London Borough of Hackney (202427755)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427755

London Borough of Hackney

16 September 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated remedial repairs.
2. Response to the resident’s request for compensation to replace water damaged possessions.
3. Response to the resident’s request for alternative permanent accommodation.
4. Response to the resident’s reports of racial discrimination.
5. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident holds a joint secure tenancy of a 4-bedroom 3-storey house where he lives with his wife and 3 children. The tenancy began in October 2012. The landlord, a local council, owns the property and is aware of the resident’s household vulnerabilities.
In August 2021 the resident’s solicitor sent a letter of claim to the landlord under the pre-action protocol for housing conditions cases. The resident said he had reported property disrepair since the start of his tenancy. He accepted a compensation offer of £12,000 following our determination in July 2023. However, he reported recurring issues, including leaks, in or around November 2023.
On 6 November 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. He said the landlord “refused” to respond to his reports of disrepair and leaks leaving the household without electricity. The resident considered the landlord’s actions evidence of racism and discrimination and demanded a move to alternative permanent accommodation. The resident filed another legal claim through a solicitor on 22 November 2024.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 December 2024. It also inspected the property on 9 December 2024 and sent a legal disrepair response on 2 January 2025. It also said the resident rejected a resolution via its own alternative dispute resolution (ADR) service and an offer of £800. The landlord arranged remedial repairs for the new year.
On 22 January 2025 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged some repairs remained incomplete. However, it was satisfied it had stopped the resident’s leak, and its response included that it:
1. Was sorry for the delay to complete repairs.
2. Did not identify any circumstances during its inspection in December 2024 which required a property move.
3. Informed him of his housing options.
4. Would investigate his reports of racist and discriminatory activity on receipt of his evidence.
5. Had closed a similar investigation in July 2024 as he did not provide any evidence when asked.
6. Might consider taking action against him for breaching the terms and conditions of his tenancy if he kept making allegations without proof.
7. Was happy to progress repairs but was unable to do so until completion of an independent property survey, arranged as part of the resident’s legal disrepair claim.
8. Would progress repairs if the resident agreed a waiver through his solicitor.
The resident escalated his complaint on 22 January 2025. He considered the landlord and its response “dodgy and racist.” On 29 January 2025 the resident said he was unable to agree to ADR and would “not allow any work” as he did not trust the landlord or its contractors. He demanded the landlord pay a significant financial settlement.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 5 February 2025. Having agreed an extension date with him, it sent its stage 2 response on 12 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint, the repairs, and the effect this might have had on the household vulnerabilities. It also said it had received no evidence from him regarding alleged racism and discrimination. Therefore, it had no incidents to investigate. It said any offer of compensation would form part of its legal disrepair response. And it completed work to the resident’s property in March 2025.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He considered the landlord’s repair delays a persistent and deliberate act. He expected a significant financial settlement including compensation for flood damage. The resident also expected the landlord to move him to alternative permanent accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident says a member of the household suffered an asthma attack which he attributed to the property conditions. He also catalogued multiple household items and white goods damaged by flooding which he considered the landlord’s responsibility to replace.
We are unable to say what caused an illness or injury or prove legal liability. Any detrimental effect on a resident’s health or finances requires a decision by a court or through an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages. However, we will consider if the landlord responded to the resident in line with its policies and procedures.
Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. This matter therefore falls outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns further using equalities legislation. Or he can speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance. We will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
The resident says the landlord ignored his request for alternative permanent housing. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) considers complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. This includes applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf. It covers assessment of applications, banding decisions, or that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
This matter therefore falls outside of our jurisdiction and will not form part of our investigation. We will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s request and if it followed its own policies.
The resident states he has experienced disrepair since the start of his tenancy. On 10 July 2023 we determined case reference 202113360. Our investigation addressed the historical repair issues and awarded £12,000. It is reasonable that our investigation considers events 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint on 6 November 2024. Any reference to other events will be to provide context only.
Approximately 3 months after the landlord completed repairs, the resident reported recurring issues. Our role is to investigate how the landlord responded to the resident’s original complaint and its final response on 12 March 2025. We can only consider matters that have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s more recent concerns.

Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated remedial repairs

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It should also keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of electricity. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
The landlord will respond to immediate repairs within 2 hours, emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and within 21 working days for repairs categorised as normal.
The landlord’s compensation policy has 4 tiers of compensation. Compensation awards can start at £50 for a minor service failure and more than £1,000 for a significant failing, which results in a long-term impact on a resident. The same policy also sets a sum of £25 compensation when it misses an appointment.
The landlord has developed an ADR service for disrepair cases. Under this scheme the landlord will agree repairs with the resident and any potential compensation. Residents can receive legal advice through the process, and it pays 100% of any compensation directly to the resident and not to a legal representative.
In September 2024 the resident said recurring leaks in his bedroom forced him to sleep in the living room. The evidence shows the landlord attended as an emergency. It recorded the need for scaffolding and messaged its disrepair team regarding the recurring leak. However, given the resident said he was unable to use his bedroom, it is unclear why the landlord did not demonstrate investigating his statement until December 2024. This was an unreasonable delay.
The resident says the landlord refused to complete repairs. The landlord disputes this. The evidence shows the landlord attended the property to stop the leaks. It also undertook some remedial repairs. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged gaps in its record keeping between December 2023 to November 2024. As such, it could not always accurately identify what action it had taken for either roof or wet room related leaks. Nor whether it had completed follow on work within its repair timescales. This was not appropriate, and we have addressed the landlord’s record keeping separately.
On 8 November 2024 the landlord isolated the resident’s water damaged electrics. Although the resident chased the landlord on 12 November 2025, it did not reinstate the electric supply to the resident’s cooker until 5 December 2024, 27 calendar days later. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s repair times. Given the landlord was aware of the household vulnerabilities, it is unclear what steps, if any, it took to ensure the household had alternative means to prepare meals. This did not demonstrate a landlord giving due regard to the household circumstances.
The evidence shows the landlord’s ADR project manager visited the property, acknowledged outstanding repairs, and offered the resident £800. It was the resident’s prerogative to decline the ADR route and for him to employ the services of legal representation. However, the landlord’s offer demonstrates it acknowledged it had not achieved repairs within its expected response times.
Evidence shows the landlord said it was unable to progress repairs until completion of an independent survey. It is unclear why it said this. A landlord has a duty under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to maintain the resident’s property. While an inspection may have formed part of the pre-action protocol, the landlord’s duty to keep the property in a safe condition remained. It should therefore have demonstrated attempts to agree a schedule of works with the resident to progress matters.
We note the resident said on 29 January 2025 he would not allow any work. It is therefore reasonable that this might offer some mitigation for part of the landlord’s delays. However, the landlord’s record keeping demonstrates it failed to effectively monitor actions taken to resolve the resident’s repairs before this date. It also failed to co-ordinate the need for scaffolding. This caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience due to further delays and rearranged appointments.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledge the effects that its repair delays would have had on the household vulnerabilities. It is therefore unclear why the landlord informed the resident it would consider an offer of compensation through its disrepair process.
The Ombudsman’s position with regards to complaints that are also the subject of a housing disrepair claim is clear. A landlord should manage them in line with its complaint policy unless legal proceedings have been issued. As the resident had not submitted the particulars of claim to court, the landlord should have taken steps to put right the identified service failures without delay.
When there has been an admission of failure, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right. And whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
Our determinations should also recognise the fact that the distress caused to an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same distress in response to the same instance of maladministration. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or because of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
Based on our findings we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s leak. We may have made a finding of severe maladministration, but for the evidence that some work did, albeit unsuccessfully, take place. We have considered this a mitigating factor.
However, while the resident made his formal complaint in November 2024, it is fair and reasonable for us to consider the landlord’s failures to provide a remedy between December 2023 to March 2025, approximately 13 months. The resident put the landlord on notice of leaks and frequently expressed dissatisfaction. However, the landlord repeatedly failed to demonstrate effective monitoring of his situation or provide a lasting remedy.
Given the delays, disruption, and aggravating factors, we order the landlord to pay £1,300. This is consistent with our remedies guide when the circumstances of maladministration apply, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Response to the resident’s request for compensation to replace water damaged possessions

