London Borough of Hackney (202216281)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216281

Hackney Council

31 July 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

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

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a one-bedroomed basement flat, situated in a four-storey converted house. The landlord owns and manages the building. On 2 February 2022 she reported to the landlord that she was experiencing ongoing damp and mould in her bedroom around the area of the external wall.
The landlord inspected the property on 22 February 2022 and concluded that it needed to repoint the external brickwork and check the guttering and downpipe. However, by early June nothing further had been done and the resident complained on 6 June 2022 about the landlord’s handling of the situation.
Further inspections took place on 24 June 2022 and on 21 July 2022. The landlord raised an order for remedial works to take place to the roof of the building, including to the fascia and guttering. The works included the previously identified repointing that remained outstanding. On 23 November 2022 the landlord raised a further work order to remove vegetation growing in the roof gutter, which was causing water to drip on the brickwork. It noted that scaffolding would be required.
In its initial complaint response of 24 June 2022, the landlord explained that it had a backlog of repairs which had emerged as a result of restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. It apologised for the delay in dealing with the matter. It accepted that there had been poor communication with the resident over the situation, for which it also apologised. The landlord offered compensation of £185 for the delays and inconvenience this caused the resident. It confirmed the repairs would be scheduled “under normal priority”. With regard to the internal damage to the resident’s property, the landlord signposted the resident to its insurers.
The resident escalated the complaint due to lack of progress. The landlord, in its final response of 3 October 2022, once again apologised for the delays which it agreed were unacceptable. It offered increased compensation of £270 to reflect that and also for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. It also accepted that its stage two complaint response was late and offered further compensation of £75, making a total of £345. The landlord confirmed it was negotiating a start date for the work with its contractor and provided the resident with the relevant staff member’s direct contact details.
The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the matter to this Service for investigation. As of 19 July 2023 (the resident’s most recent contact) the works had not commenced. By way of resolution, the resident’s priority was for the repairs to be done as soon as possible. She reported she could not use the affected bedroom in the meantime, and this had been the case for one and a half years now.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of repairs to the property.

