London Borough of Hackney (202309724)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309724

London Borough of Hackney

30 August 2024

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 concerns the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reporting of repairs to the property including the wet room.
2. Complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a three-bedroom flat situated on the ground floor of a multi-storey building. The tenancy commenced on 8 July 2019. In addition to the resident, the resident’s mother, her niece and her daughter also live at the property.
The landlord has stated that it has noted the resident to be vulnerable and that she has epilepsy, kidney disease and Graves disease. The resident has also been recorded as having breathing issues.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 10 May 2022 noted the resident had contacted it to raise concerns about damp and mould in her wet room. In addition to this the resident had also raised concerns about holes in the property, from which rats were entering the property. The resident wanted the issues investigated. A further email sent by the landlord to its pest infestation team on the same day also noted that, in addition to the rat infestation the resident, also had an infestation of black ants with wings.
The landlord’s internal email from 11 May 2022 shows that an appointment had been booked for 16 May 2022 for the rat issue. The email confirmed that the pest control team did not treat black ants.
The pest infestation team attended the property on 16 May 2022. Following the visit it confirmed there was a hole in the utility room where the rats were entering which needed to be filled up to stop access.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 30 May 2022. This had been in response to the resident having raised the issue of the rat infestation as well as a request for the wet room to be converted back to a bathroom as she suffered from fits and she had fallen down repeatedly in the wet room. Following the visit the landlord raised work orders. This included the pest control team to attend the property in relation to the rats, as well as renewing the wet room.
The pest control team attended the property on 30 May 2022. Following the visit it sent the landlord an email on 31 May 2022 in which it set out that urgent repairs were needed. A job was scheduled for a plasterer to attend on 14 June 2022 to fill in the hole where the rats were entering the utility room.
The landlord’s internal notes from 8 July 2022 show that a further work order was raised. This was in relation to the pump in the wet room which was not working correctly. This meant that no water was exiting the room.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 19 January 2023 to complain. She explained:
1. A surveyor had attended the property during the past year. She believed it was around 30 May 2022. She added the surveyor had taken photos and promised to help her. This was in respect of the mould and the smell in the flat.
2. However, despite providing her email to him, she had not heard back from him or the housing team. She set out the mould was now spreading everywhere.
3. She had followed the advice she was given which was that she needed to keep the window open all the time.
4. When she had moved into the property it had been in a terrible state. She had pointed out this out every time someone from the landlord had attended for a repair. This was now affecting the bathroom including the vinyl flooring in it. As well as the shower being in a terrible state, water was now leaking into it.
The landlord sent its contractor an email on 23 January 2023 asking for an update on the work which had been requested following the surveyor’s visit seven months earlier. It sent the contractor a chaser email on the issue the following day.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 25 January 2023 in which it explained it had attempted without success to contact the resident after the surveyor’s visit. It added that it could not proceed with the works until it had received a response from the resident. It provided the landlord with details of the attempts it had made between 5 August 2022 and 25 November 2022.
The landlord emailed the contractor on 26 January 2023 to explain that the contact number the contractor had provided for the resident was different to the one it had recorded on its system. Following an email from the contractor on 27 January 2023 which set out that the contact number it held for the resident was still not being answered, the landlord sent the contractor the number it held for the resident and asked the contractor to contact her.
The landlord emailed the contractor on 30 January 2023 to ask if the resident had been contacted as yet and whether an appointment had been booked. It sent the contractor a further email about the matter the following day.
Following the contractor having got in touch with the resident, it contacted the landlord to explain that she was disputing the work which had been proposed for the property. This was in respect of the rainwater pipe which the surveyor had referred to in his recommendations. The contractor explained the resident had stated there was no issue with the rainwater pipe but rather it was the bathroom pipe which was a concern. The landlord replied on 2 February 2023 that, whilst the resident may not be aware of what work had been proposed, the surveyor had attended and set out the works which being proposed. It set out the surveyor’s recommendation and emailed the surveyor to check with him about his recommendations and whether any further work was needed.
The surveyor emailed the landlord on 2 February 2023 to explain that whilst he would look for his surveying tablet in which he had noted down the work, he stood by the recommendations he had made at the time. The surveyor confirmed on 7 February 2023 that, having located his surveying tablet, the works had been sent to the contractor back in May 2022.
