London Borough of Hackney (202004917)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004917

London Borough of Hackney

4 April 2023

 

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
  1. The resident’s request for compensation following the flooding of her property.
  2. Related repairs to the resident’s property.
  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord.
  2. The property is a two-bedroom flat located on the third floor of a new build block.
  3. The resident’s property flooded on 8 December 2018. A water supply pipe came apart at a joint inside the property causing this flooding. The landlord placed the resident in temporary accommodation until 1 March 2019 when the landlord completed repairs to her property. The resident believed the landlord was at fault for the flood and entered a property damage and personal injury claim against the landlord with its insurer. The landlord’s insurer rejected this claim on 2 October 2019.
  4. The resident contacted this Service on 23 August 2020 to make a complaint about her landlord. This was after finding correspondence that she believed showed the landlord was at fault for the flood and asking the landlord’s insurer to consider this. She also said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her request for compensation. This Service then wrote to the landlord on 20 September 2020 asking it to log and acknowledge her complaint within five working days and issue her stage one complaint response within ten working days. There were delays in the landlord providing this. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 17 June 2021. In their stage one response the landlord rejected the resident’s complaint stating it believed the flood was unforeseeable.
  5. The resident then asked this Service to escalate her complaint on 7 October 2021. Following discussions between the landlord and this Service, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two on 30 November 2021. The landlord provided the resident with its stage two response on 3 March 2022. This again rejected the resident’s complaint and stated it would not reimburse the resident for belongings damaged by the flood, or the actions of its contractors.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 4 April 2022 to confirm she was still unhappy with the landlord’s responses and would like to escalate her complaint. She stated the landlord has not resolved her issues, that she believed the landlord was aware of defects that led to the flood, and that the landlord’s contractors had further damaged her belongings. She also said throughout the complaints process she felt the landlord had not addressed her complaint correctly. To resolve her complaint the resident has stated she would like the landlord to reimburse her for the damaged items, alongside compensation for the time, trouble and distress caused by the leak. Following a discussion with this Service the landlord has offered the resident a compensatory payment of £600, for the time, trouble and frustration caused by the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has made a claim to the landlord’s insurer for property damage and personal injury. Under paragraph 41 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service is unable to consider complaints that “concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme”. As the landlord’s insurer is not a member of the scheme, this Service would not be able to consider its actions as part of this complaint

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following the flooding of her property

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 there is ‘implied a covenant by the lessor…to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity’. The flood took place inside the property because of an issue with the cold-water supply pipe. This means that responsibility for this fitting would be the landlords.
  2. The resident has provided a letter sent to her from the developer of the property on 2 February 2018. This letter states it has “recently encountered some difficulties caused by leaks emanating from the mechanical installations for various reasons within the dwellings and as a precautionary measure…would like to request the opportunity to re-inspect” the property. The resident feels this made the landlord aware of the defect that caused the flooding. The landlord has stated it was not aware of this letter.
  3. The legal precedent in this situation holds that the letter sent to the property would not be sufficient to give the landlord notice of this defect. Although other residents in the block may have had leaks in the past, there had not been any previous leaks or issues in the resident’s flat. To say this letter made the landlord aware of the defect it would need to specify the positioning or exact type of the defect that led to the flood. This letter is not therefore enough to alert the landlord of its need to inspect the property or perform repairs.
  4. The resident also provided this Service with a letter from 31 July 2018 from the landlord which says it will be performing inspections due to the end of the Defects Rectification Period. This also asks the resident to note any defects she believes exist in the property. There’s no indication from this letter that the landlord was aware of the specific defect that led to the flood, or reasonably should have been.
  5. The resident’s tenancy agreement states “we are not responsible for loss or damage to your belongings”. In the landlord’s sign-up process, it also encourages residents to take out contents insurance to protect their belongings in the event of unforeseen damages. However, this also states “this condition does not affect your right to claim compensation from us if the loss or damage was caused by the negligence of us or anyone acting for us”.
  6. The landlord should therefore have directed the resident towards its insurer to make a claim for these damages. The landlord has done this.
  7. The landlord has told this Service that the resident remains able to contact the insurer with any new evidence and attempt to make her insurance claim again. This is fair from the landlord.
  8. Overall, the landlord has treated the resident fairly in this situation. There is therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property

  1. The resident raised further issues with the actions of contractors when completing repairs to her property. She feels that their actions caused additional damage. The resident has mentioned contractors damaged a cot, wardrobes, a hoover and a lock on a window. The resident also felt the contractors’ failure to secure the property correctly led to belongings disappearing from her house. She also suggested that the landlord failed to thoroughly inspect the property following these works. This left behind dust and an exposed Stanley blade.
  2. Following a cyber-attack, some of the landlord’s files related to this complaint are no longer accessible. This Service has confirmed this. The landlord has been unable to provide reports concerning the works undertaken or confirm if they inspected the property after the works. Without this evidence, it is difficult for this Service to be able to fully investigate the actions of the contractors undertaking this work.
  3. The resident mentioned that her belongings went missing because of the actions of the contractors. These items included money and trainers. The resident referred this matter to the police. In this instance, there is no evidence the contractor’s left the property unlocked or that their actions led to the resident’s items going missing.
  4. The resident has been able to provide us with photographs in support of her allegations. Having considered these, this Service believes these, without additional supporting evidence, are not sufficient to be able to determine any damage to the resident’s belongings or to demonstrate the landlord’s service failure.
  5. The landlord dealt with the repair in accordance with its immediate repair timescale. This is set out on its website.
  6. Overall, there is not enough evidence to say that the landlord and its contractors have caused additional damage when performing the repairs to the property. Nor that it failed in its duties to keep the resident’s belongings secure or to inspect the property following repairs.

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

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will reply to a complaint in writing within ten working days. If the landlord does not think this is possible it will inform a resident of the need for an extension, usually within five working days of logging the complaint. If a resident is not satisfied with the landlord’s response, they can request an escalation to stage two of the complaints process. The landlord aims to respond to this complaint within twenty working days.
  2. After the landlord registered the complaint, it contacted this Service to ask how to manage this due to its insurer rejecting the resident’s claim. It also advised that at the same time it was dealing with a query from the mayor regarding this issue. On 17 March 2021, this Service advised the landlord of the need to manage this in accordance with its usual complaint procedure and asked it to provide its stage one response to the resident within ten working days. This is in accordance with both the landlord’s policies and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord failed to provide this until 17 June 2021 despite multiple emails from this Service on behalf of the resident. This failure created additional distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  3. The resident informed the landlord of her desire to escalate the complaint on 30 November 2021. The landlord again failed to comply with its complaints policy, failing to provide the resident with its stage two response for over three months. The landlord provided this to the resident on 3 March 2022. This was a service failure on behalf of the landlord and contributed to further distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  4. The content and tone of the landlord’s responses was fair.
  5. The landlord has failed to comply with its own policies in its handling of both the stage one and stage two complaint. These combined failures amount to over five months’ worth of delays for the resident. Following discussions with this Service the landlord has offered the resident £600 for the time, trouble and frustration caused to the resident by the complaints process.
  6. This offer amounts to reasonable redress for the landlord’s failings. It is recommended that the Landlord reoffer this amount to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following the flooding of her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress made by the landlord following the Ombudsman’s intervention in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £600 compensation it discussed with this Service on 27 April 2023.
  2. The landlord should ensure all relevant staff are aware of the Complaint Handling Code.