London Borough of Hackney (202215973)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215973

Hackney Council

30 November 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. Her 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of repairs.
2. complaint.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord at the property since 2000. The property is a 3 bedroom terraced house. The landlord is a local authority, which manages and owns the property.
On 27 April 2020, the resident reported cracks in the ceiling of the top floor of the property, resulting in falling plaster. She said this was a health risk because the ceiling contained asbestos and she was asthmatic. She also reported that her skylight was allowing water into the property.
The landlord confirmed on 29 April 2020 that it was only completing emergency repairs because of COVID-19 restrictions.
On 16 March 2021, the resident raised a complaint about:
1. The cracks in her ceiling and walls, which were spreading.
2. The matter being a health and safety risk because there was asbestos around her skylight and she was asthmatic.
3. The fact she had reported these issues months prior, and made the landlord aware of the health risks, but did not receive a response.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 30 March 2021, in which it said:
1. It had summarised its understanding of the resident’s complaint to be about cracks appearing on the walls and ceilings of the property.
2. The resident had informed it that she would like it to rectify the problem rather than “sweeping it under the carpet”.
3. There had been government COVID-19 restrictions placed on landlords, which had prevented it undertaking routine repairs inside residents’ homes.
4. The resident’s reports had been a “normal priority repair”, which meant it had placed the repair on hold until restrictions were lifted.
5. Its contractor had now started to ease restrictions, so it would arrange for them to attend and inspect the cracks in the ceiling.
6. Asbestos-containing materials would not release asbestos fibres unless they were disturbed in some way. The landlord said it had reviewed the resident’s photographs and did not consider this was a concern, but it would ask the contractor to check for any asbestos during the inspection.
7. It would assess the contractor’s findings and offer any required repairs.
8. The resident should contact it if she did not hear from the contractor within 10 working days.
9. How the resident could escalate her complaint if dissatisfied.
The landlord’s contractor completed a survey on 14 June 2021 and sent the landlord an estimate for the repairs needed. Due to the cost of the estimate, the landlord completed a second survey on 20 September 2021 before approving the works.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 1 November 2021 but could not remove the asbestos around the skylight because they did not have a suitably sized ladder.
The contractor later removed the asbestos from around the skylight on 22 December 2021, but the other jobs remained outstanding.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 16 December 2021, 24 August 2022 and 14 September 2022. In her stage 2 escalation request sent on 16 December 2021, the resident provided the landlord with a timeline of the events since her first report of 27 April 2020. She also raised concerns about:
1. The landlord’s contractor not contacting her within 10 days of 4 October 2021 as promised to make an appointment to complete the works.
2. The contractor’s visit on 1 November 2021, when the contractor could not complete the job due to lack of equipment.
3. The lack of contact she had received to make a new appointment following the failed visit on 1 November 2021.
4. The cracks in the ceiling, which had worsened due to the delays.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 21 October 2022 as the landlord had not responded to her escalation requests. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 November 2022, in which it:

a. Said it had received the stage 2 complaint on 1 November 2022.

b. Summarised the stage one complaint and response.

c. Summarised the resident’s timeline of events included in her email of 16 December 2021.

d. Confirmed the concerns the resident set out in her stage 2 escalation requests.

e. Apologised for the delays and the lack of service the resident had received since June 2021.

f. Said it had raised the issues relating to the outstanding works to the landing with the appropriate senior managers and requested these be completed as soon as possible.

g. Arranged for another survey at the property for 18 November 2022 to inspect the bedrooms.

h. Confirmed it would monitor the case until it had completed all required works.

i. Offered the resident £500 compensation to recognise the “unreasonable delays [and] for the time and trouble and distress caused to you in having to pursue this complaint”.

j. Told the resident she had the right to approach the Housing Ombudsman with the matter if she remained dissatisfied with its response.

