London Borough of Hackney (202429490)

Decision
Case ID	202429490
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hackney
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 April 2026

Background

In early 2024, we determined the resident’s complaint, which included his concerns about damp and mould. In October 2024 the resident told the landlord that issues had not been fully resolved. The landlord later attended to inspect issues and complete further work. The resident subsequently told it of his concerns about the installation of a radiator and operative conduct.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. damp and mould.
2. a radiator installation.
3. operative conduct and damage to his carpet.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
2. the complaint.
We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. a radiator installation.
2. operative conduct and damage to his carpet.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s ongoing concerns about damp and mould. It subsequently delayed installing the extractor fan and did not maintain records to show all attempts it made to book this work.

Radiator installation

The landlord did not appropriately make the resident aware of the change in where it was positioning the radiator prior to completing work.

Operative conduct and damage to the resident’s carpet

The landlord did not provide the resident with a full response to his concerns that his carpet was damaged during work. It did not appropriately direct him on how to make a claim to its insurer.

Complaint handling

The landlord delayed raising a new complaint for the resident. It did not communicate with him to let him know its stage 1 complaint response was delayed

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £620, made up as follows: £420 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of the resident concerns about a radiator installation. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about operative conduct and damage to his carpet. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 26 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of his ongoing damp and mould concerns. It must offer to consider evidence he has compiled of damp and mould issues. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:  inspects the property for damp and mould and identifies the underlying cause or what further investigation should be conducted to identify the underlying cause and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the continued issues with damp and mould whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve damp and mould whether the provision of Awaab’s law applies to the findings a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the damp and mould (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 09 June 2026
4	The landlord must contact the resident again to offer to rebook kitchen extractor installation.	No later than 26 May 2026
5	The landlord must provide the resident with details of how he can make a claim through its insurer.	No later than 26 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
02 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord of ongoing water ingress issues.
8 October 2024	The landlord told the resident that it could not log the matter as a complaint as the issues raised related to his earlier complaint. It said it would link the matter with his previous complaint so his queries could be addressed promptly.
13 January 2025	The resident contacted the landlord again. He said he had not heard from it and his flat continued to deteriorate. He said he was experiencing water ingress to his kitchen and living room.
15 January 2025	The landlord told the resident it had raise a new complaint for him. It said it had previously made a “judgment call” that the matter should be considered a follow-on of his previous complaint.
11 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It noted the resident said that issues had not been fully resolved following repairs in January/February 2024. It said that it had inspected the resident’s concerns and had found issues to be caused by condensation. It set out work it had raised, including upgrading the kitchen extractor fan and to install a new radiator. The landlord awarded the resident £150 as repairs completed previously had not fully resolved issues.
17 February 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said that the extractor had not been installed as the engineer who attended did not know what type to use. He raised concerns about where the radiator had been installed, the conduct of operatives and damage to his carpet.
23 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said its inspection had found issues to be due to condensation. It apologised for the delay installing the kitchen extractor. It said its contractor had tried to reattend but had been unable to contact the resident. It apologised for the conduct of operatives and said it had provided feedback. It said the position it had initially intended to install the radiator was unsuitable. It awarded further compensation to the resident of £170. This was for the delay installing the kitchen extractor and for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He remains concerns that damp is due to external issues. He said he wanted the landlord to complete an investigation and repairs to address the source of the issue. He also wanted appropriate compensation for the time, distress and inconvenience he had experienced.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

Our scheme rules state that we may not investigate complaints that have already been determined by us or another ombudsman. We issued a decision in January 2024 that covered the resident’s concerns about damp and mould up to that date. For this reason, we will consider ongoing concerns the resident raised since January 2024.

What we have investigated

The resident contacted the landlord on 2 October 2024 about his ongoing concerns of water ingress. The landlord’s damp and mould action plan from December 2022 set out its aim to inspect all reports of damp and mould within 5 working days of them being reported. It aims to respond to normal repairs within 21 working days. It told the resident on 8 October 2024 that it would address his ongoing repair concerns. But there is no evidence it took any action.
When the resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2025, he said he had heard nothing from it. It was only after logging a new complaint for him on 15 January 2025 that it acted to raise an inspection. It attended to inspect issues on 21 January 2025. But that was 76 working days after he had made contact. It delayed acting to inspect the resident’s ongoing concern. Its response fell well outside target timescales for damp and mould and routine repairs.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord awarded the resident £150. It said this was because repairs he initially reported had not been resolved the “first time”, so he had needed to report them again. But the landlord should also have explicitly acknowledged that it had delayed addressing the resident’s report in October 2024, that issues had returned.
The landlord’s inspection of January 2025 found that issues of damp were not due to water ingress but caused by condensation. The surveyor detailed advice provided to the resident on ways to manage the humidity level and internal environment. This included keeping trickle vents open. They recommended an upgrade to the kitchen extractor fan and arranged work to remove minor mould and to make good decorations. The surveyor also recommended that the landlord consider fitting radiators to the kitchen and bathroom.
The landlord set out in its stage 1 complaint response that work had been scheduled for 6 and 17 February 2025. However, repair records do not show this work. That was a record keeping failing. The landlord should have maintained clear records of all work raised and completed. Doing so would allow it to fully demonstrate all action it had taken to address the repair report.
When the resident escalated his complaint on 17 February 2025, he told the landlord that work to install the kitchen extractor fan was still outstanding. He said the operative who had attended did not know which type to install. The landlord apologised for the delay when it provided its stage 2 complaint response. The £170 award it made to the resident in recognition of this and the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to him was appropriate.
The landlord said it cancelled the extractor fan installation in July 2025 after several unsuccessful attempts to book an appointment with the resident. Records show the contractor reported unsuccessful contact attempts in March 2025 and that it had spoken with the resident in April 2025. It said then that it would contact the resident again to book an appointment. But there is no evidence of any further attempts to rebook the work. The landlord failed to keep clear records of its efforts before cancelling the work. We have ordered it to contact the resident again to offer to rebook the installation.
We acknowledge the resident remains concerned that there may be contributing external factors. He recently provided us with photographs and details of weather conditions which he believes may show issues are related to rainfall. The landlord’s surveyor previously identified issues were due to condensation. We have seen no evidence it has identified any external cause of issues. But it would be appropriate for the landlord to inspect the resident’s ongoing concerns and review evidence he has compiled. We have ordered that it contact to the resident to do so and considered any appropriate action under its damp and mould and repairs procedures. In any event any new reports of damp and mould may be covered by the new provisions of Awaab Law.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. Its award of £320 went some way towards recognising the impact of its failings. However, we have identified further failings. We have ordered that it make a further award to the resident of £100. This, together with the amount already awarded, is in line with the range set out in our compensation guidance for failings which have not had a permanent impact.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a radiator installation
Finding	Service failure

