London Borough of Hackney (202205960)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205960

London Borough of Hackney

24 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
4. How the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the Tenancy Management Organisation (TMO) and the landlord’s monitoring.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which started in 2020. The resident has agoraphobia, ornithophobia (a fear of birds), sensory impairments, and mental ill health. The landlord is aware of the resident’s ornithophobia but does not have any vulnerabilities recorded on its files. The property is a ground floor flat with a balcony. The property is part of an estate which is run by a TMO.
In November 2020, the resident asked the TMO to install a security grille on her front door and install netting to enclose her balcony. She said she needed the grille and netting because of her ornithophobia which prevented her from opening the door or going outside. These were adaptations requests. She reported an electrical socket that was not working in her kitchen. She also reported a leak under the sink. The TMO’s contractor attended the property twice on 2 separate mornings to fix the leak. The resident did not allow access for the repair as she said an appointment had not been made and she was only available in the afternoons. She asked the TMO to log a complaint because she was unhappy with the conduct of its contractor. She also said that the TMO had not called her back when she had tried to rearrange the repair appointment. The resident chased the TMO for a response after receiving no reply to her emails.
In December 2020, the resident continued to chase the TMO and landlord about the repair for the leak, the faulty socket, and her adaptations requests. When a contractor attended to repair the leak, it told the TMO there was no leak in the property. Between 5 January 2021 and 17 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and TMO several times about her adaptation requests. The landlord referred her adaptation requests to occupational health. On 21 February 2021, the resident logged a new complaint with the landlord about the TMO’s failure to respond to her emails. She also reported water damage to her kitchen ceiling following a leak from a neighbouring property. The TMO arranged for its contractor to attend the property 4 days later.
On 26 February 2021, the landlord told the resident’s social worker that it had not logged complaints as it had already provided answers for several of the resident’s issues. It needed the resident to supply a list of outstanding issues for it to log a complaint. It could not provide a security grille as this went against fire safety. It had no precedent for fitting netting on private balconies and the resident would need to ask for permission to do this herself.
Between 1 March 2021 and 22 September 2021:
1. The resident continued to ask the landlord and TMO to make the adaptations she had requested. She told the landlord and TMO that her mental health was being severely affected because the adaptations had not been installed.
2. She reported ASB from a group of youths gathering outside her front door.
3. She told the landlord and TMO that the previous leak from the neighbouring property had caused sitting water on her ceiling. She was concerned the ceiling would collapse as a result.
4. She also said that the skirting and door surrounds were rotting due to damp. The TMO’s contractor carried out a damp inspection and said that the woodwork was becoming damp whenever the floor was mopped.
5. The occupational therapist told the landlord they could not carry out the resident’s adaptations request. The landlord advised the resident neither it nor the TMO could install bird netting and it did not allow security grilles on its properties. It advised the resident to call the police regarding the ASB.
On 9 December 2021, the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord. The complaint was about the landlord and TMO declining to install the bird netting. She had recently received a letter from the landlord which said bird netting was being replaced on the fire exits and balconies of the flat block. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 January 2022. It said that the installation of bird netting was for the communal areas only. It apologised for the lack of clarity in the letter it had sent.
Between 15 January 2022 and 16 March 2022, the resident told the landlord and TMO that there were outstanding repairs in the property. This included water damage to a ceiling and walls, and rotten woodwork. She raised a further complaint about the TMO’s staff conduct, her contact preferences being ignored, and unresolved repair issues with wiring, damp, and mould. The TMO provided its complaint response on 18 March 2022. The TMO said that the repairs to the leaking pipe in the bathroom, the shower hose, damp wash and seal above the bath had been completed. The only repair outstanding was the replacement of skirting in the hallway. Its surveyor would contact the resident to arrange an inspection. In April 2022 the TMO said it had resolved the wire issue and agreed to install the bird netting.
In June 2022, the resident chased the landlord for responses to complaints she said she had raised in February 2021 and March 2022. The landlord met with her to discuss her concerns. In addition to previous issues, the resident added that the contractor’s standard of work when replacing the skirting was poor. She said that issues with her wiring were still outstanding. The resident said that complaints she had raised against the TMO had not been addressed. When the resident chased the landlord for a response, it told her there was a delay as the staff member dealing with the complaint was on unexpected leave. At the request of the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to issue its stage 1 complaint response. It issued its stage 1 response on 18 August 2022. It said:
1. It was sorry for the delay caused by the unexpected leave of its staff member.
2. The TMO had installed the bird netting as a gesture of goodwill.
3. The wiring issue which the resident was referring to, was her telephone internet connection. It was not electrical wiring.
4. It had replaced the skirting board with a UPVC length which was functional. As a gesture of goodwill, it would replace it with wooden skirting.
5. Its communication could have been better. It could have answered the resident’s requests sooner. However, the resident had raised her requests during the pandemic when there was disruption. She had emailed several different people which had caused the landlord confusion. The resident’s volume of emails had taken up a disproportionate amount of its staff’s time. The landlord and TMO do not respond to every email that involves issues that it has already dealt with. The TMO would respond to emails in its general inbox within 10 working days, unless the issues were complex or had already been dealt with.
6. Its records showed its contractor had come on one occasion without giving 24 hour’s notice. It would ask the contractor not to do this in the future. Where possible it would only give afternoon repair appointments. If the resident limited her availability, repairs may take longer to resolve. It would consider the resident’s comments about its contractor. It could not always appoint specific staff to attend the resident’s property.
7. The landlord did not have input into the performance or recruitment of TMO staff. It could not dissolve the TMO. The resident needed to raise these issues in the TMO continuation ballot. The TMO committee had met with the resident 3 times that year and carried out jobs as gestures of goodwill. This went above and beyond the TMO’s obligations.
8. It supplied the resident with its timeframes and categories for repair. It said that due to COVID-19, non-urgent repairs were taking longer than usual.
On 29 September 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. On 6 October 2022, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to issue its stage 2 response. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 November 2022. It said that the resident’s concerns had been addressed fully at stage 1 of its complaints process.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaints handling. She was also unhappy with the TMO’s communication, its staff behaviour, and failure to acknowledge her reasonable adjustments. The resident wants the TMO’s failings to be acknowledged. She also wants compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident has told the Ombudsman that she is dissatisfied with how the TMO is run. The Ombudsman may not consider matters which relate to the processes and decisions concerning a member’s governance structures. This part of the complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of repairs.

