London Borough of Hackney (202226830)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226830

London Borough of Hackney

27 March 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

The complaint refers to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports of a flood and upsurge, and the subsequent request for a deep clean.
2. Its complaint handling and compensation offered.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy which began on 29 January 2018 and lives in a 3 bedroom second floor maisonette flat with her adult children. The resident has described her vulnerabilities as stress, high blood pressure and low moods for which she has received counselling. The evidence shows the resident has informed the landlord of vulnerabilities and the impact on her wellbeing. The landlord has no recorded diagnosed vulnerability; however it has noted the resident said she had “breathing problems” in her formal complaint.
The resident reported a plumbing issue on the weekend of 16 July 2022 using the landlord’s out of hours (OOH) service. After the attendance of its OOH plumber on 16 July 2022, the resident experienced flooding in her kitchen. The following day, following another attendance from the landlord’s OOH plumber, she experienced an upsurge of waste from her kitchen sink which flooded her kitchen and hallway. The landlord’s OOH drainage contractors resolved the upsurge later the same day. On 18 July 2022, the landlord took the following action:
1. Its plumber unblocked the bath, basin, and kitchen sink.
2. Its drains team checked and found the drains to be clear.
3. Its hygiene services cleaned and sanitised the resident’s property as well as using a bacteria neutraliser and fumigating it.
4. The resident’s hallway carpet was removed.
The landlord inspected the property on 28 July 2022 and confirmed the drain was unblocked but the kitchen had a “strong smell of sewer”. It recommended a further visit by its hygiene services to fumigate and remove the smell.
The resident complained on 16 August 2022 about the OOH response and that her house had not been cleaned properly by its hygiene services. She said she was not staying at the property due to her anxiety about “germs and bacteria” saying she had “breathing problems and do not want to get sick”. She said she wanted to be moved to allow for a “heavy duty cleanup to make safe” her property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 October 2022. While it recognised the impact of the flooding and upsurge on the resident and her property, her complaint was not upheld. It offered to sign post the resident to companies so she could arrange for the deep clean at her own expense. Compensation was not offered, and it suggested the option of an insurance claim for any damaged goods.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the stage 1 investigation and escalated her complaint on 8 November 2022 to stage 2 of its complaint process. On 14 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for the poor quality of repairs by its 2 OOH plumbers saying it had taken appropriate action, so similar issues did not reoccur. It offered the resident £200 to arrange a full kitchen deep clean with an external provider. It confirmed her carpets would be replaced following the deep clean. The resident’s complaint about the stage 1 investigation was not upheld. The resident declined the landlord’s offer of £200.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resolution she seeks is for the landlord to arrange a deep clean of her property and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are better suited to consideration by “the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.” It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to establish cause, liability, or negligence, and award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might. Therefore, for claims of damage to personal possessions the resident may wish to seek legal advice.
In addition, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, if a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or, award damages. The resident states the upsurge has negatively impacted her health. The Ombudsman is unable to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are again better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
This investigation focuses on events from 16 July 2022 until 14 December 2022, which is when the landlord closed the complaint. Separate issues, and events that post date the complaints procedure, have not been investigated here and are referenced for contextual purposes only.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a flood and upsurge and the subsequent request for a deep clean

