London Borough of Hackney (202214710)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214710

London Borough of Hackney

30 September 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 the landlord’s handling of a reported leak from the roof and damage to his property from historic leaks.

Background

The resident lives in a 4-bedroom flat on the top floor of the block. He holds a secure tenancy with the landlord and has lived in the property since November 2015. The landlord recorded that the resident is vulnerable.
The resident reported a roof leak affecting one of his bedrooms on 17 August 2022.
On 7 September 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord. He advised that the leak continued to affect his flat and that the bedroom and bathroom were both affected when it rained. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken any action.
On 19 October 2022, the landlord issued the resident a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. It investigated the leak and noted that the issue stemmed from the new roof which was under warranty. It therefore referred the matter to the contractors who fitted the roof.
2. Following a joint visit on 4 October 2022, no leaks in the roof were identified.
3. Contractors completed a follow up inspection after a period of rain and again found no evidence of a roof leak.
4. It sought to complete a survey to review the findings from the previous inspections and identify the source of the leak. On 7 October 2022 when this was proposed to the resident, he said he would seek advice prior to accepting this appointment.
5. It would conduct a survey on 25 October 2022. It advised the resident to contact the landlord should this date not be suitable. The landlord stressed the importance of the appointment to address necessary repairs and redecoration to the property.
On 2 December 2022, the Ombudsman requested escalation of the complaint on behalf of the resident. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response about the leak. He felt that it had not responded to his concerns of damage caused to his flat from historic leaks.
The landlord issued a stage 2 final response on 19 December 2022. In summary it said:
1. It located one other previous report of water ingress from 2017.
2. Due to the passage of time, the most appropriate way to address the reported damage would be for the landlord to survey the property.
3. It was unable to access the resident’s property on 25 October 2022.
4. As it had not identified a leak from its previous investigation into the roof, the only way forward would be to complete a full assessment of the property and its condition. The resident should contact the landlord to arrange this. If he was unable to do this, he should inform the landlord.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 November 2023. He remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his reports of the leak. Further, he is unhappy that his property is damaged from historic leaks. He is seeking financial compensation to resolve the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident reported to both the Ombudsman and landlord that he experienced intermittent historic leaks which affected his property. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident raised a complaint on 7 September 2022, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s leak report from 17 August 2022 onwards. Landlord records show that the only other report of water ingress was made by the resident in 2017. This will not be considered as part of the investigation as it did not occur within 12 months of the complaint. However, as the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damage caused to his property by historic leaks, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord’s response was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof and damage to his property from historic leaks.