The landlord’s compensation and complaints policies state its insurance team will manage claims for damages, health, or insurance claims.
In September 2024 the resident requested the landlord’s liability insurance details as the property experienced flooding because of a leak. Evidence shows the landlord provided the contact details for its insurance team. This included the telephone number and email address. This was appropriate and consistent with its complaints and compensation policy.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration. While it is unclear if the resident made a claim, the outcome of any insurance decision is not something we can determine.

Response to the resident’s request for alternative permanent accommodation

The landlord’s temporary decant policy details circumstances when, following a property assessment, it might consider moving a resident to temporary accommodation.
Since October 2021 the landlord has not offered management transfers for permanent moves. It encourages residents to apply to the local housing register for an assessment for alternative accommodation. The local council’s housing options team will determine if the resident meets the reasonable preference criteria and it will set a priority banding level.
In September 2024 the resident sought for the landlord to move him to alternative permanent accommodation. While the landlord’s decant policy is silent on the timeframe for completing a property assessment, it did so on 8 December 2024. The landlord informed the resident it identified no circumstances which would warrant a move. Having completed a visit to inspect the resident’s property, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its staff.
The evidence shows the landlord encouraged the resident to submit a transfer request under medical grounds. And it informed him of his housing options. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to ensure the resident had the appropriate information if he desired a move.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, evidence shows the landlord confirmed his acceptance on the local housing register at ‘band B’ priority. The landlord advised this was the highest level for his current household circumstances.
The resident considered the landlord’s process discriminatory and continued to insist on the landlord moving him to alternative permanent accommodation. However, bands reflect housing need, with the highest band indicating the greatest need for housing. The bands are based on the reasonable preference criteria set out within the Housing Act 1996. These are determined by the council’s housing options team and not by the landlord. Any dissatisfaction regarding this is a matter for the LGSCO.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for alternative permanent accommodation.

