Hackney Council (202119031)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119031

Hackney Council

18 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of leaks into the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property, who rents the property to a tenant. The landlord is a local authority. For clarity, the leaseholder will be referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report.
In January 2020 the resident and her tenant reported a leak into the property. In her complaint to the landlord the resident said this was on 14 January, however, the landlord later explained it had no record of a leak report until 24 January. The landlord’s operatives attended on the day, and stated the leak was containable. On 27 January 2020, the landlord attended several other properties located in the building in connection to the leak. It stated the leak was badly affecting the resident’s property. It made safe the electrics in any properties being impacted by the leak, including the resident’s. Between 28 and 29 January the landlord’s operatives located the source of the leak in a communal pipe located behind the wall of a neighbouring property. It completed works to remedy it. Its operatives noted that tenants might experience dripping from the leak for a further three days.
On 31 January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the living room ceiling had collapsed. Due to the time of day the landlord advised her to contact its out of hours service who would attend to make safe. The landlord’s notes state that the property was empty at the time, and that the resident said she would call the out of hours team the next morning. The landlord’s operatives attended on 1 February to make safe any electrics, and 11 February 2020 to make safe the ceiling.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 March 2021. She was dissatisfied with the lack of service from the landlord following her tenant’s initial reports, and stated that the leak continued after this. She stated that the electrics had to be disconnected to make them safe, and that she had to place her tenant in a hotel which had caused distress and inconvenience for the tenant, and impacted her financially. She added that she was dissatisfied with the length of time it took the landlord to trace the leak, which she said had resulted in the ceiling collapsing and the property being unsafe. She felt that if the landlord had addressed the leak at an earlier point, the property would not have deteriorated so fast. She said that due to the landlord’s actions she had lost a tenant, and was seeking compensation for the cost of repairs and decorating the property. She stated that she had delayed raising a complaint because she wanted to wait until the insurance team had restored the property, which had taken over a year.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord provided its stage one response. It stated that due to the time that had passed it could no longer make use of some records (such as call recordings). Nonetheless, based on what records it did have, it stated that its operatives had attended to and resolved the leak and the ceiling appropriately following the reports. It apologised to the resident for the extensive delay with its complaint response, and explained that this was due to a cyber-attack it had experienced and which had affected its IT systems. It offered the resident £300 compensation for the time and trouble she spent chasing the complaint due to the delay. It confirmed that its insurance had already restored the property.
The resident contacted this Service on 12 September 2022, as she was dissatisfied with the delays in the landlord issuing its complaint response, and was seeking further compensation. We asked the landlord to provide a stage two complaint response.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 21 September 2022. It stated that it had missed the resident’s initial complaint escalation requests due to a high workload demand, and apologised for this. It informed the resident that it had provided feedback about the delay to senior managers, and would provide further staff training. The landlord added that the resident was able to submit a claim for any damaged goods and a loss of rent through its liability insurance, who had already been in contact with her. It acknowledged there had been further complaint delays, but felt the £300 compensation previously offered was proportionate.
The resident subsequently escalated her complaint to this Service. She felt that the landlord’s delays had resulted in the ceiling of the property collapsing. She added that the compensation offered was not sufficient, as it did not take into account the damage to personal belongings or the cost of temporarily placing her tenant into a hotel. She sought further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Prior to the resident raising a complaint with the landlord, she submitted a claim with her building insurance, who restored the property following the leak and the ceiling collapse. In addition, she raised an insurance claim with the landlord’s liability insurers following the landlord’s stage two complaint response. The claim was for damaged items, the expenses she incurred relocating her tenant during the leak, and the loss of income. The liability claim was refused by the insurers, as it did not find that the landlord had been negligent.
As the resident had explained to the landlord that she felt it was liable for the damages and the ceiling collapse, it was appropriate for it to refer her to its liability insurers. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the landlord’s insurer and therefore we cannot comment further on the insurance process or the outcome of any insurance claim. Therefore, this report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports of the leak and the complaint, and whether the repairs it completed, and the information it provided were appropriate in the circumstances.
It should also be noted that the Ombudsman does not consider claims of lost income or income related expenses. A request for actual lost earnings would require assessment of liability and a claim to insurers or the courts. It would be outside both the complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s remit.

Policies and Procedures

The resident’s lease states that the landlord is responsible for repairing communal areas, including pipes, and the leaseholder (the resident) is responsible for repairing and maintaining the property internally.
The landlord’s repairs policy lists the following timeframes and definitions for repairs:
1. Immediate: two hours (an example is a water leak that cannot be contained).
2. Emergency: 24 hours (urgent work to prevent immediate danger to property).
3. Urgent: five working days (where work does not cause danger to anyone, but needs to be put right to prevent inconvenience and keep property in a reasonable condition).
4. Normal: 21 working days.
The landlord’s repairs policy also states that an emergency repairs service is available outside of normal office hours, including during weekends and bank holidays. It states that out-of-hours repairs are for immediate and emergency repairs only, and will be limited to making the issue safe, where it will return at a later date during normal working hours to complete the repair.

