Hackney Council (202113360)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113360

Hackney Council

4 July 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:

record keeping;
handling of the resident’s complaint concerning damp, mould, leaks, window defects and related disrepair issues;
handling of the resident’s allegations of racial discrimination.

Background

The resident holds a joint secure tenancy that began on 22 October 2012. The property is a four bedroom three storey inner terrace house. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord has said that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but that it was told by him during the complaint that he and his son suffer with asthma.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy states that it defines complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, in that a complaint is “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation”.
The policy states that the landlord operates a two stage complaint process. It says that complaint responses are sent to residents within 10 and 20 working days at stage one and two of the process respectively.

Repairs policy

The landlord’s policy lists four priorities of repairs, with timescales for completion as follows:
1. Immediate – within two hours;
2. Emergency – within 24 hours;
3. Urgent – within 5 days;
4. Normal – within 21 days.

Scope of investigation

The resident’s complaint related to matters also raised by his legal representative in a disrepair claim made to the landlord in August 2021. The claim and complaint regarded issues that the resident said had been present since his tenancy began in 2012.
The resident had made a previous disrepair claim to the landlord via a different solicitor in August 2019. This resulted in an inspection of the resident’s property being completed by a jointly agreed chartered surveyor in October 2019. The surveyor’s accompanying report concluded that there was a ‘degree of disrepair with several matters in need of attention’. It stated that “one of the main problems relates to condensation dampness and consequential black mould growth”. The report also highlighted issues with water penetration, windows, doors, the toilet and level access shower.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. The historical issues detailed above are included to provide contextual background to the current complaint. However, in view of the time periods involved in this case, this investigation will focus on the period from May 2021, when the landlord said that the resident reported his roof leak, up until June 2023 when the landlord made its final offer of compensation.