It is recognised the flooding and upsurge has been distressing for the resident.
The landlord’s repairs guide states repairs will be carried out to a “high standard”. It sets out its repairing priorities according to the repair type as follows:
1. Immediate (eg flooding risk) – 2 hour response time.
2. Emergency (eg health and safety risk) – 24 hour response time.
3. Urgent (eg no danger, but to keep property in a reasonable condition) – 5 day response time.
4. Normal (eg a fault or failure not causing inconvenience or danger) – 21 day response time.
The landlord’s repairs guide confirms it is responsible for repairs connected to upsurging drains, water leaks and flooding. With vulnerable tenants, it may carry out repairs outside its usual policy and appointments for ‘urgent’ and ‘normal’ repairs will be arranged with residents in advance. It clarifies residents are responsible for insuring their contents for any loss or damage including from a flood.
The contemporaneous repair records for 16 to 18 July 2022 have not been provided to this Service by the landlord, who has told this Service it has no evidence around its repairs visit, surveys, or inspection reports on its repairs database for these dates. Regarding the visit by its hygiene service on 18 July 2022, this Service has been provided with internal emails sent about the issues raised by the resident. Due to the lack of evidence from the landlord particularly for 16 to 18 July 2022, it has been necessary to form a chronology from the resident’s information where appropriate. Occasionally, the information relating to the missing evidence has been referred to in internal emails (eg OOH call summary). This Service has relied on the contemporaneous evidence to set out the course of events as far as possible.
The landlord’s OOH service appropriately raised a job for a plumber to attend the resident’s property on 16 July 2022 following her report of a flood. While the evidence does not show the repairs priority given, the evidence shows the resident’s first report was at 3.17pm and she called again at 8.44pm saying its plumber had just left. A flood risk should be responded to within 2 hours and by responding approximately 5 hours later, the landlord breached its policy timeframes for repairs handling. This was unreasonable.
The resident says the landlord’s plumber turned on her kitchen and bath taps and said, “there’s nothing to fix”. He left after turning off the kitchen tap only. The resident says the kitchen flooded again following his departure after she turned off the bath tap. The resident’s calls to its OOH service reporting a further flood after its plumber’s departure, did not result in a ‘immediate’ job being raised. The evidence shows its OOH service appropriately contacted its plumber and he stated as he could not identify the issue, he would not be reattending the property. A water leak requires an ‘immediate’ response of within 2 hours. The landlord’s failure to raise a job to reattend the resident’s property was a serious repairs handling failure and would have been distressing for the resident who was left to manage the flood herself.
The evidence shows on 17 July 2022, the resident initially called the landlord’s OOH service at 8.12am and at 12.07pm she was told its operative was running late due to “volume of jobs”. While this was unfortunate, it did not absolve it of its repairs policy commitments. The resident has stated that its plumber capped a pipe during the visit on 17 July 2022. While the evidence does not indicate the time of the plumber’s visit to the resident’s property, it shows a further call from the resident at 4.08pm saying she had to leave her property due to an upsurge. Therefore, the evidence shows the landlord’s plumber responded outside its 2 hour timeframe and this was unreasonable.
The resident has said an upsurge of waste and water from the kitchen sink flooded the kitchen and hallway after the plumber’s departure on 17 July 2022. The evidence shows a work order was appropriately raised at 2.48pm for the drains team and at 4.08pm the resident was told that the landlord’s drainage team was ‘on the way’. While the records do not show the times the resident reported the upsurge or of its drainage team’s visit, during a further call to its OOH service at 8.32pm, the resident confirmed the drainage team had attended. As a repair presenting “immediate danger” and the flooding risks to the property, the report of the upsurge should have been responded to within 2 hours. While the evidence suggests the upsurge was satisfactorily resolved on 17 July 2022, it also suggests that the drains team attended outside the repairs policy timeframe and this failure was unacceptable.
On 18 July 2022, the landlord acted responsively to deal with the follow on works after the flooding and upsurge. The evidence shows it sent another plumber to unblock the resident’s bath, basin, and kitchen sink; its drains team checked the drains were clear; and its hygiene services cleaned, sanitised, and fumigated her property along with removing her carpet. The evidence shows a repairs priority of ‘emergency’, requiring a 24 hour response, was assigned to the drains team attendance. Such a priority is to prevent damage and, address inconvenience or a health and safety risk. While the evidence does not show the priority for the works raised for its plumber or hygiene services, they also appropriately attended within 24 hours. Therefore, the follow on works by the landlord were reasonable and timely.
The resident has stated that the cleaning by the landlord’s hygiene services on 18 July 2022 was unsatisfactory consisting of her kitchen floor being mopped and carpet being removed. She says a full deep clean was not done with her sink and cupboards being left untouched. The resident has set out her concerns about being exposed to risks, including polio, from her property not being adequately cleaned. The landlord’s hygiene services stated in internal emails, it used “cleaning products, sanitisers, and a bacteria neutraliser. We also fumigated the property once we were finished, this is standard practice that we use for all these types of work”. There are no contemporaneous records of its hygiene services visits to confirm the work done or not done.
Following an inspection on 28 July 2022, the landlord noted the repairs works had resolved the original issue of flooding and upsurge and the outstanding issue was “a strong smell of sewer”. A further referral was made to its hygiene services and while an internal email confirmed a visit on 19 August 2022, the resident said during a call on 17 August 2022 that she was unaware of the visit and its hygiene services had not been in touch. On the same day, its hygiene services were asked to confirm visit details with her. The visit did not take place on 19 August 2022 as the resident, who was not living at the property at the time, said she was only made aware of it after hygiene services called her for access. The evidence does not show the visit or time was confirmed with her in advance in breach of its repairs policy commitments. This was unreasonable given an email on 17 August 2022 requesting contact with the resident to confirm visit times.
While the resident had made clear her dissatisfaction with a further clean by its hygiene service, the evidence shows 2 internal referrals for its hygiene services from 31 August to 14 September 2022 to reattend her property after which a visit on 23 September 2022 was arranged. The evidence of the visit details is set out in internal emails and not formal repairs records. The landlord’s hygiene services said it did not have the cleaning machines to carry out the resident’s requested “deep intensive clean”, so her property was not cleaned. The landlord made a further attempt at the start of December 2022 for its hygiene services to return to her property, but on 5 December 2022, the resident confirmed she was dissatisfied with its hygiene services and wanted a “full extensive deep clean” of her property. The landlord proactively acted on the resident’s concerns about the state of her property. It took reasonable steps to put right her reports of the clean of 18 July 2022 being inadequate by offering to return to clean the property again using its available equipment and processes.
Both the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 outcomes confirmed its hygiene services cleaning work was satisfactory with standard procedures being followed. While its stage 1 response invited the resident to arrange a deep clean at her own expense with it signposting her to local providers, its stage 2 response offered her £200 to arrange for an external provider to do a full kitchen deep clean. The resident declined the £200 on 2 February 2023 saying the landlord should be responsible for arranging the clean by an external provider. The landlord acted reasonably by cleaning the property on 18 July 2022; offering to clean it again; offering to signpost her to external providers; and the £200 offer to arrange her own deep clean.
While it is accepted the flood and upsurge was a distressing experience for the resident, the landlord has acted fairly by trying to put things right by going outside its repairs policy to ensure the property is cleaned to her satisfaction. The £200 offer shows it has taken her concerns seriously. The request for the resident to make the arrangements directly with the provider is reasonable as she is in the best position to arrange a visit at a convenient time for her and to also explain her cleaning requirements to the provider.
Overall, the landlord has acknowledged the work of its plumbers on 16 to 17 July 2022 was poor and this Service considers that it also breached its repair timescales. Taking all factors into account the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling and compensation offered

