From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Hackney (202449791)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449791

London Borough of Hackney

22 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak from the bathroom skylight.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, who is a local authority. She lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette with her husband and 2 children.
  2. The resident’s husband raised the complaint on her behalf. For ease of reference, this report will use ‘the resident’ to refer to both.
  3. On 18 November 2022, the resident reported a leak from the bathroom skylight to the landlord.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 25 November 2022. She said the leak was uncontainable and her family could not use the bathroom. She explained that the leak damaged the floor and sat close to the light fittings, which created an electrical hazard. She also said she had reported the issue for 6 years, but the landlord had taken no action.
  5. On 5 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It confirmed it had arranged for a contractor to attend the resident’s home that day. It accepted that the resident had reported a similar leak in 2021 and explained that the problem happened because the outlets on the roof (holes designed to let rainwater flow off) were very small and became blocked. This caused water to pool on the roof and then leak into the property. The landlord said that it could not review earlier repair records because of a cyber-attack in 2020.
  6. The resident raised another complaint with the landlord on 22 September 2023. She explained that she had not escalated her earlier complaint because the landlord had assured her the leak would be resolved. She said the landlord had failed to act on her concerns and that she had been without electricity in the bathroom for almost a year. Because the extractor fan relied on electricity, it could not work. With no windows in the bathroom, she felt this created health risks for her household.
  7. On 29 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said its records showed that it had carried out repairs in 2022, but the leak had continued. The landlord confirmed it had arranged for its contractor to inspect the issue again. Once the contractor provided an estimate for the works and the landlord approved it, the contractor would contact the resident to book an appointment for the necessary repairs. The landlord offered the resident £175 compensation for the delays in resolving the issue and £100 for the distress and inconvenience it had caused.
  8. On 20 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said the landlord had still not taken action to fix the reported issues. She explained that she knew quotes had been sent back and fourth between the landlord and contractor, but no work had been approved. In the meantime, she said she had made ‘countless’ calls to both the landlord and its contractor to chase for updates.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 7 March 2024. It apologised for the delay in replying and admitted there had been multiple unreasonable delays in resolving the resident’s concerns. It explained that it had stopped hearing from its contractor 2 months earlier, so it had decided to ask another contractor to complete the repair. The landlord said that it would monitor the repair through to completion and once finished, it would reinstate the electricity in the bathroom and carry out any restorative works needed. It offered the resident £1,715 in compensation. This included £1,000 to reflect the level of fault, £690 for the delays since 2022, and £25 for a missed appointment. It confirmed that this replaced the compensation it had offered in its stage 1 complaint response.
  10. On 7 March 2025, the resident escalated her complaint to our service because she remained dissatisfied with how the landlord had handled her concerns. She said the leak was still active and had spread downstairs, damaging the kitchen ceiling. She also said the landlord’s compensation offer did not fairly reflect the hardship she and her family had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We have expanded the scope of this investigation to include events from November 2022 onwards. At that time, the resident reported the leak and raised a complaint with the landlord. She did not escalate her complaint through the full process until almost a year later, but the landlord was already aware of her concerns from November 2022. The resident continued to report the same issue, and the evidence shows it remained unresolved. By starting the scope in November 2022, we can give a fair and thorough assessment of how the landlord handled a long-running issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the bathroom skylight

  1. The landlord accepted that its handling of the repairs to resolve the leak was poor. It acknowledged that much of the failings were due to unreasonable delays and awarded compensation for the period between November 2022 and March 2024 to reflect these failings. When a landlord admits to failings, our role is to consider whether the redress offered was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. Before concluding the complaints process, the landlord should have considered the practical impact of the leak on the household. Shortly after the resident’s report in November 2022, the landlord arranged for an electrician to disconnect the electricity in the bathroom for safety reasons. This left the household without lighting or ventilation for the full 16-month period covered by the complaint response.
  3. We have seen no evidence that the landlord assessed these circumstances or considered whether the bathroom remained safe and suitable for normal use. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure homes are free from hazards that could make them unfit to live in, so taking account of these issues was essential. In not taking this step, the landlord could not have known whether the bathroom met the required standard. As a result, the redress it offered through the complaints process did not fairly take account of the household’s circumstances and increased the level of inconvenience and distress experienced.
  4. By the time the landlord issued its final complaint response, the repair itself remained unresolved. This meant the household was still without a fully usable bathroom beyond the 16-month period covered, and therefore, compensation for distress and inconvenience alone could not put things right. Putting things right would have required the landlord to either complete the repair or provide practical measures to lessen the impact of the leak until the work was done.
