London Borough of Hackney (202211339)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211339

London Borough of Hackney

22 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a flood, and damage to a communal pipe affecting her property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder, and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a 1 bedroom flat and the flat above the resident’s is also a leasehold property.
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 ultimately responsible for the actions of the TMO. A residents rights under a lease are not affected by the establishment of a TMO; they have the same rights as if they were under the landlord’s management, including right to repair.
On 10 December 2021, a private contractor damaged a communal water pipe in the flat above the resident’s, causing a leak into her property. The landlord was notified on the same day, and its TMO arranged for a contractor who attended on the same day to carry out a temporary fix of the pipe, and make safe any electrics at the property.
On 20 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord stating that she had been trying to get updates on when works would be done to repair water damage caused to her property, but that its TMO were not responding to her calls or emails.
On 22 December 2021, the resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord. She reiterated that she was getting no response from its TMO about what was being done to fix her property following the leak. She was concerned that the water damage would get worse the longer it was left, and explained that she had contacted her insurer on the day of the incident, and they had told her it was the landlord’s responsibility to rectify the damage.
On 11 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. It did not uphold her complaint, and explained that its TMO had acted appropriately in dealing with the leak. Additionally, it told the resident to contact her housing officer for further updates, or its own repairs team for updates on works. On the same day, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process. She explained that a broken part of the communal pipe remained in one of her cupboards, and she needed it removed.
On 15 March 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It did not uphold her complaint upon review, and explained that the leaseholder living above her was responsible for the leak, and so she would need to make an insurance claim against them. It also explained that the resident should have contacted its repairs team about the outstanding works required, and not its TMO.
As a resolution to her complaint, the resident wants the landlord to remove the damaged pipe from her flat so her insurance company can carry out the necessary works, and process her claim. She also wants compensation for delays, distress, and inconvenience.
Since the resident’s complaint was brought to this service, the landlord arranged removal of the communal pipe on 28 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

