London Borough of Hackney (202402269)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402269

London Borough of Hackney

8 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A leak and kitchen repairs in the resident’s property.
2. Reimbursement of associated costs while in temporary accommodation.
3. Forced entry into the resident’s property.
4. Stolen money from the resident’s property.
5. Initially rehousing the resident, and her subsequent request for further rehousing.
6. The complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1 bedroom flat in a 4 storey block. She lives in the property with her child. She has neighbours who live above her property (Neighbour A and Neighbour B).
The resident told the landlord on 21 December 2023 that there was plaster coming away, blistering, and peeling from her ceiling. It raised an inspection for January 2024, however the situation worsened on 3 January 2024, prior to the appointment. Water leaked onto her countertops and the floor through her kitchen ceiling. It raised a work order to address this, however, it did not resolve the issue. It then temporarily moved her to a hotel on 15 January 2024. It also forced entry into her property on 19 January 2024. This followed a conversation in which she told it she would attend to prevent such action, as she could be there within 20 minutes.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 January 2024 expressing her dissatisfaction and frustration around her experience. She explained the impact on her including a panic attack. She had not received any allowance for meals, and it left her with no money for her family’s food, transport, and laundry. She also raised concerns with her housing officer’s lack of contact, the internet facilities, and their impact on her ability to work, and stolen money from her property following the forced entry.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 February 2024. It acknowledged there was miscommunication internally and with the resident and apologised for any distress, inconvenience, and confusion caused across her concerns. It said:
1. It had taken steps to prevent such incidents from occurring in the future and hoped she appreciated that it only acted with good intentions to try and resolve a leak as quickly as possible which led to her temporary move from her home.
2. It had resolved the matter relating to sustenance payments and the money paid into her account. It appreciated her patience and cooperation throughout the process. It would update her on further hotel arrangements and payments as required until it resolved the issue as swiftly as possible.
3. It had interviewed the parties involved with the forced entry and they denied taking any items from the property. As this was now a police matter, it would wait for their findings to ensure a thorough and unbiased investigation before it commented further.
4. It had carried out substantial works already to try and resolve the leak to her property, unfortunately, it had yet to find a total solution to the leak and it was continuing to investigate, diagnose and carry out any further required repairs as quickly as possible.
5. In recognition of the distress caused to her by the incident it offered £300 compensation. This was for the miscommunication and distress caused by the forced entry event and was not related to the ongoing police and internal investigation into her claims of theft of money from her property by its operatives. It told her it valued her tenancy, and it was working hard to resolve the repair issue as quickly as possible.
The resident expressed further dissatisfaction on 15 February 2024 and 16 February 2024. She told the landlord about the impact of the situation on her and her child. She then formally asked to escalate her complaint on 16 February 2024 as the leak remained outstanding. She told it that it had impacted on her privacy and her child, she reiterated her concerns around the theft of her money from her home, the forced entry being a breach of her tenancy agreement and human rights and said she was unhappy with its apology. She told the landlord about the impact on hers and her child’s health and raised concerns of discrimination.
Conversations continued between the parties between February 2024 and March 2024 with the landlord extending the resident’s stay in the temporary accommodation. She also raised concerns about paying for travel to get her child to school. At some point it moved her from the first hotel to an “Aparthotel,” it is however unclear when this was. The resident raised a second complaint on 1 March 2024 about the suitability of her new hotel, the length of time taken to address the repairs to her property, and its refusal to provide her with sustenance payments now she had moved to accommodation with a cooker.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 12 April 2024. It said it found fault with the way it handled her complaint at both stages of its process and the way it carried out the forced entry process. It also found concerns with its communication around the forced entry process. It said there was a delay in its response. It awarded £400 to reflect the level of fault in its handling of the situation and awarded £50 for its complaint handling relating to the delays in responding to the complaint at both stages. It said the total award of £450 replaced any earlier offer made.
Following the conclusion of the complaint, the resident approached us on 16 April 2024 and August 2024. She explained the situation to us and confirmed the landlord had resolved the issues around the leak, but the alleged theft remained outstanding. She said she wanted to it to rehouse her to a safe place.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is known as the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs the complaints which we can consider. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of its initial rehousing of the resident, and her subsequent request for further permanent rehousing are outside of our jurisdiction.
Paragraph 41.d. of the scheme says that we cannot consider matters in respect of a Local Housing Authority which do not relate to the management or provision of social housing. Local authorities have a statutory duty to consider applications for allocation under their allocation policy. This is not in connection with its housing activities so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing and therefore such issues are not matters for the Housing Ombudsman.
These are matters which fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) once they have exhausted the Council’s complaints process.

