London Borough of Hackney (202107142)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107142

Hackney Council

14 July 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
The Ombudsman has also identified that the landlord’s complaints handling requires investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. This service has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord’s website notes that it is responsible for repairs to the structure of the building. The website describes uncontrollable leaks as emergency repairs which the landlord will attend to within 24 hours. ‘Normal’ repairs will be attended to within 21 working days.
The tenancy conditions also note that the landlord is responsible for repairing systems in the property for supplying water and keeping those systems in proper working order.
The landlord uses a repair contractor to carry out investigations and subsequent repair works.

Summary of events

Prior to February 2021, the resident experienced a leak into her property which required redecoration works. The landlord’s contractor subsequently initiated these works in or around February 2021, however, these works were left incomplete due to the bathroom walls in the resident’s property remaining damp. Upon postponing these works, the contractor did not provide any updates to the resident as to when they would recommence.
The resident made a formal complaint on 23 February 2021. She noted the above issues she had with the contractors leaving works incomplete and also advised that her bathroom taps were not functioning correctly. In a follow up telephone call with the landlord on 24 February 2021, the resident also advised that the bathroom had a very unpleasant damp smell and that she considered it unusable. The landlord subsequently made arrangements for its contractor to return to the property.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 8 March 2021 and determined that the leak was likely still active given that the bathroom wall remained damp. The landlord subsequently chased up its contractor for their report on the issue. The contractor replied that it was arranging for a leak specialist to attend the property, but that this may take time as access to a neighbour’s property was also required.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 16 March 2021. The landlord advised its contractor was arranging for a specialist to address the leak and that they were currently liaising with her neighbours to gain access. It also reassured her that once the leak was solved it would complete any required remedial works. Regarding its contractors postponing the original remedial works without providing an update, the landlord apologised and offered £25 compensation.
It is evident that the contractor carried out a further inspection at the property on 18 March 2021. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on 25 March 2021 and advised she wished for her complaint to be escalated given that the leak had not been solved and that she considered her bathroom was still unusable due to the smell. She also advised she considered the damp smell to be impacting her health.
On 7 and 9 April 2021, the resident requested further updates, following which the landlord’s surveyor attended on or around 16 April 2021. It is evident, however, that the leak was still not solved and so the landlord reiterated remedial works would be delayed until the leak was solved.
Throughout April 2021, the landlord continued to liaise with its contractor about arranging for the leak specialist to attend. Based on the landlord’s communications shared with this service, the delays to this arrangement appear to have been caused by slow communication between multiple parties rather than specific issues with access.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord also requested that an assessment be made regarding the useability of the bathroom. On the same date, its surveyor reported to the landlord that the bathroom was useable and that the taps were in working order.
The water specialists attended on 28 April 2021, following which it is not evident that any updates were provided to the resident. The resident chased an update on 21 May 2021 and also reported that mushrooms had begun growing in her bathroom due to the ongoing damp.
Around this time, the landlord chased its contractor for an update. The contractor advised that its leak specialist had been unable to solve the leak due to possible asbestos at the neighbouring property. The landlord subsequently contacted its ‘voids team’ and arranged for an asbestos check. Asbestos was subsequently removed on 14 June 2021. It is not evident that the landlord provided any updates to the resident throughout this period.
The resident reported that the leak was ongoing on 24 June 2021 and advised that damage had also been caused to her possessions. She also reiterated she was yet to receive any form of update.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 15 July 2021. The landlord advised that ongoing attempts to address the leak were occurring and it reiterated that it would attend to the remedial works at the resident’s property once the leak was solved. It noted that the resident had suffered loss and advised that it would provide a further response addressing compensation once the leak was solved.
On the same date, the resident reported that there hadn’t been a recurrence of the leak in the past two weeks, but that there had been extensive internal damage caused which was yet to be repaired. She also reiterated she did not consider the bathroom useable due to the smell.
Throughout July and August 2021, the landlord made several queries with its contractor as to when the works would be completed. It is evident that a further inspection occurred in September 2021, following which, the landlord’s surveyor reported that the wall was still wet indicating the leak had not been solved. On 17 September 2021, the resident reported that the ongoing issues were having a detrimental effect on her mental health, and she requested that she be relocated. She also reported that there were now mice and flies at the property due to the ongoing damp.
On the same date, the landlord advised that its pest control team would contact her regarding her reports and that its housing team would also contact her regarding the possibility of moving. It also noted a plumber was due to carry out a further inspection on 6 October 2021.The landlord’s internal communications noted that its surveyor would reinspect the property around this time to determine if a decant was necessary. It is not evident whether this occurred.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 6 October 2021, and on 29 October 2021, confirmed that the leak had now stopped. It subsequently advised it would arrange the necessary remedial works.
The landlord has advised this service that it has continued to keep in contract with the resident but is yet to provide a position on compensation. It has also advised it is unsure if the remedial works to the property have been completed.

