London Borough of Hackney (202426908)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426908

London Borough of Hackney

27 June 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 response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould and leaks in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat in a block. The resident has referred to having asthma but the landlord does not record any vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould on 8 December 2023 and says she was told the landlord would visit on 15 December 2023, which did not happen. The landlord’s records then show an appointment was scheduled for 5 January 2024, which did not happen.
  3. The same day, the resident complained. She raised dissatisfaction that 2 appointments for damp and mould had been missed. She raised concerns that the damp and mould was due to excess moisture at the block and that nothing had been done about this despite scaffold being up. She asked the landlord to do remedial works or move her into suitable accommodation.
  4. The landlord’s surveyor inspected on 25 January 2024. They noted slight mould in 2 areas of the bedroom, and the landlord raised a repair on 6 February 2024 to remove the mould and upgrade the ventilation.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 14 February 2024. It apologised for its complaint response delay, lack of communication about remedial works, and the missed appointments. It said its contractor would contact the resident within 2 weeks to schedule the works. It said a roof repair was now complete but scaffold would need to stay up to investigate a report from one of the resident’s neighbours that they were still experiencing a leak. The landlord subsequently paid the resident £290 compensation and completed mould and ventilation works in March 2024.
  6. On 8 July 2024, the resident asked to escalate the complaint after the landlord reports from another resident about leaks at the block. She noted that scaffold was due to be taken down months ago but was still up. She said completed works were insufficient as recent rainfall had caused flooding through bedroom cupboards and bathroom extractor fans to all 3 properties. She queried what works had and were being done to prevent the issue, as the repairs team had not clarified this. She restated her request for the landlord to do remedial works or move her into suitable accommodation.
  7. On 16 July 2024, the resident made a further report. She said rainwater had come through the ceiling the previous night, caused damage to the property and her belongings, and made electrics trip now and then. She also raised concerns that her ceiling could cave in.
  8. The landlord’s surveyor inspected on 19 July 2024. They noted that the main bedroom, bathroom ceiling, and hall ceiling had been affected by a leak from a flat above. They noted this had stopped and electrics had been disconnected. They noted the resident requested compensation, as water from above had damaged laminate flooring and a mattress, and that she was advised to contact the landlord’s insurance team.
  9. The landlord raised a repair on 22 July 2024 to treat and redecorate the affected areas. It then raised a repair the following day for reports of leaks from one of the resident’s neighbours. This noted that other tenants including the resident also reported heavy leaks when it rained. The landlord later noted on 8 August 2024 that it could not do the repairs to the resident’s flat, as the leak was ongoing, and on 15 August 2024 it attended the neighbour’s flat without getting access.
  10. The landlord provided its final response on 21 August 2024.
    1. It noted the resident asked about recent roof works. It said that a roof inspection raised on 21 March 2024 was attended on 3 May 2024, when a roof outlet blockage was cleared.
    2. It said that after her and her neighbours’ reports of a new leak, a repair was raised on 8 July 2024, and guttering was repaired on 16 July 2024. It noted that after a neighbour reported leaks again, a repair was raised on 23 July 2024, which it was not get access for on 15 August 2024. It said this was re-raised and scheduled for 23 August 2024, and it would monitor the case until completion.
    3. It apologised for the time taken to respond to the complaint and resolve the roof leak. It awarded £190, which comprised £160 for the repair delays and £30 for complaint delays, which it said was in addition to the £290 it had offered for distress and inconvenience.
  11. On 23 August 2024, the landlord attended the neighbour’s flat again without getting access. The same day, it also noted that the resident’s flat required inspection, as this was also affected by the leak.
  12. On 16 September 2024, the landlord’s records report it attended the neighbour’s flat for the leaks repair and cleared a badly blocked internal pipe.
  13. In September and October 2024, the resident contacted a councillor and raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of assistance about the leaks. She was unhappy that belongings had been damaged by mould. She was unhappy a surveyor had said the flat just needed decorating and said that she had been unable to stay at her flat since mid July. She was unhappy that the complaints team did not monitor the issue as promised. She was unhappy that she was expected to live in an unsafe property, and questioned why she was not helped to move like some other residents. She noted that remedial works had not been carried out.
  14. The councillor explained that the resident could email the landlord’s complaints team or escalate the complaint to us, and she subsequently contacted the Ombudsman from October 2024. In November 2024, the landlord re-raised the mould treatment and decoration works identified in July 2024, and it is understood these were completed around March or April 2025.
  15. The resident raises dissatisfaction that she was expected to stay in the property when the leaks were ongoing and the internal works were outstanding. She says entering the property triggered her asthma and the electrics kept tripping. She has explained that she was concerned about her safety and she stayed out of the property until it was ready for her to return. She raises dissatisfaction that she had to pay full rent for a property she could not occupy.

