London Borough of Hackney (202320158)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320158

London Borough of Hackney

20 August 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:
    1. repairs to the roof and guttering, and subsequent damp and mould in the property.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a two-bedroom property in a purpose-built block of flats. The property is on the third floor. The resident has a secure tenancy that started on 7 May 2012. The block is mixed tenure, meaning it has both tenants and leaseholders. The resident has explained her child is asthmatic.
  2. On 24 October 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak from the guttering into the property.
  3. On 6 November 2022, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. In her complaint, she said:
    1. she was unhappy about the landlord’s handling of water ingress into her home.
    2. the landlord had not been able to resolve the matter and her child had been affected.
    3. she wanted the landlord to provide a lasting and effective repair or, to consider rehousing her. She also complained about a missed appointment from contractors in October 2022.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 25 November 2022 and said:
    1. although it booked an appointment on 25 October 2022 to inspect and repair the water leak, it missed the appointment.
    2. it tried to contact the resident on 17 November 2022 and 22 November 2022 to book another appointment.
    3. when it contacted the resident on 25 November 2022, it booked a new appointment for 2 December 2022.
  5. The landlord arranged for a contractor and surveyor to attend the property on 2 December 2022. A contractor assessed the repairs to the roof, while the surveyor assessed the damage to the resident’s property.
  6. The resident complained of another leak on 14 December 2022, coming from her bedroom ceiling roof. The resident told the landlord that this caused damage to her walls. The resident also reported damp and mould in her bathroom. The resident told the landlord her child had asthma.
  7. On the 19 December 2022, the landlord inspected the resident’s property and found damp and mould.
  8. On 6 January 2023, the landlord noted that the hopper head that directed rainwater down a drainpipe, had become unattached and water was pooling on the flat roof.
  9. On 26 January 2023, the landlord:
    1. cleaned out and refixed a hopper head to the external wall which collected rainwater and channelled this down a drainpipe.
    2. tested the down rainwater pipe.
    3. rodded through drain outlets.
    4. repointed the window frames in mastic and around the rainwater pipe.
    5. repointed the external walls and applied a water seal to the affected brickwork.
  10. The resident complained to the landlord about the quality of the works done on 26 January 2023. In response, the landlord took the following actions between 25 January 2023 and 22 June 2023:
    1. it offered to visit the resident on 25 January 2023 to see if any additional work was needed.
    2. it agreed to complete the internal work outlined in the inspection report of 19 December 2022.
    3. it conducted a test called a dye test on 2 February 2023, to see if any dye had seeped through the roof into the resident’s property to find any vulnerability in the roof.
    4. it told the resident at some point in February 2023 that it needed to renew the roof.
    5. it offered the resident £760 compensation.
    6. it inspected the work it completed in January 2023 on 22 June 2023.
  11. On the 28 February 2023, the resident told the landlord that she believed she was entitled to a ‘qualifying repair’. This was under the Secure Tenants of Local Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994. These are for ‘qualifying repairs’ that cost less than £250. The regulations oblige landlords to complete repairs within a set period.
  12. On 26 March 2023, the resident complained that the property condition was a ‘statutory nuisance’ on the basis that it was harmful to her and her child’s health.
  13. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that the report of 19 December 2022 was inaccurate. She also complained again about the quality of the work done on 26 January 2023. The resident reported the leak had caused damage to her furniture, walls, and flooring and that her asthmatic child had experienced breathing difficulties.
  14. On 4 August 2023, the landlord:
    1. renewed and sealed the airbrick at the front of the building.
    2. sealed the flue at the front of the building.
    3. supplied and fitted a hopper head to match the existing size.
    4. adjusted the rainwater pipe.
    5. replaced the mastic seal around the windows.
    6. repointed as necessary.
    7. offered to inspect the resident’s property on 14 August 2023 and 4 December 2023 to agree any internal works.
  15. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 December 2023 and said:
