The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London Borough of Hackney (201914186)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914186

London Borough of Hackney

26 February 2021


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 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 response to reports of a blockage in the resident’s sink.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 4 November 2019 the resident reported a blockage with his kitchen sink to the landlord. A job was raised for the repair to be carried out on 12 November 2019 in the afternoon.
  2. On 12 November 2019 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to carry out the repair, but was unable to gain access. The landlord stated in its final complaint response that the contractor rang the resident’s intercom upon arrival. The landlord has provided evidence of this attendance in the form of a photograph taken by the contractor of the property’s intercom interface. On the same day a new job order was raised for 22 November 2019 in the afternoon.
  3. On 22 November 2019 the landlord’s contractor stated in its records that it attended the property and it was again recorded as a no access. However the landlord’s complaint response notes that because the contractor’s mobile device was not working, a report of attendance but ‘no access’ could not be provided to the landlord.
  4. On the same day, 22 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the contractor had not attended. The landlord advised the resident that a new appointment had been booked for 25 November 2019 in the morning.
  5. On 25 November 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the plumber had not attended. He was advised that the appointment had not been booked in the system due to an administrative error.
  6. On 3 December 2019 the resident raised an official complaint with the landlord, stating that it had missed three scheduled appointments for the repair issue with his blocked kitchen sink. He requested that he be compensated for the paid work that he took off to be at the property for the appointments, on the basis of his hourly rate of work which came to a total of £192.15.
  7. On 4 December 2019 the repair was completed.
  8. On 20 December 2019 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It noted the resident had requested to be compensated for loss of earnings for the three missed appointments, with the total amount requested being £192.15. It set out the series of events with the appointments that were scheduled and missed, before setting out its response:
    1. It sincerely apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused. In line with its compensation policy the resident was entitled to £25 per missed appointment, therefore it was able to offer him £50 compensation for the missed appointments on 22 November 2019 and 25 November 2019.
    2. It noted that because the contractor was able to provide a report along with photographic evidence that it had attended the job on 12 November 2019, it was not offering compensation for this appointment.
  9. On 29 December 2019 the resident requested the complaint be escalated. The landlord replied on 2 January 2020 requesting that the resident follow its procedure for escalating the complaint by setting out the reasons for the request.
  10. On 8 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to ask that his complaint be escalated. He stated that:
    1. He had previously requested a weekend appointment on the basis that he did not want to have to take time off work, but was told this was not available. The appointment time on the afternoon of 12 November 2019 had been agreed on the basis that it would allow the resident to work half a day and therefore be paid for this work.
    2. Whilst acknowledging that the contractor said it had attended the property on 12 November 2019 and that a photograph had been provided as proof, he considered this behaviour strange because the contractor had his phone number and chose not to call him. He had also previously informed the landlord some weeks prior that the intercom was faulty.
    3. He also stated that on 22 November 2020 when he called the landlord at approximately 4pm to check why the contractor had not attended, he was “deliberately mislead” by staff who told him that the contractor wouldn’t be attending that day and that the work had been rescheduled for 25 November 2020.
  11. On 16 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it was not the landlord’s policy to reimburse residents for loss of earnings. It noted that it was prepared to increase its offer of compensation to £75, being £25 for each of the missed appointments.
  12. On 21 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that he was not satisfied with the offer and was still claiming the full amount of £192 for loss of earnings.
  13. On 27 January 2020 the landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident in which it set out the following:
    1. It apologised that the three appointments were missed and for the resulting delay in making good the repair.
    2. It noted again that it did not reimburse loss of earnings but that in addition to the original £75 offered for the missed appointments, it was also offering him £40 for the avoidable delay in the matter bringing the total to £115.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that a blocked sink should be fixed by the landlord within three working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaints procedure sets out a two stage complaint process:
    1. At stage one a complaint will be responded to with an update within five working days and a formal response aiming to be provided within an average of 15 working days. Any amended timeframes will be agreed with the resident and will not be longer than ten working days.
    2. At stage two the landlord will aim to respond within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out that £25 compensation is payable when it is identified that an appointment was missed by the landlord or its contractor.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s complaint is primarily about the three appointments that did not go ahead, for which he considers the landlord to have been at fault. Over the course of the complaint process, the landlord set out its position in regards to each appointment:
    1. The 12 November 2019 appointment: the landlord’s contractor has asserted that it did attend the property on this day, providing a report and photograph of the intercom as proof. Subsequently the landlord initially declined to offer compensation for this appointment.
    2. The 22 November 2019 appointment: the contractor also asserted that it attended on this day. However it acknowledged that the failure of its mobile device prevented it from providing definitive evidence of a ‘No access’ attendance.
    3. The 25 November 2019 appointment: the contractor has acknowledged this appointment was missed due to an administrative error.
  2. The landlord originally offered the resident compensation for the 22 November 2019 and 25 November 2019 appointments, on the basis that the evidence or lack thereof supported a position that it had not attended the property as scheduled. In response to the resident’s complaint escalation request, it ultimately offered compensation for all three missed appointments, being three lots of £25 totalling £75. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s complaint regarding the service failure, as well as the escalation request in which the resident voiced concerns about the contractor’s lack of attempt to contact him at the initial 12 November 2019 appointment. The offer was appropriately calculated in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure.
  3. Additionally, the landlord has acknowledged its failings in terms of the length of time it took to repair the issue following the resident’s initial report on 4 November 2019. Its final complaint response offered additional compensation of £40 to the resident on the basis that it had exceeded the set policy timeframe of three working days for such a repair to be completed by a number of weeks. Considering there was some dispute as to whether all the missed appointments were caused by the landlord, it was an appropriate offer to make in the circumstances. This is because the failings in its repair process went beyond the missed appointments and also encompassed delays in finalising the work when considered against its repairs policy timeframe. This brought the total offer of compensation to £115 for the various failings over the course of the repair process.
  4. The resident has rejected the offer on the basis that it does not fully compensate him for the income he would have made had he not taken time off work to wait for the contractors to attend at the three appointments, none of which ended up going ahead. The landlord has maintained the consistent position that it will not reimburse the resident for loss of earnings as this is not a part of its policy. The Ombudsman’s investigation is primarily concerned with the service provided by the landlord and whether it provided the resident with reasonable redress once the service failure was acknowledged. While the resident has sought a remedy from this Service to compensate him for lost income, unlike the court system we are not set up to establish financial loss in this way. Rather, we consider whether a landlord, once it identifies a failing, has offered appropriate redress. In these circumstances, the landlord has made an appropriate offer of compensation to the resident in line with its compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there as reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about its response to reports of a blockage in the resident’s sink.

Reasons

The time taken to carry out the repair went beyond the timeframes set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, and its contractors failed to attend booked appointments on a number of occasions. Nevertheless, the landlord has recognised these failings, acknowledged them, apologised and offered compensation to the resident. The amount offered was appropriate to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and was calculated in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendation:

  1. That the landlord pay the resident the amount of £115 previously offered as compensation to him within the next four weeks. Confirmation of the payment should be made to this Service.

The finding of reasonable redress is conditional on this compensation being paid.