London Borough of Hackney (202310241)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310241

London Borough of Hackney

30 May 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
   2. Complaint handling.
2. The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

3. The resident is a leaseholder. He acquired the lease when he bought the property in 2021. The lease began in 2006. The property is a 1 bedroom flat in the basement of a converted building. The landlord is a local authority. The resident’s complaint relates to leaks, damp, and mould in the property’s living room and bedroom.
4. The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s original report. However, its repair records suggest he first reported leaks and damp in October 2021. At this time, repair notes referenced wet walls and damage from a chimney breast. Though an inspection occurred the following month, the landlord did not specify the required repairs until January 2022. There was a gap in the evidence at this point.
5. Around July 2022, the resident told the landlord the leak had got worse. After further delays, he raised a formal complaint on 12 December 2022. He said “significant disrepair” to the dining room walls and bedroom chimney were affecting his enjoyment of the property. He referenced the lease terms and said the landlord should resolve matters within a reasonable timescale.
6. The landlord issued a stage 1 response around 19 working days later. It apologised for the delays and promised to monitor the repairs until completion. Subsequently, the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 25 January 2023. He referenced a number of inaccuracies in the landlord’s response. For example, he said the response only referenced 1 out of the 2 leaks present.
7. In an internal email on 27 March 2023, the landlord said the resident was waiting for it to approve an external contractor’s quote. It also said he was “constantly calling the complaint line in an agitated state”. Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 13 April 2023. This was around 55 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The key points were:
   1. The landlord acknowledged repairs were outstanding since October 2021. It was sorry for its ongoing delays and service failures.
   2. It was in the process of approving the external contractor’s quote so the repairs could be arranged.
   3. The resident was awarded £1,000 in compensation. This was based on £800 for an avoidable delay and £200 for the resident’s time and trouble.
   4. The landlord had asked its insurance team to issue the resident a claim form.
8. In June 2023, the resident accepted the landlord’s compensation award. The parties’ correspondence confirms he received a payment the following month. Subsequently, in April 2024, the landlord told us the repair issues were still ongoing. In addition, it said investigation works were needed to a neighbour’s balcony. The landlord attributed a number of delays to an external contractor.
9. The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 21 May 2024. He said he was unclear about the landlord’s current actions. This was on the basis he stopped asking the landlord for updates around summer 2023. He also said he had not been contacted by the landlord’s contractors at any stage. He confirmed the repairs were still outstanding. His other key points were:
   1. Over time, mould had developed in the rooms affected by leaks.
   2. The landlord had been notified about the mould on multiple occasions.
   3. Along with flooring, there was damage to several walls in both rooms
   4. Though he previously redecorated himself, the underlying leaks eventually damaged the resident’s new paintwork.

Assessment and findings

10. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal belongings.

Policies, procedures and other information

11. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident referred to a specific clause in the lease agreement (clause 6). He feels it confirms the landlord is responsible for the repairs. We were unable to check the terms because the landlord did not provide the resident’s full lease documents. However, the landlord has not disputed the resident’s assertion that it is obliged to complete the repairs. As a result, this assessment assumed the landlord was responsible for completing the repairs.
12. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Details of the procedure can be found on the landlord’s website. The information shows the landlord aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould

