London Borough of Hackney (202410034)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 6th floor flat with her mother and daughter. The resident has vulnerabilities related to mental health conditions, autism, and physical disability.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
   1. Lift breakdowns.
   2. Damp and mould.
   3. Boiler issues.
   4. Flooding.
   5. A collapsed wall.
3. It is also about how the landlord handled:
   1. The resident’s housing transfer application.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in how the landlord handled:
      1. Reports of lift breakdowns.
      2. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. The complaints about the landlord’s handling of the following issues are not within our jurisdiction:
      1. Boiler issues.
      2. Flooding.
      3. A collapsed wall.
      4. Housing transfer application.
   3. There was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord promptly attended and resolved all reports of issues with the communal lift within its urgent repair timescales.
6. The landlord made reasonable and consistent efforts to inspect the property for damp and mould in response to the resident’s reports.
7. We do not investigate complaints which were not brought landlord’s attention within a reasonable timeframe. As such, we have not investigated the resident’s complaints about historical boiler issues or flooding.
8. We do not investigate matters which have not exhausted landlord’s complaint handling processes. Therefore, we have not investigated the resident’s complaints about current boiler issues or a collapsed internal wall.
9. We do not investigate matters which are more suitably addressed by a different Ombudsman. Therefore, we have not investigated the resident’s complaint about her housing transfer application.
10. The landlord addressed the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

11. The landlord was first made aware of the resident’s concerns about lift breakdowns via the stage 1 complaint we raised on her behalf on 17 January 2025. We note that, in the 12 months prior to this, the resident had not reported any issues with the lift.
12. We can see the landlord attended the block on 14 January 2025 in response to another resident reporting the lift had broken down on the same day. It fixed the issue at this visit and noted the lift was fully operational. On 23 January 2025 we can see the landlord inspected the lift again, seemingly in response to the resident’s complaint. It found that the button for the 5th floor was sticking. It fixed this and noted that the lift was left fully operational.
13. Therefore, the landlord attended and rectified both instances of faults with the lift within its 5 working day urgent repair timescales. The landlord did well to explain this in its stage 1 response on 3 February 2025 and invited the resident to report any future issues to its repairs team.
14. In her stage 2 escalation request, the resident advised the landlord that the lift was currently working. The landlord noted this in its stage 2 response and advised that the resident’s housing officer would contact her in the event of future breakdowns to assist her when the lift was out of service. This was a positive way to reassure the resident that it would seek to mitigate the impact of future issues on her given her vulnerabilities.
15. Following this the resident did not report any issues with the lift until 25 April 2025. The landlord attended on the same day and found the electrics had tripped and trapped the lift in between floors. It repaired the issue at this visit and restored functionality. It did well to attend and rectify the issue on the same day the resident reported it.
16. Therefore, we consider the landlord handled the resident’s reports of issues with the lift appropriately. We note the resident has advised that the lift breaks down on a monthly basis. However, we cannot see any instance in which she reported this and the landlord failed to take appropriate and prompt action to fix it.

17. The resident first made the landlord aware of her concerns about damp and mould via the stage 1 complaint we raised for her on 17 January 2025. In its stage 1 response on 3 February 2025 the landlord explained the resident had not complained about damp and mould since 2020. On this basis it decided to treat this aspect of her complaint as a service request. The records corroborate this. The landlord concluded its stage 1 response by asking the resident to contact its repairs team to schedule an inspection. Given the resident had not reported any damp and mould for several years, this approach was reasonable.
18. The resident did not contact the landlord to schedule the inspection and so it repeated its offer to inspect the property in its stage 2 response. It also advised her to indicate whether she needed assistance in arranging an inspection. We note the resident did not raise any concerns about damp and mould in her stage 2 escalation. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably by asking her to clarify whether she still wanted an inspection.
19. We can see the resident then reported damp and mould in the kitchen to the repairs team on 15 May 2025. The landlord scheduled an inspection for 22 May 2025, which was within its urgent repairs timescales. It was unable to access the property on this date. The records note the resident advised she was at a GP appointment when it contacted her to ask for entry. We can see the landlord advised the resident to contact its repairs team to reschedule an inspection. There is no evidence that she did so.
20. Therefore, we consider the landlord appropriately handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It repeatedly offered to inspect the property and attempted to do so promptly following the resident’s first request for an inspection on 15 May 2025. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, we will recommend the landlord carries out an inspection to address her concerns.

21. The resident complains that her boiler exploded in 2017. Our Scheme do not allow to investigate complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable timeframe, typically within 12 months. We can see the resident mentioned some concerns about the boiler breaking down in the future in a phone call in February 2025. However, there is no evidence she has raised a complaint about the 2017 breakdown with the landlord. This means she did not bring this matter to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable timeframe, and therefore, we will not investigate this issue.
22. The resident also complains that her boiler has not worked since October 2025. Our Scheme also states that we may not investigate complaints which have not exhausted a landlord’s internal process. There is no evidence the resident has raised a complaint related to her concerns about the boiler from October 2025 onwards. Therefore, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

23. The resident complains that the property flooded in 2017 and then again in 2023. Our Scheme rules do not allow us to investigate matters which were not brought to a landlord’s attention as a complaint within a reasonable timeframe. While we can see the resident mentioned flooding in her February 2025 escalation request, this was 9 and 2 years respectively after the described events. Therefore, she did not raise these issues with the landlord within a reasonable timeframe. For this reason, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

24. The resident complains that an internal wall in the property collapsed 3 years ago. However, there is no evidence that she has raised this as a complaint at any stage with the landlord. Our Scheme rules do not allow us to investigate matters which have not been brought to a landlord’s attention as a formal complaint. Therefore, this is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

25. The resident complains that the medical team who completed her assessment for her housing transfer application failed to fully consider her medical conditions, and that this resulted in an incorrect banding decision. The resident’s complaint relates to the actions of the Local Authority in its assessment of the resident’s banding priority for housing transfer. Therefore, this complaint is most suitably assessed by the LGSCO, who investigate complaints about local authorities. Our Scheme rules do not allow us to investigate complaints which are more appropriately handled by an alternative Ombudsman. For this reason, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

26. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and provide a response within 10 working days of this. It will then acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days, and issue a response within 20 working days of this.
27. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint we made on the resident’s behalf after 1 working day on 20 February 2025. It then issued its response 10 working days later.
28. The landlord discussed the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on a phone call with her on 11 March 2025. It followed this up with an email summary on the same day, which served as the complaint acknowledgement. It then issued its response 20 working days later. Therefore, it met its complaint handling timescales at both stages.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord’s record keeping was good throughout the period in question. Its repairs records related to the communal lift clearly set out diagnoses of the issues and the specific actions it took to address them. Clear audit trails like this contribute positively to more efficient repairs.

Communication

30. The overall communication was good. The landlord did well to explain why it was treating the damp and mould aspect of the resident’s stage 1 response as a service request. It also acted with her vulnerabilities in mind when it explained how she could go about requesting an inspection. It also did well to offer her assistance in doing so.