London Borough of Hackney (202321997)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321997

London Borough of Hackney

31 May 2024 (amended at review)

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 handling of:
1. A leak to the property from the property above the resident.
2. The resident’s reporting of damp and mould.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and has lived at the property since August 1992. The property is a two-bedroom flat situated on the sixth floor of a ten-floor building.
The landlord has explained that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However it has accepted that during the complaints process the resident provided a GP’s letter which confirmed that she had symptoms of wheezing and a worsening cough attributed to the damp and mould for which she was receiving treatment.
The resident called the landlord on 24 July 2023 to explain that she had a leak into her bathroom light fixture and ceiling which was flooding the bathroom. A plumber had attended the property and had gone to the property above her (B), where the water was suspected to be leaking from. The resident explained she was informed that the plumber could not do anything as that neighbour was a leaseholder. She had instead been directed by the plumber to call the repairs service again and to request an electrician who had attended the property and made the electrics safe.
The resident completed an online web complaint for the landlord on 7 August 2023. She explained that, following the initial plumber having visited the property and informing her that the leak was coming from B, her neighbour had informed her that the plumber had been wrong and there was no water coming from their property. A second plumber had attended and pictures had been taken to try to identify the issue. The plumber’s assessment had been sent to the resident who had forwarded pictures to the landlord following a conversation with the landlord on 25 July 2023. The resident added she had then contacted the landlord the following week on 31 July 2023 to explain the leak had not yet stopped. She had been informed she would be contacted yet no one had contacted her to date.
The landlord’s repair logs from 16 August 2023 noted that a job had been referred to the leaks-hub team on 14 August 2023. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it had explained that the leak was still causing water to drip through the floor from B and into the resident’s property. An appointment had been booked for 19 August 2023. The landlord’s internal notes set out that it would inform the leaseholder that it would ask the plumber to trace the leak from the source and the landlord would also ask for a report from the leaseholder’s private plumber.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 August 2023. It offered £130 compensation in relation to service failure. It explained:
1. That on 23 July 2023 an operative from its out of hours (OOH) service as well as an electrician had attended the property following a report from the resident of a leak to the bathroom. The OOH operative had not noted any follow-on investigations to be carried out. The landlord set out that it was the protocol of the OOH service to provide a report following a call out however this had not been followed which had caused a delay in the landlord issuing further instructions.
2. There had been a lack of call notes made by the landlord’s representative when the resident had called it on 25 July 2023 when she had forwarded the picture from the plumber which had further caused delays in addressing the matter. It added it would be following up the matter with the relevant area.
3. If the leak was coming from B then the leaseholder would be responsible for obtaining and providing it with a plumbing report. It added that in order to request the full plumbing report and to co-ordinate the matter further the case had been referred to its leaks-hub department. It provided the resident with the case handler details for the leaks-hub team and confirmed the referral had been given an urgent priority,
4. A further plumbing inspection had been arranged for 19 August 2023.
Following the plumbing inspection taking place on 19 August 2023 at B the operative noted that the leak was coming from the seal around the shower and the bath taps. The leaseholder was advised to act and repair the seals.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 August 2023. She explained:
1. She remained dissatisfied concerning the problems with water still coming into her property via the ceiling. She added she had been informed by her neighbour that they had informed the landlord that water leak works at B had been completed the previous week. Despite this assurance she had still been experiencing leaks to both her bathroom and her toilet ceiling by means of the light fitting. She added that the water in the toilet was dripping down the walls which had left a black mark and the ceiling paper was coming off and this made it difficult for the resident to use the toilet.
2. She had contacted the leaks-hub team on 23 August 2023 about the matter. It had stated that if she was still experiencing a leak in her bathroom it would contact the leaseholder and arrange for one of its operatives to do a post inspection of B “if there is a dispute about completion of the required repairs to stop the leak (as recommended by our Plumber)”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation on 4 September 2023. It stated it would provide its response within an average of 20 working days.
