Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Hackney (202325848)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325848

London Borough of Hackney

29 August 2025

 

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 how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
    1. A leak from the kitchen ceiling.
    2. Overcrowding.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom flat which the resident shares with her 2 adult children.
  2. On 19 December 2022 the resident reported a leak from her kitchen ceiling. She reported this again in January and February 2023. On 28 March 2023 the resident complained that the landlord had failed to address the leak despite her reporting it since 2019.
  3. The landlord inspected the property above hers on 3 April 2024 and did not find a leak, however, it noted it was “unable to inspect thoroughly”. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates until its stage 1 response on 11 May 2023.
  4. In its response the landlord accepted the resident had reported the leak on multiple occasions since 2019. The landlord also explained that it:
    1. Had not identified a leak when it had inspected the property in December 2022.
    2. Inspected the ceiling in February 2023 and raised decorative works to repair the damage caused by the leak.
    3. Cancelled these works once the resident advised in March 2023 that the leak was ongoing.
    4. Had raised works to address the cause of the leak in the property above as a “matter of urgency”.
    5. Would re-assess the damage caused to the resident’s property by the leak on 25 May 2023.
  5. The landlord apologised for “the inconvenience caused”, and offered the resident £150 compensation for this. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 25 May 2023 and raised works to redecorate the kitchen ceiling and to treat mould in the bathroom.
  6. On 26 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. In her email she acknowledged that the leak “should be sorted tomorrow morning.” However, she explained that she considered the landlord needed to offer a greater sum of compensation to put things right, given how long she had waited for it to repair the leak. She also complained that the landlord should rehouse her in a bigger property as her flat was too small for her to share with her 2 adult children.
  7. The landlord gained access to the property above the resident’s on 27 October 2023 and fixed the source of the leak into her kitchen ceiling. On 6 November 2023 it redecorated the ceiling. On 18 December 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It apologised for the length of time it took to repair the leak and redecorate the ceiling. As redress it offered her £800 for the level of fault and £420 for avoidable delay. It acknowledged a delay in addressing her stage 1 complaint and offered her £80 compensation for this.
  8. It also acknowledged the resident’s view that the property was overcrowded. However, it explained that she would need to submit a housing register application to be considered for larger housing.
  9. The day after this response the resident reported “white and red dots [on] my kitchen wall and ceiling.” She explained she was concerned this indicated damp and mould. She also reported a “musky smell” in her bathroom and considered this likely indicated damp.
  10. On 17 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and explained she wanted a greater sum of compensation since her kitchen and bathroom were both showing signs of mould despite the repairs completed in 2023. The landlord explained it would not offer any more compensation since, at the time it was offered, it had completed all the required repairs.
  11. At some stage over the following 2 months the resident submitted a rehousing application due to overcrowding. The local authority (LA) rejected this on 8 March 2024. The resident complained about this to the LGSCO shortly after. On 12 September 2024 the LGSCO found there was insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation into the LA’s actions.
  12. The resident remains unhappy with the outcome of her complaint. To resolve things, she would like the landlord to:
    1. Rehouse her within a larger property.
    2. Inspect and address all damp and mould throughout the property.
    3. Repair a leak coming into her hallway ceiling which began in late July 2025.
    4. Repair a broken pipe in the laundry area.
    5. Offer greater compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We do not typically investigate matters which have not yet been brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint. Until 26 September 2023 the complaint was exclusively about the kitchen ceiling leak. The resident then raised a stage 2 escalation request at this point and stated her concerns about overcrowding. Therefore, the only issues the resident raised with the landlord as part of the complaints process were the kitchen ceiling leak, and her request for rehousing due to overcrowding.
  2. The resident complains that the landlord has failed to take action to address damp and mould in her kitchen and bathroom. We can see in its final response on 18 December 2023 that the landlord acknowledged damp and mould as a consequence of the kitchen ceiling leak after it had completed the redecoration and repairs. However, the resident did not raise any concerns about damp and mould in the kitchen, or in the property generally, until 19 December 2023. There is also no indication the landlord made any commitments to carry out damp and mould works or inspections at either complaint stage. Given this, and that the resident did not raise these concerns until after the final response, this investigation will not consider the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
  3. The resident has also complained to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of issues which she reported from 19 December 2023 onwards, including a new leak in her hallway and a broken pipe in her laundry area. These issues occurred after the landlord’s final response, and we can see no indication that the resident has raised them as a formal complaint. Therefore, this investigation will not consider these issues.
  4. Finally, we do not typically investigate matters which were not brought to the landlord’s attention within 12 months. The resident first complained on 28 March 2023, and therefore this investigation will not consider the landlord’s actions before 28 March 2022, as these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

The complaint about overcrowding.