Response to the resident’s reports of racial discrimination

The landlord’s tenancy conditions state resident’s must not abuse, harass, threaten, intimidate, or assault the landlord or its contractors. This includes actions by phone, email, letter, or text message.
The same policy also states it will act fairly in all matters connected to a tenancy and will not discriminate against any resident. This is consistent with the landlord’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The resident’s complaint and messages attribute the landlord’s actions or lack of actions to racial discrimination. Evidence shows the resident repeated this allegation, or similar, in his emails to the landlord and to us. In doing so, the resident would frequently address the landlord or a member of its staff using terms such as “dodgy,” “racist,” or “incompetent.”
The landlord’s complaint investigation included interviewing staff involved with the resident’s case. While the resident continued to address his communications to the landlord and its staff in his chosen manner, he provided no evidence to support his allegations. Nor did the landlord identify any events which required further investigation.
The landlord’s stage 1 response requested the resident provide proof for it to investigate his allegations. Given the seriousness of this matter, this demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to engage with the resident and offer him opportunity to present details of incidents and proof. There is no evidence the resident provided any form of response to substantiate his allegations.
The landlord reminded the resident it had previously closed similar allegations made by him as he had never supplied any evidence. It informed him if he continued making allegations without proof, it might consider his actions a breach of tenancy. This was consistent with the resident’s tenancy terms and conditions.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. We have identified no evidence the landlord failed to consider the resident’s allegations. Nor that it did not give due regard to its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. It is reasonable that the landlord would not be able to investigate alleged incidents without engagement from the resident and proof.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states a resident can expect a complaint acknowledgement within 5 working days. It will provide a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. If it requires more time, the landlord will inform the resident of the expected timescale for a response and clearly explain the reasons for the extension. This is appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. A resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for the landlord to treat it as such.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it should make an award of £20 per week if there are delays responding to a complaint without proper communication. This also includes any delays to escalate a resident’s complaint to stage 2.
The landlord states it received the resident’s complaint on 11 November 2024. Given the resident emailed his dissatisfaction on 6 November 2024, it is unclear how the landlord accounts for this date. It does not demonstrate effective complaint monitoring.
Furthermore, there is evidence the resident emailed the landlord on 23 September 2024. While his email does not specifically use the word ‘complaint,’ it did not need to. The resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions to remedy outstanding repairs. It is therefore unclear why it did not take this as a complaint and investigate matters accordingly. This was not consistent with the expectations of the Code.
Evidence shows the landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement, stage 1 response, and stage 2 acknowledgement 29, 47, and 5 working days late, respectively. This was not appropriate and not in line with the Code.
While the landlord agreed a stage 2 extension date with the resident, it did so 19 working days after it should have sent him its response. And only after the resident had chased it for a response. Therefore, this did not demonstrate effective monitoring or communication with the resident about his complaint. This caused the resident time and trouble trying to progress his complaint which had already experienced delays.
Based on our findings we find maladministration. Given the delays at each stage amount to more than 13 weeks, we order the landlord to pay £300. While the figure is not an exact calculation, the sum is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It is also consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord’s failure has adversely affected the resident.

Record keeping

This investigation has highlighted gaps in the landlord’s knowledge and information management (KIM). This includes evidence of:
1. 10 occasions between 7 December 2023 to 5 December 2024 where the landlord could not identify records for the repair actions taken at the resident’s property.
2. Failure to record or explain the 33 working days wait for follow on work following a leak in April 2024.
3. Failure to arrange the required scaffolding in June 2024.
4. Failures to provide the resident with notice of 2 missed appointments on 27 February 2024 and 7 November 2024.
5. Failure to record why it took 8 working days to arrange an appointment for a wet room leak on 29 October 2024.
6. Failure to record why it took approximately 27 calendar days to reinstate the resident’s electric supply to his cooker.
7. Failure to provide a response to our request for information by the date set, 12 September 2025.
Without good KIM a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a landlord’s housing management and repairs service. Evidence shows the landlord did not always achieve this. It did not monitor the resident’s repairs effectively. Nor did it keep accurate records of actions taken to ensure it had met its repair obligations.
Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The gaps in the landlord’s records raised questions about the effectiveness of the repair work completed. This might have affected the landlord’s ability to provide lasting repairs within a reasonable time due to recurring issues. Therefore, increasing the resident’s distress and inconvenience as matters remained ongoing.
Based on the evidence and findings of this investigation, we find maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.
The record keeping issues identified in this case are similar to cases already determined. These include 202338451 and 202343128 determined in January and March 2025, respectively. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous orders. Including record keeping case reviews. So, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made. However, given the recurring failure, the landlord should consider whether there are any issues arising from this case that require further action.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated remedial repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation to replace water damaged possessions.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for alternative permanent accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of racial discrimination.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,650 compensation. This is made up of
  1. £1,300 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated remedial repairs.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s failure to keep 2 appointments.
  3. £300 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Within 8 weeks the landlord must:
  1. Arrange or demonstrate to us that a suitably qualified person has completed a property and roof inspection to trace any leaks since the landlord’s stage 2 response in March 2025.
  2. Provide the resident and us with the findings of the inspection report and a schedule to complete the recommended works.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Contacts the resident to register a new complaint for events after its stage 2 response in March 2025, if it has not already done so.
2. Reminds the resident of his housing options and identify any help required to make the necessary applications.