London Borough of Hackney (202435231)

Decision
Case ID	202435231
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hackney
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	5 January 2026

Background

1. The resident reported repairs to her windows in January 2024. She also reported repairs to her property after a leak from the flat above in March 2024. The resident complained about the outstanding repairs to the windows and the property following the leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks and associated repairs.
   2. Reports of repairs to the windows.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of leaks and associated repairs.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the windows.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, we found:
   1. the landlord delayed the repairs after the leaks. It acknowledged and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It identified learning and offered redress that was sufficient to put right the impact on the resident.
   2. the landlord delayed repairs to the windows and did not keep the resident updated. It acknowledged service failures, identified learning, and offered redress that was sufficient to put right the impact on the resident.
   3. the landlord did not comply with the timescales in its complaint procedure. It apologised for the delay but did not offer any redress or identify any learning to prevent a recurrence.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 for the likely frustration and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 02 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £960 offered in its final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the windows and leaks is made on the basis this is paid.
The landlord should contact the resident to explain the delay in the window installation. It should provide an installation date, monitor the progress, and keep the resident updated until the windows have been replaced.
The landlord should inspect the property for any outstanding repairs following the leaks. It should confirm to the resident what repairs it will complete and provide a timetable of work. The landlord should post inspect the work to ensure it’s been done to an acceptable standard.
The landlord should consider offering further compensation to reflect the likely frustration and inconvenience to the resident because of the additional delays. This should reflect the time from the date of the final complaint response to the date all the outstanding work is completed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 September 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: the windows were rotten, and the glass was loose. She said repairs and an inspection had been completed but she had not received an update since the inspection. she reported a leak from the flat above that damaged her property, flooring and personal belongings. She said the landlord had not completed all the repairs.
19 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed: it had repaired and inspected the windows and had assigned the repairs to a contractor who would inspect the windows on 22 October 2024. it had raised repairs after the leak, but these were delayed due to an active leak from the flat above. a painter had attended but plastering work was needed first. It said work was delayed again due to an active leak from the flat above. it resolved the leak on 28 August 2024. It said a plasterer would attend on 1 October 2024 and a painter on 9 October 2024. it was offering £130 for the delays in raising the repairs, and £150 for the frustration, time and trouble. The landlord apologised to the resident. the resident should make a claim through her own insurance provider. It provided details of its own insurance team if she felt the landlord was liable for the damage.
4 November 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: the leak had not been resolved, and her neighbour was not allowing access so it could be rectified. she was concerned for his wellbeing and wanted a move if the landlord could not guarantee the leaks would stop.
13 December 2024	The landlord issued its final complaint response. It confirmed: it repaired the windows on 25 January 2024, but it did not complete the follow-on work until 22 April 2024. it inspected the windows in June 2024, but the surveyor took 3 months to submit the inspection report and recommendations. it had asked a contractor to assess the windows for renewal. it attended to the leak when it was reported, it inspected the property and requested painting repairs. It said it delayed the repairs as it was believed there was still a leak from the flat above.  it resolved the leak on 28 August 2024 and arranged follow on work for 1 and 9 October 2024. it responded to a further suspected leak in October 2024, but the neighbour above refused access. The landlord said it would continue to investigate, and a plumber would attend the resident’s property on 16 December 2024. there was record keeping failures, the landlord raised repairs under the wrong codes, poor customer service and poor communication. it increased its compensation offer to £500 for distress and inconvenience, £200 for the failure to use the correct codes and not adhering to policy, and £260 for avoidable delays in raising repairs and the delays in having the windows repaired.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the repairs were still outstanding.