Assessment and findings

Leak

The landlord’s repairs policy notes that the landlord will endeavour to complete routine repairs within 21 working days. The timeframe of the landlord’s initial repairs to the leak prior to February 2021 are not the subject of this investigation, and it is not in dispute that the landlord’s contractors began the remedial repairs to the resident’s property in February 2021 within a reasonable timeframe.
The works were subsequently postponed due to the bathroom wall remaining damp. The Ombudsman understands that some delays are reasonable, and the requirement to wait for plaster to dry prior to painting would fall into this category. In such instances, however, the Ombudsman would expect a reasonable level of communication to explain why the works were being delayed, and when the resident might expect them to continue. Having postponed the works, it is not evident that the landlord’s contractor provided any follow up correspondence to the resident about when it would return, leading the resident to make a formal complaint. It is also not evident that the contractor communicated this course of action to the landlord, and a common theme throughout the period of this complaint is a breakdown of communication between various different departments/contractors of the landlord.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord made appropriate arrangements for its contractors to return. The Ombudsman appreciates that it would have caused frustration for the resident that the leak was not solved by the landlord’s earlier repair attempts, however, it should also be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue at the outset. In some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved.
The contractors subsequently identified that the leak was still active. Given they had already made an attempt to rectify the leak, which was unsuccessful, it was appropriate that they determined a specialist leak detector was required to solve the leak.
The landlord’s stage one response appropriately advised the resident it was actively seeking to solve the leak, and also that remedial works would be completed once the leak was solved. The landlord did not, however, provide specific timeframes for these works, which would have been helpful. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s reports regarding her taps or provide a position on whether the bathroom was useable. This would have been frustrating for the resident as she had specifically raised these concerns as part of her complaint.
Regarding the compensation offered by the landlord in its stage one response, while the landlord appropriately recognised that distress and inconvenience had been caused by its contractors postponing the works, it did not include the contractor’s subsequent lack of communication, or the resident’s time and trouble in chasing up the issue in its calculation of compensation. The issue of compensation is discussed further below, however, at this point of the complaint, the Ombudsman views the landlord’s offer of compensation as insufficient to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
This service has been provided with the landlord’s internal communications from this period, and it is evident that there were multiple delays in the contact between the various departments/contractors of the landlord. Throughout the course of the complaint, the Ombudsman notes that a member of the landlord’s complaints handling team diligently chased updates from other teams and liaised with the resident. This staff member was also commendably sympathetic and helpful to the resident when she expressed the effect the ongoing leak was having on her mental health. Despite the efforts of this staff member, however, there were significant delays within the landlord in providing updates and reports following investigations, as well as what the next actions were to be. Additionally, the landlord’s records appear to be unfit for purpose given that it was unable to provide an answer to this service as to whether the remedial works have been completed. A recommendation has therefore been made below that the landlord take steps to review its internal communications and record keeping to ensure they are fit for purpose and do not lead to unreasonable delays.
Given that the leak was ongoing, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for its contractors to carry out a further inspection on the property in March 2021. Following this, the resident made multiple requests for updates, which it is not evident were provided. As noted above, the landlord also made requests to its contractors for updates, but it is also not evident these were provided in a timely manner. Ultimately, the landlord is responsible for ensuring its contractors provide a reasonable service, and its failure to do so caused further frustration for the resident.
When a resident reports that a room in their property is unusable, regardless of whether this is actually the case, the landlord has a responsibility to investigate this report within a reasonable timeframe and satisfy itself that either the room is or isn’t useable. The landlord must then communicate its position to the resident. The resident initially raised concerns that her bathroom was unusable as part of her complaint in February 2021. She then reiterated this concern as part of her escalation request in March 2021. Based on the evidence provided to this service, the landlord did not make an enquiry with its surveyor regarding this issue until 26 April 2021. It evidently did not carry out a reasonable investigation at the stage one level and also took a significant time to make such enquiries following the escalation request. While the landlord’s surveyor subsequently confirmed they considered the bathroom to be useable, it is not evident when, if at all, this position was articulated to the resident.
Following the leak specialist’s inspection there were further delays caused by slow communication. The landlord was eventually informed that asbestos needed to be removed. While this was an unavoidable step, it is not evident that the resident was updated as to what works were required or provided with indicative timeframes to complete the works. It is also evident that the leak was continuing throughout this period, which caused additional distress for the resident.
Following further inspections in September 2021, it is evident the leak had not been solved, and that the resident had continued to report that she did not consider the bathroom to be useable. Once again, the landlord did not provide the resident with any specific updates or timeframes as to when further works would occur.
Following the resident’s request to be decanted, the landlord appropriately informed the her that it’s decant team would contact her, and it made arrangements for her property to be inspected in this regard. It is not evident, however, that such an inspection occurred, and this service has not been provided with any evidence that further communications on this issue were sent to the resident. This would have left the resident unclear on the landlord’s position on a decant, or for her options to be relocated, resulting in further distress.
The landlord’s stage two response also failed to provide specific timeframes for the ongoing works, and also raised the resident’s expectations regarding compensation. The landlord has advised this service, however, that no further communications have been made regarding compensation, contrary to the promises made in its stage two response.
While the landlord’s records indicate the leak was solved in October 2021, as noted above, it has been unable to confirm to this service whether the remedial works were completed. An order has therefore been made below that the landlord contact the resident and make arrangements for any outstanding remedial works.
The resident has raised concerns that the damp has had a negative impact on her health, and that the length the issue has gone on for has had a negative impact on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however, it is beyond the ability of this service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues experienced and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst this service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
In summary, while it may have been reasonable for the landlord to make multiple attempts to solve a leak, and it was reasonable to postpone the remedial works until the leak was solved, the level of communication, failure to respond to elements of the complaint, and the delays between inspections were unreasonable, and amount to maladministration in the circumstances. The landlord had multiple opportunities to provide updates and timeframes for works, but despite multiple requests from the resident, it frequently failed to do so. Its communications with its contractors often had extended periods without reply, all the while with the resident suffering an ongoing leak, and it failed to outline its position on whether the bathroom was useable in a timely manner, if at all. It also failed to provide its promised update on its position regarding compensation.
Given this maladministration, and the impact the landlord’s failures had on the resident, in terms of distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble in repeatedly chasing up the issue, an order for compensation is appropriate. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman orders compensation of £500, being £200 for the landlord’s repeated poor communication, £200 for its inspections failing to occur within urgent timescales without a reasonable explanation, and £100 its failure to address her concerns about the useability of her bathroom and its failure to follow up re compensation.