Summary of events

The landlord has stated that the resident reported his leaking roof on 25 May 2021, and an issue with his bay window being stuck open on 21 June 2021. It stated that its contractor attended the resident’s property on 22 July 2021. This Service has seen no contemporaneous evidence of these events.
On 9 August 2021, the resident’s solicitor sent a letter of claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Condition cases to the landlord. The letter advised of defects with the resident’s living room, second bedroom and external walls. The defects included leaks, damp and a defective window. It proposed a single joint expert be appointed to complete an inspection.
On 9 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, and copied in other departments of the local authority and this Service. The email stated that it was a ‘pre-action letter’ for the landlord’s breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and the Equality Act 2010. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. He had been reporting property disrepair issues to the landlord since 2012, but the issues remained outstanding.
2. He stated that the windows were defective and his living room had been unusable since he first began reporting water leaks in 2012.
3. He said that things had more recently worsened, and that since March 2021, water leaks, damp and the associated smell had been particularly severe. It was affecting the living room and bedroom.
4. He stated that he and his son suffer with asthma and the property issues had impacted their health.
5. He said that he attributed the landlord’s service failings to discrimination and racism, as he could think of no other justification.
6. He asked that the necessary works be completed within 14 days, and that he be paid £50,000 compensation. He said he would issue proceedings if he did not receive a satisfactory response.
On 13 September 2021, this Service emailed the resident and provided advice on formally complaining to the landlord and the role of the Ombudsman.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s email. It said that it was investigating the matters he had raised and would aim to respond by 17 September 2021.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and advised it was still awaiting some information but would provide a full response the following week.
On 18 September 2021, the resident replied to the landlord’s email. He said that rain was forecast which would flood his property, and that there was a risk that his roof would collapse. He repeated his allegations of racism and stated he would be starting legal action on 24 September 2021.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and said that it had investigated the issues he had raised. It advised that due to a cyber-attack it had suffered in October 2020, its investigation was limited to what information was available on its repairs database. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It listed 16 works orders relating to damp, water ingress and windows, that had been raised between 2012 and 2020 and were marked as ‘complete’.
2. It listed a further works order raised on 17 July 2020 to remove mould, replace a window, paint ‘large rooms’, repair damaged sash, and ease and adjust a further window. It said that that this work was marked as “locked”.
3. It listed two works orders as being ‘in progress’. The first was raised on 21 June 2021, and concerned a second floor bay window that was stuck open. The second was raised on 6 July 2021 and stated that the roof was leaking and the property was flooded.
4. It stated that the resident had made a disrepair claim via a solicitor in August 2019. It said that this resulted in an externally appointed expert inspecting the resident’s property. It provided details of the issues that had been included as part of that claim and the external expert’s comments on each.
5. It said that all of the works identified by the externally appointed expert had been confirmed as complete at the landlord’s post-works inspection in June 2021. It stated that two additional items were identified at that inspection, which were a crack in the lounge wall that needed repair and decoration, and the lounge ceiling that needed a plaster finish and painting.
6. It stated that it had recently received the resident’s second disrepair claim, which was from a different solicitor to his first. It said that the defects reported in the claim involved leaks and damp in the second bedroom, and from the living room window, and defective external walls.
7. It said that its repairs record showed that the resident had reported a roof leak on 25 May 2021. It said that its contractor attended on 22 July 2021 and recommended works to the rainwater pipe and hopper, and the roof valley. It also acknowledged the resident’s report from 21 June 2021 that the bay window was stuck open. It advised that it had received estimates for all of this work the previous week, and was making arrangements for it to be completed.
8. It advised that its contractor’s site manager would be visiting the resident that day to assess his roof, and to check whether any safety measures were necessary ahead of the main repairs.
9. It said that it wanted to ensure any other defects were identified and attended to as soon as possible. It asked the resident to confirm his preference for an inspection on either 23 or 24 September 2021.
10. It stated that once the inspection was complete, it would contact the resident to confirm its findings and the timeframes for its intended works.
On 20 September 2021, the resident replied to the landlord’s email. He said that none of the defects reported since 2012 had been attended to. He said that surveyors had attended but no works had been carried out. He stated that he had video and photographic evidence for the courts. He stated that he would be taking legal action if ‘full remedial action’ was not taken, and compensation paid, by 23 September 2021.
The landlord replied the same day and advised it would not be able to complete all the repairs on 23 September 2021, but confirmed that its surveyor would attend that day. The resident replied immediately, reiterating his position regarding legal action, and repeated his belief that the repairs had not been done for racial reasons. The landlord replied later the same day and confirmed that the site manager had just attended the resident’s property and that no safety measures were required to the roof.
On 24 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed the findings of its inspection of the resident’s property. The key points were as follows:
1. It said that it had identified a leak from the gutter, hopper, downpipe, and possibly the roof. It advised that it was in the process of arranging scaffolding. It said it was aiming to begin repairs by 15 October 2021.