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	Reports of leaks and associated repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The resident reported a dripping leak from the flat above on 7 March 2024. The landlord attended as an immediate priority as the leak had affected the electrics. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy which states it would attend an immediate repairs within 2 hours. The resident reported a further leak on 9 March 2024, and a joiner and electrician attended the same day. This was in line with the repairs policy, but there are no notes to confirm what action was taken. This is a record keeping failure and the lack of records meant it is not clear if follow-up repairs were needed.
8. The landlord inspected the property on 4 April 2024. The landlord identified painting repairs, but these were not raised for another 16 working days. There was no communication with the resident to advise her of the delays. The landlord attended and recorded the visit as no access, but the repair notes state a ladder was needed to complete the work, thus making the record inaccurate. This was a further record-keeping failure.
9. The landlord attended on 13 June 2024 to complete the painting work, but it recorded the visit as no access. This contradicted the landlord’s complaint response which stated the resident declined the work as she believed there was still a leak. The landlord requested a plumber, but the records suggest it did not request this until 27 August 2024, 2 months later. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s repair policy for an emergency, urgent or normal repair. The landlord returned on 20 June 2024 to complete the painting. The landlord recorded the repairs as completed.
10. The resident reported cracks in the living room ceiling and chipping in the plastering on 6 August 2024. The landlord inspected the property on 27 August 2024. This was reasonable, however it could not proceed as there was a leak from the flat above. The leak was resolved on 28 August 2024, and the landlord inspected the resident’s home the same day. The landlord scheduled a plasterer for 1 October 2024 and a painter for 9 October 2024 to complete the remedial work. The landlord scheduled the appointments to suit the resident’s availability. This was reasonable.
11. The landlord completed the remedial work, however the resident reported a wet patch and a dripping noise on 14 October 2024. The landlord attended the flat above on 25 October 2024 but stated the neighbour would not allow access. The resident reported the issue again on 18 November 2024. The landlord raised an emergency repair for a plumber to attend the flat above. The landlord’s evidence does not confirm if it gained access, if a leak was found, or what action it took. This is a record keeping failure.
12. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it confirmed the reports made and the repairs and inspections completed. The landlord confirmed a plumber would visit the resident on 16 December 2024 following its investigation into the suspected leak from the flat above. The landlord highlighted record keeping failures and its failure to raise orders using the correct priority codes which it acknowledged led to avoidable delays. It apologised for the delays and advised it had fed back learning regarding the use of the correct codes and to submit reports within a week of an inspection.
13. The landlord offered compensation for the failures, but it did not confirm what portion of this related to the leak and repairs element. As there was no permanent impact on the resident, we consider it would be reasonable for half of the total compensation offer (£480) to be appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused to her. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.
14. The resident told us in December 2025 the repairs to the property were still outstanding. She said the landlord had made 3 attempts to repair the ceiling before pulling it down and putting up new plasterboard. She said she reported the outstanding work, but the landlord said the repairs had been completed. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to inspect the property and arrange for any outstanding work to be completed.

