London Borough of Hackney (202327062)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327062

London Borough of Hackney

12 September 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:
    1. Response to reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould.
    2. Handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property since 9 November 2015. The property is a flat which covers 2 floors and is part of a 4-storey block which is owned and managed by the landlord. The landlord has stated there is no known vulnerability for the resident or his family.
  2. The resident stated he had reported a problem with water ingress prior to moving into the property in November 2015. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the contact, repairs or actions relating to these reports.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint regarding ongoing issues with water ingress on 13 November 2022 – these related to the front door, a damp living room wall, a leak into a bathroom and a damp garden. He said the landlord had told him this would be resolved once he moved in but, despite several inspections and the landlord promising to fix the problem, no progress had been made. He said he felt misled into buying a property with structural issues and chasing the landlord had made the situation stressful and tiring.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 20 February 2023. It acknowledged the resident had raised this matter on various occasions but had been left without meaningful progress. It said it had tried to make progress but had struggled due to defect periods and team changes. It identified a failure in communication and the escalation process within its repairs team. It confirmed the case had been escalated to management and an inspection by a damp specialist had been completed, but it was waiting for the report before the next steps and timescales could be confirmed.
  5. On 12 March 2023, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. He said that he was unhappy with the time taken to respond to his complaint and that no progress had been made since 2015. He added that the landlord had not looked at the full history.
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 3 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in the response, highlighting problems with gathering information following a cyber-attack in 2020. The landlord confirmed that complaints had been made previously but the last stage 2 response was in November 2017.
  7. The landlord identified issues with in-house responsibility for new build defects. It said the cyber-attack and staffing changes had made it difficult to determine why no action had been taken. It confirmed a damp and leak specialist had investigated the issues raised; however, work had not progressed as the resident had asked in May 2023 for the specification of the proposed work and information from historical inspections. It advised the resident that this was an interim response, and it would write to him again once further information had been received.

Post completion of the complaint process

  1. On 5 September 2023, the resident emailed the landlord stating he remained dissatisfied with the management of the complaint. He said the landlord had left his home with structural damage (open cut walls), had left him ‘in limbo’ for nearly 8 years and had shown little to no concern regarding the living conditions.
  2. On 1 November 2023, the landlord sent the resident the report completed by the damp specialist in January 2023. It said it wanted to carry out temporary remedial work to a balcony while it was waiting to legally address the latent defect.
  3. In September 2024, the landlord has told this Service that work has recently been undertaken to address the water ingress around the front door. It advised the water ingress in the lounge is ongoing and while some work has been completed, a further scope of work is needed. It also confirmed a contractor has asked to do a joint visit to assess the roof outlet which partially tracks through the building. This is waiting an inspection appointment. The landlord advised also of ongoing work to the drainage in the garden which is still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident referred to the impact the property condition and the ongoing related matters had on his and his family’s health. While we do not doubt this, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue, he should seek legal advice. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.
  2. The resident has referred to walls that had been cut out by the landlord which were left open for 2 years. As per paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. Due to this issue not being raised as part of the complaint process, the landlord has not been given the opportunity to respond. It is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation and will not form part of the assessment. If the resident wishes to pursue this, he should raise a new complaint with the landlord.
  3. The resident also referred to the length of time these matters have been ongoing. As per paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. Although the resident stated the issues have been ongoing for 8 years, this investigation will focus on events from May 2022 (6 months before the recent complaint was made) to 3 July 2023 (the date of the final complaint response).

Repairs

  1. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord has failed to provide adequate records of both repair logs and contact logs, which has impacted this Service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. The landlord has advised that a cyber-attack in 2020 impacted its record-keeping but limited records have also been made available of events since then. This was a failing by the landlord and contributed to other failures identified in this report.