Assessment and findings

  1. The evidence shows that after the resident’s 8 December 2023 damp and mould report, there were two missed appointments and it did not inspect the damp and mould until 25 January 2024, over 30 working days after the resident’s original report. This was not satisfactory, given she referred to asthma in one early January 2024 contact, and given the landlord’s policy was to inspect damp and mould within 5 working days. These were unreasonable delays which will have caused some distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. The landlord’s February 2024 stage 1 response acknowledged there were repairs delays and took steps to progress outstanding mould and ventilation works, which the resident confirms were completed around a few weeks after the stage 1 response. It confirmed current roof works were complete and that it was investigating a leak report from another resident. It evidently offered £290 for the damp issues.
  3. The landlord could have been clearer about its compensation offer in the body of its stage 1 response. However, its response reasonably remedied the complaint at stage 1. This is because it reasonably acknowledged issues, offered proportionate compensation for the issues evident and their impact, and made commitments to do outstanding works which it met in a reasonably timely manner.
  4. The resident then escalated the complaint in July 2024, due to further reports of leaks at the block and direct water ingress to her own flat. The landlord’s surveyor inspected shortly after, advised her to contact its insurance about damaged belongings, and identified some internal decoration works.
  5. The following month, the landlord noted it could not complete the works due to the ongoing leak, and attempted to visit the resident’s neighbour about resolving the leak. In mid September 2024, the resident confirms the landlord completed the works to resolve the leak, which is noted to have involved clearance of a badly blocked internal pipe. The internal repairs were then re-raised in November 2024 and completed around March or April 2025.
  6. The landlord’s August 2024 stage 2 response acknowledged complaint and repairs delays. It explained recent previous and current actions for leaks. It offered a further £190 in addition to the previous £290 it had offered, bringing its total compensation award to £480. It confirmed it would monitor the leak repair.
  7. The evidence shows that leaks have been due to different causes rather than a single case, which have included a roof leak, a blocked outlet, and a blocked internal pipe. The landlord shows it was generally responsive to leaks in the complaint timeframe, but resolving them did exceed timeframes such as the least urgent repairs priority of 21 working days. The landlord’s stage 2 response generally addressed and acknowledged service issues evident and its actions and £480 total compensation went a long way to remedy the complaint. However, its response was not entirely satisfactory.
  8. The landlord completed works to unblock an internal pipe on 16 September 2024, after leak reports in early July 2024 and directly from the resident on 16 July 2024. This was over 42 working days, double the timeframe for the landlord’s least urgent repairs priority, and almost 15 working days after the landlord’s stage 2 response.
  9. This was also after 2 occasions where the landlord did not get access to a neighbour’s property. Given the issue impacted multiple flats, greater management of the issue would have been expected to be evident, such as effective and timely liaison with any flat that needed to be accessed to complete repairs that affected the resident. The landlord does not show it did enough to avoid the further lack of access and delay evident after its stage 2 response.
  10. The landlord is understood to have eventually completed the internal decoration works identified in July 2024 around March or April 2025. This is 8 or 9 months after they were identified, and 6 or 7 months after completion of the September 2024 works. The resident had the option to contact the landlord to progress the repairs, and the extent to which she attempted this is not clear from evidence she has supplied. It is also not evident the length of time these decoration works took caused significant detriment. But the landlord’s handling of this aspect was not entirely satisfactory.
  11. The resident asked the landlord as part of her complaint and escalation to do remedial repairs. It should reasonably have therefore been clearer in its stage 2 response about the status of the internal repairs identified in July 2024, and included a commitment to monitor them as well, particularly as they were to remedy the impact of the leaks on the property.
  12. The resident also asked the landlord to move her into alternative accommodation, but its responses did not set out a position on whether she needed to be moved. She does confirm that some residents, understood to have had collapsed ceilings, were moved, but a surveyor said only redecoration was required in her own flat. This shows staff had some appropriate opportunity to consider if her flat was habitable.
  13. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinions of its staff, and it is not evident that they or any qualified professional ever identified the property to be uninhabitable, as would be expected for it to be deemed uninhabitable. It is also not evident that the resident raised concerns to the landlord to the extent she later raised them to a councillor and the Ombudsman, although she was asked for evidence of this during our investigation. This means we do not see any basis to order compensation related to her living away from the property while she continued to pay rent. She has the option to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this.
  14. However, the landlord reasonably should have more clearly addressed the concerns the resident did raise about the property suitability. A further inspection of her flat was also noted to be required on 23 August 2024, the day the landlord did not gain access to her neighbour’s flat. The landlord confirms it has no record this happened. This is not satisfactory and was a missed opportunity for it to assess and address the property condition directly around the time of the stage 2 response.
  15. Overall, the landlord went a long way to remedy issues and delays, and it is not evident the property was uninhabitable. However, the leak repair was further delayed after the stage 2 response and it does not show it did enough to avoid this. Its stage 2 response did not communicate effectively about the repairs identified to remedy the impact of the leaks on the property, as would have been reasonable. It also did not address the resident’s concerns about her flat, and did not do a further inspection as was noted to be required.
  16. These issues did not have a significant detriment but they will have caused some distress and uncertainty to the resident. This leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in the landlord’s response about damp and mould and leaks, and to order it to pay a further amount of compensation in recognition of this. This takes into account the evidenced service issues and impact, the landlord’s compensation offer, and our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould and leaks in the property.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified. This is in addition to the £480 total it previously offered, which it should take steps to pay if it has not already.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order no later than 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to review how it manages similar repairs that affect multiple residents and rely on effective liaison with residents to complete.
  2. The landlord is recommended to review its complaint handling and:
    1. ensure that it sufficiently considers and addresses complaint points.
    2. ensure that it sufficiently considers and addresses recent identified repairs in its responses, including internal repairs identified to remedy the impact of an issue on a property such as leaks.