London Borough of Hackney (202405683)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom 6th floor flat. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the window in their child’s bedroom, first reported in March 2023. The resident has said the window’s manufacturer advised it posed a risk, and should only be partially opened, which prevented proper ventilation of the flat during hot weather.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bedroom window.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of repairs to the bedroom window.
5. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.
6. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. We found:
   1. There were significant delays by the landlord in its handling of the repair. The repair was raised in March 2023 and was not completed until January 2025.
   2. The landlord’s communication was poor. It did not provide regular updates or follow up on internal queries, and it often only acted after the resident contacted it.
   3. There were minor delays by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.
   4. The landlord has not demonstrated it considered the resident’s concerns about the potential risk the window posed, which is concerning given the location of the window.
   5. The landlord’s overall compensation offer of £2,045 was fair and reasonable for the failures identified in this report.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Delays

8. The landlord has not provided a copy of its repair policy. So, we have relied on information available on its website. This says the landlord will attend to normal repairs within 21 working days.
9. The resident has said they initially reported the issue in either September or October 2022. However, the evidence we have been provided suggests the repair was first raised with the landlord on 1 March 2023. The landlord completed an inspection on 6 March 2023. This was arranged in good time. As the landlord identified that scaffolding was needed, it was reasonable that repairs were not completed at this time.
10. However, the landlord took no further action until 3 July 2023, when it arranged a further inspection following contact from the resident. This was completed on 10 July 2023, after which the landlord confirmed it would refer the repair to its repair contractor. It is unclear why the repairs did not progress between 6 March 2023 and 3 July 2023, nor why a further inspection was needed, given the March 2023 findings. This delay was unreasonable and is a failure by the landlord.
11. The landlord referred the case to its repair contractor on 17 July 2023. However, it remains that the landlord was ultimately responsible for the repair. The repair contractor did not arrange a repair, leading the resident to complain in November 2023. To resolve matters, the landlord confirmed the repair contractor would contact the resident in early December 2023 following its stage 1 response. However, this did not happen. We expect landlords to act on the commitments made in their complaint responses. So, this was a failure by the landlord.
12. On 14 February 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It apologised for the avoidable delays and offered compensation for this. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise and apologise for the delays, and we will consider its compensation offer in light of its overall response to this complaint.
13. While our investigations are limited to the complaint process under investigation, where a complaint is about delayed repairs, we expect landlords to take reasonable and appropriate action to complete repairs in good time following their complaint responses. So, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the repair following its stage 2 response.
14. There were further delays after the stage 2 response. Following a request for an update by the resident on 13 May 2024, the landlord queried why its repair contractor had not completed the repair. The contractor advised the landlord had not approved its quote for scaffolding. The landlord raised an internal query about this. However, it appears it did not receive a response. There is no evidence the landlord followed up on this, updated the resident, or took any further action. This suggests ineffective monitoring of repairs and was a failure by the landlord.
15. Although it is unclear when, it seems that sometime following this the landlord stopped working with the repair contractor. It also appears the landlord did not take ownership of the outstanding repair, as it took no action until the resident asked for a further update in September 2024.
16. On 23 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord for an update, noting that they had not heard anything for several months and the repairs had not been completed. On 17 October 2024 the landlord raised what was, effectively, the same internal query it had raised in May 2024. From around 22 October 2024 the landlord began to look into whether the window was covered under a buildings warranty.
17. By 22 November 2024 the landlord had established that the window was under warranty. The landlord arranged for a real estate management company, to complete the repairs. On 2 December 2024 the management company contacted the resident to arrange an inspection. It appears this was completed sometime between 2 December and 16 December 2024. Following this, the landlord authorised quotes for the management company to carry out the work and repairs were completed on 31 January 2025.

Communication

18. There have been significant periods of time when the landlord has provided no correspondence or updates about the repair. For instance, there was no update or follow-up correspondence between 6 March 2023 and 20 June 2023, when the resident contacted the landlord to progress the repair. Similarly, the landlord did not contact the resident between May 2024 and September 2024 after not receiving a response to its internal query about the approval of the scaffolding, nor has it evidenced it followed up on this query. We expect landlords to provide timely and appropriate updates on repairs, which did not happen in this case. This was a failure by the landlord.
19. Additionally, following its referral to the repair contractor in July 2023, the earliest record we have of the contractor contacting the resident is on 25 January 2024, based on the repair contractor’s email of the same date. We note the contractor has said it completed an inspection before this date, but we have not been provided evidence to demonstrate this. It is unclear whether the landlord does not have this information or has chosen not to provide it. Regardless, this is poor record keeping by the landlord.
20. There were numerous occasions when the resident had to contact the landlord for updates and to try to progress the repair, as evidenced by their emails to the landlord on 13 May 2024, 23 September 2024, 30 September 2024, and 10 October 2024. We can see from the records provided by the landlord the resident also telephoned the landlord for updates on several occasions, such as in July 2023 and April 2024.
21. The landlord’s communication and its overall handling of the claim was largely reactive, with the landlord often only acting after it had received contact from the resident. It is evident the resident spent a great deal of time and trouble contacting the landlord for updates and to pursue the repair. It is likely this could have been avoided if the landlord had provided appropriate communication and handled the repair proactively.