Reports of a leak impacting the resident’s property

As per the landlord’s obligations, it is responsible for repairing any pipes within the communal area of the building. Therefore, following the leak being reported, the landlord was obliged to attend the building, assess the leak, and complete any necessary works to remedy it within the appropriate timeframes listed in its repairs policy.
As the landlord had raised the repair as ‘emergency’ works, it would have been appropriate for the works to be completed within 24 hours, as per the repair definitions above. In this case, the leak was initially reported on 24 January 2020, and was ultimately remedied on 29 January 2020. This was a total of three working days, and therefore exceeded the landlord’s timeframe for an emergency repair.
However, it should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve some issues, such as leaks, as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. Accordingly, going over the published time frame does not automatically indicate service failure.
Following the reports on 24 January 2020, the landlord acted appropriately by raising works to assess the leak. Its operatives attended on the same day to make safe the leak, and informed the landlord it was containable. Although the operatives had not fully resolved the leak on this date, it was appropriate for it to be made safe, and this was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states that out-of-hours works will normally be limited to making safe an issue, with works being completed when working hours resume.
It was also reasonable that further works were raised on 27 January 2020, as this was the first Monday after the weekend, and, as per the landlord’s repairs policy, weekends are classed as non-working hours. The landlord acted appropriately by attending within 24 hours, and completing works to make safe the electrics in all of the properties which had been impacted by the leak. In addition, it communicated with any tenants of the building who had been impacted by the leak, or who would be impacted by the works it needed to complete in order to trace and remedy it. This is evidence that the landlord was effectively managing the expectations of the tenants in the building, and the landlord has provided evidence to show that it had also communicated with the resident’s tenant during this time.
Between 28 January 2020 and 29 January 2020, the landlord continued to try and trace the leak in the property. It was ultimately traced to a communal pipe behind the kitchen wall of a neighbouring property, and was resolved on 29 January 2020. Although it had taken the landlord three calendar days to fully remedy the leak, this was not unreasonable when considering that it had attended on each day to try and trace the leak before it was ultimately located. The landlord had taken action which was in line with its repairs policy, and shows that it was taking the issue seriously and was trying to resolve it in a prompt manner.
However, following the leak being resolved on 29 January 2020, the resident reported that the ceiling in her property had collapsed. At the time of the report, the landlord informed her that she would need to report the issue to its out-of-hours team so that it could raise the works and make safe the ceiling. The landlord has provided evidence to show that this was raised on 11 February 2020, with the ceiling being made safe on the same day. Nothing in the evidence indicates when the resident contacted the out of hours service to report the ceiling collapse, so it is not possible to determine how prompt the landlord’s response was.
It should be noted that, at times throughout this case, there was a lack of evidence which impacted on the landlord’s ability to properly consider the complaint, and similarly on this investigation. The landlord has stated that this is due to the length of time between the leak taking place in January 2020, and the resident raising a complaint in March 2021. The resident has stated that there was a delay as she was waiting for insurers to restore her property prior to raising a complaint.
While this Service does not dispute the resident’s reasoning, paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that complaints must be raised with landlords within a reasonable period of the events being complained about, which is usually considered to be six months. The reason for this is that, as time passes, memories of events can become clouded, and records of events and communication can be lost. Although the Ombudsman has applied discretion in this instance to investigate the complaint, the findings we can make are impacted by the length of time that has passed.
Nevertheless, the evidence which is available shows that the landlord attended to each report within the appropriate timeframes listed within its repairs policy and had communicated with tenants throughout the repairs process to ensure that their expectations had been managed effectively. A landlord would usually be expected to consider providing compensation for repairs and damage of personal items if the evidence indicates its actions, or inaction, were in some way caused the damage. In this case, no such evidence has been seen in regard to the landlord’s responses to the leak.

The associated complaint

There is no dispute that the landlord’s first complaint response was extremely delayed. In this case, the landlord’s circumstances of the cyber-attack in October 2020 dramatically impacted on all of its functions and services over a lengthy period of time. The delay, therefore, while understandably frustrating and distressing for the resident, was arguably unavoidable.
The landlord’s complaint response to the resident’s escalated complaint was also delayed, although not to the extent of its first response.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging that its service had been less than it should have, and that the delay in it provided a response had impacted the resident. It acted appropriately by explaining how the delays had occurred, apologising to the resident, and offering the resident £300 compensation.
The compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, for circumstances where there has been a lengthy delay and the need for chasing by a resident, but where there has been no permanent or long term impact. Taken together, the remedies it offered for its complaint handling were proportionate and appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into her property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its complaint handling delays satisfactorily.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should now arrange with the resident to pay the £300 it previously offered. This compensation was partly the basis for our decision.