The landlord’s webpage on repairs outlines that it uses 4 categories for repairs: immediate, emergency, urgent, and normal. According to the categorisation, an uncontrollable water leak would be considered an emergency repair and should be addressed within 24 hours. Urgent repairs should be responded to within 5 working days, and normal repairs within 21 working days.
The repairs guide states that tenants have an obligation under their tenancy agreement to report repairs to their landlord. It continues that if the landlord cannot gain access to the property at the appointment time, it will phone the resident, leave a calling card, and the responsibility lies with the resident to contact the landlord to re-book an appointment.
The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 17 August 2022. At this time, he said it affected one bedroom. Records suggest that the landlord attended the property on 26 August 2022 after the resident said that the leak was ongoing. Although the landlord did not retain clear records of the nature of the leak, the Ombudsman considers that waiting 9 days before attending was not proportionate to an ‘ongoing leak’.
When the landlord attended the resident’s property, it noted that a new roof had recently been fitted which was reportedly leaking into the bedroom. It identified that the repair needed to be passed back to the roof contractors who installed the roof. Although this may have been an appropriate course of action, it is insufficient that according to records the landlord did not take any remedial action during this visit. As such, the resident continued to report the leak.
The resident incurred time and trouble chasing the landlord on 6 September 2022 and 7 September 2022. He reported that the leak had worsened, his bathroom was also affected by the leak, he used pots to collect water, and his cupboard was flooded. Additionally, the resident said that he was disabled and was not coping well. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken any action to resolve the leak. The landlord recorded that its out of hours team could not attend as the matter was for its roof contractors. It was unacceptable that the out of hours team failed to respond to the emergency. Its reasoning not to attend was unsatisfactory. Although the landlord raised a work order for its contractors to attend, this was not prioritised or marked as an emergency. Its lack of action during this time was poor.
The landlord said in its complaint response that had it not referred the leak to the contractors who installed the roof, it would have invalidated the warranty. However, this did not negate the landlord’s responsibility to attend the resident’s property. The matter posed potential health and safety hazards to the resident, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities. By taking no action, the landlord failed to safeguard the resident. The landlord’s repeated failings to respond to the reported leak and damage during this time is likely to have caused him detriment. As such, the landlord is ordered to review its process for when an emergency report is made. The landlord should ensure that it attends to emergencies which are its responsibility within a timely manner.
It is relevant to note that the leak was reported as intermittent and affected the property when it rained. However, the resident’s reports suggest that the leak was significant and adversely affected him.
The landlord attended the property on 9 September 2022 and again confirmed that the matter should be referred to the roof contractors who installed it. However, no further progress was made during this appointment. Some delays were caused by the landlord’s uncertainty about which contractor installed the roof. The resident experienced multiple landlord visits with no action. This is likely to have disillusioned the resident.
Roof contractors eventually attended the property on 22 September 2022, 26 days after the leak was originally reported. They did not find an active leak or fault with the roof. Given the nature of the reported leak, it was appropriate that the landlord instructed a further inspection following a period of heavy rain. It arranged for its site manager to attend with the contractors. The joint visit took place following rainy weather conditions on5 October 2022.The roof and the loft were inspected and both parties confirmed there was no evidence of a roof leak. They recorded that rafters and other materials in the loft were dry and took supporting photographs. The landlord evidenced transparency by communicating these findings to the resident in a timely manner.
The resident strongly disputed the landlord’s claim that there was not a roof leak. Given his concerns, the landlord offered to complete an independent survey of the property. It said it would further review the roof as well as the rest of the property and trace the source of the leak. The landlord identified that historically the resident experienced water ingress into his property from a hopper which was blocked with debris. As such, it considered further investigations necessary. The landlord’s proposed steps were reasonable given its findings from the 2 previous inspections.
The resident advised the landlord that he would seek further advice prior to agreeing to the survey and was unclear why a further visit was necessary. The landlord justified both verbally and in writing why further investigations were required. However, records show the resident did not respond to contacts where it attempted to book an appointment. The landlord therefore arranged an appointment on 25 October 2022 and informed the resident of this. The landlord was unable to access the property to complete the survey on this date and the resident did not make contact to book another appointment. The landlord followed its process and attempted to phone the resident at the time of the appointment but did not receive a response. The landlord was limited with what actions it could take without access to the flat.
It was appropriate that the landlord continued to contact the resident in the following months to book an appointment. The landlord stressed the importance of the resident engaging so that the leak could be investigated. The resident responded to some emails but not to the landlord’s requests for an appointment. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took sufficient steps to attempt to complete its investigations.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident experienced poor health and was in hospital for a period of time. The landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when it attempted to book appointments. It offered that he could reach out by email rather than phone. This was appropriate as he had previously expressed difficulty speaking on the phone calls. Additionally, it completed a wellbeing check in December 2022, and said he could instruct an advocate to speak with the landlord on his behalf. These were reasonable steps to ensure the landlord’s services were accessible for the resident.
Part of the resident’s complaint related to the condition of his property. He informed the Ombudsman that 3 bedrooms, his bathroom and corridor were damaged from historic leaks. He reported that the damage occurred approximately 3 years ago. The resident informed the landlord during the complaint that wallpaper had peeled away, walls were water stained and this had never been resolved. Due to the passage of time, the landlord said that it would need to assess the reported damage and identify any required repairs. This was an appropriate response. However, as the resident did not allow access for the appointments, the landlord was unable to take further action.
The resident informed the Ombudsman that since the final response, the landlord attended his property to inspect its condition, but did not commit to complete any works. We have not seen records to substantiate this visit. However, given the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction about the condition of his property, the landlord is recommended to re-offer to survey the property. It should clarify to the resident its position and outline whether it will complete repairs to the reported damage from historic leaks.
It was prudent of the landlord to provide the resident with an insurance claim form following its final response. The resident reported damage to his personal belongings from the recent leak and therefore an insurance claim would be the correct route for the resident should he want to progress this matter.
Records show the resident has not reported further leaks since October 2022. However, he informed the Ombudsman during a phone call in September 2024 that he still uses a pot to collect water in his property when it rains. It is important to note that the resident has an obligation to report repairs to the landlord under the terms of his tenancy agreement. As such, he should contact the landlord to report details of the leak. Given the ongoing concerns, the landlord is recommended to offer a further date to carry out investigations into the reported leak. The resident is encouraged to allow access so that the landlord can seek to resolve the matter.
To conclude, the landlord’s initial response to the reported leak fell short. It repeatedly failed to respond to the leak as an emergency despite the significant concerns raised by the resident. The delays for it to attend and investigate the leak and reported damage were likely to have caused detriment to the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman has identified service failure for the period from 17 August 2022 until 22 September 2022. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused during this period.
From 22 September 2022 onwards, the landlord’s actions were appropriate. It completed thorough investigations into the report of a roof leak by visiting the property on 2 separate occasions. As it was unable to locate a leak from the roof, the landlord offered to complete further investigations. It also offered to assess the reported damage in his property from historic leaks. The landlord was transparent with the resident about its position. Moreover, it took reasonable steps to arrange a survey of the property. Ultimately, the landlord was unable to take further action due to not being able to access the property. To conclude this matter, the resident should engage with the landlord so that it can conduct its survey and investigations.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof and damage to his property from historic leaks.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s repeated failings to appropriately respond to the reported leak and damage between 17 August 2022 until 22 September 2022.
The landlord is ordered to review its process for when an emergency repair is logged. As part of this, the landlord should ensure staff members are aware of the importance of attending to all emergency reports which are its responsibility within its stipulated timeframes.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks from the date of the report.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to re-offer a survey of the resident’s property. Following this, it should clarify to the resident its position and outline whether it will complete repairs to the reported damage from historic leaks.
The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to offer a further date to carry out investigations into the reported ongoing leak.