London Borough of Hackney (202338451)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338451

London Borough of Hackney

20 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaint handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom fifth-floor flat. The landlord is aware that the resident has an inflammatory bowel disease.
The resident reported a leak in July 2021. The landlord confirmed it completed works in a tenanted flat on 19 November 2021.
In November 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about leaks into her property. We have not seen a copy of the original complaint or the landlord’s original response. However, the landlord stated that once it had confirmed the leak had stopped, it would inspect the resident’s property to repair the damage. The landlord sent a works order to its contractor in January 2022.
Between March 2022 and September 2023, the resident reported 3 further leaks. The resident raised a new complaint on 21 August 2023. She said:
1. Following a temporary fix, another leak was coming through the bathroom light, which had only recently been plastered and decorated.
2. Damp had returned.
3. A leak in the hallway was destroying recently decorated walls and ceilings.
4. She explained that having Crohn’s disease and other health conditions was affecting her mental health, and she could no longer live in the property.
5. Her previous complaint regarding the leaks in 2021 had been closed without her knowledge.
On 20 October 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. The complaint was upheld as it failed to resolve the leaks, which had each time been identified as coming from a neighbouring property.
2. The leaks had been a recurring problem since June 2021, for which it apologised.
3. It offered £500 for the avoidable delays, time, and distress caused.
4. A plumbing supervisor would inspect the tenanted flat to reassure the resident that all leaks were fixed.
5. It did not have evidence that the resident had asked to escalate her November 2023 complaint, but it did apologise for the delay in responding to the subsequent complaint.
On 20 November 2023, the resident escalated her complaint and said she had been living in ‘squalor’ for too long, with no bathroom light, damp, and mould, which was affecting her mental and physical health. The landlord had not completed repair work to the damage caused by the leaks.
On 19 December 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said that:
1. It had found failings in handling the repairs and apologised for the delays.
2. Works to repair the leak in the tenanted property were completed in September 2023.
3. It would arrange for a surveyor to assess the damage to the resident’s property and for an electrician to reinstate the bathroom light on 19 December 2023 and would monitor the work.
4. It offered £1,520 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £600 to reflect the failings.
  2. £300 considering the vulnerability issues raised relating to the resident’s health.
  3. £500 for the avoidable delay in resolving the leak and completing the internal repairs.
  4. £120 for the delays in responding to the stage 1 complaint.
In January 2024, the resident reported ongoing leaks and damp in her property, which she said affected her mental and physical health due to her illness. By April 2024, repairs for internal damage were still outstanding, and a new leak was reported in October 2024. In December 2024, the resident confirmed the leaks remained unresolved and requested a permanent solution or relocation from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident made an initial complaint in November 2021. Although the subsequent complaint in August 2023 was referred to us, the landlord treated the complaint from 2021 as linked, and the stage 2 response in December 2023 addressed issues raised from July 2021. The Ombudsman finds this reasonable and will investigate the events leading to the resident’s initial complaint from November 2021 and has also considered events following the landlord’s final response as the issue remains unresolved.
The resident has also raised concerns that the landlord’s handling of her reports of leaks has affected her health. We acknowledge the concerns and distress this would have caused. However, this would be more appropriately considered by a court, where liability can be established. We have not sought to establish liability in this case but have considered how the landlord responded to her health concerns.