  1. Paragraph 42.l of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that we may not consider complaints which any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  2. The LGSCO has already considered and decided not to take further action on the resident’s complaint that the LA incorrectly declined to rehouse her in a larger property. This would be a matter for the LGSCO rather than the Housing Ombudsman as it is not about the provision or management of social housing. It is evident that the resident has already brought this complaint to the LGSCO. Therefore, this aspect of her complaint is not within our jurisdiction.

How the landlord handled a leak from the kitchen ceiling.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy obliges it to attend urgent repairs within 5 working days. It defines urgent repairs as those “where the fault or failure does not cause danger to occupants or the public, but needs to be put right to prevent inconvenience to [them] and keep the property in a reasonable condition.” Based on this, we consider the kitchen ceiling leak was most suitably classified as an urgent repair. The policy also cites “surveyors appointment[s] following reports of damp and mould” as an example of an urgent repair.
  2. It is clear that the landlord failed to repair the leak within a reasonable time frame. The resident first reported the leak on 19 December 2022, and the landlord did not repair it and redecorate the ceiling until 27 October 2023 and 6 November 2023 respectively.
  3. The landlord first accessed the flat above hers to investigate the leak on 3 April 2023, almost 5 months after the resident reported it, despite her repeatedly raising it throughout this period. It is unclear why it took the landlord so long to attempt this for the first time, and it fell significantly short of its timescales by delaying this first action for so long.
  4. Furthermore, the repair records note that it was “unable to thoroughly inspect” this property on 3 April 2023. It also notes that it did not find a leak. Given it was unable to thoroughly inspect the property, it was unreasonable to conclude from this partial inspection that there was no leak. While we recognise this may have prevented a resolution at this stage, the landlord should have urgently raised works to reattempt this. Internal emails indicate that the landlord then forced entry on 27 October 2023 and repaired the source of the leak.
  5. We can see that the landlord had repeated issues accessing this property from April 2023 onwards. We recognise that this likely contributed to delays. We also recognise that the landlord acted robustly by forcing entry to resolve the leak. However, it is unclear why it took it several months to do so, and there is no evidence within the records which explains this delay. In the absence of any such evidence, we consider it delayed unreasonably in doing so, and that this delay likely caused the resident distress.
  6. The landlord has acknowledged these omissions and offered the resident £1220 compensation to put things right, replacing the £150 offer it made at stage 1. Its compensation policy sets out that it will consider paying sums above £1000 when it has failed “to deal with resident’s reports of damp, mould and ongoing leaks in their property over a significant period of time causing damage to property, loss of amenity i.e. use of room(s) and health implications.”
  7. The landlord delayed in repairing the leak over a significant period of time, and it is clear from the repair records that it caused damage to the kitchen ceiling until it was repaired. The resident also described partial loss of amenity since she was unable to make full use of the kitchen at times when the leak was occurring. Based on this, it is clear the landlord’s omissions meet the definition set out in its compensation guidance.
  8. Therefore, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer the resident compensation greater than £1000. We also note that it has gone significantly above the £1000 threshold. With this in mind, we consider this sum is sufficient to put things right, and is in line with our own compensation guidance on appropriate remedies for significant failures.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will investigate stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. When an extension is required it will write to the resident and explain the reasons for this. The same applies for stage 2 complaints but the timescales are extended to 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2023, and the landlord was 18 working days late in issuing its response on 11 May 2023. She raised a stage 2 escalation on 26 September 2023, and the landlord was 39 working days late in issuing its response on 18 December 2023.
  3. The landlord has acknowledged the delay at stage 1 and offered the resident £80 compensation. However, it has not acknowledged or sought to redress the stage 2 delay.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider awards between £100 and £600 when residents are caused adverse, but not permanent, impacts by its failings. The cumulative length of the delays here was 57 working days. We consider these delays likely caused the resident some frustration, and we can see she incurred inconvenience in chasing responses. However, we do not consider this impact can be described as particularly severe or long lasting.
  5. Therefore, we consider the landlord should pay the resident a sum at the low-mid range of its scale. On this basis, we will order the landlord pays the resident £200, inclusive of the £80 already offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled a leak from the kitchen ceiling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 41.l of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about her application for rehousing due to overcrowding is not within our jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £200 for its complaint handling omissions, inclusive of the £80 already offered at stage 2. If it has already paid the £80, it is to evidence this and subtract it from the outstanding sum.
  2. The landlord is to evidence compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £1220 it offered at stage 2 for its omissions in how it handled her reports of the leak from the kitchen ceiling.