Complaint	Reports of window repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. The resident reported the single glazed, sash windows were rotten, loose, and did not close correctly on 4 January 2024. She said an operative working in the kitchen had nailed the window shut, but a permanent repair was needed. The landlord attended on 25 January 2024 when it eased and adjusted the windows. This was in line with its repair policy which states it would complete a normal repair within 21 working days.
16. The landlord noted follow on work was needed but there is no evidence it raised this work until the resident chased it for an update on 12 February 2024. The order was raised on 12 March 2024, 33 working days after the landlord first attended. The delays led to the resident spending time and effort chasing the landlord for updates. The delays and lack of communication to the resident was not reasonable.
17. The landlord completed the follow-on work on 22 April 2024, 61 working days after the first visit. This was not in line with its repair policy which states it would complete normal repairs within 21 working days. The resident contacted the landlord after the appointment and said the windows were still shaking. The landlord attended again on 15 May 2024, but the operative reported no work was required. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 June 2024 and asked for a surveyor to inspect the windows. The landlord arranged the inspection for 24 June 2024. This was reasonable.
18. A surveyor inspected the windows and identified the repairs that were needed. The surveyor submitted the report 3 months later which meant there was a delay in assigning the repairs to the contractor. This was not reasonable and prolonged the completion of the repairs. This is likely to have caused further frustration for the resident who submitted a complaint due to the lack of progress.
19. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, in which it confirmed the actions taken from January 2024. It acknowledged the delay in the surveyor submitting the inspection report led to delays in the work being assigned to a contractor. It confirmed a contractor would inspect the windows on 22 October 2024. The landlord offered £130 compensation for the delays, and £150 for the time and trouble caused to the resident. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy for a failure that had no permanent impact but had adversely affected the resident. The landlord did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence of the service failure highlighted.
20. A contractor inspected the property on 9 October 2024 and submitted a quote for the renewal of the windows. The landlord rejected the quote on 28 October 2024. It said it had not asked for the windows to be replaced. The landlord completed a further inspection on 18 November 2024. There is no evidence of the outcome of this inspection, or any communication to the resident. This led to her spending time and effort chasing the landlord for updates. This was a record keeping and communication failure by the landlord.
21. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 December 2024, in which it confirmed the history of the repairs and inspections completed. It confirmed a contractor would assess the windows for renewal on 19 December 2024. This was reasonable and provided the resident with a clear update as to what the next steps were. The landlord highlighted several service failures that contributed to the overall delays in the repairs. These included repairs being raised to a code that should not be used, delays in raising repairs, poor customer service and poor communication.
22. The landlord apologised to the resident and confirmed it had raised its investigation findings with senior managers to address and learn from the service failures identified. The landlord increased its total compensation offer to £960, however it did not confirm what portion of this related to the windows element. Again, as there was no permanent impact on the resident, we consider it would be reasonable for remaining compensation of £480 of the total offered to be appropriate for the inconvenience to the resident. This was in line with its compensation policy for a failure that had no permanent impact on the resident but did have an adverse effect on the resident.
23. In summary, the landlord delayed the repairs to the windows. There was also evidence of poor communication which led to time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord did however identify these service failures, it identified learning to prevent a recurrence, and it offered redress that was appropriate. Furthermore, the redress offered was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there has been a significant impact physically or emotionally on the resident. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.
24. The resident told us in December 2025 the landlord had still not replaced the windows. She said a contractor measured the windows in June 2025 and told her they would take 3 months to manufacture. The resident said she has not received any further updates and said she was concerned about the safety as she was on the ground floor. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to explain the delays and to provide a date for the windows to be installed.

Complaint	The associated complaint
Finding	Service failure

25. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 September 2024. The landlord’s complaint procedure does not indicate a timescale for acknowledging complaints, but the landlord’s response was in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This states landlord’s should acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days of receipt.
26. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 September 2024, 11 working days after it was received. While this was slightly over its stage 1 complaint response timescale of 10 working days, it is unlikely to have caused any serious detriment to the resident or the outcome of the complaint.
27. The landlord addressed all the issues raised by the resident in her complaint. It provided confirmation of the actions it had taken to date and confirmed the dates for future repairs. The landlord provided appropriate signposting information regarding her making a claim for the damaged belongings, and while it did not divulge any personal information, it confirmed it had contacted the resident’s neighbour following her concerns of his welfare. This was reasonable when considering data protection principles.
28. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 11 November 2024. This was appropriate and in line with the Code. It issued its final response on 13 December 2024, 29 days after it received the request. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s complaint procedure which states it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to explain the delay. This was not in line with the Code or the landlord’s complaint procedure which states it will contact the resident if an extension was needed.
29. The landlord apologised for the delay and explained this was due to key staff not being available to assist with the investigation. While the landlord addressed the issues raised by the resident, it did not offer any redress or highlight any learning to prevent a recurrence of the delays identified.
30. In summary, we find service failure. The landlord did not comply with the Code or its policy in terms of responding in timescale, however the delays were minimal and were unlikely to have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £75 compensation for the likely frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance a landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
32. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord should ensure its records are accurate and reflect the true situation.

Communication

33. We expect landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in communicating the cause of delays to residents, explaining what it intends to do about the delays and identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
34. The landlord’s final complaint response was delayed but it did not communicate this to the resident. The landlord should ensure it contacts the resident as soon as it is aware the response will be delayed. It should provide the resident with an explanation and a revised expected response date. This will help set the resident’s expectations.