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the situation on hers and her child’s health. While we sympathise with the resident, we are unable to consider such issues. This is because such considerations require a legal determination around causation and liability. The courts can make such determinations, therefore the resident may wish to seek independent advice on this matter.
The resident reported that someone stole money from her property when the landlord forced entry to her home. Although we can consider the landlord’s decision to enter the property, we cannot investigate the report that someone stole money. This falls outside of our jurisdiction as this is a criminal issue. We are aware that the resident had raised the matter with the police already. We can however look at the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s concerns.

A leak in the resident’s property and repairs to her kitchen

The landlord’s repairs policy says it runs 4 repair priorities. These are:
1. Immediate repairs which it will attend to within 2 hours to ensure that there is no danger to residents or serious damage to property. It provides the example of flooding as such a repair.
2. Emergency repairs which it will attend to within 24 hours to ensure that there is no danger to residents or serious damage to property.
3. Urgent repairs which it will attend to within 5 working days.
4. Normal repairs which it will attend to within 21 working days.
The evidence shows that following the resident’s reports around the leak on 3 January 2024, the landlord appropriately attended the appointment as an emergency. She however reported the issue again. The landlord then decided that it needed to inspect her neighbours’ properties to see if the leak originated from any of their properties. It then faced access issues around this as it was unable to reach one neighbour A, and neighbour B refused access to the property. The landlord also said internally that its records did not show the urgency or severity of the leak and this contributed to delays.
During this time, the landlord tried to contact her housing officer expressing her concerns and frustration, but they were on leave. As there was no contact this left the resident believing they were ignoring her. She also contacted the landlord many times about the issue, and it appears it was only when she contacted it that she received any update. Its communication around the matter added to her frustrations with the situation. It then moved her into temporary accommodation on 15 January 2024.
On 19 January 2024 when it finally accessed both properties it concluded there was no leak from either property. It found a leak from the landing and arranged works to remedy this believing it to be the cause of the issue in the resident’s property. However, the issue remained ongoing. It then appropriately reinspected neighbour B’s property and found the leak came from their property. It determined that the leak came from hidden piping, behind their units, and it needed to renew the kitchen.
We contacted the landlord on 23 July 2025 requesting information on when the landlord resolved the leak. It told us that it resolved the leak on 12 February 2024. Its records however contradict this, raising concerns with the landlord’s record keeping, as they suggest the leak continued past this date. It told the resident that works were due to begin on 19 February 2024 and it believed she could return home at the end of that week.
As at 26 February 2024, the records state that the leak remained outstanding, and it is unclear why. Neighbour B also refused access to their property again to the landlord’s operatives on 27 February 2024 despite a prearranged appointment. The landlord appropriately made attempts to negotiate entry through the neighbour’s parent. They agreed to attend with the landlord the following morning to try to negotiate access. It also considered whether a forced entry was appropriate as the resident had explained she visited her property, and the leak had worsened and now affecting her belongings. She said her belongings had mould on.
The landlord decided that a forced entry was not appropriate as the works needed were extensive and it needed lots of time to complete them. It decided to wait until the following day with the neighbour’s parent present to try obtaining access. If this was unsuccessful it would consider more complex options of removing the neighbour and lowering risk to operatives completing the repairs. The landlord then extended the resident’s stay in the hotel further, and she did not return to the property until 12 March 2024.
The resident returned home on this date, however the landlord has confirmed to us that it did not complete the repairs to her kitchen until “July 2024”. This means it took the landlord 7 months to fully resolve the issue, and this was inappropriate and not in keeping with its repairs policy.
From the evidence provided access issues hindered the landlord’s attempts to rectify the situation within the resident’s neighbours’ properties. This contributed significantly to the delays it faced in resolving the leak and repairs to the resident’s kitchen. The landlord also took proper considerations to try to resolve these issues, such as trying to negotiate with neighbour B through their parent and considering if it needed to force entry to complete the works.
Leaks can be hard to trace and diagnose, and it is not always possible to identify and resolve a leak at the first appointment. A landlord can also only stop a leak from a flat above when the occupants give it access to do so, and it cannot force access to a flat without following proper process. As the landlord was unable to access the flat above, it was unable to complete the necessary works at the time to address the cause of the leak. While unfortunate, this was not entirely due to a failing on the landlord’s part.
However, the landlord admitted internally that there was a failing with its records which contributed to the delays faced by the resident. It also was not proactive in its communication with the resident. Often, she had to contact it before it provided her with any form of update around the repairs. We would expect a landlord to be proactive in updating a resident in such situations. Further the evidence shows that it did not properly consider her wellbeing until she expressed concerns about it to the landlord. The failure to do so was unreasonable. Based on this, we find that there was maladministration.
The landlord did not award the resident any compensation for its handling of the leak. Its compensation policy says it uses the policy to reinforce its commitment to our dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. It will consider factors such as the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience, seriousness of any other unfair impact, the impact on the resident’s living arrangements when considering compensation. In the interest of fairness and putting things right in line with the landlord’s policy, we order that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

