Hackney Council (202213194)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213194

Hackney Council

10 August 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bedroom window.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 22 March 2022. She stated that there was a hole in her bedroom window frame and that rainwater was seeping through the walls. The resident reported that this had caused extensive water damage and mould on the bedroom wall. The resident stated that she had first raised the issue in May 2021.
  3. The stage one response was issued on 14 April 2022. The landlord stated that the work to repair the leak was initially delayed due to a Section 20 consultation and that once the works had been approved, scaffolding was erected. The landlord stated that further delays had been caused due to the contractor having a backlog of work. The landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation for the time and trouble that the issue had caused. In respect of the damage to the inside of the property, the landlord advised the resident to make a claim on the buildings insurance policy.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint to stage two on 22 April 2022. She stated that the complaint had not been resolved and that she had not been provided with a timeframe for when the work will commence. The stage two response was issued on 27 May 2022. The landlord found that there were a number of unreasonable delays in completing the repair, and that contradictory information had been provided to the resident about the repair. The landlord advised that it would award additional compensation once the work had been completed so that any further delays could be compensated for. The landlord also said that because the issue with the window was known before the resident became a leaseholder, a claim against the building insurance was unlikely to be accepted. The landlord advised that the resident could raise a liability claim for damage caused to her home.
  5. The resident contacted this service on 2 November 2022 and stated that no progress had been made since she received the stage two response. She said that the window continued to leak which was causing further damage inside the property.
  6. The landlord wrote to this service on 13 April 2023 and advised that the repair remained unresolved. It stated that an appointment had been arranged for 18 April 2023 for the window to be measured and that it would take approximately four weeks for the window to be manufactured. The landlord stated that it would offer the resident a total of £1350 compensation. This was made up of £850 (inclusive of the £100 offered at stage one) for the avoidable delays experienced and £500 in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident in pursuing the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bedroom window

