London Borough of Hackney (202312351)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312351

London Borough of Hackney

25 June 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the communal lighting.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 3-bedroom flat. The flat is in a 6-storey block which is part of a larger estate.
  2. The resident raised concerns that the communal lighting was on during the day and night. As of 15 December 2022, he stated that he had reported this for over a year.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 13 March 2023. He stated that on 21 February 2023, he reported the communal lights as being on 24 hours a day and this issue was ongoing. He was advised that someone had attended on 21 February 2023, but a hoist team was needed. The landlord had not yet raised the appointment for the hoist team. The resident expressed his frustration that the hoist team appointment was only raised because he chased the landlord.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 May 2023. The stage 1 response contained information regarding a leak and guttering. It also noted a number of works orders related to lighting, but these were not all directly linked to the resident’s concerns. It further stated that work on a ceiling would commence on 5 June 2023. This was not something the resident had raised in his complaint.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on the same day. He advised the complaint was not about the leak or guttering but was about the lighting being on 24 hours a day. He advised he was frustrated that he had to chase up the issue, and that action was only taken when he reported the issue again.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 October 2023. The response had been chased a number of times and was sent after the Ombudsman had requested it. The stage 2 response apologised for the previous complaint response and the confusion about the complaint. It also advised that the complaint was raised formally on 27 April 2023. It advised the issue with the lighting was now resolved and offered £500 compensation.
  7. The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman as he stated the issue with the lighting was ongoing. As of 28 February 2024, the resident has advised the lighting is now resolved. He is frustrated at the length of time this has taken.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the communal lighting.

  1. When the landlord was informed that there was an issue with communal lighting it should have arranged to attend the property and consider any necessary repairs. For routine repairs, the time frame in the landlord’s policy is 21 working days. If more time is needed, it states the landlord will advise the resident. A works note on 3 February 2023 stated that the photocell and time clock were not working. There are no notes regarding what action was taken to resolve the matter, or any evidence of correspondence with the resident at this time.
  2. The landlord stated that it received a report on 21 February 2023 regarding the lighting. It stated that the matter had been referred to the hoist team. In its complaint responses the landlord said that this report was not made by the resident. The resident however confirmed he was the person that reported the matter. The landlord has acknowledged this could have been a recording issue and has identified the need to improve its recording of who has made the report. In failing to accurately record the person who reported the issue, the resident was not kept updated, causing further frustration.
  3. When the landlord became aware it needed a hoist team to resolve the matter, it should have ensured this was arranged. The landlord acknowledged that this was not raised with the relevant team until after the resident chased the complaint up.
  4. The Ombudsman has been provided with a number of works orders for lighting issues for the resident’s estate. Some of these are for lights not working, or individual lighting needing replacement. When considering its repairs the landlord should have made sure there was a clear trail of works orders specifically relating to the repairs the resident had raised. The Ombudsman recognises repairs can sometimes be linked to other issues. However, in this instance having all works related to lighting over a large estate has potentially caused confusion and delayed the resolution of the resident’s substantive matter. The landlord has acknowledged this in it stage 2 response.
  5. The landlord stated that the communal lighting was fixed in its stage 2 response. A works order from 7 September 2023 and an internal email of 29 September 2023 supported this. However, the resident advised this was not the case. Records dated after the resident’s stage 2 response confirm there were still issues with the communal lighting being on during the day. The Ombudsman recognises that communal issues can be difficult to manage in large estates, particularly when multiple residents are raising concerns about similar issues. However, best practice would have been to engage with the complainant to make sure all issues were addressed. In failing to do this, the resident remained frustrated and approached the Ombudsman to get the matter resolved.
  6. The landlord stated that £250 of the compensation was awarded for time and trouble. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident had to follow up on these repairs for a significantly longer time than should have been necessary. It also recognises that this was frustrating for the resident. It is reasonable that a resident would have concerns where communal lighting may be impacting on service costs, and that the resident would want to keep this to a minimum. However, the communal lighting did not impact on functionality. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and the landlord’s complaint policy, £250 would be considered a reasonable amount of compensation for the issues the resident had. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the communal lighting.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage 1 complaint will be responded to within 10 working days. The landlord stated that the complaint was logged on 27 April 2023. However, it is clear the resident raised dissatisfaction on 13 March 2023. The landlord should have logged a formal complaint on that day. The total response time from the stage 1 being raised to a response being issued was 46 working days, which is significantly out with the timescales.
  2. The stage 1 complaint response contained information that was not relevant to the resident’s complaint. This was understandably frustrating to the resident. The Ombudsman notes that the resident emailed the landlord on 11 May 2023 to advise it had got the complaint wrong and asked for a call. The landlord attempted a call on 12 May 2023. The Ombudsman would not consider one contact attempt using one contact method to be a reasonable effort from the landlord to fully establish the resident’s complaint.
  3. The resident asked to raise the stage 2 complaint on 19 May 2023. The landlord’s policy states it should have responded within 20 working days. The resident chased his response on 20 June 2023 and 3 July 2023. The resident then approached the Ombudsman. Residents should not need to approach the Ombudsman for the landlord to issue its complaint response. The total time for the landlord to respond at stage 2 was 96 working days. This was an unreasonable response time.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response recognised the delays and apologised for these. It also believed the issue was resolved at this time. As already noted, it was important for the landlord to be fully satisfied that the matter was either resolved, or that it was taking sufficient action to ensure resolution in the future. Failing to do this caused further frustration to the resident.
  5. The landlord offered £250 for complaint handling. While the Ombudsman considers that complaint handling was poor in this case, it has noted that the landlord has apologised and awarded suitable redress. The Ombudsman has also seen internal emails in which the landlord has confirmed it is taking action to improve its complaints response times. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of reports of issues with the communal lighting.
    2. Complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should re-offer the compensation of £500 within 4 weeks of this report.
    1. £250 for time and trouble.
    2. £250 for complaint handling.
  2. The resident has advised that communication with the landlord has been difficult, due to lack of responses It is recommended that the landlord offer a meeting with the resident to establish a positive future relationship and resolve any outstanding issues.