2. It stated that works were needed to the lounge and bedroom ceilings and walls. It advised this work would be undertaken once the external works were completed.
3. It explained that the water around the wet room toilet needed further investigation. It said it had asked its contractor to investigate this before the external work was completed. It advised that any work necessary in the wet room would be completed at the same time as the other internal work.
On 26 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. He said that as the landlord had now identified the works that had been outstanding since 2012, he wanted it to respond to his claim by the next day, and advise whether the compensation he had sought would be paid to him.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident’s previous solicitor and asked whether it still represented him.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord replied to the resident and advised that it could not meet his request to provide a full response to his pre-action protocol claim by that day. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It stated that it had not been established that the items in the resident’s August 2019 and August 2021 pre-action protocol claims had been outstanding since 2012.
2. It said that it had received confirmation earlier that day that the solicitor involved in the resident’s August 2019 claim was no longer representing him.
3. It advised that it was in the process of arranging the works to the resident’s property, and was assessing his claim for damages. It said that once this assessment was completed, it would begin negotiations with the solicitor of his August 2021 claim to reach an agreeable settlement.
4. It said that it hoped to provide the resident with a date for the wet room toilet investigation by the end of the week.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and advised the wet room toilet leak would be investigated on 5 October 2021. It said that it hoped to provide a date for the scaffolding to be installed the following week.
On 7 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident with a further update following the inspection of his wet room toilet. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It said that it had identified that there was a leak behind the wet room toilet. The toilet would have to be removed and reinstalled to allow the repair. It stated that the wet room drainage also needed to be unblocked. It was aiming to complete this work the following week.
2. It stated the recent heavy rain had led to further water ingress in the resident’s property, and it had started to leak into his lounge.
3. It said that the scaffolding had been installed that day and that its roofers would complete a further inspection the next day, with an expectation that they would reattend promptly to complete the works. It advised it would aim to provide the resident with a further update on 11 October 2021.
4. It explained that once it was confirmed that the leak had been successfully repaired, it would need to allow two to three weeks for the internal areas to dry out. It would monitor this throughout and inform the resident when the internal works would begin as soon as it was able to.
5. It offered the resident its apologies for the issues he had experienced. It assured him that once the works were complete, it would finalise its compensation assessment with his solicitor.
On 12 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and said that it had rectified the suspected cause of the water leak. It said it would monitor this to ensure the issue was fully resolved. It stated that it would liaise with the resident throughout the drying process and ahead of the internal works. It advised its contractor would be attending the following day to repair the wet room toilet leak and unblock the drain.
On 16 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said that the leak in his bedroom had still not been resolved, and was allowing water in when it rained. He also stated that he had withdrawn authorisation to both his solicitors, and that the landlord should now only contact him directly.
On 21 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident following it’s contractor’s inspection of his property. It advised that the inspection had revealed that the water ingress that had occurred around a week earlier was not related to its recent works. It said that the resident’s wife had advised that no further leaks had occurred since, but that it would carry out a further investigation after Christmas. The resident replied the same day and stated that the contractor had made up the fact that the leak had only occurred a weak ago, and said that it had been an intermittent issue since his tenancy began.
During January 2022, this Service exchanged emails with the resident and sought clarification as to whether he had made a formal complaint to the landlord. It was agreed that this Service would write to the landlord.
On 21 January 2022, this Service emailed the landlord. The email explained the complaint that the resident had described, and his concern that he had not received a response from the landlord. This Service advised that, if the landlord had not already done so, it should acknowledge and investigate the resident’s complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It was further explained that if the landlord had already responded to the resident’s complaint, it should provide both the resident and this Service with a copy of its response and clarification of the complaint’s current status. This Service separately wrote to the resident the same day to advise of the communication to the landlord.
On 4 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and reported that all of the rooms in his property had severely flooded again. He said that this demonstrated that the work that it had previously done had not been to the expected standard. He stated that he and his family no longer felt safe in the property and wanted to be urgently moved.
On 4 February 2022, the landlord replied to the resident. It said that its contractor had spoken with the resident’s wife that morning, and that she had reported the leak issues. It advised that the contractor was further investigating the cause. The landlord emailed the resident again later the same day. It said that repairs were required to the front and rear elevations of his property. It advised that a mobile tower would be erected the following week and that it had already discussed this with the resident’s wife. It said it would provide the resident with a full scope of works once it was known.
On 5 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and stated his belief that that the previous work carried out to his roof had not actually been done. He asked that his email also be passed to the relevant team to arrange a permanent move to a suitable property.