The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that a post inspection of B’s bathroom on 7 September 2023 noted the shower and bath taps had been sealed. This had stopped the leak at that time and this had been visually confirmed in the resident’s property. The landlord had therefore informed the leaseholder that no further work was needed. The leaseholder had informed the landlord that they would be away from the property for a week from 9 September 2023.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 11 September 2023. She explained that whilst there had been no leak on 7 September 2023 it had returned in “drips and drabs” in both her toilet and bathroom the following day. The landlord’s surveyor had been in attendance at the property. The landlord noted the resident wanted the ceiling of the toilet repaired. It explained that it would ask for the surveyor’s report and, if the ceiling had not been included, it would make a request for it to be added. The landlord added that as it was a slow leak it would arrange to call back the resident after a week.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 18 September 2023. She explained the leak in the toilet was still present and, whilst the electrician had attended, they were unable to complete works due to the wires being wet. The resident added that the property smelt of damp and mould and this was impacting her health. The landlord informed the resident that the internal work could not be completed until the leak issue had been resolved.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 18 September 2023 confirmed that the leaseholder had stated that they could give access to their property on 25 September 2023. This visit did not ultimately take place as the leaseholder had COVID-19 and the landlord stated in its internal correspondence on 28 September 2023 that it would contact the leaseholder the following week. It also confirmed that it would let the resident know it had been unable to inspect B at that time. This had followed from the resident previously informing the landlord that she had not been kept up to date about what had been happening.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 28 September 2023. It agreed that:
1. It would liaise with the leaks-hub department to ensure that the operative investigating the leak at B would have “specialist leaks detection equipment”.
2. It would ask the surveyor who had inspected her property, to provide her with a copy of their findings.
3. Whilst it was due to issue the stage 2 response and it would calculate compensation, this would only be up to that time. It added once the matter had been resolved it would revisit the issue.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 28 September 2023. It stated:
1. It was offering a further £220 compensation on top of the £130 which had previously been offered by it.
2. A further investigation into the leak, which it described as a “trickle leak” had been scheduled with the leaseholder for 25 September 2023. However when the “operative attended the appointment they were unable to carry out the inspection due to unforeseen circumstances on behalf of the leaseholder”. It added that it would contact the leaseholder again during the week beginning 2 October 2023 and an appointment would then be arranged for the source of the leak.
3. That “until the leak is fully resolved the internal repairs to address the damp and mould, from the leak, in the toilet could not be carried out”.
4. It would continue to monitor the leak repair until it was completed.
An appointment was made for the landlord’s plumber to attend B on 9 October 2023. The resident was informed that the plumber did not carry specialist leak detection equipment. Following the appointment the leaseholder emailed the landlord to explain that the plumber had noted that the area under the sink and bath was dry. As a result, if the leak downstairs was still occurring, it enquired as to whether the landlord had considered whether the source could be from outside of B.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 10 October 2023 and proposed that someone looked at both properties on 12 October 2023. This had followed from an electrician explaining that the leak to the resident’s property was still occurring and the resident having informed the landlord that there was an issue with her lights which were tripping because of the water ingress.
The inspection took place on 12 October 2023. Following this the operative contacted the landlord explaining that the leaseholder needed to remove a wall to gain access to the pipe work as this had been possibly leaking.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 16 October 2023 to explain that they were looking at getting the issue identified by the inspection sorted as soon as possible. The leaseholder added that their insurers had asked to see a copy of the plumber’s report. As a result they asked the landlord to provide it to them. They also wanted the plumbing supervisor to speak or visit them in terms of a clear understanding of where the hole in their property needed to be to investigate the source of the leak.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 18 October 2023 to follow up on their email of 16 October 2023. A further email was sent by them on 23 October 2023 in which they explained they had received a voicemail from the plumbing supervisor. The leaseholder explained that they were available for the rest of the day.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 October 2023 to update her on the current status. It explained that it had been in touch with the leaseholder concerning the removal of a wall in B to allow the plumber to carry out leak investigations.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 26 October 2023. They explained that their plumber had removed a section of the wall in the hall of the property and identified the source of the leak and tested it with full pressure. The leaseholder offered the landlord the opportunity for its plumber to attend and check. The leaseholder chased the matter on 31 October 2023 as they had not heard back from the landlord by that time and they explained they had a “huge hole” in their hall which they could not fix until an inspection had taken place.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 6 November 2023 from the plumber supervisor confirmed that the leak had been coming from a “plastic push fit fitting which has now been resolved”. As a result it was happy for the leaseholder to reinstate the wall.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 November 2023 about the leak and asking when someone would come round to her flat and do the work. The landlord replied on 7 November 2023 to confirm the leak had been fixed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 November 2023 to apologise for the delay in her responding to it. She confirmed that there was no leak. She set out:
