London Borough of Hackney (202206746)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206746

London Borough of Hackney

9 June 2023

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of her expenses when experiencing a backflow of waste in June 2020.
    2. The landlord’s handling of external repairs to a hole outside the property.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, it is determined that the following complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of her expenses when experiencing a backflow of waste in June 2020.
  3. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
  4. The resident requested reimbursement of her costs incurred in June 2020 for a backflow of waste entering her property. After her initial contact with the landlord about this in June 2020, there was no evidence of the resident pursuing this or raising a complaint about the matter until 2 April 2022, 22 months later. Due to the passage of time, it is not possible to make a reliable determination on the historical events. Therefore, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Scheme, this aspect of the complaint will not be considered in this investigation.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property. The property is a ground floor flat within a block.
  2. On 6 January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a ‘sinkhole’ with exposed pipes outside the entrance to the block. The landlord’s inspection found this to be a hole dug to carry out work to gas pipes.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 2 April 2022 about the hole, advising that it was filling with waste water and attracting flies. The landlord responded on 22 April 2022 to confirm that the hole was not a sinkhole and had been presumably dug by the gas distribution company to carry out servicing of the gas pipe. It confirmed that there was “clear water” in the hole which it had dispersed by jetting. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, adding that her complaint lay with the gas distribution company, not itself.
  4. On 26 April 2022, the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord. It informed her on 3 May 2022 that it was keeping the complaint at stage one while it carried out investigation of who excavated the hole. The resident objected to this and repeated her escalation request on 5 May 2022. The gas distribution company did not accept responsibility for carrying out the repair and the landlord repaired the hole and a damaged waste pipe on 17 May 2022.
  5. After the resident sought intervention from this Service on 4 August 2022 to escalate the complaint, the landlord provided her with its final response on 4 August 2022. In this, it confirmed that it had completed works to fill the hole and repair a damaged waste pipe. It acknowledged that it should have escalated her complaint and said that it had concluded that unauthorised works had been carried out to excavate the hole.
  6. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 19 December 2022 that she remained dissatisfied as the landlord had delayed in completing the repair and it had not escalated her complaint when she requested it.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of external repairs to a hole outside the property

  1. The resident’s lease agreement with the landlord confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the common parts of the property. This would include the communal areas, such as the communal pathways.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide provides for four repair priorities:
    1. Immediate, where there is an immediate danger to people.
    2. Emergency, where there is a health and safety risk.
    3. Urgent, where there is no danger, but work is required to prevent inconvenience.
    4. Normal, where the fault does not cause major inconvenience or danger.
  3. The above repairs carry response times of two hours, 24 hours, five working days and 21 working days respectively. The policy also states that, for normal repairs, the landlord may extend the timescale for certain repairs after informing the resident of this.
  4. In response to the resident’s report on 6 January 2022 of a ‘sinkhole’ outside the entrance to her block, it attended on 27 January 2022, 11 working days later. This was a reasonable interval given that this was an external repair which was not reported to be an immediate health and safety hazard.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 2 April 2022, it attended on 12 April 2022, six working days after the report. Given that the hole was located outside the resident’s property, and other than the flies reported by the resident, there was no report of serious risk or inconvenience, the landlord attended within a reasonable timeframe, which was slightly in excess of its timeframe for an urgent repair.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to await the outcome of its enquiry with the gas distribution company before arranging to carry out remedial works. As the landlord was unaware of the circumstances surrounding the excavation, it was reasonable for it to make efforts to ascertain the nature of the works, as any remedial work it undertook may have interfered with the third-party works. Furthermore, the landlord had a duty to ensure that it made the best use of its finite resources: therefore, when repairs may be the responsibility of a third party it should seek to ensure they complete this.
  7. While the landlord took 29 working days to complete remedial work to fill the hole and replace the pipes, this was not significantly in excess of the 21 working days specified in its repairs guide for a normal repair. Furthermore, the landlord did originally attend within six working days of the resident’s report on 2 April 2022 to carry out jetting to disperse the waste water she reported. In the circumstances, considering that it had a dispute with the gas distribution company about responsibility for the work, this timeframe was reasonable.
  8. While the landlord did attend within reasonable timeframes in response to the resident’s reports, it is unclear why no efforts were made to fix the hole from the first report of this on 6 January 2022. The Ombudsman has not been provided with details of the work carried out on 27 January 2022; this was referenced by the landlord in its final stage response on 16 August 2022. In this, it relayed that, on attending the report of a ‘sinkhole,’ it “looked like a gas main had been dug up and renewed” and that “this was not a plumbing issue.” While the landlord ruled out a plumbing issue, it should have taken steps to ensure that the hole was filled to prevent damage and a hazard arising.
  9. There was a failure by the landlord to act sooner to ensure that the hole was filled. While there was dispute over who was responsible for excavating, and therefore refilling, the hole, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the common parts of the property were maintained. It should, therefore, have commenced its enquiries on receipt of the resident’s initial report to ascertain why the hole had been dug and who should return to repair it.
  10. While it is noted that there were no reports of the issue again between 6 January and 2 April 2022,it was unreasonable that it did not begin to attempt to remedy the repair until receipt of the resident’s complaint on 2 April 2022. This delayed the repair and required the expenditure of effort by the resident to progress matters. This was a failure by the landlord to take a proactive approach to maintenance of the common area.
  11. To recognise the expenditure of time and effort by the resident to pursue the repair, and the distress and inconvenience she experienced, compensation of £100 should be paid to her. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which provides for awards of £50 to £100 where there has been a failure which caused detriment to the resident but which did not have a permanent impact on her.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s feedback and complaints webpage confirms that it has a two-stage internal complaints procedure. At stage one of this, it should provide its response within ten working days; at the final stage it should respond within 20 working days. These response timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which all member landlords are required to adhere to.
  2. The landlord’s webpage also states that:
    1. “On occasion, and in communication with you, we may pass a stage 2 request back to stage 1. This happens if the investigation or resolution of the complaint has not been enough to allow an investigation at stage 2. If you are not happy with that approach, we will action a stage 2.”
  3. The landlord informed the resident on 3 May 2022 that it would “keep hold of the case for a little while” before escalating the complaint to the final stage. This was in accordance with its complaints procedure. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord, in passing a complaint to stage one, to provide a clear timeframe or explain the conditions on which it would keep the complaint at stage one. A landlord should always manage a resident’s expectations to minimise any undue expenditure of time and effort in progressing the complaint.
  4. While it was reasonable for the landlord to initially keep the complaint at stage one, it did not subsequently escalate the complaint to the final stage when the resident objected to this. Its complaints procedure clearly states that it should escalate the complaint to the final stage if the resident raises an objection to the complaint remaining at stage one. She voiced her objections to the complaint not being escalated by the landlord on 5 May and 6 June 2022. Therefore, there was a failure by the landlord to act in accordance with its procedure by not escalating the complaint promptly in response to her objections. It escalated the complaint following the Ombudsman’s intervention on 4 August 2022.
  5. The landlord acknowledged its failure to escalate the complaint in its final stage complaint response on 16 August 2022. However, this did not offer redress to recognise the detriment experienced by the resident. In light of the excess effort required of the resident to pursue the escalation of the complaint, and the delay she experienced in the resolution of the complaint, compensation of £100 should be paid to her. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online. This provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £100 where there has been a failure by the landlord which led to detriment for the resident, but which was of short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in:
    1. Its handling of external repairs to a hole outside the property.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £100 for its handling of the external repairs
      2. £100for its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Review the training of complaints handling staff and put measures in place to ensure that complaints are handled in accordance with its procedure.