Water ingress leading to damp and mould

  1. The landlord has not provided any historical repair or contact information between the parties that is linked to the concerns raised. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations which was likely to have caused inconvenience and uncertainty to him.
  2. Due to the lack of progress in addressing the water ingress, the resident complained to the landlord. In the complaint response, the landlord said it had struggled to progress the case due to conflicting information regarding the warranty of the build and the defect period. While this may be the case, the landlord should have communicated this to the resident so he was aware – there is no evidence of this. Further, there is no evidence to show how the landlord investigated the potential of a claim under the warranty or as a latent defect and what steps it took to raise this with any third parties. It is inappropriate that the landlord failed to obtain clarity on this point throughout the whole of 2023.
  3. The landlord advised in early 2023 that due to the ambiguity of the case, it had escalated this to management to progress. It acknowledged that the resident had reported this many times previously, and considering the problems it faced in making progress, it was appropriate to escalate matters. It was however unreasonable that it waited until the complaint was made to do this. The delay in the escalation added to the overall delay in progress and is likely to have contributed to the resident’s frustration.
  4. A visit was completed by the landlord’s repair management team on 17 January 2023 who then requested an inspection by a damp specialist – this took place on 20 January 2023. The landlord told the resident that the report was expected shortly but it would have to be reviewed before determining the next steps. This was a reasonable response from the landlord who had kept the resident informed. It is noted that the landlord apologised that the previous efforts had not resolved the problem, however it did not confirm what these efforts included. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this suggests the landlord had lost oversight of the situation – this raises concern with the landlord’s repair management and record keeping.
  5. With no evidence of any progress, the resident escalated the complaint on 12 March 2023. The landlord has provided evidence which confirms a contractor attended on 30 May 2023 to complete repairs associated with the water leak. However, it noted that the resident refused the repairs as he wanted a scope of work. The landlord’s internal records confirmed it would call the resident to discuss further. Although it is apparent that the landlord emailed the resident on 5 June 2023, the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this contact. The resident’s email response on 8 June 2023 was however provided. He told the landlord he wanted a full report on all the investigations that had been carried out to date and a full schedule of work planned. He said he wanted this information before he authorised any work to commence.
  6. The landlord arranged a further inspection by a damp specialist in May 2023. This was in addition to the inspection conducted in January 2023. Although the landlord can use its discretion to either seek a second opinion or request an updated inspection, the reasoning behind this further inspection was not communicated to the resident. This would have been an appropriate action to take to restore confidence that the landlord had a clear plan to resolve the water ingress and improve communications with the resident to avoid causing further inconvenience to him. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the findings of the inspection being communicated to the resident – this is a further example of poor communication.
  7. In the final complaint response, the landlord confirmed it had inspected the property in January 2023 and May 2023. It told the resident there was evidence of attempts to progress matters but said there had been issues regarding the responsibility for defects in new builds, and this had contributed to the delay. It said because of the cyber-attack, a lot of historical information was unavailable, and it was unable to establish why no action had been taken to address the repairs. The Ombudsman understands the impact a cyber-attack can have on a landlord’s systems. It is however noted that the attack happened in 2020 so this Service would expect the landlord to have information following this time which would provide a more up to date position on its decision-making around responsibility for defects and a plan of action. The lack of evidence supports the record keeping concerns identified within this report.
  8. The landlord provided a minimal update to the resident within the final complaint response as to how it was going to proceed. It confirmed it would provide the full scope of work as requested and apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused. The landlord told the resident the letter was an interim response and that a follow up would be provided but there is no evidence of a follow up letter to the resident. It is expected that the landlord has full oversight and management of its repair responsibilities (including those assigned to a contractor). In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the lack of repairs, progress and communication with the resident suggests it failed to learn from its previous mistakes linked to the property and ongoing concerns raised by the resident.
  9. In November 2023, post completion of the complaint process, the landlord provided the resident with the inspection report that had been completed in January 2023. It was at this point that it told the resident it wanted to conduct some temporary work until it could legally address the latent defect with the developer – this was 4 months after the final complaint response. It is unclear why the landlord only proposed such works 10 months after the inspection. As it stands, it is not disputed that the works to address water ingress into the living room and bathroom are unresolved which is of significant concern given the landlord itself has confirmed there is a long history of the resident submitting reports that the property was not damp proof.
  10. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged the resident had reported the problems on many occasions, yet there was no evidence to confirm the action taken to address these. It requested a damp inspection in January 2023 which was repeated in May 2023, and although a contractor attended, repairs were refused by the resident until information was offered on the scope of work. There is no evidence to confirm if any repairs commenced following this request or of any steps taken by the landlord to provide the reassurance the resident was seeking on the scope of works. There was evidence of poor record keeping, poor communication, poor organisational management, and an ineffective approach to repair management – all of which contributed to the ongoing delay and the stress and inconvenience of the resident and his property.
  11. The landlord showed little empathy to the situation, the inconvenience, and the impact the water ingress had on the resident and his home. It failed to apply the Dispute Resolution Principles of this Service: be fair, put things right and learn from the outcomes. Despite offering apologies, there was a lack of learning from the case and how the landlord would improve its service to stop such events from re-occurring. It did not offer any redress in acknowledgement of the delays and the impact on the resident, and it provided little assurance in its commitment to resolving the matters and took too long to propose temporary repairs. In recognition of these service failures and in line with the remedies guidance of this Service, orders have been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation and provide clarity on its plan to resolve water ingress.