On 25 September 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the contractor had completed the required works and to offer an additional compensation payment of £500. In response, the resident agreed that the works had been completed, and accepted the offer of compensation. However, she complained of poor workmanship. The resident stated the contractor had rushed the paintwork and failed to put coverings down when painting.
The landlord completed an inspection on 20 October 2023 in response to the resident’s comments, and agreed that the contractor had completed the work to a poor quality. The landlord offered the resident £450 so that she could arrange to have the work completed independently.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

On 23 March 2020, the UK government announced a national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets reopened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown came into effect from 5 November 2020. The government lifted restrictions slightly over Christmas, but imposed a third national lockdown from 6 January 2021. Although schools reopened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021, the government removed most legal limits on social contact in England and reopened the final closed sectors of the economy.
During the period of lockdowns, the landlord operated an “essential repair only” service inside its properties. The landlord’s repairs policy contains four types of repair:

a. Immediate repairs to prevent immediate danger to people, to avoid flooding or major damage to the property, and to make the property secure. The response time for these repairs is 2 hours.

b. Emergency repairs, which restore full use of sanitation, water or electricity supply, or heating systems. This also includes work to prevent immediate danger to the property, to overcome serious inconvenience to the household or where there is a possible health, safety or security risk. The response time for these repairs is 24 hours.

c. Urgent repairs, where the fault or failure does not cause danger to occupants or the public, but needs to be put right to prevent inconvenience and to keep the property in a reasonable condition. The response time for these repairs is 5 working days.

d. Normal repairs, where the fault or failure does not cause major inconvenience or danger to occupants or the public. The response time for these repairs is 21 working days, but this can be extended if required (for example, if parts need to be manufactured).

There is no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment to determine what type of repair the resident’s report would constitute, so it was not reasonable for the landlord to have treated the repair as “routine”. In the Ombudsman’s view, the repair should have been treated as immediate and responded to within 2 hours to ensure that the resident was not exposed to asbestos, which can be life-threatening in the long-term. Once the issue with asbestos was addressed, the repairs could have been properly categorised as routine.
It was almost a year later, in its stage 1 response dated 30 March 2021, and in the absence of any inspection, that the landlord told the resident the asbestos was only of concern if disturbed.
While the “essential repair only” policy was required given the legal restrictions at the time of the resident’s first report in April 2020, lockdown was not a continuous event. There were periods between April 2020 and March 2021 when restrictions were lifted, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed repairs at these times. There is nothing to suggest the landlord made a record of the resident’s report raised on 27 April 2020, or attempted to contact her when the government lifted restrictions. The landlord did not arrange an inspection until the resident made her complaint in March 2021.
It would have been good practice for the landlord to have had a system in place, following suitable assessment and classification of repairs, to contact residents who had raised non-urgent repairs during lockdowns at each stage of lockdown restrictions being lifted. Had it been proactive in this regard, this may have prevented the resident from raising her stage 1 complaint.
The landlord classified the repair as being routine to be completed within 21 working days. The landlord said in its stage one response that it started its consideration from 16 March 2021, which would have made the repair completion target date 15 April 2021. The landlord completed its first survey on 14 June 2021, 40 working days after the 21 working days allowed for routine repairs under its policy.
Following this survey, the landlord did not take any action until 20 September 2021, when it completed a second survey. By this time, the resident had waited 110 working days from the routine repair target date (15 April 2021). Given the resident had already waited since her first report in April 2020, it would have appropriate for the landlord to proceed with much more urgency.
Following the two surveys, the contractor attended on 1 November 2021 but could not remove the asbestos from around the skylight as intended because they did not have a long enough ladder. Internal emails between the landlord and its contractor show this was caused by a clerical error resulting in the office staff not informing the site workers of the need for a non-standard triple ladder. It is unclear from the evidence seen if this was a mistake made solely by the landlord’s contractor or whether better communication between the landlord and contractor may have prevented this. In any case, this caused an unnecessary delay for the resident.
When carrying out repairs to the ceiling and walls of residents’ homes, the landlord’s repairs policy confirms it will redecorate the affected area with paint. The resident complained to the landlord on 24 August 2022 that the contractor had not returned to paint the bedroom walls after attending on 29 April 2022 and plastering them. This was despite the resident chasing this up with the contractor in June 2022.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it will “monitor satisfaction with [its] repairs service and respond promptly to put any issues right”. It is evident the landlord did not follow this proactive policy in this case. Internal emails between the landlord and its contractor show the contractor told the landlord on 19 January 2022 that they had removed the asbestos and sent a completion certificate to the landlord’s other contractor to enable completion of the other outstanding works. The landlord did not follow this up with the other contractor or update the resident. This led to a delay of several months. The landlord did not contact the resident after January 2022, which led to the resident complaining again on 24 August 2022 and asking this Service for assistance on 21 October 2022. Had the landlord kept in contact with the resident throughout the period to gauge her satisfaction, as per its policy, it would have been kept updated and could have addressed the issues much sooner.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 September 2023 confirming its contractors had completed the repairs, but it did not ask if the resident was satisfied with the repairs or the quality of the completed work. The resident responded to this email to state she was unhappy with the paintwork completed by the contractors and the paint stains left behind in the surrounding area. The landlord did not have sufficient post-work quality control in place, which could have highlighted the issues with the work completed without the need for the resident to raise this. After several subsequent emails between the resident and landlord, and an inspection by the landlord on 20 October 2023, the landlord agreed the paintwork was of a poor standard. The landlord agreed to provide the resident with a payment of £450 in order that she could arrange to complete the work independently.
Altogether, the landlord took over three years to complete the repairs raised by the resident on 27 April 2020. While the COVID-19 restrictions account for some of the delay, this report has identified severe failings on the part of the landlord in its duty to respond to the resident’s reports. This has caused significant inconvenience to the resident and affected her enjoyment of the property during the period.