Impact and redress

22. Looking at what’s happened, it is clear there were significant delays and poor communication by the landlord throughout its handling of the repair. The landlord does not dispute this. The delays and poor communication evidently caused the resident a great deal of avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing the repair, both before and after the landlord’s complaint investigation.
23. In recognition of the severity of its failures and the impact on the resident, to resolve matters the landlord has offered compensation of £2,025 for its handling of the repair. We note £1,065 of this was offered after the landlord had investigated the complaint through its internal complaint procedure (ICP). While we expect landlords to fully consider what redress appropriately resolves the complaint during the ICP, in this case we are satisfied that it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to offer further compensation as this was for additional failures identified up to the resolution of the issue.
24. We are also satisfied that the landlord’s overall compensation offer is in line with its compensation policy and our Service’s remedies guidance. We consider this appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances and we have not made orders for the landlord to increase this.
25. That said, given the nature of the repair, the location of the window, and the resident’s reports that the manufacturer advised the window was a risk, we would have expected the landlord to demonstrate that it had considered any potential risk the faulty window may pose. It is concerning that the landlord has not done so in either its handling of the repairs or in its investigation of the resident’s complaint.
26. However, we have not been provided evidence to show the window posed a risk to the resident. We’ve been told the faulty window latch prevented the window from opening fully. So, it appears there was no increased risk of significant harm from a fall. Rather, the issue for the resident was that the faulty window prevented proper ventilation of the property, particularly during warmer weather.
27. Taking the above into account, while the landlord’s failure to demonstrate it considered the potential risk the faulty window might pose is a concern, it remains that the overall compensation was fair and reasonable. So, while this is a learning for the landlord, it has not changed our overall finding of reasonable redress.

28. Landlords should log, define, and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages of their internal complaint process. Stage 1 complaints should be answered within 10 working days of the acknowledgment, while stage 2 complaints should be answered within 20 working days.
29. The landlord received the stage 1 complaint on 14 November 2023 and acknowledged it promptly on 16 November 2024. However, the landlord responded on 4 December 2023, which is 13 working days. The landlord has apologised and offered compensation for this delay. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
30. The landlord received the stage 2 complaint on 15 January 2024 and acknowledged it on 22 January 2024, 6 working days later. Although this slightly exceeded the landlord’s timeframe, there’s no indication this negatively impacted the resident. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 February 2024, within the required timeframe.
31. The landlord did not define the complaint in its acknowledgments. This means the landlord missed an opportunity to set out its understanding of the complaint at this early stage, and for any potential misunderstanding to be corrected. However, there’s no evidence this caused the resident any detriment.
32. The landlord paid £20 compensation for the complaint handling failures it identified. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will make an award of £20 per week for delays in its handling of a complaint. The overall delays were less than 1 week, so this is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Learning

33. While the landlord has offered significant compensation, this case highlights the importance of proactive communication, risk assessment, and robust record keeping in delivering an effective repairs service.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The long periods with no updates or follow-ups, and the lack of evidence demonstrating the landlord followed up on internal queries or monitored progress effectively suggests the landlord does not have a reliable system for tracking repairs or ensuring timely communication. To improve, the landlord should ensure it maintains accurate and accessible records of all repairs, inspections, and contractor communications. It should also ensure it has a system in place to effectively monitor outstanding repairs.

Communication

35. The landlord’s communication throughout this case was inconsistent, reactive, and poorly managed. It failed to provide timely updates, did not follow up on internal queries, and often only acted after the resident made contact. To improve, the landlord should ensure it provides regular, proactive updates to residents about ongoing repairs, especially where delays occur. It should monitor contractor actions more effectively, follow up on unresolved internal queries, and maintain accurate records of all communications and inspections.

Risk assessment

36. Landlords must satisfy themselves, their residents and independent organisations such as the Ombudsman that they have considered any potential risks from an associated repair. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered this. To improve, where there are safety concerns, the landlord should consider how potential risks from window related repairs are identified and managed within its overall repair service delivery.