The landlord emailed the contractor on 9 February 2023. It explained “this urgent job was sent over back In May 2022”. It added it understood there had been issues with contacting the resident, however it had since provided the contractor with a correct contact number. It added that the surveyor had confirmed the job description that was completed at the time of the visit was correct, and that there were no additional works which were required.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 February 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £200 compensation. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of what this amount was for. It explained:
1. It understood the resident’s complaint concerned the lack of update on the repairs since the surveyor had attended on 30 May 2022.
2. Following the surveyor visit the contractor had attempted to contact the resident to arrange an appointment. However it had been unable to get through using the details it had. The landlord said the contractors had been using another contact number for the property and it had now provided a different number and asked it to get in touch with the resident. The contractor had since contacted the resident on 31 January 2023 and discussed the outstanding work, which had been confirmed by its surveyor.
3. It would continue to monitor the repairs through to completion however it provided the surveyor’s contact number as well as that of the contractor for updates.
The landlord exchanged emails with the on 17 February 2023. It asked the contractor to provide it with an update and for it to arrange an appointment to attend as soon as possible. The contractor replied to say that, whilst the job had been raised by it, it had noted the job against the wrong property. As a result the contractor had visited the neighbouring property instead of the correct one. It added it had now resent the correct information to its team to book in an appointment.
The landlord emailed both the surveyor and the contractor on 17 February 2023. It explained that the resident was unhappy with the stage 1 response, in particular with the works which had been recommended and had stated:
1. The surveyor had informed her of other works which needed to be done during the site visit in May 2022.
2. She had been informed the jobs the landlord would be carrying out would be:
  1. Painting the kitchen.
  2. The double-glazed window in the wet room.
  3. Extractor fan.
  4. Renewing the wet room.
  5. Removing and closing the rest of balcony old rain pipe.
  6. Something to do with the floor but not certain where.
  7. Something with holes but the resident was not sure of what this was.
3. The resident explained that in 2021 she had, via a different contractor, double glazing installed throughout the property including the bathroom/wet room which had an extractor fan. The resident added she had an issue with the fan whilst the work was being carried out which she had reported. This related to it not working which she had reported, however no one had ever attended.
4. Plumbers who had attended the property had informed her that the floor needed to be “torn off and replaced with a new one”. She added this had also applied to the hard-running pump. The resident added the old floor was peeling off from the edges and, as the pump did not work correctly, the high humidity had caused an ant infestation each year, as well as an odour from the standing water under the floor. There was also the formation of mould in the room, as well as the other rooms in property.
5. There had been discussions with the surveyor in May 2022 about inserting a small tub into the wet room and replacing the main sewer pipe.
6. She wanted someone to come and measure the humidity in the property as it smelt musty from the date she had moved in.
The contractor emailed the landlord as well as the surveyor on 27 February 2023. It asked the surveyor to liaise with the resident and advise it how he wished them to proceed.
The landlord emailed the contractor on 13 March 2023. It asked if an appointment had been made as yet and asked the contractor to confirm the work which was due to be carried out.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 16 March 2023. It explained that it was unable to progress the work until the surveyor had confirmed to it how he wished the contractor to proceed. This was because the resident had been in dispute with the landlord over the works the surveyor had specified.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 20 March 2023. It explained:
1. It had contacted the surveyor who had confirmed that he had not authorised the additional work which the resident had requested.
2. It understood the resident had been offered an apology and compensation at stage 1 which was to reflect the delay taken in contacting her to carry out the work. It added this was as the contractor had the wrong contact details. It added the contractor had since contacted the resident who disagreed with the proposed works. As a result no work had been carried out. It confirmed the compensation offer was still available to the resident.
3. Since the surveyor had not changed his opinion or varied the original work order, it asked the resident to contact the contractor to have the work carried out.
The resident called the landlord on 31 March 2023 following receiving the stage 2 letter. The landlord explained that as it had completed the end of its internal complaints process that the resident had the option to take the matter to the Ombudsman. The resident explained:
1. She wanted a new floor but she understood from the landlord that this was up to the surveyor.
2. The flat was “old and nasty” and she had been forced to sign the tenancy “or go onto the street”.
3. She wanted a bath in the property (instead of the wet room).

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

The resident emailed the Ombudsman in February 2024. She explained:
1. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response she had spoken to the landlord. It had informed her directly that the surveyor had not wanted to do anything with respect to the mould in the wet room.