1. That her health which she stated was coughing and asthma had been compromised due to the delay.
2. She had not been informed by the leaks hub team of the outcome and no contact had been made by it. If she had not contacted the complaints department she would not have had any contact from the landlord.
3. Both her toilet and bathroom needed a full overhaul. This extended to the hallway which was connected since “spores could develop in other parts of my Home”. Also the cupboard in the hallway where the pipes were located also needed treatment.
4. The treatment of the damp and mould was “paramount”.
The landlord informed the resident on 13 November 2023 that in terms of the additional areas it needed to undertake a survey at the first stage. Its internal correspondence on that day asked for a surveyor and electrician appointment to be carried out within five days to assess the damp and mould as well as to reinstate the light in the bathroom.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 16 January 2024 explained that following the surveyor having inspected the property the resident had not been happy with the proposed scope of works. It explained that resident had wanted a new bath and toilet and she also wanted to choose the tiles. The surveyor asked the landlord how to proceed.
The landlord and the resident exchanged emails between 17 and 18 January 2024. The resident had been enquiring when the work would be carried out and had enquired about the issue of compensation. The landlord had confirmed that it would revisit the compensation once the work had been carried out. The landlord had asked the resident if she had refused the proposed work as set out in the scope of works. It added that a new bath, toilet and the choosing of tiles would be considered by it to be an improvement and not a repair. The resident had replied to say she had not refused the work but had merely asked the contractor questions about the tiles and had asked what happened if tiles had been dropped in the bath and caused damage. She added the contractor had said he would ask so she did not consider this to be her refusing to have the work carried out. The resident added that she wanted the work carried out as soon as possible.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 February 2024. She set out:
1. She had not been removed from her property whilst the work was carried out (which had been the previous week).
2. Nothing had been offered to her following her GP’s letter concerning her health concerns. This related to a temporary decant.
3. There had been problem followed by another problem. This included a leaking radiator in the bathroom, the toilet sink leaking during the period of the works. These had now been fixed by the contractor.
4. There had been no alternative option to wash or shower whilst the works were being carried out.
5. The water in her shower was now scalding hot. When she had called the emergency number she had been informed this was not an emergency. The water in the kitchen was also too hot.
6. No work had been undertaken in her passage even though the contractor had listed it on their work to be done.
7. The property was full of dust which had not been cleaned. Her asthma meant this was a task she struggled with.
The resident sent the landlord a further email on 27 February 2024. She asked when her new shower would be completed as she had experienced difficulties in showering over the last week. She also enquired about the compensation.
The landlord replied to the resident on 27 February 2024. It set out:
1. No decant had been offered as no request had been made by her to be moved for the duration of work. The contractor had also not been made aware of her health requirement.
2. The issues with her leaking radiator and the leaking toilet sink had been resolved.
3. It had explained to her before the works were carried out that it would take several days and the washing facilities would not be available. The resident had agreed to the works taking place.
4. The contractor attending the property had turned down the thermostat on the boiler even though this had not been adjusted by it whilst carrying out the works. It added if the hot water was still an issue the resident needed to contact the repairs service.
5. No work had been identified by the landlord’s surveyor in the passageway. Instead the landlord had carried out the work identified by the surveyor.
6. Having looked at the photos undertaken following the completion of the works it had been unable to see the dust mentioned by the resident. It added the property had been left clean and tidy following the works.
7. Whilst it noted the resident had requested that her shower was changed it had confirmed that the current shower had not been installed by the landlord but it was rather a private installation. Therefore it would not be replacing it.