  5. Such measures could have included temporary lighting, ventilation, or alternative accommodation. These may have helped to reduce the inconvenience and acted as a form of redress in themselves. There is no evidence the landlord explored or offered any of these options. Its failure to do so, meant the resident was left to manage without support, which increased the distress and showed that the landlord’s redress did not meet the principle of putting things right.
  6. In addition, the landlord did not show that it considered the potential consequences of leaving the bathroom without ventilation for such an extended period. This was especially important because the room had no window to provide natural ventilation. Government expectations set through the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) outline the standards landlords are expected to work towards when managing their properties. The system focuses on identifying and minimising potential health hazards, and highlights inadequate ventilation as a potential hazard, as it can contribute to damp and mould growth. The landlord did not consider these risks, meaning it missed another opportunity to take full account of the household’s circumstances and demonstrate it was managing the property in line with expected standards.
  7. The landlord should have also reflected on the underlying cause of the leak and demonstrated how it would prevent a repeat of the problem. The records show it had identified as early as 2022 that the roof outlets were very small, became blocked easily, which led to leaks through the skylight. Its contractor confirmed in January 2023 that it was unblocking the outlets on a regular basis, and further flushes were carried out in October and December 2023. Its contractor assessed the problem again in May 2024 and reached the same conclusion about the cause.
  8. This meant the landlord had almost 2 years of repeat actions and consistent evidence pointing to the same underlying issue, but it was not until May 2024 that a works order was raised to carry out roof works and fit a new outlet. This pattern demonstrated that the landlord did not learn from earlier reports or adapt its approach.
  9. The landlord’s records show it considered the leak resolved on 3 September 2024. As this was 6 months after the complaints process had ended, it should have contacted the resident directly or sent a follow-up response to explain what works had been completed. It should have also arranged a post-inspection to satisfy itself and the resident that the repair was effective and that the bathroom was safe and usable. This would have been consistent with its stage 2 commitment to monitor the works through to completion and would have helped the resident to understand the final position.
  10. This was particularly important because records show that only a few weeks later, on 30 September 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say the leak was still active, that she was still waiting for repairs to be completed, and that she still had no electricity in the bathroom. The landlord’s failure to follow-up, demonstrated poor oversight and a lack of assurance that the leak had been properly resolved. This left the resident in ongoing uncertainty, prolonged disruption, and increased the distress already caused.
  11. Finally, when referring to the landlord’s repair records in this case, it was often unclear what inspections, outcomes, or works had taken place over the 2-year period. Entries were frequently marked only as ‘completed’ or lacked meaningful detail. Comprehensive records allow landlords to understand the issue, explain actions taken, and assess whether those actions were effective. If we cannot determine from the records what work was done, it is likely the landlord also lacked that understanding. These gaps undermined the landlord’s ability to learn from outcomes and provide a clear and fair response to the resident.
  12. Overall, we find severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. The landlord’s redress fell short of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, as well as its legal obligations and government guidance. Its failings were serious and prolonged, with no mitigating measures offered. Repairs focused on short-term actions, and the landlord did not learn from outcomes or keep clear records. In addition, the main issue of a leak remained unresolved at the end of the complaints process.
  13. The landlord must complete a full survey of the resident’s property to identify the source/s of the leaks in the bathroom. It should consider the resident’s report that the leak has spread to the kitchen, and it should assess whether the bathroom is safe and suitable to use. Given the longstanding nature of the issue, the landlord should consider having an independent specialist complete this survey.
  14. The landlord must also meet with the resident in person to discuss the survey findings and confirm what temporary measures (if any) will be put in place to lessen the impact of the situation until it is fully resolved. This meeting must be held by a senior member of staff at director level. Following this meeting, the landlord must produce an action plan that sets out:
    1. The repairs required to address the source of the leak and any other identified issues in the property
    2. Clear timescales for completing each stage of works
    3. A named senior member of staff who will oversee the outstanding repairs through to completion, and who the resident can contact directly during this period
    4. Any temporary measures that will be put in place to lessen the impact of the situation until the issue is fully resolved
  15. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined severe maladministration by a landlord which has had a significant long-term impact on the resident, we may order landlords to pay residents a financial remedy of £1,000 and over, to put things right. Given the prolonged and continuous impact of the failings identified in this report, the landlord must pay the resident £2,325. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused between November 2022 and September 2024, when the landlord completed a meaningful repair.