Reimbursement of accidental costs while in temporary accommodation

The landlord’s compensation policy says that sustenance covers daily payments where it places residents and/or their families into a hotel or alternative temporary accommodation without cooking and laundry facilities. The agreed daily level was £20 per adult and £10 per child. It considered these amounts reasonable in covering costs of meals, laundry, and any other incidental costs.
The resident explained in her complaint that the landlord had agreed to pay her sustenance upon her temporary move. She had emailed it multiple times about this with no response. The landlord’s stage 1 response explained that during her stay at the hotel, it provided her with a breakfast and internet package. It said it had resolved the matter in relation to the sustenance payments, however we have no information in relation to the length of the delay or its investigations into the matter. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.
We would expect the landlord to provide accurate records around its actions to investigate the delay, how it resolved the issue, and what considerations it took around its decision making around this concern. The landlord has not demonstrated that it did and this was inappropriate.
The landlord said that it would pay the resident subsistence of £50 a day until it resolved the leak and she moved safely back into her home. Following her move to the “aparthotel” it told her on 27 February 2024 that it would no longer make these payments as she now had the ability to prepare meals. While we understand that the resident now had the ability to prepare meals, its actions were not in line with its policy. This is because the policy says the payment will cover other costs such as laundry and “other incidental costs.”
While we appreciate that the resident raised concerns that she was unable to prepare the specific cuisines, the room provided had cooking facilities, although for basic food preparation. As such the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
In this instance, the resident’s main concern was the increase in her transportation costs. She had explained to it that she could previously walk her child to school but now was paying to meet this obligation. Its decision did not appear to consider this, and this was unreasonable. Based on this, we find that there was a service failure.