13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted it was responsible for various delays and failures. The response wording suggests it awarded the resident £800 in related compensation. This award covered the period between October 2021 and April 2023 (around 18 months). It is acknowledged the landlord attempted to put things right and the resident accepted its compensation. Nevertheless, the evidence confirms the repair issues are still ongoing to date.
14. Given the timing of this assessment, the evidence points to an overall delay of around 31 months. It also highlights a further delay of around 13 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. For clarity, the Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timescale to complete routine repairs. Given the above, the landlord’s lengthy delays were inappropriate. Overall, the evidence confirms there was an inappropriate lack of resolution-focus on the landlord’s part.
15. To clarify, the landlord failed to progress the necessary repairs accordingly, or control the overall timeline. Its internal correspondence shows the corresponding impact to the resident. In March 2023, the landlord said he was constantly calling its complaints team in an agitated state. While this was understandable given the circumstances, it should not have been necessary. The landlord’s description was consistent with the overall case evidence, which shows the resident chased the repairs on numerous occasions during the timeline.
16. The evidence confirms the landlord had difficulty progressing matters with the resident’s neighbours at times. For example, its records referenced a no access incident and a lack of response to the landlord’s communications. Regardless, the landlord should have been capable of managing the situation accordingly. This included proactively following up with neighbours where necessary.
17. Instead, records show repair orders were closed when the landlord was unable to complete its related actions. For example, there was a similar incident on 15 March 2022. The corresponding notes referenced a neighbouring home. The notes said a job was cancelled because there had been no response to the landlord’s letter. This closure was unfair and inappropriate given the resident was still impacted by the related repair issue.
18. Similarly, external contractors were agents acting on the landlord’s behalf. Since it was ultimately responsible for them, the landlord should have been able to manage their performance effectively. It was noted the landlord mentioned contractor performance issues in an email to the resident on 13 March 2023. The evidence suggests it subsequently changed its preferred contractor. Since the resident’s key repairs were not addressed afterwards, the evidence points to ongoing contractor management issues.
19. It was difficult to gauge the extent and impact of the leaks from the evidence provided. For example, the Ombudsman has only seen 1 undated image of the property’s interior. It appears to show a significant number of damp patches spread across a decorated wall. The resident has consistently said multiple walls are affected. In contrast, the evidence shows the leaks were not always active. For example, the resident’s complaint correspondence included a timeline that said a leak “began again” in July 2022.
20. Similarly, in June 2023, the resident told the landlord that the rear of the property was “leaking once again” following rainfall. Despite the varying levels of water ingress, it is reasonable to conclude the situation was a source of considerable anxiety for the resident. In addition, because some of the property’s main rooms were affected (living room and bedroom) he had limited respite from the situation. His complaint referenced a similar loss of enjoyment.
21. There were no case specific references to mould in the landlord’s evidence file. This was concerning given the resident’s recent comments to the Ombudsman. He told us he had reported mould to the landlord on multiple occasions. Given the potential health implications, the landlord should have clear records of any reported mould. While its stage 2 response referenced concerns about damp related electrical hazards, there was no evidence to show the landlord acted on this information.
22. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have expedited the repairs based on the resident’s safety concerns. Alternatively, it could have reasonably given him related advice relevant to his leaseholder status. There was no indication it took either of these steps. Ultimately, the landlord should be able to react accordingly to any relevant safety information. In his update to the Ombudsman, the resident said he was unsure why the landlord had mentioned its insurance team.
23. Overall, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould. This finding reflects the prolonged impact on the resident, who expressed related safety concerns during the timeline. Despite these concerns, the landlord showed an inappropriate lack of resolution-focus. The key repairs remain outstanding to date. This represents an overall delay of around 31 months from October 2021. The situation is both unfair and inappropriate.
24. Given the circumstances, the Ombudsman will order additional compensation to put things right for the resident. In line with our approach to compensation, it will include separate elements to address the resident’s loss of enjoyment and the distress and inconvenience he was caused by the situation. The loss of enjoyment calculation will be based on a flat rate of £50 per month (£25 for each affected room) for the full duration of the above identified delay period.

The landlord’s complaint handling

25. The landlord’s stage 2 response shows the landlord recognised there were problems with its complaint handling. It suggests the resident was awarded £200 in related compensation. It said the landlord’s stage 1 response was issued by a new staff member. In addition, the quality issues highlighted in the response were raised with the landlord’s management, and further training would be provided. Given the circumstances, these were appropriate steps by the landlord.
26. However, the evidence shows there were further issues following the landlord’s stage 2 response. For example, on 20 June 2023 the resident told the landlord’s stage 2 case handler that a direct contact number they had given him did not work. The resident’s email shows he had to make a number of calls before he was able to contact the handler. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was both avoidable and inconvenient for him.
27. Similarly, the evidence shows it took the landlord around 6 weeks to pay the resident compensation after he accepted it. His email correspondence to the landlord on 2 July 2023 confirms the delay prompted the resident to chase the landlord for the payment. Again, this additional effort should not have been necessary given the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it implements any agreed complaint resolutions promptly.
28. More significantly, although the resident remained in contact with the landlord’s stage 2 handler for a period, the evidence shows the landlord was unable to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve his repair concerns. In other words, there was little improvement in the landlord’s timescales despite the handler’s involvement. This was concerning and it could point to a lack of coordination or follow up on the landlord’s part. In any case, it is reasonable to conclude the situation added to the resident’s distress.
29. Good aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling were undermined by the failures identified above. This is because the landlord was, ultimately, unable to use its complaints process to improve the resident’s situation. For example, its timescales did not markedly improve despite the stage 2 case handler’s involvement. The situation was concerning and it is reasonable to conclude it added to the resident’s overall distress. As mentioned above, there were a number of other complaint handling issues at stage 2.
30. Given the above, the evidence confirms there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