Complaints handling

As noted above, the landlord has not provided this service with a copy of its complaints procedure. When a resident makes a complaint, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide a complaint response within a reasonable period of time. This period of time would usually be set out in a formal policy, but would otherwise be based upon what was reasonable in the circumstances. Where a response is likely to be delayed beyond what is reasonable, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to communicate this to the resident and provide a reason for the delay, as well as an updated timeframe for it to provide its response.
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 25 March 2021. Following this, the landlord provided its stage two response on 15 July 2021. As noted above, the landlord arranged for further inspections throughout this period, and it would have been reasonable for it to have delayed its formal response until the outcomes of these investigations were known. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to clearly articulate this reasoning for a delay to the formal response, however, it is not evident that the landlord provided any correspondence of this nature.
In the circumstances, in addition to the finding of maladministration for poor communication relating to the works as noted above, a further finding of service failure in relation to the delayed stage two response has been made. An additional £50 compensation is appropriate in the circumstances to reflect the inconvenience this caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

As noted above, while it may have been reasonable for there to have been some delays to the leak being solved, the level of communication, failure to respond to elements of the complaint, and the delays between inspections were unreasonable, and amount to maladministration in the circumstances, for which compensation was appropriate. The landlord had multiple opportunities to provide updates and timeframes for works, but despite multiple requests from the resident, it frequently failed to do so. Its communications with its contractors often had extended periods without reply, all the while with the resident suffering an ongoing leak, and it failed to outline its position on whether the bathroom was useable in a timely manner, if at all. It also failed to provide its promised update on its position regarding compensation.
The landlord also failed to provide its stage two response within a reasonable timeframe, or provide a reasonable explanation as to why this response needed to be delayed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £550, comprising:
1. £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its repeated poor communication and failure to provide timely updates.
2. £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its inspections failing to occur within urgent timescales without a reasonable explanation.
3. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to address her concerns about the useability of her bathroom and its failure to follow up re compensation;
4. £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £25. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and enquire as to whether there are any outstanding remedial works following the issues that were the subject of this complaint. If the resident reports any necessary works, the landlord is to provide an indicative timeframe for these works to be inspected, and subsequently completed.

Recommendations

The landlord to take steps to review and improve its internal communication and communication with its contractors to ensure that arrangements for urgent works are carried out within the necessary timeframes.
The landlord to also take steps to review an improve its repairs record keeping so it can satisfy itself, and ultimately this service, that all the necessary works have been completed.