Reports of flood and removal of communal pipe

The landlord’s repairs responsibility matrix says that the TMO is responsible for responsive repairs to the following: plumbing beyond the stopcock, plumber fittings and floor finishes.
The landlord’s rules and regulations for leaseholders state that it is responsible for all communal repairs to the estate and block and that it will repair damage to the property caused by a leaseholder, and charge the leaseholder for the associated costs.
The rules and regulations also set out the landlord’s published standards for dealing with repairs. These are:
1. Immediate repairs: make safe within 2 hours,
2. emergency repairs: make safe within 24 hours (same day if reported before 12 noon),
3. urgent repairs: within 5 days after having made it safe on the first visit,
4. normal repairs: within 20 working days (usually within 3-10 days by appointment) or when the repair does not pose any danger to occupants or members of the public.
When the leak was reported on 10 December 2021, the landlord’s TMO attended on the same day and arranged for a contractor to carry out repairs, including making safe the electrics at the property. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
Additionally, the TMO asked the contractor to get videos and pictures of the incident so that the landlord could forward them on to its insurance provider. They also confirmed that they had spoken to the neighbour about the incident, and that she had apologised for the damage, and would be getting her own contractor to attend to carry out a full repair.
Following the incident, the resident states that she contacted the TMO on several occasions to try and get an update on what was being done to sort out the damage to her property, but had not received a response. When the resident contacted the landlord to explain this on 20 December 2021, the TMO responded to her on 27 December 2021. They explained that because the leak had been caused by her neighbour’s private contractor, she would need to pursue the issue through the landlord or her own insurance company. They also confirmed that following the information their own contractor sent to the landlord, it had notified its insurance provider and a claim had been initiated. They recommended that the resident contact the landlord’s insurance team going forward, and explained that their responsibility for the incident ended after the make safe works were completed.
Additionally, the TMO explained that the agreement it has with its contractor is for them to carry out make safe or temporary repairs only, and any permanent repairs would need to be carried out by the landlord or leaseholder where appropriate. Finally, they apologised for the delay in responding to her queries, and explained that the delay had been caused by staff sickness.
While the above information given to the resident by the TMO was correct, it is apparent from the correspondence that the resident was unclear on who to speak to following the leak. The matter was confused further when the resident spoke to the TMO’s contractor in January with concerns about water damage following the incident. The contractor confirmed that he was waiting for a report to be signed off by the TMO before making a permanent fix. This was not the case, and it was not until 6 January 2022, in a phone conversation with the resident, that the TMO clarified this to the resident, and reiterated that the landlord would need to arrange its own contractor for further repairs. It is unclear why the TMO did not then share the details with the landlord to ensure that the appropriate arrangements were made for repairs. As an agent of the landlord, this would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
It has therefore been recommended below that the landlord review its policies and procedures to make sure they clearly set out the responsibilities carried out by its TMO for its residents, to avoid the same confusion happening in the future.
Additionally, it took the resident 2 weeks to get a response from the TMO to her queries. When the TMO did respond, it told the resident she would need to speak to the landlord as the issue related to a communal pipe. As an agent of the landlord, the TMO should have raised this with the landlord themselves, as well as clearly signposting the resident. The TMO did provide the landlord with an update on the situation, what action they had taken, and what the landlord’s responsibilities were going forward. But this was a week after their contact with the resident. It is noted that they apologised for the delayed response and explained the reasons behind it. However, the delays and lack of a proactive response caused the resident distress, as she was concerned about ongoing water damage being caused to her property while she tried to get the matter resolved.
After the landlord had been updated on the situation by its TMO, it took no immediate action to remove the damaged communal pipe from the resident’s property. Instead, as explained in its stage 1 response to the resident, its focus was on gaining access to the flat above the residents. It confirmed that its housing officer had shared pictures of the damage with the resident’s neighbour, and had asked them to make contacted with all people affected by the damage, including the resident. It also told the resident to contact its repairs team for an update on work to the communal pipe.
However, no action appears to have been taken by the landlord following its response. There was clear confusion over why the communal pipe needed to be removed. This could have been clarified quicker had it’s repairs team carried out an inspection of the resident’s property following the incident, instead of leaving the incident in the hands of its TMO, who had made it clear previously that they were only responsible for make safe repairs to the neighbour’s property.
To recognise this, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and lack of communication.
In her stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 11 February 2023, the resident stated that the broken communal pipe was still in her property, and when she had spoken to the landlord’s repairs team, they told her that the TMO was responsible for getting it removed. However, the TMO had told her this was not the case.
On 5 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that the pipe was still there, and she asked for additional advice as her neighbour was not responding to her. The landlord responded on 7 March 2023 and said that its TMO had been trying to contact her neighbour, and advised the resident to contact her insurer so they could start a liability claim.
On 8 March 2023, the TMO contacted the landlord with an update. They told the landlord that they do not carry out day-to-day maintenance works on leasehold flats, as repairs are the leaseholder’s responsibility as per the lease agreement. They explained that the issue in question related to abuse and/or damage to the landlord’s property, specifically damage to a communal pipe, and they had already explained this to the landlord’s maintenance team, the resident, and her neighbour. They reiterated that their contractor agreement only allowed them to attend leasehold properties on an emergency basis to undertake safety measures, which they did on the day of the incident. They also stated that the neighbour had informed them she had been in touch with the resident to discuss compensation. It is concerning that the TMO had to explain its responsibilities for repairs to the landlord, given the policies and procedures it has in place.
On 15 March 2022, in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord told her it was liaising with its repairs team about removing the pipe, and would update her as soon as possible. However, the resident had to contact the landlord again on 20 July 2022 for a further update. She confirmed no work had been carried out, and her insurer could not carry out repair works without the pipe being removed.
A job to remove the pipe was not booked in with the resident by the landlord until 28 October 2022. No reason was given to the resident for the delay, but from the information on file it seems that the landlord was confused about what work was required, and who was liable for the repair costs. The TMO had already explained the situation to it previously, as had the resident. The landlord’s repairs team does not seem to have taken any action following the incident and the temporary repairs/make safe works carried out by the TMO’s contractor. It is unclear as to why this was the case, and the landlord has not acknowledged the unnecessary delays in removing the pipe in any of its correspondence to the resident’s complaint.
Additionally, it had been reported to the landlord that the issue related to a communal pipe, for which the landlord was responsible. An inspection and the repair/removal of the broken pipe should have been carried out, and the landlord would have been entitled to charge the resident’s neighbour for this, in line with its own repairs policy. Instead, the landlord took no action to inspect the issue itself, and relied on notes and emails from the TMO, which were focussed on the works they carried out in the neighbour’s property, not the broken communal pipe that remained in the resident’s property as a result.
The delays meant that the resident had to wait for almost 9 months for the repairs to be carried out. This was outside of the landlord’s own repairs policy timescales, and caused the resident understandable anxiety and distress, particularly given that her insurer had advised her it could not begin its own work without the pipe being removed. The resident had also raised concerns that the issue could cause damp and mould the longer it was left. She was unable to use her wardrobe properly, or to subsequently enjoy her home while the pipe remained in place. The landlord does not seem to have taken ownership of the situation despite being made aware a number of times that the actions of one of its leaseholders continued to impact the resident. A TMO is not a substitute for landlord involvement, and this service would have expected the landlord to have proactively chased a resolution for its leaseholder.
To recognise the unnecessary delays and distress caused to the resident as a result, as well as its failure to acknowledge and apologise for these failings in its complaint responses, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident £400 in compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord has not provided this service with a copy of its complaint handling policy. However, the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.
The resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord on 22 December 2021. She did not receive a stage 1 response from the landlord until 11 February 2022. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response for over 40 days, and no explanation was given to the resident for the delay. This was a failure by the landlord.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 11 February 2022, and the landlord responded on 15 March 2022. This was not a significant delay, but given that the landlord had already delayed in providing its stage one response, this Service would have expected the landlord to have been more prompt and in line with its timescales at stage two. The resident experienced a significant delay in getting her stage 1 complaint resolved. As a result, her complaint was delayed in being escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, and ultimately, delayed her in bringing her complaint to this service. This caused her additional unnecessary stress and inconvenience.
The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident an additional £50 in compensation to recognise unnecessary delays, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a flood, and damage to a communal pipe affecting her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation within 4 weeks. This is broken down into:
1. £50 for its TMO’s delays in responding to the resident’s queries and its own lack of communication, and £400 for delayed repairs, its failure to acknowledge and apologise for its failing at the formal complaint stage, and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by unnecessary delays.
2. £50 for delays in providing its formal complaint responses.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its policies and procedures regarding its TMO, and should share this with all residents to ensure that the responsibilities of the TMO are clearly set out for residents.