The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Hackney Council (202225651)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225651

Hackney Council

21 December 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows.
  2. The Ombudsman has also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a secure tenant since October 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident told the Ombudsman that he first reported draughty windows when he moved to the property in October 2021. He says the landlord “patched-up” the windows in December 2021. The resident said these repairs made no difference, and he reported the windows again in July 2022. The landlord inspected the windows on 4 August 2022.
  3. On 23 September 2022, the resident complained about how the landlord had dealt with a leak affecting his property. He complained about a lack of communication and the attitude of staff who dealt with his phone calls.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and spoke with the resident about it on 27 October 2022. The resident confirmed the leak had been fixed but raised other outstanding repairs, including draughts from his windows. The landlord asked him to provide details of the outstanding repairs.
  5. In its stage 1 response on 16 November 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and for how the resident had been treated. It also confirmed appointments for outstanding repairs.
  6. On 18 November 2022, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated. He said nothing had happened since he reported the draughty windows in July 2022 and the draughts were causing health problems and he had to sleep with a hot water bottle to keep warm.
  7. On 12 December 2022, the resident chased the landlord for a response to his complaint. He said because of the draughts, he was incurring additional heating costs and wanted compensation for this. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the complaint on 23 January 2023.
  8. In its final response on 20 March 2023, the landlord apologised for what it said were avoidable delays in repairing the windows. It offered £400 in recognition of the avoidable delays, distress and inconvenience caused by the delay, and for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. It confirmed the windows would be replaced on 17 April 2023.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said he wanted additional compensation to cover the extra heating costs incurred, for the time spent chasing his complaint, and for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This means the landlord has a general obligation to repair and maintain the property, including the windows. The landlord does not dispute that it was responsible for repairs to the windows.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says, “normal repairs” where the fault does not cause major inconvenience or danger to the resident, will be completed within 21 working days. It says it may need to extend the timescale if windows need to be manufactured.
  3. The landlord’s final complaint response confirmed that the resident reported faults with the windows on 22 July 2022. In its response, the landlord said the windows were inspected on 4 August 2022. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord’s inspection was 9 working days after the resident reported the faults. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, as the type of repair was not considered urgent.
  4. On 15 August 2022, the landlord raised a job to cut out rotten wood and do other repairs to the windows. Even though the landlord had attempted repairs in December 2021, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider carrying out repairs a second time. However, the landlord did not follow up this work, and it acknowledged in its final response that the job was closed on 20 February 2023 without work having been carried out. The Ombudsman has found that the failure to follow up the job raised on 15 August 2022 was a service failure by the landlord.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 16 November 2022, it acknowledged the outstanding window repairs and arranged for a contractor to attend the resident’s property on 21 November 2022. This was almost a month after the landlord had discussed the windows with the resident on 27 October 2022. The Ombudsman has found that the delay in arranging for a contractor to attend was a service failure by the landlord.
  6. The contractor attended on 21 November 2022, but discovered more work was required than expected. Because of this, the contractor did not carry out any work and told the resident that a follow up job needed to be raised. It is not clear from the records provided by the landlord why details of the work required had not been communicated to the contractor. In addition, based on the evidence provided, the follow up job does not appear to have been raised by the contractor or landlord. The Ombudsman has found that the failure to raise a follow up job was a service failure by the landlord.
  7. While investigating the stage 2 complaint, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 30 January 2023. The surveyor recommended that the windows should be replaced. The landlord agreed and appointed a contractor. Records provided by the landlord show that during February and March 2023, it regularly chased the contractor for an installation date. The windows were installed on 17 April 2023, 10 weeks after the landlord agreed that they should be replaced.
  8. The Ombudsman has noted that records provided by the landlord show there was a 6-week lead time for the windows to be manufactured. The landlord also told the Ombudsman that the installation was delayed for 2 weeks by the resident. The Ombudsman has found that once the landlord agreed to replace the windows, it acted reasonably.