The landlord’s 2-stage complaints process states stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
The resident’s complaint of 16 August 2022 was inappropriately acknowledged on 25 August 2022, and she was informed on 1 September 2022 that she should receive a response within 10 working days. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time stated that complaints must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 within 5 days of receipt of the complaint. The resident’s complaint was acknowledged outside this timeframe by 2 working days. This was unsatisfactory.
The evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord for a stage 1 response on 22 September and by telephone on 7 October 2022 before she received an update on 10 October 2022. The landlord said it was awaiting 2 service responses and would respond thereafter. The update email failed to provide the resident with a timeframe for its stage 1 response. This failure was unsatisfactory given the time and trouble the resident had already been put to by chasing an update.
The resident received the stage 1 outcome on 14 October 2022 when the landlord apologised for the delay providing it. The reasons given was it had liaised with different service areas to gather evidence. The stage 1 outcome was received approximately 8 weeks after she made her complaint, which meant it breached its 10 working day timeframe. This was unreasonable.
After the resident escalated her complaint on 8 November 2022, she emailed the landlord on 11 and 18 November 2022 before her stage 2 escalation request on 22 November 2022 was acknowledged. She received a stage 2 response 5 weeks after her escalation on 14 December 2022, which was outside the 20 day timeframe for responding to stage 2 complaints and was unacceptable.
In total, it took over 17 weeks from the resident’s complaint to the landlord’s final response. This was unreasonable and not in line with its complaints policy. It led to unsatisfactory delay in the resident being able to exhaust the complaints process and to bring her matter to this Service for investigation.
Both the stage 1 and 2 outcomes fail to properly address the plumber’s refusal to return to the resident’s property on 16 July 2022 after it flooded again. The complaint outcomes appropriately accepted a repair handling failure with the stage 2 outcome apologising for the “poor quality of repairs” and both outcomes confirming management had addressed the issue, so it did not reoccur. The landlord did not accept fault for the plumber’s refusal to return to the property or for not raising a subsequent job with an immediate (2 hour) response time. This was a missed opportunity to properly address its repairs handling failure and build trust with the resident.
Neither the stage 1 nor stage 2 outcomes addressed the breach of repairs policy timeframes. Its failure to acknowledge and address this issue was unreasonable.
The landlord’s compensation policy states a financial redress payment will be made depending on the circumstances of a case for “avoidable distress, harm, risk or time and trouble”. The policy says compensation is a way to acknowledge the impact of a fault on a resident.
The stage 1 outcome considered compensation for contaminated items in the resident’s kitchen. While the landlord refused this, the resident said she had not asked for compensation at this stage. The resident later requested compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s stage 2 response declined this on the grounds that the leak was repaired on 18 July 2022 and the upsurge was dealt with promptly.
While the stage 1 outcome recognises the delay in its response time, the stage 2 response does not. The evidence shows the resident was put to the time and trouble of chasing the landlord for an outcome at both stage 1 and 2 and that this left her feeling “ignored”.
The landlord failed to consider compensating the resident for its delays with its repairs and complaint handling. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to show it took the delays and impact on her seriously.
The landlord apologised for the poor quality of repairs and said it had appropriately addressed the issues to prevent the same reoccurring. The delays at stage 1 and 2 led to unreasonable delays in the resident complaint being investigated, any remedy offered to her, and delayed her being able to bring her complaint to this Service. While the landlord has acknowledged some failings, overall it has failed to fully address the detriment to her, and it has not offered suitable remedy for its acknowledged failings. Therefore, this Service finds maladministration by the landlord.