8. It had revisited the circumstances of the case and had awarded a total of £1,480 which replaced the offer at stage 2. This comprised £800 for the level of fault in the case, £400 in consideration of her vulnerabilities and £280 for avoidable delay.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Since making her complaint the resident has continued to contact the landlord in relation to several issues. Some of these related directly to the issue of the damp and mould and to the leak from B such as the repairs to the resident’s bathroom and toilet. However the resident has also raised other issues such as her water in the kitchen and shower being too hot and concerns about her shower which she wanted replacing. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint or for which the resident has yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore these issues are outside the scope of this investigation. The Ombudsman has however made a recommendation in relation to these further issues which is set out at the end of this report.

The landlord’s handling of a leak to the property from the property above the resident.

Upon initially being made aware by the resident of the leak into her property on 23 July 2023 the landlord had arranged for one of its out of hours operatives to attend on that day together with an electrician. This was reasonable given the resident had explained that the leak had been coming into her ceiling and into the light fittings and the landlord would be responsible for this type of repair. The landlord’s operative was of the view that the leak had been coming from B. However as the landlord had determined that B was a leasehold property, the leaseholder and not it would be responsible for identifying the source of the leak and the repair. The landlord informed the resident of this and that the leaseholder needed to arrange a private plumber. This was appropriate and the landlord acted reasonably in making the resident aware of this at the outset rather than waiting some considerable time after the issue had been raised.
Following the landlord’s operative having left, the resident informed the landlord that her neighbour disputed that the leak had been coming from B. This had followed a visual inspection of the area where the water was thought to coming from (the neighbour’s bath and shower). Given this assurance together with the photos of the area which the resident had forwarded onto the landlord on 25 July 2023, the landlord should have taken steps to try to identify the source of the leak if it was not coming from B. However the landlord did not do anything at that time. After the resident had called the landlord on 31 July 2023 to explain that the leak was still occurring it had informed her that she would be contacted. However it failed to do this. Whilst the landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the call operative had not taken clear notes on 25 July 2023 it did not comment as to why no one had contacted the resident following her call on 31 July 2023. This was a failing and a missed opportunity by the landlord, and the impact of not contacting the resident would have led to a degree of distress and inconvenience as this delayed the time taken to identify the source of the leak. The leak was also impacting on the resident’s electric supply which would have increased the distress that the resident experienced at the time.
Following the resident’s complaint on 7 August 2023 the landlord took a week to refer the matter to its leaks-hub team. Whilst an appointment was made for a plumber to inspect both the resident’s property and B this was not scheduled until several days later and 12 days since the resident had made her complaint. Given the nature of the resident’s complaint this was not reasonable. The landlord has not explained why it was unable to book a plumber until five days after the matter had been referred to its leaks hub team. The landlord has failed to provide any evidence that the resident was kept updated on the next steps which it was taking at that time. However in inspecting the leaseholder’s property, the landlord had acted reasonably. Whilst it was not its responsibility to identify the cause of the leak from B, given the delays which the resident had experienced, it had acted to try to identify the source.
The inspection from the landlord’s plumber identified an issue with the seals around the shower and bath taps in B. The landlord informed the leaseholder of this matter and the leaseholder confirmed to the landlord several days later that the work to rectify the leak had been completed. As the leaseholder had given the landlord no indication at that time that they would not be complying with their repair obligations under the lease, the landlord needed to wait until the repairs to the area where the leak was thought to be coming from had been completed by them.
Following the resident informing the landlord on 31 August 2023 that, despite assurances, the leak was still occurring the landlord took appropriate action in arranging for its operative to inspect B and following this to inspect the resident’s property. This was arranged for a week later. As this would have required the leaseholder’s permission, this was reasonable.
Whilst the visual inspection identified no issues and the resident had confirmed on 7 September 2023 there was no leaking at the time of the inspection, she explained to the landlord four days later that the leak had resumed. At the time the landlord was aware that the leaseholder was away so it had to wait until the leaseholder returned to further investigate the matter. Whilst the delay would have been frustrating for the resident the delay was unavoidable. This also extended to the rescheduling of the appointment at B due to the leaseholder contracting Covid at the time of the original appointment.