On 7 February 2022, the landlord replied to the resident and said that it was investigating his comments about the previous roof works, and that a housing officer would contact him regarding his wish to move home.
On 11 February 2022, the landlord replied to the resident’s email from the previous day, which had enquired why the scaffold had not been erected. It confirmed that its contractor had attended the previous day but had not used scaffold as had been expected. It advised that, as roof works had already been completed to the resident’s and the neighbouring property, the roofer had thought the water ingress was likely caused by defective pointing to the brickwork. It stated that the contractor had been advised to erect tower scaffold as soon as possible and that it would update the resident further by the end of the following week.
On 15 February 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and advised that scaffold would be erected that week, and that the roofer had advised that he expected that the necessary work could be completed very quickly. It said it would provide the resident a further update the following week.
On 20 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and stated his belief that his roof would collapse. The landlord replied to the resident the following day and confirmed that its contractor’s 90 minute inspection earlier that day had advised that there was no danger of the roof collapsing. It said that it was now awaiting the contractor’s written findings from the inspection, ahead of starting the works. It said that following this it would then resolve the internal issues in the resident’s property.
On 1 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the roof works would begin 7 March 2022, and were expected to take two to three days.
On 3 March 2022, this Service wrote to the resident with reference to the letters sent to the resident and landlord on 21 January 2022, and to enquire as to the current status of his complaint with the landlord. The resident replied the same day and stated the landlord was not progressing his complaint, which he attributed to racism.
On 25 April 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord. The letter summarised the resident’s complaint, and the resident’s report that he had requested it be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process but had not received a stage two response. It asked that the landlord send written acknowledgement to the resident that his complaint had been escalated to stage two by 2 May 2022. It asked that the resident and this Service then be provided with a full stage two complaint response within 20 working days. This Service separately wrote to the resident the same day to advise of the communication to the landlord.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord replied to this Service and advised that the resident’s complaint may be an active legal disrepair claim. It advised that it would confirm this and provide a further update to this Service.
On 6 May 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord to ask for clarification of whether it had complied with the previous request to acknowledge the resident’s stage two complaint escalation by 2 May 2022. The letter acknowledged the landlord’s previous advice that the complaint may be a legal disrepair claim. It advised that the Ombudsman’s expectation is that matters are handled as a formal complaint unless legal proceedings have been issued. This Service wrote to the resident the same day and provided him with the same information.
On 6 May 2022, the resident replied to this Service. He advised that he had received neither a stage two complaint acknowledgement nor a response. He stated that he had proposed to the landlord that he would take legal action, but only after exhausting its internal complaint process.
On 24 May 2022, this Service sent a ‘Second request for action’ letter to the landlord. It reminded the landlord that on 25 April 2022 it had been asked to acknowledge the resident’s stage two complaint within five working days, and issue a full response within a further 20 working days, but that the landlord had not responded to the resident, nor to this Service. It asked that the resident and this Service be provided with a response to the complaint by no later than 31 May 2022. This Service separately wrote to the resident the same day to advise of the communication to the landlord.
On 31 May 2022, the landlord emailed its stage two complaint letter to the resident. It said its letter was in response to the resident’s complaint received 10 September 2021. It summarised the property issues that formed the resident’s complaint. It stated that on 15 September 2021, it had rejected the resident’s complaint at stage one of its process, on the basis that it was already handling two legal disrepair claims from his solicitors. It explained that this Service had advised that it should respond to the resident’s complaint unless legal proceedings had been issued, which it was now doing. The key points of the landlord’s stage two complaint response were as follows:
1. It summarised the matters raised in the resident’s two legal disrepair claims, and provided a copy of the externally appointed surveyor’s report from his inspection on 12 January 2020.
2. It said that the works identified in the report were raised on 17 July 2020, and deemed as complete at its contractor’s inspection on 8 March 2021.
3. It stated that the works were further jointly inspected by its contractor and its own legal disrepair surveyor in June 2021.
4. It said that the surveyor had identified the need for further works but that before these were undertaken, it had received the resident’s second disrepair claim from a different solicitor. It subsequently confirmed that the first solicitor was no longer representing the resident.
5. It said that the new claim listed issues of internal and external leaks, damp, defective windows, and external wall contamination, which its contractor then inspected before scaffold was erected on 20 September 2021. It stated that works to the resident’s roof were undertaken, but subsequently proved to have been unsuccessful.
6. It stated that scaffold had been erected again in February 2022, and that the necessary works that were identified had been more extensive than it had expected. It said that these works were completed on 22 March 2022.
7. It said that its subsequent internal inspection revealed no leaks in the wet room, but that precautionary sealant had been installed anyway.
8. It advised it would liaise with the resident to complete remedial decorations in the bedrooms and living room, and that it considered all other works to be complete.