The Right to Manage lets tenants and leaseholders take over certain management responsibilities from their landlord; in this case the property is managed by a Tenant Management Organisation (TMO). The landlord is responsible for monitoring the actions of the TMO.
The TMO’s website says it is responsible for repairs to architraves and skirting, plumbing systems, electrical wiring and socket outlets. The landlord is responsible for adaptations. The TMO follows the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to respond to normal repairs within 21 working days. It aims to respond to urgent repairs within 5 working days. It aims to respond to immediate repairs within 24 hours. The landlord’s repairs guide says that resident’s must allow access to the property at reasonable hours.
The tenancy handbook says that doors and window grilles must not be installed at any time. Residents must contact the landlord if they want to make improvements to the property.
The evidence shows that the TMO raised an order on 24 November 2020 for its contractor to attend to a leak in the property. The resident raised a complaint 2 days later about the contractor’s attendance. This shows that the TMO’s contractor responded within the landlord’s policy timeframes. However, the resident asked to rearrange the repair and did not receive a response from the TMO despite chasing it. She contacted the landlord on the 13 December 2020 and chased a further 2 times before the landlord asked the TMO 8 days later to contact her about the repair. As the landlord had delegated authority to conduct these repairs to the TMO, it would have been appropriate for it to chase the TMO sooner once it was made aware they remained outstanding.
On 21 December 2020, the resident advised the landlord and TMO that an electric socket was not working in her kitchen. She advised she was using an extension lead in order to plug in her fridge which she said was dangerous. She chased the landlord 2 times at the start of January 2021 before the TMO raised a works order to repair the socket fault. It was 18 days before the repair was raised. This goes against the landlord’s repairs policy under which this should have been classed as an urgent repair. The evidence does not show that the landlord raised a concern with the TMO for its delay in raising the repair.
When the resident reported an ongoing leak near an electrical socket, the landlord followed up with the TMO to make sure a repair was raised the same day. This was in line with its repairs policy for immediate repairs.
The landlord did not show it was proactive in chasing the TMO regarding the redecoration following the leak. The TMO raised a works order to remedy the water damage on 25 February 2021. On the 22 March 2021, the landlord advised the resident that the TMO could not resolve the repairs unless she allowed access to the property. The evidence does not show that the resident refused access to her property. The resident continued to chase the landlord and TMO about the repair and on 25 January 2022 the TMO inspected the property. It is unclear when the redecoration was completed, but the TMO advised the repair was not outstanding in its complaint response on 18 March 2022. This was over 12 months after the repair was first raised. This was not reasonable and the landlord should have done more to address the delay with the TMO once it was aware.
The landlord evidenced maladministration through its failure to monitor the TMO’s response to the repairs within the policy timeframes.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations.