  16. The landlord must also provide financial redress to reflect the household’s loss of full enjoyment of the home. Between 18 November 2022 (the date of the resident’s first report) and 3 September 2024 (when the landlord completed a meaningful repair), the household had no lighting or ventilation in the bathroom. This lasted 93 weeks. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a 10% amenity loss calculation has been applied.
  17. During this 93-week period the resident was charged rent as follows:
    1. £116.07 per week for 19 weeks between 18 November 2022 and 31 March 2023, totalling £2,205.33. A 10% loss of amenity equates to £220.53
    2. £124.05 per week for 52 weeks between 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, totalling £6,450.60. A 10% loss of amenity equates to £645.06
    3. £132.83 per week for 22 weeks between 1 April 2024 to 3 September 2024, totalling £2,922.26. A 10% loss of amenity equates to £292.23
  18. This results in a total compensation figure of £1,157.82 for loss of amenity.
  19. While this figure cannot fully capture the inconvenience and disruption the resident and her household experienced, it represents a fair and proportionate sum given the circumstances. The loss of use and enjoyment payment is not intended to be a rent refund, or rebate. Rather, rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity.
  20. The landlord must raise a new complaint on behalf of the resident to address events after 3 September 2024. Its stage 1 complaint response must ensure it explains what action it has taken since this date and confirm whether the cause of the reported leak is the same or different. We have not considered compensation past this date because it is not clear whether the resident’s reports relate to the same underlying issue or a new one, and it would be unfair to make a technical judgement without supporting evidence. However, if further failings are identified, the landlord must also award compensation to reflect any distress and inconvenience caused to the household.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 workings days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s November 2022 stage 1 complaint within 7 working days of receipt, and to her September 2023 stage 1 complaint within 6 working days. This was within its policy timescales and demonstrated a prompt approach at the first stage.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response within 34 working days, which exceeded its 20-working day timescale. Although it apologised for the delay, it gave no explanation for why the response was late or offered any redress for the additional inconvenience caused. This was particularly important given the ongoing delays to complete repairs, which was already causing frustration for the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, available on our website, requires landlords to tell residents the reason for a delay in advance and give a clear timescale for when they can expect a response. This helps manage expectations and avoids residents feeling their concerns are being overlooked.
  5. Given the landlord’s delay in issuing its stage 2 response, its failure to explain the reason for the delay, and the absence of any redress for the inconvenience caused, we find service failure in its complaint handling.
  6. Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, where we have determined service failure by a landlord that may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, we may order landlords to pay residents a financial remedy of £50 to £100, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £100 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to respond to her complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the bathroom skylight.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this investigation. The apology should be made by a senior member of staff at director level or above. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available to view on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £3,582,82 compensation, consisting of:
      1. £2,325 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused between November 2022 and September 2024
      2. £1,157.82 for loss of amenity between November 2022 and September 2024
      3. £100 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to respond to her complaint
  2. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £1,715 compensation, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.
  3. The landlord must complete a full survey of the resident’s property to identify the source/s of the leaks in the bathroom. It should consider the resident’s report that the leak has spread to the kitchen, and it should assess whether the bathroom is safe and suitable to use. Given the longstanding nature of the issue, the landlord should consider having an independent specialist complete this survey.
  4. The landlord must also meet with the resident in person to discuss the survey findings and confirm what temporary measures (if any) will be put in place to lessen the impact of the situation until it is fully resolved. This meeting must be held by a senior member of staff at director level. Following this meeting, the landlord must provide the resident with a copy of the survey and then produce an action plan that sets out:
    1. The repairs required to address the source of the leak and any other identified issues in the property
    2. Clear timescales for completing each stage of works
    3. A named senior member of staff who will oversee the outstanding repairs through to completion, and who the resident can contact directly during this period
    4. Any temporary measures that will be put in place to lessen the impact of the situation until the issue is fully resolved
  5. The landlord must raise a new complaint on behalf of the resident to address events after 3 September 2024. Its stage 1 complaint response must ensure it explains what action it has taken since this date and confirm whether the cause of the reported leak is the same or different. We have not considered compensation past this date because it is not clear whether the resident’s reports relate to the same underlying issue or a new one, and it would be unfair to make a technical judgement without supporting evidence. However, if further failings are identified, the landlord must also award compensation to reflect any distress and inconvenience caused to the household.
  6. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.