9. It said that following the resident and his solicitor’s request for compensation, its legal disrepair caseworker had drafted a damages proposal, but that it had been shelved pending the completion of the works.
10. It accepted that there had been a history of repairs at the resident’s property going back to 2012. It provided a dated list of the trades that had attended over the previous 10 years. It stated that all of that would be considered in the settlement agreement that it was in the process of discussing with the resident’s solicitor.
11. It referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
On 6 June 2022, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage two complaint response. He provided photographs that he said had been taken in 2015, and others that he stated had been taken that day. He said that the photographs demonstrated that nothing had been fixed at his property. He reiterated that any attempt to agree a damages settlement should be made directly with him. He said that following this, he would then decide himself whether to pursue the matter with his solicitor.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 12 August 2022, the landlord’s customer manager, who had been the resident’s primary contact with the landlord regarding his complaint from September 2021 to March 2022, emailed the resident. She apologised that she had not contacted him since 1 March 2022, and explained she had only recently returned to work. The manager’s email stated that its contractor had advised that there were no further external leaks affecting the resident’s property. The contractor had also checked that the resident’s property had dried out internally and would be contacting him to arrange decoration works. The manager also advised that the landlord’s legal disrepair caseworker was awaiting completion of the internal repairs before finalising the compensation assessment.
Further emails were exchanged, and on 15 August 2022, the resident again told the landlord that he felt his property was not safe to live in. He said that he had spoken with the landlord’s housing team about a permanent move but was now being ignored by them.
On 1 November 2022, the landlord advised this Service that on 27 October 2022 it had undertaken a joint inspection with its contractor of the completed works at the resident’s property. It said that it was unable to sign all of the works off as complete, as works to reconnect the smoke alarms, and to stain block and paint the lounge ceiling were still outstanding. It said that its legal disrepair caseworker would be contacting the resident once the works were signed off, to progress the resident’s compensation settlement.
On 7 November 2022, a further post works inspection of the resident’s property was completed. The landlord’s housing disrepair team’s ‘LR20 form’ was dated 7 November 2022 and signed by both the contractor and the resident as accepting that all works had been satisfactorily completed.
On 9 March 2023, the landlord also signed the LR20 form. The signatory accepted handover of the resident’s property and that further new works had been ordered. It confirmed that the new works had not been part of the original specification.
On 6 June 2023, the landlord’s disrepair caseworker wrote to the resident regarding his disrepair claim and request for damages. The letter noted that the resident had rejected the landlord’s previous offer of £7500, and that he had made a counter offer of £50,000. The landlord stated that it considered the resident’s counter offer as unreasonable, and that it did not believe that a court would award damages that would approach that level. It acknowledged the resident’s request for an explanation of how it had arrived at the figure of £7500. The key points of the landlord’s explanation and letter were as follows:
1. It stated that it had noted the contents of the resident’s two letters of claim from two different solicitors, and of the report of the agreed single joint expert.
2. It noted that it was entitled to a reasonable period to undertake works once they were reported.
3. It advised that it was excluding the four month period between the end of March and end of July 2020 from its damages calculations, due to the Covid-19 lockdown.
4. It explained that the damages were calculated as a percentage reduction of the rent that reflected the impact of the outstanding repairs.
5. It noted that the resident’s current monthly rent was £718, and that it had not made reductions to account for the lower rent in previous years.
6. It stated that it had ordered the resident’s windows in November 2018, and installed them in October 2020. It said that it had reduced this 24 month period by four months for the lockdown period, and a further two months as a reasonable time to complete the works including manufacture of the windows. It said it had applied a 25% reduction of rent for the remaining 18 month period, which equalled £3231.72.
7. It stated that the issues with resident’s wet room had been intermittent over an extended period, and that it had raised two jobs in 2019, two in 2020, and three in 2022. It said that due to the intermittent nature of the issues, it had allocated the damages over an 18 month period with a 15% reduction of rent, which equalled £1943.64.
8. It said that the resident’s roof leak was first reported in May 2021, and resolved six months later in October 2021. A further leak was reported in February 2022 and resolved in March 2022. It advised that it had made a two month reduction to the six month timeframe, as a reasonable period to identify and complete the works. It said it had applied a 25% reduction of rent, which equalled £718.16.
9. It stated that it had added a general sum for delays in completing internal works. It said that this had been calculated as a 10% reduction in rent over a 12 month period, which equalled £861.80.
10. It advised that all of this totalled £6,755.32, and that it had applied a further 10% uplift of £675.53 in line with existing caselaw (Simmons vs Castle), which brought the total to £7430.85.
11. It stated that in the interest of resolving the matter, it was now prepared to increase this offer to £9000.
12. It advised that this was the maximum amount that it was prepared to offer, and suggested that the resident seek independent legal advice if he chose not to accept it.
On 27 June 2023, the resident emailed this Service and said that the landlord’s information was incorrect. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. He said that the landlord’s claim that it changed his windows in 2020 was false, and that he had had the same defective windows since 2012.
2. He stated that works had been done to the roof, but he was still suffering from water ingress when it rained.
3. He said that the landlord had ignored the impact of the damp and mould on he and his son’s asthma.
4. He restated his belief that the landlord is racist.

