Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

London Borough of Hackney (202404395)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404395

London Borough of Hackney

11 February 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the balcony door and windows.

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat in a block. The resident reported being vulnerable due to having physical and mental health conditions. Throughout her complaint both the resident and her son were in contact with the landlord. For clarity, this report refers to contact from the resident and her son as “the resident”.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2023 to report a repair to the balcony door and window. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time. A note from 19 June 2023 stated the the balcony door was “rotten and beyond repair”, and both the door and windows allowed water in when it rained. It recommended a follow up visit with a surveyor to see if new windows were needed. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on the 10 January 2024 to chase the repair as she said she had not heard anything. The resident made a complaint on 12 January 2024 and said she was unhappy it had not progressed with the issue. She said she was told in June 2023 that a surveyor would be in touch to authorise a replacement of the balcony door and windows, but she had not heard anything. She was unhappy that when she chased the repair, she was told the job was “closed”.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 2 February 2024. It gave a history of the repairs visits and said it had identified in June 2023 the balcony door and windows needed replacing. It said the job was in progress and an appointment was set to “renew” the doors and windows for 7 February 2024. It apologised for the “problems” the resident had progressing with the repairs and offered £275 in compensation. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked her complaint to go to stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 20 February 2024.
  5. The landlord’s contractor attended to measure up the window and door replacements on 29 February 2024. It sent the landlord a schedule of works to approve.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 5 April 2024 and gave an “unreserved apology” for its handling of the issue. It gave a history of the repair and apologised for missing repairs visits in February and March 2024. I said it was awaiting approval for the proposed works, and said the issues would be addressed “soon”. It offered the resident £840 in compensation for its handling of the matter.
  7. The landlord inspected the door and windows on 16 May 2024, and decided they could be repaired and did not need to be replaced. The notes indicated it attempted to repair the windows on 23 May 2024. The notes stated the resident was unwilling to allow it to complete a repair as she wanted the door and windows replaced.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 11 June 2024 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the issue was still outstanding and water got into her property when it rained. She explained that the issue was having an effect on her mental wellbeing.

Assessment and findings

Reports of repairs to the balcony door and windows

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. For the purpose of the Act windows and external doors are included in the structure of the building.
  2. The landlord’s website states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and “normal” repairs within 21 working days.
  3. Throughout her complaint, and when she asked us to investigate, the resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her mental wellbeing. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  4. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
  5. The resident reported a repair to the balcony door and windows in March 2023, and the landlord did not inspect until June 2023, 3 months (57 working days) later. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the target timeframes set out in its repairs policy. The resident was evidently concerned at the condition of the door and windows, and was inconvenienced by the unreasonable delay.
  6. The landlord inspected in June 2023 and decided it needed to replace the balcony door and windows. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord followed up on the repair at the time. This is concerning considering its notes stated the door was “rotten and beyond repair” and both the door and windows allowed water in when it rained. The conditions reported were evidently distressing for the resident. The landlord’s failure to follow up on the repairs may have increased the distress she experienced. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to chase the landlord about the repair in January 2024.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of February 2024 appropriately apologised and offered redress for its handling of the repair up to that point. It gave a detailed account of its handling of the issue, which showed transparency and learning. However, its response also lacked clarity about whether it planned to replace or repair the windows. It shared the notes from its operative that they needed replacing, but it also said it planned to “renew” them in February 2024. The resident was inconvenienced by this lack of clarity as she was left not knowing whether it planned to repair or replace the door and windows.
  8. The landlord failed to attend 2 appointments in February 2024, and attended at short notice on another occasion. Its handling of the repairs visits in February 2024 was poor, and it failed to communicate effectively about the repairs. The resident was inconvenienced by having to chase it about repairs visits at this time.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of April 2024, was detailed and transparent about its handling of the repairs, and the errors it made. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it showed learning and sought to build trust with the resident by explaining what had gone wrong. We welcome the approach by the landlord and it applied our dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes, and putting things right. However, its response lacked detail about when it hoped to progress with the repairs. It set out the quote was awaiting approval and that it would progress “soon”. Given the resident had been waiting over a year for it to progress with the repair, that it did not give a timeframe of when it hoped works would start was a shortcoming in its response.
  10. The landlord did not attempt to do any works to the balcony door and windows until May 2024. This was 3 months after its contractor produced a schedule of works, and a further unreasonable delay. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions she reported, the further delay may have increased the distress she experienced. She was further inconvenienced by the need to chase progress on the repair in April 2024, after its stage 2 complaint response. This supports the conclusion the landlord failed to communicate effectively about the repairs, which inconvenienced the resident.
  11. The evidence indicates that the landlord decided it did not need to replace the door and windows, after a further inspection on 16 May 2024. There is no evidence to indicate it communicated its change of position to the resident. This was a further failing in its communication about the issue. The resident was disappointed when the landlord attended to complete repairs to the door and windows, rather than replace them on 23 May 2024.
  12. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff to determined how best to use its finite resources. The landlord was entitled to opt to repair the windows rather than replacing them in the first instance if they could be repaired. However, its communication about the issue was poor and lacked transparency which inconvenienced the resident. From the records provided it is also unclear how the landlord reached its conclusion that the door and windows could be repaired, as we have not had sight of the notes form the visit on 16 May 2024. The landlord must explain its reasons to the resident for its change in position. This may help to build trust with the resident in order to progress with the repair.
  13. Our remedies guidance sets out that orders between £600 and £1,000 may appropriate to put things right where there was a failure by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident. At the time of its stage 2 complaint response, the £840 the landlord offered was appropriate to put things right up to that point. However, the landlord made further failings in its communication about the issue, and did not attend again for over a month. Considering this, we have determined a further £150 in compensation is appropriate to put right the additional errors for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the balcony door and windows.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £990 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the repairs. Its offer of £840 should be deducted from this total if it has already been paid.
    3. Write to the resident to explain the reason it changed its position on the door and window replacement. If it has not yet completed the repairs, it must also set out when it plans to progress with the repairs, including estimated timeframes.