    1. it apologised that it had not actioned the resident’s escalation. The landlord said it had tried to resolve the complaint at stage 1, but it did not communicate this to the resident.
    2. it had booked an appointment for 27 October 2022 to repair the leaking guttering, but it missed this due to an “administrative error”.
    3. it had tried to contact the resident as referred to in its stage 1 response, and made 2 appointments on 2 December 2022, for its contractor to look at the roof and for a surveyor to inspect any internal damage.
    4. its contractor attended on 21 December 2022, and it raised a list of work to do, which its contractor completed on 23 January 2023.
    5. it tried to arrange an internal inspection and conducted a dye test on 2 February 2023 to see if the roof was still leaking.
    6. it re-ordered the scaffolding for the roof on 14 April 2023 and inspected the roof on 22 June 2023.
    7. it raised works following the roof inspection on 22 June 2023, that it completed on 4 August 2023.
    8. the inspection on 2 December 2022 did not provide a specification for internal repairs and so it re-inspected again on 19 December 2022.
    9. the resident refused the landlord access to the property after she escalated her complaint.
    10. it told the resident in April 2023 that it had received only 1 out of 3 quotations for the roof renewal work that it needed before it could proceed.
    11. its property and asset management (PAM) team managed major works. The landlord explained that in August 2023, this team confirmed the roof needed complete renewal.
    12. it was likely that the roof renewal would start in the summer of 2024 because it needed to tender for the job and consult leaseholders.
    13. it offered the resident £1,385 compensation, including:
      1. £440 for poor complaint handling.
      2. £750 for the distress and health impacts.
      3. £25 for a missed appointment.
      4. £170 for the delay in inspecting the work it completed in January 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has complained about water ingress in her home for a considerable period. The resident raised a previous complaint with the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman determined that complaint on 25 April 2022. The Ombudsman made a number of orders to put things right for the resident. This included an inspection of the property and the roof within specified timescales.
  3. Paragraph 42.l of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where a resident seeks to raise matters which have already been decided upon by an Ombudsman.
  4. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had an ongoing dispute with the landlord about its handling of damp and mould. This continued after the previous complaint was determined on 25 April 2022. The Ombudsman cannot consider the issues it has already determined. Therefore, this investigation will focus on issues that arose since then and following the residents most recent complaint.
  5. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has instructed a legal representative to bring a claim but that no claim has been filed at court. This means that we can consider this complaint under our Scheme.
  6. The resident told the landlord on 14 December 2022 that she had an asthmatic child. The resident said the damp and mould affected her child’s breathing. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medicolegal report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
  7. In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s child’s health conditions or injury, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  8. In correspondence with the landlord, the resident indicated that she wished to be moved permanently into a different property. The Ombudsman could not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing. Any such request should be dealt with via the landlord’s management transfer policy. There is no evidence the resident has raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of a management transfer request – so we cannot consider this. 
  9. Additionally, as the landlord is also a council, it has a duty under the Housing Act 1996 to consider rehousing those who are homeless or have a reasonable preference to be housed. The Housing Ombudsman Service is not able to consider the council’s actions under these provisions, under paragraph 41.d of the Scheme. This is because councils are not members of our Scheme for exercising public duties such as rehousing. The resident may be able to complain about the landlord’s application of its homelessness duty or allocations policy to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and guttering, and subsequent damp and mould in the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will:
    1. attend urgent repairs within 5 working days.
    2. attend routine repairs within 21 working days.