Assessment and findings

Record keeping

The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s comments made to the resident in September 2021, regarding its information limitations following the cyber-attack, which it said that it had suffered in 2020. However, it would be expected that the landlord should still have been able to access contemporaneous repairs records for the period from May 2021 that is the focus of this assessment, beyond what was provided to this Service.
The repairs records provided by the landlord were either not contemporaneous or were incomplete. In most cases, they stated the date that work had been raised but not the date it had been completed, or stated the trade that had attended but not the works that were raised. There were also contradictions between what the landlord advised this Service, what its records stated, and what it advised the resident. An example of this was the resident’s initial report of a roof leak that marked the beginning of the period being assessed.
The landlord’s email to the resident on 20 September 2021 stated that the resident had reported the leak on 25 May 2021. The non-contemporaneous information provided by the landlord to this Service stated that the resident reported the roof leak on 6 July 2021. It provided a job number but explained that it could not tell from its own records whether the job was completed or not. The job number was quoted in the landlord’s email to the resident referred to above, but it was not included in the 10-year ‘associated repairs history’ that the landlord included as an appendix to its stage two complaint response sent to the resident on 31 May 2022.
It is reasonable to conclude that the resident most likely reported his roof leak on 25 May 2021, but that the landlord did not raise the works order until 6 July 2021. Whether this works order represented the roof works that were completed in October 2021, or whether the works completed then superseded the works orders raised on 6 July 2021 is unknown to the Ombudsman, and seemingly also to the landlord. It is also unreasonable that the landlord has advised this Service that some repairs completed to the resident’s property may not appear in its records at all, as they were raised through the ‘legal disrepair route’.
The roof works described above represent only one job of what was a large volume of repairs that were needed to the resident’s property. It is however illustrative of the landlord’s poor record keeping, which has significantly hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. As is detailed below, the landlord never completed a thorough complaint investigation, and so the root cause of the delays and service failures experienced by the resident has not been advised to the resident, nor this Service. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s poor record keeping, and the impact it would have on its ability to effectively monitor and manage its repair services, would have been at the very least a contributing factor to the significant issues experienced by the resident. The landlord’s record keeping was therefore unreasonable and represented maladministration.