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

The landlord’s published information on repairs sets out its target response times for various repairs. These range from “Immediate” (attend within 2 hours) and “Emergency” (attend within 24 hours) to “Normal” (attend within 21 working days).
The landlord’s damp and mould strategy commits to inspecting all reported cases within 5 days of receiving them. It also emphasises prioritising necessary corrective work with due consideration for the residents’ health and well-being.
Our Spotlight report on repair complaints, published in 2019, sets out a range of best practices for landlords when dealing with repairs and complaints. These include carrying out works within reasonable timescales, updating residents about outstanding actions and timescales, monitoring repairs, considering compensation, and identifying learning to improve service.
In addition, our Spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, said landlords should have zero tolerance for damp issues, communicate effectively internally and with residents, consider households’ vulnerabilities, and deal with such issues in a timely manner.
The resident reported a leak on 6 July 2021. The landlord took 4 weeks to access the tenanted property where the leak originated. The necessary repairs were completed on19 November 2021, which was over 19 weeks later. This was unreasonable and a departure from the landlord’s response time of 21 working days.
The landlord has not provided a repair record, making it difficult to determine what repairs were completed during this period. What is known is that whatever repairs the landlord may have completed at this time did not provide a lasting solution, as the resident continued to report leaks to the same areas in her property.
On 21 January 2022, the landlord issued a work order to complete internal repairs in the resident’s property. Further leaks were reported in March and July 2022. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine:
1. What repairs the landlord completed at or around this time, if any at all.
2. If the landlord did complete repairs, whether the time taken to do so was reasonable.
Following the leak in July 2022, the landlord inspected the damage caused to the resident’s property in January 2023, which 6 months later. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable.
The January 2023 inspection identified the need for repairs to remove defective plaster in the bedroom, entrance hall, and bathroom. The scope of the repairs suggests that the leaks had impacted a substantial portion of the resident’s property. Evidence indicates that these repairs were first identified during the January 2022 inspection a year prior. This meant the resident lived with internal damage to a large proportion of her home for an extended period.
The resident complained on 21 August 2023 and reported further leaks. She highlighted the persistent nature of the problem and the recurrence of damp, which had caused her considerable concern. Despite the landlord confirming on 22 August 2023 that it would discuss a temporary relocation (decant), the landlord has not provided evidence that it considered this further or relayed the outcome to the resident, which would have been a reasonable action to take.
In its stage 1 response in October 2023, the landlord assured the resident that a supervisor would conduct a plumbing survey of the neighbouring flat. The survey was completed 2 months later, on 19 December 2023. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was reasonable. The landlord has not informed the resident of any findings of this inspection, leaving her uncertain about the leaks. This was a failure by the landlord.
A damp survey was conducted on 19 December 2023, 4 months after the resident raised concerns about damp in the property. This delay is a significant departure from the landlord’s commitment outlined in its damp and mould strategy, which states that all damp reports should be inspected within 5 working days.
This 4-month gap shows a lack of urgency in addressing the resident’s concerns. The landlord appeared to initiate the survey after the resident escalated her complaint in November 2023, suggesting that prompt action may not have been prioritised without her pursuing the complaint. We have not seen evidence of a damp inspection to ascertain whether a thorough investigation was completed and what its findings were.
The ongoing failure to adhere to these commitments raises concerns about the landlord’s responsibility in addressing the damp issues reportedly affecting the resident’s living conditions. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord explored temporary solutions to improve the conditions in the property, such as providing dehumidifiers. The resident’s complaints and correspondence clearly outlined how the property’s condition affected her well-being. Due to her health issues, she often found it difficult to leave her home. This situation was serious, but there is insufficient evidence that the landlord recognised the severity of her circumstances.
20 November 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she had no bathroom light, which was not working because of the leaks. The light was repaired on 19 December 2023, 29 days later. This was an unreasonable delay in repairing the light, which she said compromised her ability to use the bathroom safely and caused her significant distress and inconvenience due to her health condition. As a result, the resident felt that her enjoyment of the flat diminished, leading her to express that it was “no longer a home.”
Nearly 3 years have passed since the issues were first identified, and the resident continues to live in a property still in disrepair. Despite the passage of time, many of the repairs remain incomplete, leaving the resident in an unacceptable situation. The landlord has not taken appropriate steps to ensure that the property is repaired, safe, and properly maintained for the resident.
Throughout the history of the reported leaks, which have all been linked to a specific property, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord took a comprehensive approach to reviewing the repair records. Instead, the landlord addressed each leak in isolation without considering the broader context of the ongoing and recurring issues. This fragmented response raises concerns about the potential for unresolved underlying problems that may continue to affect the resident.
In its stage 2 response on 19 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to handle the repairs appropriately, which caused delays, and apologised for this. The landlord also offered compensation of £1,520.
Although the offer of compensation was substantial, the repairs remain outstanding. In this case, the landlord should have outlined the repairs and communicated a timeframe for completion. This was particularly important given the history of and the number of leaks that residents had reported. The landlord missed the chance to address and resolve the complaint, which could have improved the relationship with the resident. The resident expressed that she had lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to effectively manage the lengthy and frustrating repair process, leaving her feeling “seriously distressed.”
As of the date of this determination, there is no evidence that the landlord has completed any of the repairs it identified. This is despite the landlord having already acknowledged the unreasonable delay in completing the repairs in its complaint responses. This is not appropriate. It should not be necessary for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to complete repairs it has already identified. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
Considering the identified failings in this case, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy, which suggests awards of £1000+ where:
1. There were serious failings.
2. Its response to the failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined its relationship with the resident.
3. It repeatedly failed to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes.
4. The failures accumulated over a significant period of time.
All of the above apply in this case. Therefore, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, we have ordered further compensation at £10 per week for the delays in completing internal repairs from the landlord’s stage 2 response in December 2023 until October 2024 when the landlord repaired a further leak – 45 weeks x 10 = £450.
Additionally, we have ordered £500 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident from December 2023 until the date of our investigation.
Following a further leak in October 2024, the resident expressed her desire to halt any remedial repairs. She raised important concerns regarding the extent of the proposed repair work and advised us that proceeding with repairs before thoroughly investigating and addressing the root cause of the leak could lead to another temporary fix rather than a permanent solution. Her intention is to ensure that any repairs made will resolve the underlying issues rather than merely masking them. Therefore, we have made a further order aimed at putting things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2–stage complaints policy. The policy states that stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days. It confirms that in complex cases, it will inform the resident of the need for an extension.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
1. respond to complaints and complaint escalations within a reasonable time
2. respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
The resident raised a complaint on 21 August 2023. The landlord sent a holding email to the resident on 28 September 2023, indicating a response would be sent the following week.
On 18 October 2023, the resident asked the landlord to respond to her complaint. This should not have been necessary and was a failure by the landlord. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 20 October 2023, 42 working days later. This was unacceptable, as it was far outside the landlord’s policy.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the leaks but did not address the resident’s concerns regarding the internal damage. This was not appropriate. We expect landlords to deal with complaints in a way consistent with the Code, which includes responding to all aspects of the complaint.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 20 November 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 19 December 2023, 21 working days later. This was a minor departure of 1 day from its 20 working-day response time.
The Code also states that outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned with regular updates provided to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord monitored and expedited the outstanding repairs after it issued its response. This was inappropriate because the outstanding actions should have been overseen during the complaints process.
Although the landlord acknowledged some of the failures identified in this investigation and the subsequent delays in repairs, neither complaint response fully addressed what went wrong, the reasons behind this, and any learning it had identified as a result. The Ombudsman expects landlords to use its complaints process to ensure transparency in identifying issues and introducing positive changes in service delivery.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord has apologised and offered £120 for the delay in its stage 1 response, it failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping

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) confirms that good record keeping is vital to evidence a landlord’s action, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes were not operating effectively.
Our investigation into this complaint has been hindered by a lack of evidence and detailed reports that the landlord has not provided. This includes:
1. Comprehensive records of calls and emails between the resident and the landlord.
2. Complete records of repairs, including detailed information on all completed work and the specific tasks performed.
3. Evidence demonstrating the landlord’s efforts to address the access issues has not been presented.
4. No reports or photographs showing the conditions before and after leak, damp, and mould inspections have been provided.
This lack of documentation raises questions about the diligence and effectiveness of the repair work and the combination of missing reports, detailed repair records, and correspondence has likely hindered the resolution process. These omissions raise concerns regarding the transparency and thoroughness of the landlord’s record-keeping practices. It is unacceptable. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s record-keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified in this report. The apology must come from the Chief Executive or a member of its senior management team.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £2,550 compensation, in replacement of the compensation offered in the complaints process, comprised of:
  1. £950 for the delays in resolving the leaks and completing the internal repairs.
  2. £1,100 for the additional time, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failure to handle the residents’ leak reports.
  3. £300 for failing to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. The compensation replaces the landlord’s offer. The total compensation can be reduced by any of the compensation already paid to the resident. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident.
3. Contact the resident and explain her options for moving from the property if it has not already done so.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Instruct a survey of the building to identify the root cause of the leaks. It should share a copy of this report with both the resident and the Ombudsman. If it identifies any issues, it should compile an action plan setting out the steps it will take to address them, providing a copy of any plan to the resident and us.
2. Following the independent survey, the landlord should inspect the resident’s property and scope the internal works. The landlord should agree on the scope with the resident and confirm a completion date for the repairs.
3. Review this case and provide a report to the Ombudsman which explains:
  1. Why it delayed in providing a lasting and effective repair to the leaks.
  2. Why its repair records have been inadequate.
  3. What changes it will make in response to this learning, and when.