Complaint Handling

While the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the appropriate timescale under its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it did not follow up with the resident to check if its contractors had contacted her to arrange an inspection. Had the landlord done this, it could have avoided a long delay and potentially avoided the need for the resident to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
It is evident that the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 3 occasions – 16 December 2021, 24 August 2022 and 14 September 2022 – without the landlord completing this. In response to the first escalation request, the landlord got in touch with its asbestos team to arrange an appointment with the resident, but it did not respond to the other points the resident raised. It is evident from internal emails following the second stage 2 escalation response that the landlord said it was going to contact the resident to discuss the outstanding problems, but it did not complete this. On the telephone call on 14 September 2022, during which the resident requested a stage 2 response for the third time, the landlord said it would contact her to discuss her concerns. However, it did not complete this. This is a clear failure under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and poor customer service. This also contributed to the delays in a resolution to the matter.
The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint meant its stage 2 response was provided on 10 November 2022, almost a year after the resident had asked for it to be escalated. In an internal email on 4 November 2022, the landlord noted that the matter was urgent “as this is a Housing Ombudsman case”. It would have been appropriate to show the same amount of urgency without the involvement of this Service given the amount of time the resident had been waiting.
After sending its stage 2 response on 10 November 2022, the landlord did not monitor the progress of the works until completion as it had promised. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted any contact with the resident between November 2022 and September 2023, when it eventually completed the works. This is a further example of the landlord not following up with the resident on agreed actions.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to provide £500 compensation. However, it did not provide this to the resident until June 2023, 7 months later (the landlord has provided a copy of the remittance advice slip dated 5 June 2023). The landlord has not explained this delay. This is poor customer service and another long delay faced by the resident in addition to the long repairs delays experienced.
When it submitted its case evidence to this Service, the landlord offered to provide the resident with a compensatory award of £550, in addition to the award of £500 it had previously provided (totalling £1,050). Since making this offer, the landlord offered the resident £500 directly (independent of this Service) on 4 October 2023. The resident has confirmed to this Service she has now received both payments of £500, totalling £1,000. The landlord also offered the resident an additional £450 in late October 2023 to cover the additional decorating work the resident would need to have completed. In the Ombudsman’s view, it is reasonable that the landlord provides a higher payment than previously offered to address the significant failings identified in the report, and the resident’s resulting time and inconvenience.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is hereby ordered that, within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord pays £1,500 to the resident for the failures identified within the report. This is in addition to the compensation of £1,000 the landlord has already paid the resident to date in respect of this matter. The £1,500 payment comprises:

£450 to cover the decorative work needed.
£1,050 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.

It is ordered that, within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff.

Recommendations

The landlord should share the findings of this report with relevant staff members.
The landlord should consider reviewing its internal procedures for communicating with contractors and residents about ongoing repairs.
The landlord should consider reviewing its quality control procedure for work completed by contractors.
The landlord should consider reviewing its complaint handling policy to ensure there is a process in place for following up with actions promised in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.