The resident is a leaseholder and her legal relationship with her landlord is set out in a counterpart Lease dated 6 November 1989. This Service cannot offer a legally binding opinion on the correct interpretation of the provisions of that document. However, it is noted that there is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for the repairs in question.
Further, the following promise (covenant) on the landlord’s part is noted in the ninth schedule to that document: – “To keep in good and substantial repair and condition…. the main structure of the block including …. all exterior and all party walls and structure…. and including all roofs and chimneys and every part of the property above the level of the top floor ceilings”.
As set out above, the landlord determined that repairs were needed to the exterior of the building on 22 February 2022 – to date they remain outstanding. The landlord’s approach to repairs for both tenants and leaseholders is set out in its Repairs Guide. This provides for four “repairs priorities”, immediate, emergency, urgent and normal. The landlord determined the three works orders raised in this case were “normal” with a timescale for repair within 21 working days although this may be extended for major items or where, for example, scaffolding is required – as was the case here.
The guide gives examples of each category of repair. “Urgent” matters relate to works which do not cause danger to the resident but need “to be put right to prevent inconvenience to you and keep the property in a reasonable condition” and should be completed within 5 working days. Normal repairs are defined as those which do not cause inconvenience or danger to the resident.
In the Ombudsman’s view there is an argument for saying the repairs should have been prioritised as urgent rather than normal. This is because the resident was reporting that she could not use her bedroom due to the condition of it caused by the water ingress. Further, it is reasonable to conclude that any damage might escalate if left unresolved for such a length of time. The problem was (and still is) causing inconvenience and affecting the state of the resident’s home. Given the bedroom affected was the only bedroom in the property, if not considering as an ‘urgent’ repair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to at least prioritise it and ensure works were completed within its ‘normal’ repair timescales.
However, given the amount of time that has elapsed in this case the difference between the two timescales represents a fraction of that period. Either way, there has been a considerable delay in this case and the landlord is yet to commit to a start date for any repairs to commence. This delay represents a major failing in the service offered by the landlord to the resident. The requirement for scaffolding and the landlord’s pandemic related difficulties in providing repair services are accepted as mitigating factors in this case, however, in all the circumstances, it is clear that the landlord has delayed unreasonably in progressing a long term solution to the issues raised by the resident.
In its complaint responses the landlord confirmed that there had been “unacceptably long avoidable delays”. It also agreed that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident over the repairs and had not, therefore, been able to manage her expectations. Its records confirm this view. Again, the landlord was open about this. Finally, it offered to revisit its compensation offer for the delays once the full extent of them was apparent.
Finally, for the sake of completeness it is noted that the landlord referred her to its insurers with regard to the cost of repairing any internal damage to her property. She was given a direct email address to contact them. This was a reasonable response to that issue and the resident is able to pursue this independently of this investigation.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the redress offered was neither fair nor reasonable. The landlord did not carry out the repairs, it has not even started them. While it acknowledged “avoidable delays”, it failed to consider the impact of the delayed repairs to the resident given the only bedroom in the property was affected by damp and mould. It would have been reasonable in those circumstances to have considered prioritising and completing the repairs. Additionally, it might reasonably have attached more weight to the fact the resident was reporting she could not use the bedroom when making its compensation calculation.
This Service’s Guidance on Remedies sets out that compensation can be offered for both the resident’s quantifiable and unquantifiable losses. The latter refers to compensating residents for the impact upon them of the landlord’s failings, for their distress and inconvenience and for their time and trouble in pursuing a matter. The landlord quantified a global figure of £270 although this was not broken down into specific elements. Our guidance envisages awards of over £700 for failings of maladministration with long term impact on residents. As such, the landlord’s actions, including its failure to resolve the repair issues and its unsatisfactory offer of compensation for acknowledged service failures, amounts to an overall determination of maladministration on this case.
In this case the resident’s use of the only bedroom in her property has been affected for over a year. The landlord failed to recognise this and take appropriate action to resolve the repairs causing the issue. An order is made below for compensation of £1000 to reflect the delays in the repairs handling considering the restricted use the resident was gaining from the affected bedroom.
Further the resident was put to ongoing stress and inconvenience in having to live continuously in poor conditions and pursue the matter in the face of a lack of communication from the landlord about any progress or plan of repairs. It can be seen that attempts by the landlord to move the repairs forward were coincided with the contact from the resident, her complaints and the referral to this Service. A further compensatory payment of £300 has been ordered below to recognise the stress and inconvenience the situation was causing the resident for this period of time.
In terms of the repair itself an order has been made for the landlord to arrange (and notify the resident of) a start date and plan for repairs within the next 28 days.

The resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s Complaints Procedure sets out it has a two-stage process for handling complaints. Stage one involves an initial investigation with a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can request escalation of the complaint to stage two of the process. A review will then take place with a response being given in 20 working days.
The landlord’s records show that the initial stage one response was four working days late. Further, when acknowledging the resident’s stage two request, the landlord committed to a response by 18 August 2022 but did not then provide it until 3 October 2022 – over six weeks later than what its policy allows. It can be seen that the landlord’s complaints team were experiencing delays in gaining the information needed from other departments to provide a response to the resident. However, this was not communicated to the resident.
The landlord admitted its delay in its complaint response at stage two and offered compensation of £75 by way of remedy. It is noted that the landlord warned the resident on 18 August 2022 that there would be a delay and also advised her of the complaint handler’s holiday leave. It took steps to manage her expectations and keep her updated. However, this delay was for over six weeks and the response was send a month after the holiday season, which raises concerns about the landlord’s service, given there should be consistency in dealing with the complaints and its service should not be affected by its member’s leave.
Additionally, the landlord did not resolve the issue under its internal complaints process. It did not follow up on its final response and complete the repairs. As such it failed to provide resolution and put things right for the resident, which is the main objective of the complaints process. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Under these circumstances the compensation offered to the resident was not proportionate to the time and trouble she experienced by the landlord’s failures. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, compensation totalling of £250 is ordered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord will:
1. Pay the resident total sum of £1550 comprising of:
  1. £345 already offered to the resident at stage two of the complaint (if not already paid).
  2. An additional £730 for the landlord’s failure to complete repairs at the resident’s property.
  3. An additional £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures in communication and handling the repairs.
  4. An additional £175 in recognition of time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor handling of her complaint.
2. Pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against rent or service charge account.
3. Schedule the outstanding works and advise the resident of the start date of these works.
4. Evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of receiving this determination.