In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord set out work it booked for 17 February 2025 to install a radiator in the resident’s kitchen. The resident subsequently told it in his escalation request of his concern about the position it installed this radiator. It set out information it had obtained from its gas team – that the wall originally proposed was not suitable for a radiator as it was plywood. It said it had installed it to the next feasible position. The landlord also said that no other property in the block has a radiator in the kitchen or bathroom as there was “no adequate space” for this.
The resident said in his escalation request that the radiator had been placed where a fridge was supposed to go. The resident and the landlord both said there was no fridge in position at the time. But regardless of this, the landlord should have discussed the change in installation position with the resident. Doing so would have ensured that it was not installing the radiator to a place he intended to use for something else.
The landlord later removed the radiator on 30 July 2025 at the resident’s request. This additional work, and the associated inconvenience to the resident, could have been avoided had the landlord discussed the installation position with him beforehand. Overall, we have found service failure by the landlord. We have also ordered that it pay him £50 for the impact of failings we have identified. This is in line with our compensation guidance which suggests awards in this range for minor failings.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about operative conduct and damage to his carpet
Finding	Service failure

The resident told the landlord of his concerns that operatives from the gas team who attended to install a radiator in his kitchen had worn shoes on his carpet. The landlord’s code of conduct for all employees sets out standard of conduct it expects.
The landlord explained that operatives needed to wear shoes when carrying out repairs and that offering to use bin bags to protect the carpet was an appropriate solution. It acknowledged the resident’s concern about hearing operatives make jokes about this and apologised. It also confirmed that feedback had been provided to the gas team regarding appropriate conduct. This was appropriate.
The landlord noted in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident said his carpet had been damaged during work. It said it had discussed this with its gas supervisor and would update the resident by 8 April 2025. There is no evidence it did so. As a result, the resident’s concern about damage to his carpet was left without a full response. We have identified a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about operative conduct and damage to his carpet.
In its response to us, the landlord acknowledged that it should have directed the resident to make a claim through its insurance services. We have ordered that it now provide him with details of how he can do so. We have also ordered that it pay the resident £50 for the impact of failings we have identified. This is in line with the range set out in our compensation guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how the landlord should respond to complaints. We have found that the landlord’s complaints policy was in line with the Code in respect of timescales and definition of a complaint,
The resident complained to the landlord about ongoing repair issues on 2 October 2024. It declined to raise this as a new complaint on the basis that this was a continuation of his earlier complaint. The landlord should reasonably have clarified his concerns to understand whether the matter should be addressed as a new complaint. It should have done so particularly after he told it on 8 October 2024 of his concerns that it was not treating the matter as a new complaint. Further, there is no evidence it took appropriate action to address his repair concern in any other way.
The landlord only considered raising a new complaint when he made contact again questioning why he had not heard anything about repairs. By failing to obtain sufficient information before declining to log the complaint, the landlord missed an early opportunity to resolve the issues. Its actions were contrary to the Code. While the landlord appropriately apologised on 15 January 2025, it should also have considered compensation in line with its own guidance.
The landlord logged a new complaint on 15 January 2025. But its stage 1 response was issued 19 working days later – outside its complaints policy timescales. While the landlord recorded an internal extension, it did not inform the resident. Despite the delay being short, it should have communicated this especially given earlier delays. The stage 2 response was provided on time.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident of £100 in recognition of the impact of failings we have identified. This award is in line with the range set out in our compensation guidance.

Learning

The landlord should obtain sufficient information and clarification to ensure it does not wrongly decline to log new complaints.
The landlord should be clear with residents about the position of new radiators to avoid unnecessary further work and inconvenience.
The landlord should ensure reports of damaged possessions are fully considered and that residents are directed to its insurer where appropriate.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not maintain records showing when all repairs were raised/completed. It should do so to help it monitor repairs and to allow it to demonstrate steps it has taken in response to repair reports.

Communication

The landlord should communicate with residents when complaint responses are delayed.