Repairs to the roof and guttering

  1. The landlord has not provided evidence of the inspections it undertook to find the cause of the roof leak, following the Ombudsman’s previous determination. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord completed repairs, but it did so without identifying the root cause of the leak. This made it difficult to effectively resolve the problem over a long period of time, causing the resident significant distress and a loss of trust in the landlord. 
  2. Although the landlord said it repaired an overflow pipe on 19 May 2022, and repaired the resident’s roof between 20 to 22 July 2022, it has not provided evidence of this work. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to complete a long and lasting repair to the roof. This was not appropriate and is evidence of poor record keeping.
  3. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord completed some patch repairs to the resident’s roof on 8 August 2022. The Ombudsman notes that this work amounted to major work that required the landlord to consult with leaseholders in the block where the resident lived. This was in accordance with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This was because the work cost each leaseholder more than £250, and the landlord had not obtained a dispensation from a tribunal not to consult.
  4. While the landlord had to undertake this process, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that it explained to the resident the scope of the work or the consultation process. The Ombudsman also cannot be satisfied that the landlord started the consultation process in a prompt way, given it started the consultation in May 2022, but this was based on an inspection from 26 February 2020.
  5. Additionally, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord inspected the work it completed on 8 August 2022. This would have been appropriate given the number of reports the resident had made about water ingress in the property. On this basis, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that its repairs in August 2022 remedied the issue, or that the works were completed to a good standard.
  6. The resident reported a leak to her guttering on 24 October 2022. There is no evidence to confirm whether this leak was connected to the earlier works done in August 2022. However, the landlord needed to complete the inspection and repair the guttering within a reasonable time.
  7. While the landlord said it tried to contact the resident on 17 November 2022 and 22 November 2022, this was 24 days after the resident reported the leak. The landlord did not respond to the report in line with its repairs policy. This was not appropriate.
  8. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 2 December 2022 and raised a repair on 21 December 2022. It completed works to the guttering on 26 January 2023. This was 3 months after the resident had reported a leak to the guttering. The delay was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
  9. The resident complained on 26 January 2023 about the quality of the works the landlord completed and that her walls were still wet. While the landlord said it attended the property on 30 January 2023, it did so without an appointment. This was not appropriate as the landlord ought to have given the resident at least 24 hours’ written notice of any inspection of the property.
  10. The landlord conducted a dye test on 2 February 2023. This was to see if the dye seeped into the resident’s property. The landlord suggested that the water entry may be coming from the flat roof. Therefore, this was an appropriate test for the landlord to have conducted to allow it to identify any vulnerabilities in the roof. The resident refused to allow the landlord access to check this, and she did not tell the landlord if any dye had seeped into her property.
  11. The test may have helped the landlord assess the effectiveness of the repairs it completed on 26 January 2023. However, the Ombudsman considers that the dye test did not remove the need for the landlord to arrange a prompt inspection of the roof work. This is because only an external inspection would have revealed the state of the roof, hopper head and drains.
  12. At some point in February 2023, the landlord told the resident that it intended to replace the roof. It is unclear exactly how and when it told the resident this, or why the landlord took the decision to replace the roof. The landlord has not provided any reports to explain its decision to replace the roof in February 2023.
  13. On 21 February 2023, the landlord told the resident that it needed another quotation for the roof replacement. On 12 April 2023, the landlord said it needed to consult the repair with the leaseholders. Despite this, the landlord delayed a plan to agree the works until 15 August 2023. The landlord said it completed some repairs to the roof on 4 August 2023. This was over 6 months after the resident raised concerns about the roof and the repairs the landlord had carried out.
  14. While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of the repairs. The consequence of the delayed response to repair the roof was inappropriate and falls outside of the service expected by the landlord in accordance with its repair obligations.
  15. The landlord said it would consult leaseholders by 5 October 2023 and it would complete the roof renewal by 3 September 2024. The landlord has not explained the delay in starting the consultation. The landlord did not consider whether it should apply to a tribunal to dispense with the consultation. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that the landlord acted as quickly as it ought to. This was not appropriate.
  16. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the communications the landlord had with the resident over the roof work and consultation between February 2023 to 5 December 2023. While the resident was not entitled to be consulted, as a non-leaseholder, the landlord ought to have offered the resident details of the work and timescales. This was because she was affected by the work and had a leaking roof.
  17. There is no evidence that the landlord considered any interim solutions to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident, such as dehumidifiers or a temporary decant. While the landlord offered to visit the property in April 2023 to discuss whether a decant was required, there is no evidence that the landlord followed this up further with the resident. Given the resident’s concerns about the water ingress and subsequent damp and mould in the property, and the impact this was having on her and her child, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether a temporary decant or the installation of dehumidifiers was necessary.

The subsequent damp and mould

  1. The resident told the landlord on 14 December 2022 that the leak from her bedroom ceiling roof had damaged her walls. She also reported damp and mould in her bathroom on that day.
  2. When the landlord’s surveyor attended on 2 December 2022 to inspect the property for damage and any damp and mould, the resident refused them entry. She told the landlord that she was dealing with its contractor about the roof repairs.
  3. The landlord inspected the property on 19 December 2022. The report noted a small amount of mould on the bathroom ceiling and kitchen window and ceiling. It also noted some damp and mould in two bedrooms and in the living room. Although the report recommended mould treatment, it noted that the resident refused any internal work or redecoration until the landlord had repaired the roof.
  4. When the landlord offered to inspect the property for damp and mould on 25 January 2023, the resident asked it to refer to the recommendations in the report on 19 December 2022. The evidence showed that a day later the landlord agreed with the resident to do the internal works recommended in this report, but the resident refused these on 30 January 2023.
  5. The resident reported damp and mould again on 8 February 2023 but refused to allow the landlord access to inspect the property. The landlord asked the resident for dates it could access the property on 10 February 2023, and again on 21 February 2023, but there is no evidence the resident provided any. The evidence shows that the landlord offered the resident mould washes to help mitigate the mould but that the resident refused them. The landlord said the resident also refused its request to inspect the property on 14 August 2023, to agree the scope of any internal work.
  6. The resident told the landlord that she was carrying out mould washes and had completed works to the interior of the property. The resident told the Ombudsman that she completed all of the internal works herself. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord consistently offered to inspect the resident’s property. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s approach was reasonable in attempting to address or mitigate the mould in the property, while it undertook repairs to resolve the water ingress. The landlord could not assess if the mould was harmful to health or treat the property because of the lack of access.
  7. The Ombudsman has also not seen conclusive evidence, in the form of a report, to show that the resident’s housing conditions amounted to a ‘hazard’ or a ‘statutory nuisance’. This would only arise if the level of mould growth had been assessed as being harmful to health.
  8. In terms of the damage to the resident’s property and mould, the landlord offered to inspect the resident’s property and do mould washes, but the resident refused these after 19 December 2022. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer to carry out mould washes was reasonable.