Record keeping

The landlord’s record keeping indicates considerable issues. We asked it to provide evidence in the form of, for example, the resident’s reports, all correspondence and contact notes, repair logs, visit records and inspection reports. The evidence provided contains omissions including:
1. The repairs and visit records for 16 to 18 July 2022 for its plumbers, drains team and hygiene services.
2. The visit record of 23 September 2022 for its hygiene services.
3. Call records with the resident (eg the complete OOH call record, 22 September 2022).
This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information recommends “records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why” with records being clear and timely, accurately recording decisions and the reasons for them.
This investigation has used information provided by the resident and references to events within the landlord’s wider correspondence. However, the omissions in the evidence indicate poor record keeping by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. A landlord is expected to keep a clear, accurate and easily accessible record of contacts and repairs to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The lack of records impacted its ability to fully investigate the complaint and consequently provide adequate redress. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord for poor record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a flood and upsurge and the subsequent request for a deep clean.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of complaint handling and compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1050. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any debts owed to the landlord. The compensation comprises:
  1. £500 for the landlord’s handling of reports of the flood and upsurge and the subsequent request for a deep clean. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, and inconvenience.
  2. £400 for the landlord’s complaint handling and compensation offered. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of time and trouble, and inconvenience.
  3. £150 for the landlord’s record keeping failings.
2. Write an apology to the resident for the failures in its service. The landlord’s apology should:
  1. Acknowledge the failings identified.
  2. Accept responsibility for it.
  3. Where appropriate, include assurances that the same failings should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence.
3. Re-offer to pay the costs of the resident arranging for an external provider to clean her kitchen and provide her with a list of local providers. The sum offered is to be based on the average current costs of the cleaning service of at least 3 external providers. The re-offer of costs is in addition to the compensation ordered.
The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Review its repairs record keeping, in line with the failings identified within this report. The landlord should consider if any changes to its practices are required to mitigate the risk of similar failings happening again. As part of its review, it should consider the Ombudsman’s report on Knowledge and Information Management. If relevant action has been taken since the time of this complaint, this should be set out to this service, also within 8 weeks.