2. Ever since moving into the property she had been informed to open the windows wide and to ventilate the property. The property had a musty strong gas type smell which she had been informed by one of the landlord’s operatives was from the mould hidden under the plasterboard. The smell had impacted on her health conditions causing more frequent pain and accidents at home.
3. The resident’s daughter had constant nasal congestion and she suffered from respiratory infections due to the smell and the mould.
4. Due to the high humidity, mould grew in each of the rooms. This included the window frames and the walls. She added she removed the mould with bleach or a special mould removal liquid.
5. She was forced to wash her child in a baby bathtub. There was a lack of space in the wet-room and she had hit her head on the edge of the tiles. Whilst she understood the wet room was suitable for people with wheelchairs, it was not suitable for her as an epileptic.
6. There were issues with the shower and the bathroom floor which was swollen.
7. She was experiencing an ant infestation each year. The ants were coming out from the bathroom through the pump and working their way throughout the property. Whilst she had tried ant powder this had not worked.
8. The floors in the property were starting to rot.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident in her communication with both the landlord and the Ombudsman raised concerns about the state of the property at the time that she moved into it in 2019. She explained she was given no choice about the property and the alternative would have been she had nowhere to live. The resident has also raised concerns following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process concerning the health concerns both she and her daughter have experienced which she attributes to the state of the property. The resident has also raised concerns about the state of the floors in the property.
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time or for which the resident has yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. Whilst the resident has explained concerns about the state of the property in 2019 when she moved in, she did not bring an earlier complaint to the Ombudsman. This complaint has therefore not considered events prior to 2022, as the events prior to this time are outside the scope of this investigation.
In terms of the rotten floor and the health concerns experienced by the resident’s daughter, these issues have not been raised with he landlord to date, and it has not had an opportunity to consider them. As a result these issues remain outside the scope of this investigation. However, and in order to support effective dispute resolution, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation in respect of these concerns which is at the end of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of repairs.

The landlord has explained the resident initially contacted it on 10 May 2022 about damp and mould in the wet room as well as holes located in the property. In terms of the holes and the reported rat infestation as well as the resident’s report of concerns with ants, the landlord contacted its pest control team and provided the resident’s contact details. The pest control team had informed the landlord on 11 May 2022 that an appointment had been booked for the rat infestation on 16 May 2022. It also confirmed on this day that it did not treat black ants. The landlord’s initial response to the issues raised by the resident was reasonable as it promptly referred the matter to the pest control team.
Following the pest control team attending on 16 May 2022, they identified the entry point into the property for the rats. Whilst it explained to the landlord that the entry hole needed to be blocked on 17 May 2022 no works were carried out until 14 June 2022, some four weeks later. This was not reasonable as, until the hole had been sealed in the utility room, the access for the rats remained. The pest control team re-attended the property on 30 May 2022 where it had once again observed the entry point and recommended repair works.
The landlord has accepted that following the surveyor having attended to the property on 30 May 2022, he made recommendations in terms of the repairs needed. The surveyor created several works orders to this effect and these were sent to the contractor on 31 May 2022, the day after the surveyor had attended. The resident has disputed the proposed works and has stated that the surveyor had discussed other works with her at the time. This had included a discussion on putting a bath into the wet-room and converting it back into a bathroom.
Whilst the resident has stated the surveyor had discussed other works, part of this has been disputed by the surveyor. The landlord’s internal correspondence does show that the issue of converting the wet room into a bathroom was discussed between the parties. However in terms of the other issues the resident set out in her complaint, the landlord has disputed this. Given the lack of any contemporaneous evidence to support that any discussion on the other repairs set out by the resident, had occurred the Ombudsman is unable to say with reasonable confidence whether or not the surveyor had suggested any other work apart from what was in his recommendations. However, irrespective of what was discussed, as the agreed works were noted on his tablet at the time, it seems reasonable to assume that no other works were agreed, even if they had been discussed.
The landlord has explained to this Service that any discussion of adapting the wet room would need an occupational therapist (OT) report and that the surveyor could not make that decision himself. Whilst the need for an OT report is required in the event of adaptation requests, the landlord’s correspondence does not show whether this was clearly explained to the resident at that time. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord, as it would have been aware from communication from the resident since she had moved in that she had requested the conversion back from the wet room into a bathroom on multiple occasions.