Summary

  1. Overall, there were several failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property. The Ombudsman understands that the roof replacement is still outstanding. In response to the delays and failures in communication the landlord offered compensation and said that it would monitor the work. However, the Ombudsman considers the landlord was at fault because:
    1. the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord effectively checked the roof work it completed on 8 August 2022 and 26 January 2023.
    2. there was an unreasonable delay between 24 October 2022 and 26 January 2023 in the landlord repairing the guttering, hopper head, windows, and brickwork.
    3. there was also an unreasonable delay of 5 months in the landlord inspecting the work it completed on 26 January 2023.
    4. it completed remedial work on the hopper head, windows, and brickwork on 4 August 2023. It was unreasonable for this to take over 6 months.
    5. it decided it would replace the roof in February 2023. The landlord planned to start a consultation process by 5 October 2023 and complete the roof renewal by 3 September 2024. The Ombudsman has found a lack of evidence to explain why the landlord decided to replace the roof in February 2023 or to explain the delay in it consulting. The Ombudsman cannot be satisfied the consultation started as early as it should.
    6. the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord effectively communicated with the resident between February 2023 to December 2023 about the consultation over the roof renewal work.
    7. there is no evidence that it considered any interim solutions to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident.
  2. The landlord offered the resident £945 for the failures in handling the repairs to the roof, including £170 for the delays and £750 to acknowledge the impact the delay had on the resident. The Ombudsman considers that this award should be increased to reflect the level of impact and the failures outlined above.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 6 November 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 25 November 2022. It took the landlord 15 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint. While the delay was not excessive, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about the delay or updated her on the status of her complaint. This was not appropriate.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 June 2023 and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 5 December 2023, this was 111 working days later against a target of 20 working days. The landlord only escalated the complaint after the Ombudsman contacted it. The landlord told the resident the reason for the delay was that it was trying to resolve the complaint at stage 1.
  4. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
  5. There is also evidence that the landlord did not address parts of the resident’s complaint. For example, it did not comment on:
    1. the resident’s reports that the damp and mould had damaged her belongings when it would have been appropriate to signpost her to its insurer, in line with its complaint’s policy and procedures.
    2. the resident’s request to be rehoused when it ought to have informed her of her housing options.
    3. her claim about inaccuracies in the inspection report of 19 December 2022.
    4. the claim that her property condition was a ‘statutory nuisance’ or that the roof repair work was a ‘qualifying repair’.
  6. The landlord accepted at stage 2 the failures in escalating the complaint and offered the resident £440 for these failures. It also told the resident it had set up a new process to ensure it did not miss escalation requests.
  7. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This offer of compensation showed the landlord had acknowledged the financial impact on the resident for the complaint handling failures outlined above. Therefore, it is the opinion of this service that the £440 offered here was reasonable redress by the landlord. The landlord should pay the £440 compensation it offered to the resident for the failures in its complaint handling, if it has not already done so. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of water entry into the resident’s home, including external repairs to the guttering and roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident an additional £900 compensation (£1,845 total) for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and guttering. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident. The total compensation can be reduced by any of the £945 already paid to the resident for the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property.
    3. offer to inspect the internal areas of the property and agree any mitigations, including mould washes.
    4. contact the resident and explain how she may make an insurance claim for damage for any personal belongings.
    5. provide a written update to the Ombudsman and the resident on when the roof renewal works will begin and end.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord may wish to:
    1. pay the £440 compensation it offered to the resident for the failures in its complaint handling, if it has not already done so. 
    2. consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, having regard to the Code.
    3. ask its housing options team to explain the resident’s priority for a managed move under its allocations policy.