The Equality Act 2010 sets out obligations for landlords when responding to residents with a known vulnerability. This includes making reasonable adjustments.
The length of time the landlord took to respond to the resident’s initial adaptation request was unreasonable. The resident first told the landlord in November 2020 about her phobia and how it prevented her from leaving the property. It took the landlord 3 months to respond to the resident. It then said it had no precedent for installing bird netting to individual properties. The landlord did not evidence that it had considered its obligations under the Equality Act. Its response did not show empathy for the resident or consideration of her circumstances.
It’s response that it could not fit a security grille was in line with the tenant handbook. It was reasonable that it said security grilles were not allowed due to fire safety. However, it could have done more to explain to the resident what it was doing regarding other flats that already had security grilles installed. This would have reassured the resident that its approach was fair when declining her request.
The landlord told the resident on more than one occasion that she could apply for permission to install the bird netting herself. The resident initially told the landlord she had no one to install it and asked for the landlord’s help. The evidence does not show that the landlord considered this request. The landlord also referred the resident to occupational health regarding the adaptations. The evidence does not show that it further considered its position on the bird netting after occupational health told it they were unable to install the adaptation. It should have reconsidered its position, especially as the resident continued to contact it about the issue.
The landlord cannot be held responsible for an assault the resident suffered when asking her ex-partner to install the bird netting. Although it is acknowledged that the resident felt she had no other choice due to the landlord’s refusal to install bird netting. The landlord could have been empathetic in its response to the resident on this point.
The TMO agreed to install the bird netting on 28 April 2022 after reviewing the resident’s medical evidence. Its decision to do this was reasonable, however the time it took to come to this decision since being made aware was 17 months. This was not reasonable. The landlord could have done more to consider its own position on the netting in line with the resident’s disability. It should have done more to ensure a timely response from the TMO on the issue.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations. This was because of its failure to respond to the issue in a timely manner. It failed to consider the adaptations as a reasonable adjustment and so failed to observe its responsibilities under the Equality Act. It could have done more to ensure a timely response from the TMO on the issue.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.

The Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard set out obligations for landlords when responding to residents with a known vulnerability. This includes making reasonable adjustments in communications with residents with known vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s adult safeguarding procedure says that its housing staff must refer residents that it feels are at risk to social care. If a referral is made, notes must be updated in its customer management system and a copy of the referral must be uploaded. The landlord’s support needs and vulnerability policy says that it has a duty to act if it believes a resident is at risk of harm. It also says that it can refer residents to tenancy support if they have a vulnerability that affects their management of their tenancy.
Between 2020 and 2022, the resident told the landlord on at least 8 occasions that she was having suicidal thoughts. There is one mention in the landlord’s internal emails from February 2022 asking if a safeguarding referral had been made. The evidence did not show that the landlord followed this up or offered support for the resident regarding this. It was aware that the resident had a social worker but the evidence does not show it contacted them about this. The landlord did not evidence a duty of care towards the resident. This goes against its adult safeguarding, and support needs and vulnerability policies.
The evidence showed that in February 2022, the resident asked the landlord to only contact her by email, or by phone at a certain time. The landlord recorded a reasonable contact adjustment for the resident on its systems in August 2022. This was a gap of 6 months before the landlord actioned the contact adjustment, which was not reasonable. The landlord did not have the resident’s disabilities recorded on its systems. If it had done so, it may have been able to identify reasonable adjustments for the resident at an earlier time.
The resident also requested repairs appointments after certain times. The landlord demonstrated that it would follow this request to the best of its ability in its stage 1 complaint response in August 2022.
The landlord demonstrated maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments. It did this by failing to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s reasonable adjustments within a reasonable timeframe. It did not evidence that it had followed up on safeguarding concerns for the resident.

How the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the Tenancy Management Organisation (TMO) and the landlord’s monitoring.