Complaint handling

  1. It is noted that the landlord has not provided a copy of the complaint procedure that was in place at the time of the complaint (a policy was not introduced until December 2023, after the events of this complaint). The lack of evidence has made it difficult for the Ombudsman to assess if the landlord complied with its procedure.
  2. The resident submitted his complaint on 13 November 2022. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm it acknowledged its receipt. While we cannot determine if the landlord complied with its own complaint procedure, it clearly failed to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states a complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days.
  3. The landlord provided its response on 20 February 2023, 67 working days from receipt of the complaint and outside of the timescales of the Code. The landlord failed to acknowledge or explain the delay to the resident. There was no evidence to confirm the landlord discussed an extension with the resident or provided any updates throughout the investigation. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s approach, delay, and lack of communication unreasonable. The landlord’s lack of response is likely to have contributed to the resident’s frustration.
  4. The landlord utilised the complaint process to confirm the actions taken to investigate the issues raised and to identify failures in communications and the repairs team escalation. It provided information on the learning it had taken to stop such problems happening again. The response confirmed the actions taken following the escalation to management which included the investigation by a damp specialist on 23 January 2023. Although the landlord informed the resident of what it had done since receiving the complaint, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been beneficial to investigate the attempts it made prior to the complaint. This would have provided the resident with a more rounded response and would have demonstrated a more in-depth review of its efforts.
  5. The resident remained unhappy, and the complaint was escalated on 12 March 2023. Although the landlord included the reasons for the escalation in its final response, it did not provide the resident’s direct request as part of the evidence requested by the Ombudsman. This is a record keeping failure. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a complaint acknowledgement to the resident – this is a further record keeping failure and example of non-compliance to the Code.
  6. The final complaint response was sent 3 July 2023, 76 working days from receipt of the escalation. The landlord apologised for the delay in its response siting difficulties in gathering information following the cyber-attack in 2020. This may have been the case, however there was no evidence of any contact with the resident during the investigation period to explain and provide updates or an expected response date. The lack of communication from the landlord was unreasonable and is likely to have contributed to the resident’s frustration.
  7. The landlord addressed the points raised by the resident in his escalation request. It confirmed the inspections that had been conducted but established it could not explain why the work had not been done. The landlord’s response provided little by way of confirming how and when it was going to resolve the problems with the property as it was waiting for this to be confirmed. This is likely to have caused further frustration to the resident who, after completing the complaint process, was still unclear as to what was going to happen next.
  8. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint. There was evidence of poor record keeping, poor communication, a lack of contact and repair information (even after the cyber-attack) and a general lack of empathy, accountability, and ownership – all of which contributed to the ongoing delays in resolving the water ingress problems at the property. The landlord failed to comply with the Code and the delays in responses were not supported by additional communication with the resident. The landlord failed to apply the Dispute Resolution Principles of this Service: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It did not demonstrate how it would learn from its findings and failed to recognise these by way of redress for the resident. Considering these findings, and in line with the remedies guidance of this Service, it is the view of the Ombudsman that compensation should be offered to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write a letter of apology to resident. This should be from a senior member of management and should address the failures identified within the report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £900 compensation made up of the following:
      1. £700 for the failings in its handling of reports of water ingress and associated damp and mould, and the stress and inconvenience caused.
      2. £200 for the delays and failures identified with the complaint handling.
    3. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and should not be offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm the compensation has been paid to the resident.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the report, the landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of work which incorporates all the outstanding repairs required to address any ongoing water ingress or damp at the property, including proposed timescales for completion and how it will post-inspect to ensure the success of those works. It should confirm if it has taken responsibility for completion of the works and offer a point of contact who will provide regular (at least fortnightly) updates on the progress of the work.
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.