The landlord has accepted that, following passing the details of the work to the contractor on 31 May 2022, there was no contact with the resident until she had raised a complaint in January 2023. It has explained the reason for this was that as the contractor had been using incorrect contact numbers for the resident. Although the contractor has provided evidence of the attempts that it had made to contact the resident from August 2022 up until November 2022, the initial attempt was more than nine weeks after the works had been passed to it from the surveyor. There is no evidence which has been provided to this Service that the contractor had attempted to contact the resident prior to 5 August 2022. This was not appropriate or reasonable especially considering the nature of the works. It suggests that the landlord did not have sufficient oversight of its contractors at this time.
Whilst the landlord apologised for this lack of contact and made an offer of compensation to the resident in its stage 1 response in February 2023, it did not explain why no-one had monitored progress after the works were raised. The contractor’s records of the attempts it had made to contact the resident show that following the second unsuccessful attempt that it had made on 18 August 2022 it had made a request to obtain alternative contact details. It is not clear who the contractor had made that request to. The next attempt to contract the resident had not been until 1 November 2022, some two and a half months after the previous attempt. This was not reasonable and the delay would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, given the resident had stated that the property was experiencing damp and mould and it had spread to more than one room. Ultimately the contractor was acting on behalf of the landlord and therefore the failings in its communications rest with the landlord. Whilst the landlord did make an offer of compensation of £200, this was not proportionate given the nature of the repeated delays and lack of any update. The Ombudsman considers that an award of £400 is appropriate given the circumstances for the delays.
Following the resident having raised her complaint in January 2023 and disputing the nature of the works needed at the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make arrangements for a new survey of the property to be undertaken. This was because the repairs proposed by the landlord had been based on a survey which took place more than seven months earlier in May 2022, and as the resident was disputing the extent of works needed, this would have been an opportunity to get a further opinion based on the current condition of the property. However, instead of doing this, the landlord merely went back to its surveyor to confirm whether he considered the works previously proposed were sufficient. This was a failing by it and a missed opportunity to rebuild its relationship with the resident, by demonstrating that it had listened to her and considered her concerns.
Following the resident having escalated the complaint in February 2023, whilst the landlord encouraged the resident to allow the previously proposed works to be undertaken by the contractor, this was an opportunity again for it to undertake a further inspection to see whether any other works were necessary. Given these repeated failings, which include a failure to effectively monitor contractor performance, failings in communication, and missed opportunities to carry out a further inspection of the property to resolve the dispute about the extent of works needed, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in respect to the landlord’s handling of repairs.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that the landlord operated a two-stage process. At stage one the landlord set out that it would respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 the landlord would respond within 20 working days.
At stage 1 there was 15 working days between the resident’s initial complaint on 19 January 2023 to the landlord’s stage 1 response on 9 February 2023. This was five working days in excess of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
While the delay was not excessive, the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure meant that it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to her concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 17 February 2023. The landlord provided the stage 2 response on 20 March 2023, after 21 working days. Whilst this was one day outside the time limit contained in the landlord’s complaints procedure there was little impact to the resident by this small delay.
The landlord did not apologise at either stage 1 or stage 2 for not adhering to the time limits contained in the complaints procedure, which had an overall impact on the resident in terms of progressing her complaint. As such the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling and has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50 to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of compensation of £450. This offer replaces the offer of £200 made in the landlord’s stage 1 response. If the landlord has already made this payment to the resident it can deduct the £200 from the total award of £450. The award is made up of the following:
  1. £400 in relation to the landlord’s delay in contacting and updating the resident.
  2. £50 in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.
3. Arrange for a new inspection of the resident’s property. This inspection should be carried out by a different surveyor to the party who originally attended the property in May 2022.
4. Provide the resident’s details to an OT, in order for an assessment to be carried out in respect of the resident’s request for adaptations to be made to the wet room.
Within the next eight weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Confirm in writing to both the resident and to this Service the works which it will be carrying out following the new inspection of the property.
2. Review arrangements around contract monitoring with the contractor involved in this case. The landlord should also ensure that it checks the contact details for residents which is provided to its contractor/operative. It should then confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it has taken to ensure that outstanding work with contractors is regularly monitored until completion and that residents are regularly updated.