  9. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s overall approach to dealing with reports of draughty windows amounts to maladministration. This is because the landlord did not follow its repairs policy and there were service failures, which combined had a detrimental effect on the resident. The landlord initially attempted to repair the windows in line with its repairs policy in December 2021. However, when the resident reported the windows a second time in July 2022, there were avoidable delays, which the landlord acknowledged in its final response.
  10. The landlord arranged a survey in August 2022, but failed to follow up on the outcome of the survey. When the resident raised the fault with the windows again on 27 October 2022, it took the landlord almost a month to arrange for a contractor to attend. When the contractor attended on 21 November 2022, they did not carry out any work because details of work required had not been clearly communicated to them. The landlord then failed to raise a follow up job and it took until 30 January 2023 for another surveyor to attend. Overall, there was a 9-month delay between the resident reporting faulty windows and the windows being replaced.
  11. This avoidable delay led to inconvenience for the resident, who had to chase the landlord to get it to carry out the repairs. The resident also experienced discomfort due to cold from draughts. Although not part of this investigation, the resident has told the Ombudsman that he had also reported a fault with his central heating, which further contributed to the effect that the draughts had on him. The resident told the Ombudsman that he incurred additional heating costs. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this, so cannot make a determination on this aspect of the complaint.
  12. However, it is clear the resident was adversely affected over a significant period, and during winter months, by the draughty windows. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this failure amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord offered the resident £400 in its final response. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this is insufficient in the circumstances, and the compensation should be increased to £600.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s approach to complaints is set out in its complaints policy. This says the landlord will provide a decision within 10 working days. The policy says the resident can request an escalation if they are not satisfied with the first response. Complaints that are escalated will receive a response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident first complained on 23 September 2022. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 October 2022, which was 25 working days after the resident complained. The response was sent on 16 November 2022, which was 38 working days after the complaint was received. The Ombudsman has found that the delay in acknowledging and responding to the complaint was a service failure by the landlord.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 November 2022, and chased the landlord for a response on 12 and 23 December 2022. On 9 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged the escalation request, which was 36 working days after the escalation request was made. On 23 January 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord as the resident had still not received a response. On 25 January 2023. the landlord asked the Ombudsman to allow it to complete the investigation by 9 February 2023. Following further contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued its final response on 20 March 2023, which was 84 working days after the resident escalated his complaint.
  4. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the delay in escalating the complaint also contributed to the delay in replacing the windows.
  5. In mitigation, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord spent time in February and March 2023, chasing the contractor for a date for the window installation, so it could include this in its final response. However, the landlord could have sent a response earlier and made a commitment to keep the resident informed about the installation date.
  6. The Ombudsman has found that the delay in responding to the initial complaint and the escalated complaint was maladministration by the landlord. The landlord’s failure to follow its complaints policy resulted in the resident being inconvenienced as he had to spend time and took trouble chasing the landlord for a response. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a significant failure. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident an additional £200 for the failure to follow its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code.
  7. In carrying out this investigation, the Ombudsman has noted that the subject matter of the complaint changed between the first and second stages of the complaints process. The Ombudsman has also noted that the delay in responding to the escalated complaint was in part caused by the service area not passing it to the complaints team. The landlord is to review these specific issues as part of a wider review of how it handled this complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £800 in compensation for discomfort and inconvenience caused. This is inclusive of the £400 previously offered by the landlord for delays in carrying out repairs. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £600 in recognition of the failure to repair the windows in line with the repairs policy, inclusive of the £400 previously offered.
    2. £200 for the failure to follow its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The landlord is ordered to review its repairs procedures to ensure it avoids similar delays in future. The review should focus on why it failed to raise follow up jobs, why it delayed in arranging for a contractor to attend, and why it failed to give clear information to contractors.
  3. The landlord is ordered to conduct a review of this complaint to identify how it can improve complaint handling. In carrying out a review, it should consider how the subject matter of the complaint changed between the first and second stages of the complaints process, and the delay in the escalated compliant being passed to the complaints team.
  4. The landlord is ordered to confirm to the Ombudsman that the above orders have been complied with within 6 weeks of this report.