The management agreement between the landlord and TMO says that the landlord has a responsibility to monitor the performance of the TMO. The landlord and TMO should meet yearly to review their respective performance. If the TMO fails to perform, the landlord and TMO will agree a strategy to remedy it.
As per the management agreement, the landlord should have monitored the TMO in its service delivery. This included the TMO’s delivery of repairs, its communication with the resident and its management of the resident’s complaints. Although it did liaise with the TMO on some occasions to progress repairs, this was often after several chases from the resident. It did not show that it had followed up with the TMO to ensure it had responded to the resident’s complaints about it. When the resident raised concerns about the TMO’s communication, the evidence does not show that the landlord followed this up. Instead, it reminded the resident of the TMO’s general email address and did not show that it had thoroughly considered her concerns.
The landlord told the resident it did not have input into the TMO’s service delivery which is not accurate. It told the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that it did not have input into the performance and recruitment of TMO staff. Although it may not manage the TMO’s staff, it does have a responsibility under the management agreement to monitor the TMO’s performance. The evidence does not show that the TMO responded to the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of its staff. If the landlord was not responsible on this point, it should have chased the TMO to provide a response instead as part of its performance monitoring.
It is unclear how the landlord monitors the performance of the TMO. It should set out how it does this to the Ombudsman and the resident to provide clarity and assurance.
The landlord evidenced maladministration through its failure to display sufficient oversight of the TMO.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The management agreement between the TMO and the landlord says that the landlord passes any complaints about the TMO to the TMO within 7 days. It is the responsibility of the TMO to respond to complaints about its service and its staff.
The landlord’s complaints procedure has 2 stages. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The TMO also uses the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident raised several complaints about the TMO through the landlord. This included a complaint she raised via the landlord on 26 November 2020. The landlord acknowledged the complaint almost 1 month later. This is outside of the timeframes within its management agreement. It said the TMO would respond within 15 working days. This is outside of its complaints policy.
The evidence did not show that the TMO responded to the complaint made on 26 November 2020. The evidence did not show that the landlord chased the TMO to ensure the resident’s complaint was responded to. It should have done this as part of its monitoring of the management agreement.
The stage 1 complaint response issued in August 2022, was issued at the request of the Ombudsman. Before this, the landlord had told the resident its staff member who was dealing with the complaint was on unexpected leave so there would be a delay. The landlord said it could not deal with the complaint until the staff member was back as there was no notes on the system. This was a failing which unreasonably delayed the resident’s complaint from being dealt with.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code says that landlords should accept complaints unless there is a valid reason not to do so. The Code also says that residents should not have to use the word “complaint” in order for it to be treated as such.
The landlord has an unreasonable and unreasonably persistent customer behaviour policy. It says that it must consider that communication with the resident has been adequate before deciding that a resident’s persistent contact is unreasonable. It must also consider any vulnerabilities a resident has which may impact on how it communicates with the landlord. It should explore the reasons for persistent unreasonable contact with the resident before restricting access to its service. If it decides to put contact restrictions in place, it must write to the resident with its reasons for doing so.
In the landlord’s August 2022 complaint response, it said it and the TMO did not respond to emails if the issues within had already been dealt with. This was not reasonable and does not negate the landlord’s responsibility to respond to its residents entirely. If the landlord felt an issue had already been dealt with, it should have set out its position to the resident rather than failing to respond at all. It should have given the resident the opportunity to raise a complaint if she was unhappy with its position. It breached the Code by failing to acknowledge and accept the complaints the resident raised with it.
In the same complaint response, it also accused the resident of sending large volumes of emails with a negative volume and tone. There was no evidence that the landlord addressed concerns about the resident’s behaviour before this point. If the landlord made the decision not to respond to the resident, it should have had sound reasoning for doing so. It should have made the resident aware it was imposing restrictions on how it communicated with her. By not doing so, it breached its unreasonable customer behaviour policy. The resident experienced distress through the landlord and TMO’s failure to respond on several occasions.
The landlord evidenced maladministration in its complaint handling as it failed to monitor that the TMO responded to the complaints the resident had raised. It did not evidence sound reasoning for not accepting the resident’s complaints or failing to respond to them. It did not follow its unreasonable customer behaviour policy before deciding not to respond to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
4. How the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the Tenancy Management Organisation (TMO) and the landlord’s monitoring.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise for its failings in this case in writing to the resident. It should identify the reasons for its failings and any measures it will put in place to avoid these failings in the future. It should provide a copy of the apology to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £800 compensation comprised of:
1. £600 for its failure to consider the resident’s adaptation requests as reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act.
2. £200 for distress caused to the resident for the landlord’s failure to respond to her emails.
The landlord is to record the resident’s disabilities on its system. This will help it to identify and respond appropriately to the resident’s needs.
The landlord is to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with its process for monitoring the TMO to ensure the TMO meets its obligations under the management agreement. This should include how it monitors the TMO’s:
1. Response to residents within set service standard timeframes.
2. Response to repairs within policy timeframes.
3. Response to complaints within policy timeframes.
The landlord is to complete the above orders within 4 weeks of the issue of this report. It should provide evidence of its compliance to the Ombudsman within this time period.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider training for its staff on complaint handling to ensure it logs complaints appropriately.
The landlord should consider training for its staff on recording reasonable communication adjustments on its systems. This would ensure that reasonable adjustments are recorded in a timely manner.
The landlord should consider the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). It should pay particular regard to the recommendations related to recording resident contact.