  1. The resident’s lease states that the landlord is obligated to keep in good and substantial repair all exterior walls and windows in the block.
  2. No evidence has been provided to this service to reflect the initial concern raised by the resident. However, the landlord and the resident agreed that the issue was first reported in May 2021.The complaint responses indicate that an operative attended on 7 June 2021 and the cause of the leak was identified as being a problem with the guttering. It appears that the window was not assessed at this stage. Scaffolding was erected so that work could be carried out on the roof however, this was later removed without any work being carried out.
  3. An operative attended the property on 31 January 2022 to assess the window frame. Within her complaint, the resident said the operative informed her that a surveyor would need to review the extent of the damage and make a recommendation for the required work. The resident said that following this visit, she contacted the landlord twice to request an update. On both occasions she was informed that the operative had not entered his notes onto the system, so the work could not yet be progressed.
  4. It is important that clear, accurate and timely records are made so that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, and so that any outstanding repairs can be progressed and monitored. No evidence has been provided to this service to reflect that records were made of the operative’s visit on 31 January 2022. This indicates a record keeping failure.
  5. It appears that no action was taken to progress the repairs in the months between the operative’s 31 January 2022 visit and the stage one response. While it is accepted that delays in progressing repairs may occur, the reasons for such delays should be well documented and communicated to the resident. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident as to the progress of the repair during this period.
  6. The landlord’s stage one response dated 13 April 2022 stated that the contractor was waiting for a date on which the works would begin. Given that almost a year had passed since the resident had first raised the issue, it would have been best practice for realistic timescales to have been provided to the resident with the complaint outcome.
  7. After the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord communicated with the contractor who advised that the works order had been closed down on 10 May 2022. Call notes dated 18 and 19 May 2022 indicate that the contractor informed the landlord that there was access issues with a neighbouring property and the job had therefore been cancelled. A further call note dated 24 May 2022 reflects that the contractor stated the information previously given to the landlord about access issues was incorrect, and that an appointment had been booked to attend the resident’s property on 6 June 2022. It is unclear to what extent the incorrect information about access issues led to the overall delay in the work being progressed.
  8. The stage two response notified the resident that an appointment had been made for 6 June 2022 so that measurements of the window could be takenwith a view to it being replaced. The landlord’s call log reflects that the resident contacted the landlord on 5 August 2022 and advised that the contractor had attended her property on 30 May 2022, a week earlier than scheduled. She said that the contractor informed her that the window needed to be replaced and that an estimate would be submitted to the landlord for approval. The resident stated that she had not heard anything since. Internal emails reflect that the landlord requested an update and it was established that an estimate had been received on 18 July 2022 and a works order had been raised on 28 July 2022.
  9. The landlord requested updates from the contractor between September 2022 and November 2022 regarding a start date for the work. No evidence has been provided to reflect that the contractor responded to these emails to give an estimated timeframe. In December 2022 the contractor informed the landlord that it was arranging another survey, which the landlord questioned the necessity of. The contractor later advised that it was awaiting an estimate from a sub-contractor. Given that a contractor had previously attended the property in May 2022 and established that the window needed to be replaced, it is unclear why the delays in progressing the work continued.
  10. There is no evidence to suggest that any action was taken to progress the repair between December 2022 and April 2023. On 6 April 2023, the landlord requested an update from the contractor and stated that it had not heard anything since December when the contractor had advised it was awaiting estimates from the sub-contractor. No evidence has been provided to indicate that the landlord requested updates from the contractor during this period. The landlord ought to have taken a proactive approach during this time to communicate with the contractor.
  11. On 13 April 2023, the landlord informed this service that it had since received a quote from the contractor to replace the window. However, the landlord stated that this quote had initially been supplied on 2 December 2022 but no action was taken to authorise the request or to request further quotes. This indicates a clear failing by the landlord which led to further unreasonable delays in resolving the issue. The landlord has not addressed how this failing occurred, or what action will be taken to prevent this from occurring again in future.
  12. On 13 July 2023, the landlord informed this Service that the repair to the window remained outstanding. The landlord stated that it had been unable to gain access to a neighbour’s property and that access was required in order for the window to be replaced. It is unclear what efforts have been made to gain access to the neighbour’s property to date.
  13. The landlord has not completed the work set out within its final complaint response, and the resident’s expectation of when the repairs would take place have therefore not been met. Over two years have elapsed since the resident first reported the issue. This reflects a clear failing by the landlord to expedite the repair in a reasonable timeframe. The delays appear to have been on the part of both the landlord and the contractor, and there were periods of time when the resident was not regularly updated as to the progress of the repair. There is no evidence to suggest that consideration was given to the possibility of completing an interim repair in order to potentially reduce the damage caused to the inside of the property. Taking these factors into account, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bedroom window.
  14. The protracted and unreasonable delays in resolving the issue are likely to have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. She has incurred considerable time and trouble in pursuing the matter due to the landlord’s inconsistent communication about the repair. The lack of clarity given to the resident regarding accurate timeframes for completing the repair would have been particularly frustrating. The repair remains outstanding and so the impact on the resident is ongoing.
  15. The resident has been further impacted due to the damp and mould caused to the inside of the property, the severity of which the resident says has worsened over time. When a resident reports that damage has been caused to their property, a landlord should initially give consideration to whether there is any evidence that it has been at fault for any damage before it refers residents to an insurer. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord gave any initial consideration to whether it was at fault for the damage caused. Furthermore, the landlord incorrectly advised the resident about what type of claim she should make at stage one. This indicates a further failing in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damage to the inside of her property.
  16. Although the resident is not currently living in the property and is therefore not directly affected by the mould in the bedroom, it is acknowledged that she has been adversely affected due to needing to undertake her own repairs which cannot be arranged until the window frame has been replaced. It is also noted that she has been required to spend time pursing an insurance claim.
  17. The landlord acknowledged that there has been unreasonable delays in repairing the window, and also identified that it failed to authorise a quote for the works that was submitted in December 2022. It informed this Service on 13 April 2023 that it would offer the resident £1350 compensation.
  18. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  19. The landlord has made some attempt to put things right by offering compensation. However, given that the repair has still not been completed and no timeframe has been given for when this will take place, the compensation offered is not proportionate to the impact of the ongoing delay in resolving the issue.
  20. An additional compensation amount of £600 should be offered to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused by the protracted delay in resolving the issue. Taking into account the fact that over two years after the landlord became aware of the matter it has still not resolved it, an order is made below for a total of £1950 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts over £1000 are suitable to remedy serious failings by a landlord which have had a long term impact.
  21. In its stage two response the landlord stated that the complaint findings would be reported to senior managers, as well as to the contract managers so that the findings could be discussed with the contractors. This reflects that some efforts have been made to prevent a similar situation occurring again. However, it is unclear whether any actions were taken as a result of this escalation. Given the ongoing delays that have occurred since the stage two response, the landlord should take further steps to learn from the complaint outcomes in order to improve its service and avoid a similar recurrence.

Complaint handling

  1. The stage one response stated that it would offer the resident an increased level compensation once the repair had been completed. Approximately 11 months later, the landlord informed this service that it intended to offer the resident £1350. Although the compensation offer indicates that the landlord has attempted to take steps to remedy the complaint, any such remedies should be identified and offered as part of the initial complaint handling process. A finding of maladministration has therefore been identified due to failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled repairs to the resident’s bedroom window.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1950 compensation, inclusive of the £1350 already offered. The compensation compromises:

 a. £1000 for the avoidable delays in repairing the window, inclusive of the £850 already offered.

 b. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident associated  with the delay in completing the repair, inclusive of the £500 already offered.

 c. £100 for the failings associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.

d. £50 for failings associated with the insurance claim.

  1. The landlord should produce a plan for carrying out the work to the window, including a realistic timeframe for completion (which should then be adhered to). A copy of this report should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman.
  2. The landlord should review how it handled the matter following the stage two response dated 27 May 2022. This should include a review of its failure to authorise the quote provided by the contractor in December 2022. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of the review, setting out any lessons learned as a result of the complaint outcome.
  3. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this service within 28 days of this report.