31. The evidence suggests record keeping issues impacted several aspects of the landlord’s operations. As mentioned, the landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s initial repair report or the full tenancy terms. It is reasonable to conclude this information should be readily available to the landlord.
32. Similarly, though the evidence points to a number of inspections during the timeline, there were limited inspection records to confirm the severity of the repair issues. For example, the Ombudsman has not seen a record of the findings from the landlord’s initial inspection on 11 November 2021.
33. The evidence also suggests the landlord had difficulty interpreting its own records at times. In addition, this led to delays and repeated actions. For example, an email chain on 12 January 2023 shows a contractor completed an inspection that day. Afterwards, it told the landlord it had closed an initial inspection order and it would submit an estimate for scaffolding. This was on the basis the scaffolding would allow a further investigation to specify the works.
34. The landlord promptly replied the works had already been specified. Its email included a detailed job description. The evidence suggests a detailed specification had already been done around 1 year earlier. It is reasonable to conclude this should have been evident to the landlord’s operatives, who could have instructed the contractor accordingly. Overall, the evidence points to maladministration in respect of this complaint point.
35. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates a landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policies and procedures and adhere to them, as should contractors or managing agents.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
       1. Complaint handling.
       2. Record keeping.

Reasons

37. The landlord showed an inappropriate lack of resolution-focus. As a result, key repairs from October 2021 remain outstanding to date. This represents an overall delay of around 31 months. This timescale is unfair and inappropriate. There was a prolonged impact to the resident, who expressed related safety concerns during the timeline. The evidence suggests these concerns did not make a difference to the landlord’s overall handling of the situation.
38. Good aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling were undermined. This is because the landlord was, ultimately, unable to use its complaints process to improve the resident’s situation. For example, its timescales did not markedly improve despite the stage 2 case handler’s involvement. The situation was concerning and it is reasonable to conclude it added to the resident’s overall distress. There were a number of other complaint handling issues at stage 2.
39. The evidence suggests record keeping issues impacted several aspects of the landlord’s operations. The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s initial repair report or the full lease documents. There were also limited inspection records. The evidence also suggests the landlord had difficulty interpreting its own records and this resulted in delays and repeated actions.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident within 4 weeks. The apology should recognise the key failures identified in this report (summarised in the reasons section above). Since the executive will oversee any repairs through to completion, the apology should also include their contact details. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
41. The landlord’s appointed executive to oversee the creation of an action plan. The landlord must share its action plan with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. The plan must detail the measures the landlord will take to promptly address the resident’s outstanding repairs. Subsequently, the landlord must issue monthly progress updates to the Ombudsman until the repairs are complete.
42. The landlord to pay the resident a further £1,250 in compensation within 4 weeks. The Ombudsman’s calculation is based on:
    1. £1,550 for the loss of enjoyment the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to his reports of leaks, damp, and mould (£50 x 31 months).
    2. £350 for the resident’s related distress and inconvenience.
    3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    4. The landlord has already paid the resident £1,000 at stage 2.
43. The landlord to contact the resident within 4 weeks about his damaged decorations. Based on this discussion, the parties should jointly agree whether the matter is best addressed through an insurance claim (against the landlord’s own insurer), or through the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is to ensure the matter is handled in an appropriate manner. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
44. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct an internal review into the key issues highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks the landlord should present to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include the landlord’s: inappropriate lack of resolution-focus, approach to third party access issues, approach to contractor management, its inability to improve matters for the resident using its complaints process, and its record keeping.
45. The landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders within the relevant timescales.