Disrepair complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s position with regards to complaints that are also the subject of a housing disrepair claim is clear, in that they should be handled in line with the landlord’s complaint policy unless legal proceedings have been issued. This is further reinforced by the pre-action protocol itself, which encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures, and states that litigation should be viewed as a last resort. The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 9 September 2021. The landlord’s failure to issue a formal response until 31 May 2022, despite the interventions of this Service, was wholly unreasonable and represented maladministration.
The landlord had received a housing disrepair claim from the resident’s solicitor the month prior to receiving his complaint. The resident’s complaint email did use similar language to his disrepair claim, in that it stated that it was a ‘pre-action letter’. Nevertheless, it also made clear that the resident had not issued legal proceedings, and that he was expecting a ‘satisfactory response’.
The resident’s email to the landlord on 9 September 2021 represented an obvious expression of his dissatisfaction. As such, the landlord’s failure to recognise it as a formal complaint, in line with its own definition of a complaint, was clearly unreasonable. The landlord has subsequently recognised this failing and apologised to this Service. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this apology has been extended to the resident.
This failure is inclusive of the landlord’s most recent effort to settle the resident’s complaint, in its letter sent to him on 6 June 2023. The letter from its ‘legal disrepair team’ focused solely on its compensation offer, and lacked any form of empathy or an apology. This is one of several failings that occurred as a direct result of the landlord’s attempts to handle the resident’s complaint as a legal matter, rather than follow its own complaint definition and policy.
As detailed above, the landlord’s record keeping failings have severely hampered the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate the substantive issues that the resident raised in his complaint. This has been further compounded by the lack of evidence of the landlord completing a complaint investigation that sought to understand what had gone wrong, and what might be learned from it. This has meant that this Service, and more importantly the resident, has been offered no explanation whatsoever as to why such significant delays occurred in addressing the disrepair of his property.
The landlord has suggested that its inability to complete a thorough investigation, was in some part due to this Service only allowing it five working days to compile and send a final complaint response to the resident, when this Service wrote to it on 24 May 2022. However, the Ombudsman had previously written to the landlord on 21 January 2022, and advised it to handle the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint. This Service wrote to the landlord again on 25 April 2022 and asked it to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within five working days, and provide him with a final response within a further 20 working days.
The landlord queried the fact that the complaint was also a disrepair claim, and this Service confirmed on 6 May 2022, that it should still be handled as a complaint unless proceedings had been issued. This meant that the landlord still had over three weeks to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s failure to complete a thorough investigation meant that the resident was left to draw his own conclusions as to why he was experiencing such delays in addressing the disrepair of his property. It is reasonable to conclude that this would have been a significant factor in the resident’s allegations of discrimination detailed below. The landlord’s failure to complete an investigation that established, and explained to the resident, the root causes of his complaint was therefore wholly unreasonable.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are, Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes. The landlord’s stage two complaint response letter was sent to the resident on 31 May 2022, and consisted of a timeline of his disrepair claims with a summary of the associated works that it said it had completed. It acknowledged the lengthy history of repairs but offered neither any empathy for the conditions the resident was living in, nor an apology. It also failed to demonstrate that anything at all had been learnt.
On several occasions over the course of the complaint, the resident had also voiced his concern that the property was no longer safe to live in, and his wish for the landlord to assist him and his family to move home. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this in its complaint response, and it was not reasonable that it failed do so, nor offer the resident sufficient reassurance regarding his safety concerns.
Furthermore, the resident had made clear that he wanted all contact from the landlord regarding the matter to be made directly with him. The resident particularly emphasised this in his email sent to the landlord on 16 December 2021, which advised this point specifically, and said that he had ‘withdrawn authorisation’ for contact to be made through his solicitor. It was therefore not reasonable for the landlord to conclude its complaint response by offering no meaningful redress beyond its advice that compensation would be awarded if agreement could be reached with the resident’s legal representatives.
The works to the resident’s property were still ongoing when the landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 31 May 2022, and this remained the case for a further five months. The landlord has evidenced that the works to the resident’s property were signed off by its contractor, and the resident, as satisfactorily completed on 7 November 2022, although the resident has since stated that works are incomplete. It appears to not be disputed that at some point after this date, the landlord made an offer of £7500 to the resident to settle his complaint and claim, although this Service has seen no evidence of this.
The landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident considered issues with his property beginning from three years prior to the period that this report is focused on. As stated above, the evidence provided by the landlord has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the substantive issues. However, the landlord’s final offer to the resident of £9000 compensation, sent on 6 June 2023, acknowledged that it had taken it two years to install the resident’s windows from the date that they were ordered. It also acknowledged that the resident’s wet room had suffered with intermittent leaks and drainage issues over a period exceeding four years. It further accepted that it had taken six months to repair the resident’s roof leaks from the time that he had reported it, and that the leaks had then reoccurred four months later, and took a further month to repair. It also accepted the significant delays the resident had experienced in it completing various internal works to his property.
The resident has told this Service that he does not feel that the landlord’s offer of compensation considered the impact of his property’s disrepair on he and his son’s asthma. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health or medical conditions. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the prolonged disrepair issues would have caused the resident.
The compensation award was of a level that the Ombudsman would recommend for serious service failings over a prolonged period that had a significant impact on a household. It was appropriate that the landlord factored in the impact on the resident’s use of parts of his property. Calculating the payment as a percentage of rent is also in line with the Ombudsman’s practices. However, it was not reasonable that the offer was made so long after the resident’s complaint, and that he had to go to so much time and trouble to obtain this outcome.
It was further unreasonable that the landlord’s offer was not accompanied by any other form of redress, and did not consider any of the landlord’s complaint handling and other related failings detailed in this assessment. The landlord failed to effectively put things right, and has not demonstrated that any lessons have been learnt from the outcome of the resident’s complaint. As such, it did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles and the Ombudsman has made additional orders of compensation that reflect this.
The prolonged time period and level of impact on the resident was such that this aspect of the case could have constituted severe maladministration. However the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord did make efforts to respond promptly to the resident and keep him informed. The efforts of the landlord’s customer relationship manager were particularly noted. The landlord did also make a significant compensation offer, albeit quite some time after the completion of its complaint process. As such the Ombudsman has found maladministration.