Following the landlord’s operative informing the leaseholder of what work was required to try to identify the source of the leak, there was a slight delay as the leaseholder had spoken to their insurers over the matter, who required some further information by means of the plumber’s report from the landlord. Once this had been provided, the leaseholder moved to carry out the work which finally identified the source of the leak which was repaired. There was a delay of ten days following the completion of the repair before the landlord’s operative had visited B and confirmed that the works had been completed. Although this delay was inconvenient there was no impact on the resident since the leak had been repaired and the internal repairs could not take place until this had occurred.
The landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident both at stage 1 and stage 2. At the time it issued the stage 2 response the works to identify the leak had still not been completed. The landlord acknowledged this in its offer, which it explained it would review once the works had been completed. Following the completion of the works in February 2024 the landlord did make a revised offer of compensation. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy its revised offer included £280 for the delays as well as a payment of £800 for the fault. Taken altogether, this offer was proportionate to the failings identified and resulting impact on the resident and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, constitutes an offer of reasonable redress for the failings in the landlord’s handling of the leak.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.

Whilst the resident had explained to the landlord on multiple occasions about the damp and mould, the landlord had confirmed that it needed to address the cause of it first before it could look at the internal repairs. This was appropriate as otherwise any works which had been carried out by the landlord may not have lasted and the damp and mould would have likely returned.
Following the leaseholder’s repair to the leak on 26 October 2023, which was confirmed by the landlord’s operative on 6 November 2023, it explained to the resident that it needed to undertake a survey of the property to determine what repairs were required. This was reasonable as, although a surveyor had previously attended the resident’s property and discussed the issues of repairs including to the toilet ceiling, it was appropriate for it to get an up-to-date picture of the works which needed doing. This was especially as the resident had mentioned the issue of her hallway and the cupboard, which she had not previously referred to.
Whilst the landlord had informed the resident on 13 November 2023 that a survey needed to be undertaken it has not provided evidence to this Service of when the survey took place. The landlord’s next communication was in mid January 2024, some two months later and it related to a query over the scope of works which had been proposed which the resident had disputed. However the resident has not raised any issue of any delay at that time, and the process of initially undertaking the survey and then obtaining quotes for the work which would need to be agreed by the landlord before they could take place, would have all taken time.
In terms of the resident’s queries on the scope of works being proposed, whilst the landlord could have entered into discussions with her over the colour of tiles for the bathroom it was not required to do so. The landlord correctly informed the resident that what she had been requesting in the form of a new bath and toilet would be considered as an improvement and that it was not obliged to do this but rather to repair the property. This meant that, if there was no fault with the bathroom and toilet, that it would not be changing them.
The resident raised further queries following the completion of work. These included why she was not decanted whilst the work was carried out and that she was without bathing facilities for some time at the property. The landlord has stated that it had informed the resident of the lack of facilities whilst the repairs were being carried out which the resident had agreed to. However the landlord has not provided any evidence of any such discussions or any consent agreed by the resident at the time. Whilst the landlord has not provided this Service with any details of how long the work had taken to be carried out, it was aware that the resident had suffered from health conditions as a result of the damp and mould. If the work was planned for more than a few days it could have offered the resident the option of a temporary decant whilst the work was carried out. There is no evidence of this and this was a failing by the landlord. However the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord has made an offer of £400 compensation noting the resident’s vulnerabilities. This offer, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, constitutes an offer of reasonable redress for the landlord’s failing in this regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a leak in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.

Recommendation

The landlord should pay the resident the amount of £1,480, if it has not already done so, as set out in its correspondence to the resident on 27 February 2024. This is in relation to the landlord’s handling of the leak to the property from the property above as well as its handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.
The landlord should contact the resident to obtain details of any further concerns about the condition of her home and/or the decant the resident may have which it has not previously considered by means of its internal complaints process. It should then review them and consider whether any further work or action is undertaken in respect of these issues.
The landlord should ensure that this report is shared with the Head of Service response for the leaks-hub. The Head of Service should ensure that any learning and service improvements identified from the outcomes of this investigation are actioned as appropriate.