Forced entry into the resident’s property

The landlord has acknowledged that there was a failing in its approach around this issue. It has acknowledged that there were issues with its communication which led to the unnecessary forced entry into the resident’s property. While we appreciate the landlord’s acceptance of its failings, we believe there were other issues which it needed to address around its failings. Its response also makes it clear that the only failing it found with the substantive issues was around the forced entry, and it offered the resident £400 compensation.
The landlord explained in an email on 18 January 2024 about what occurred around the forced entry into the resident’s property. It said that it had attended both of her upstairs neighbour’s properties and could not find a leak. It needed a visual of the resident’s property to see where the leak was affecting her property. It asked a member of staff to contact her and tell her that it was on its way to force entry into her property.
We understand that the landlord felt it needed to get the works completed as it had been ongoing for 15 days at that point, however we would expect it to follow the necessary procedures. Usually, a landlord needs to provide a minimum of 24 hours’ notice if it intends to visit a resident for works in line with the Housing Act 1988. We have seen no evidence that the landlord provided any such notice to the resident until it decided it may need to force entry to her property on the day of the visit.
We also would have expected the landlord to arrange to have access to the property while the resident was in temporary accommodation so it could access and complete works, as necessary. It is unclear why it did not arrange this. A forced entry should be a last resort where a landlord has tried repeatedly to obtain access to complete works but is unable to do so, or where there is an emergency. From the evidence provided, we cannot see that either of these situations was present. The landlord’s actions were unreasonable.
There is also no evidence that there was an emergency which would call for such immediate action. We understand that it made attempts to contact the resident, to explain the situation. It should have waited to obtain a response on whether she was able to attend to provide the necessary access, which she could have done. There is no evidence that the leak had worsened to a degree to warrant the landlord to take immediate action by forcing entry. Its intention was to ascertain the situation with a view of scoping the repairs.
The Landlord failed to wait for a response from the resident before changing the locks and entering the property. However, it has accepted that there were communication failings which led to its incorrect approach, and it offered the resident compensation of £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused around the issue, which we consider appropriate. Based on this we find that there was reasonable redress.

Stolen money from the resident’s property

After the resident raised her concerns around the alleged theft by the landlord’s operatives of £500 from her property, the landlord interviewed its members of staff. They all denied that they had taken any money from the resident’s property. While the landlord was unable to establish if its contractors were at fault given their denial of being involved, it took the resident’s concerns seriously and carried out its own investigation into the matter. It has also said that it would support any police investigation into the matter. Based on the landlord’s actions, we find that there was no maladministration.

The complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement of the complaint and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there was a delay at both stages of its complaints process with its responses. To put things right, it offered the resident compensation of £50. Whilst this goes some way in acknowledging its failings, the landlord however did not acknowledge all of the failings within its handling of the complaint, and as such we do not consider its offer to be reasonable.
The landlord did not address all of the resident’s concerns raised within her complaint. She raised concerns around the landlord’s handling of her ASB issues with her neighbour. It did not respond to this within either of its response, nor has it shown that it ever did, and this was inappropriate. We would expect the landlord to address all concerns raised by the resident within the complaint, or if it chose to deal with them separately make this known to the resident. The failure to do so was inappropriate and against the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
The resident also raised concerns on 1 March 2024 about its handling of the reimbursement of additional costs she incurred while she was in temporary accommodation. As its response at stage 2 was already outstanding, and it related to the complaint at hand, it would have been reasonable for it to consider responding to the issue within the complaint. Or acknowledging that it would respond to the complaint separately. The resident confirmed to us on 23 July 2025 that she did not receive a response about this issue from the landlord.
The landlord also explained to us on 30 July 2025 that it rejected the resident’s attempt at raising a complaint about this issue on 1 March 2024. This was because it duplicated this complaint. It then did not provide a response. This was a complaint handling failing as this was inappropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there the landlord’s handling of its initial rehousing of the resident, and her subsequent request for further rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of leaks and kitchen repairs.
2. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated costs incurred while in temporary accommodation.
3. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the stolen money from the resident’s property.
4. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of forced entry into the resident’s property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings identified.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £400 around the failings identified. This is inclusive of the £50 offered around its complaint handling. We break this down as:
  1. £200 for the failings around its handling of the leaks and repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
  2. £50 for its failure to follow its policy around the associated expenses incurred while the resident was in temporary accommodation.
  3. £150 for its complaint handling failings. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £50.
3. The landlord must speak with the resident and establish if she is able to provide evidence of her added travel costs, and any other associated costs whilst staying in temporary accommodation that it has not already covered. It must then provide payment of these costs or explain why it cannot with reference to its policies and procedures. It should evidence to us any approach taken.
4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

If it remains outstanding, the landlord should pay the resident the £400 offered in its complaint response around its handling of the forced entry into her property.
The landlord should provide the resident with the necessary responses around its handling of her ASB concerns if it has not already done so.