Racial discrimination allegations

The resident’s original complaint was sent to the landlord on 9 September 2021. It said that he attributed the landlord’s service failings to racial discrimination. The resident repeated this allegation, or similar, in many of his emails sent to the landlord and this Service. The resident also commented in his original complaint and subsequent emails, that the allegation was based on the fact he was unable to think of any other justification for the landlord’s service failings. On other occasions, the resident stated that that he was attributing the cause of the landlord’s poor service to racism, due to the absence of any other explanation being offered by the landlord.
The resident did not provide the landlord with any details of specific examples or incidents that he considered to be racially motivated. On various occasions, the resident put the word ‘racist’ ahead of the name of the landlord’s officers that he referred to in his emails, but again did not explain why he believed this to be the case or make any further specific allegation.
It is not disputed that the resident experienced significant and prolonged repair delays by the landlord. In the absence of a complaint investigation or any other explanation being offered for this, it is understandable that the resident might attribute those failings to racism. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that would suggest that any of the landlord’s failings could be attributed to discrimination.
Nevertheless, having received an allegation of racial discrimination, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to further investigate and respond to the resident accordingly. The landlord told this Service that the resident’s allegations were ‘unsubstantiated and lacking in meaningful detail’. It also highlighted several examples where the resident’s allegations were themselves made in offensive emails. Although the landlord did not explicitly say so, it is reasonable to conclude that it was as a result of these points that the landlord considered it unnecessary to respond to the resident’s allegations.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to provide specific details of what had prompted his allegations, which could then be investigated. If the resident did not provide this, or continued to indicate that his allegations were representative of his view of poor service, rather than relating to specific incidents, the landlord could have responded accordingly. It was not reasonable for the landlord to simply ignore the allegations, and offer no acknowledgement or response to them at all. As such, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. record keeping;
2. handling of the resident’s complaint concerning damp, mould, leaks, window defects and related disrepair issues;
3. handling of the resident’s allegations of racial discrimination.

Reasons

Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service. This is not only so that evidence can be provided to the Ombudsman when requested, but because it allows a landlord to better understand the condition of a property and manage and monitor works more effectively. Despite the cyber-attack that the landlord has said that it suffered in 2020, it should have been able to provide full contemporaneous repair records for the period of time assessed above. Its inability to do so was likely a contributory factor to the significant delays and failings that the resident experienced. An order has been made for the landlord to consider this further.
The landlord accepted that the resident had experienced serious disrepair issues with his property, and suffered lengthy delays with its efforts to address this. The landlord has also since accepted that it was a failing for it to attempt to handle the resident’s concerns solely as a legal matter, rather than through its complaint process. However, although it did make a significant offer of compensation to the resident for the disrepair and delays, this did not come until several months after the resident had completed its complaint process, and some 21 months after his complaint should have first been acknowledged.
The landlord’s offer also failed to apologise or show any empathy for the poor living conditions and significant distress the resident would have experienced over a prolonged period. It further failed to demonstrate that anything had been learnt from the resident’s complaint, nor offer the resident any form of explanation as to what had gone wrong. As such, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord either put things right, or learnt from the outcomes of the resident’s complaint, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the delays and service failures that the resident experienced were as a result of discrimination. Nevertheless, it was a clear failing that the landlord made no attempt to acknowledge or further investigate the resident’s allegations, particularly in the absence of any other form of explanation for the issues and delays he had experienced.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord’s Group Director for Homes writes to the resident to apologise for the service failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord pays the resident £12,000 compensation made up of;
  1. £9000 for the impact of repairs failings on his use of the property;
  2. £2000 for the time, trouble and distress caused to him by the failures identified in its handling of the repairs and related record-keeping;
  3. £750 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling;
  4. £250 for its failure to investigate or respond to his allegations of racial discrimination.
3. The amount includes the landlord’s own compensation award of £9000 (if that award has since been paid to the resident, the total amount now payable will be £3000).
4. The landlord arranges a survey of the resident’s property to inspect the issues that the resident has said remain outstanding, and provides the resident and this Service with a copy of its findings and action plan.
5. The landlord contacts the resident to establish if he still wishes to move home, and provides advice to him accordingly.
6. The landlord contacts the resident to request that he provide specific details regarding his racial discrimination allegations, and investigates and then responds to the resident accordingly.
7. The landlord review its staff training needs with regards to the handling of formal complaints that are linked to housing disrepair claims.

The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

The Ombudsman orders that within eight weeks of the date of this report the landlord:
1. Reviews its record keeping processes against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report (link to KIM report provided separately) and provides this Service with a copy of its findings.
2. Reviews the resident’s complaint to establish root cause and identify learning with regard to handling of repairs, and provides the resident, and this Service, with a copy of its findings.

The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service within eight weeks of the date of this report.