 July 2021 that the leak “required constant mopping”, indicating that the leak was uncontainable. The resident also later stated that she had to purchase a dehumidifier to prevent her ceiling from collapsing. At this stage, the landlord should have raised an emergency appointment to ensure the leak was made safe. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord attended to assess the leak to determine whether it was uncontainable, and the appointment remained normal priority, despite the fact that the resident disputed it on numerous occasions, and requested an emergency appointment.
9. The landlord explained in its complaint response, that the work was delayed as there “can be a process of elimination” to locate the leak and it had access issues with the flat above. However these responses do not apply to why the landlord failed to even inspect the leak to determine its severity (and the corresponding response time). Furthermore while the explanation provided by the landlord is a valid reason for repair delays, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had issues with identifying the source of the leak, but rather there was a delay in arranging the initial appointment (the contractor said it did not receive the work order until 9 August 2021). There is evidence to suggest the landlord experienced access issues to the flat above which caused further appointment delays. The landlord would only be able to provide limited information about correspondence with the tenant in the flat above, due to GDPR restrictions. However, the landlord did not reasonably update the resident on the progress of the works, or reasonably manage her expectations regarding when the work was likely to be completed, which caused the resident additional time and effort in pursuing the repair.
10.  When repair timeframes are exceeded for relevant reasons, the landlord’s primary focus should be on taking clear and appropriate steps to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe, assessing the feasibility of interim solutions, keeping the resident appropriately up to date, and managing their expectations. An interim solution was identified by a surveyor on 18 August 2021 and the resident made several requests for this to be completed, however, ultimately the landlord explained it was unable to complete it due to access issues, which is largely out of its control. In her complaint escalation, the resident asked why the landlord did not take further action to access the flat above, which the landlord did not address in its responses. The resident also asked in her complaint escalation why the landlord had not provided her with temporary accommodation while the leak was ongoing. The landlord’s failure to assess the severity of the leak means there is inadequate evidence to assess whether it was severe enough to warrant decanting the resident. There is also no evidence that the resident requested for the landlord to decant them while the leak was ongoing. Nevertheless, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s request and explained why it had not deemed it a suitable option. Overall, the landlord failed to properly update the resident or manage her expectations regarding the likelihood of it completing the interim repair, thus necessitating unnecessary involvement by her.
11. In response to the resident’s report of damage to her property, in its final response, the landlord advised the resident to contact the building insurance regarding the damage to her property. This was appropriate as the landlord explained she paid for the insurance within the service charge she paid. This Service has since been advised that the resident’s insurance claim was not accepted. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over insurers. Although it was reasonable that the landlord signposted the resident to the building insurance, it should have should have also considered signposting her to its liability insurer. It would have also been appropriate to explain that all residents are expected to arrange their own contents insurance to cover any damage to their belongings. If a contents insurer then deems the landlord to be liable it can pursue any costs with the landlord on the resident’s behalf.
12. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to repair that leak has impacted her health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, as this would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
13. In accordance with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where there has been service failure, which has impacted the resident over a short period of time. In this case, the landlord has failed to adhere to its repair timeframe, and while it has provided an explanation for the delay, it was not entirely reasonable. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding an interim solution, keep her reasonably updated on the progress of the works or address all of her concerns raised in her complaint escalation.

Determination

14. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way it handled the resident’s report of a leak from the property above and the subsequent damage caused to her property.

Orders and recommendations

15. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £300 within four weeks, which is broken down into:
    1. £100 for the delays in repairing the leak.
    2. £100 for the failure to assess the severity of the leak (given this was relevant to the landlord’s repair policy and procedures).
    3. £100 for communication failings, including not addressing all the resident’s concerns in her complaint escalation.