London Borough of Hackney (202226213)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226213

London Borough of Hackney

22 February 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 outstanding repairs to the resident’s property, including the level of compensation offered.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 4-bedroom house.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 2 March 2022. She said she was having problems getting the repairs completed in her property and that they had been ongoing since September 2021. She said there were unresolved issues with contractors blaming each other. The repairs outlined in the complaint were that the kitchen sink and drain needed clearing, the bathroom pipe had caused flooding, the living room ceiling was ruined, the bathroom taps, and bath panel needed to be replaced.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 March 2022. It apologised for the delays in resolving the repairs and for the resident’s experiences. It said it had spoken with the resident and the repairs raised were expected to resolve her issues. It offered £50 compensation for the delays and confirmed the following actions:
1. It would decorate the resident’s living room ceiling which had water damage from the bathroom leak. It said it would follow up to see if it required an inspection first.
2. It said the blocked drain was raised as an emergency and completed on 16 November 2021. It said it appeared the source of the blockage was internal.
3. It said a total of 4 relating jobs were raised to repair the leak and bath panel and regrettably, the repairs were not successfully resolved.
4. It had raised repairs for the leak under the kitchen sink, to renew taps, and to renew the bath panel.
5. It said it also raised a repair to unblock upsurge in the kitchen sink and this was completed on the same day.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 March 2022. She said the blocked drain was still outstanding. She said that while the plumber attended on 16 November 2021 to clear the sink, they said the drains still needed to be unblocked. The resident said she was distressed due to concerns for the safety of her 5 children and she felt the repair should have been a priority. The resident felt the offer of £50 was an insult. She said she had been waiting since 29 September 2021 for the repairs to be carried out and it had caused her stress, inconvenience, and aggravation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2022 and said that her stage 2 escalation was not acknowledged. She said she had appointments booked and one was completed, but not properly done. She said she had to book another repair for the same job to be done again on 1 April 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 May 2022 to say it had been over 8 weeks since she escalated her complaint, with no response. She said the drain was still blocked and smelled. She said the living room ceiling was still damaged, and the shower was still not working. She said she had called several times, and she was tired, confused, stressed, dissatisfied, and disappointed.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 October 2022 to say it had received her request on 27 September 2022 to have the complaint escalated. It said it intended to respond by 25 October 2022. It contacted the resident on 11 October 2022 and confirmed the outstanding repairs were for the drain, the living room ceiling, and the shower.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 November 2022. It outlined the repairs that had been raised and carried out. It said that since September 2021 there had been several job tickets for leaks from the bathroom, slow drainage, and the kitchen sink unblocking. It said that job tickets were raised and responded to, however, the issue with the drains was recurring. It said no job tickets were raised regarding the water damage to the living room ceiling and the only record was from a conversation with the resident on 9 March 2022. It offered an additional £100 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble.
The resident did not accept the landlord’s stage 2 response. She said the key issues remained unresolved regardless of the number of job tickets.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

Prior to the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident reported that her shower was not working. It does not appear that this aspect of the complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process as it was not in the resident’s original complaint. As such and in line with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, matters regarding the landlord’s handling of the shower repair is one we cannot comment on.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the resident’s property, including the level of compensation offered.

The landlord’s repairs policy outlines 4 repair priorities as follows:
1. Immediate – it will attend to such repair within 2 hours to make it safe.
2. Emergency – it will attend to such repair within 24 hours to make it safe.
3. Urgent – it will attend to such repair within 5 working days.
4. Normal – it will attend to such repair within 21 working days.
The repairs policy states that it “aims to complete all repairs within the agreed timescales and deliver repairs which are right first time.”
Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004, the landlord is to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Defective drainage is a potential hazard under the HHSRS.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines financial redress for avoidable distress, harm, risk, or time and trouble. It states that:
1. “Distress – a remedy payment for moderate distress is often a sum of between £100 and £300. In cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1,000 may be justified. Exceptionally, the amount could be higher.
2. Harm or risk of harm – Where our fault exposed a complainant to the risk of harm (rather than actual harm), a remedy payment of up to £500 will usually be an appropriate acknowledgement of the impact of the fault.
3. Time and trouble – generally related to where fault is found in the way we have considered a complaint i.e. incorrect refusal, delay etc. If warranted this is unlikely to be less than £100 or more than £300.”
The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of numerous repairs in March 2022. The landlord’s log highlights that some of the jobs which were raised from September 2021 were reoccurring or raised multiple times. This included blocked drains, the kitchen sink, bathroom taps, and bath panels.
The evidence suggests that most were responded to and attended. There is no evidence the reported repairs were raised unnecessarily, but rather in response to legitimate repair issues. The records correlate with the landlord’s finding that until the resident’s complaint, there was no repair raised for the living room ceiling following the associated leak.
In its complaint responses the landlord did not offer any explanation for the delays in completing the repairs. The landlord’s repair log appears to have marked jobs as completed regardless of whether they were or not. Additionally, there is little evidence of correspondence from the resident and the contractors to establish why repeated jobs were raised. This hinders the Ombudsman’s assessment into the reasons for the repeated reports and jobs raised.
An example of this is the issue with the blocked drains. According to the landlord’s repair log, this was first raised on 26 October 2021. It was treated as a normal repair and the repair log stated it was completed on 16 November 2021. The resident said that a plumber did attend on the date to clear the sink, but they stated that the drains still needed to be unblocked. There is no record of this correspondence, or any follow up job raised after that appointment. A further report was made on 19 January 2022 which was treated as an emergency. The notes stated that it was completed on the same day and “cleared two runs.” The next repair to the drains/kitchen sink was on 4 March 2022 when the resident raised her complaint, no notes were included on the repair. The resident continued to report issues with the drain until it was satisfactorily resolved on 19 October 2022.
The repeated repairs raise concerns about the relationship between the landlord and its contractors, and the communication with the resident. A delay in repairs is not always classed as a failing if the landlord was acting proactively to solve a complicated problem. In this case there are no notes to suggest that the repairs were complicated or to show that the landlord acted proactively. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractors for managing the repairs, but only up to a point where multiple reports of reoccurring issues were raised. It should have engaged with its contractors and the resident to resolve the issues that were repeatedly being reported. There is no evidence that the landlord took such a resolution-oriented approach or that it acted in line with its repairs policy.
Additionally, the landlord did not acknowledge the level of impact on the resident of the delays or how it affected her and her children. For example, if sewage was back flowing into the property, it would be a health and safety issue that required swift investigation. The HHSRS also clearly outlines the risks associated with ineffective drainage within a property and the landlord’s responsibilities. The Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to treat the matter with the seriousness it required, even when the resident made the landlord aware of her concerns. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether there was a health and safety risk.
The Ombudsman observed that the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout this case. In her stage 2 escalation the resident confirmed that repairs were outstanding, and she was concerned for the health and safety of her family, the landlord did not respond. The resident had to chase the landlord until she received a call on 28 March 2022. It is not evident that her concerns were addressed in the call which was supported by her further email to the landlord on 19 May 2022.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord identified some of the outstanding repairs and attempted to resolve them. It also awarded compensation. However, it did not put things right or learn from the outcomes as:
1. While it undertook repairs at the resident’s property, it failed to permanently resolve all the repairs raised by the resident in her formal complaint. In this case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property and conduct a thorough review to identify the outstanding issues. By doing so, it could then provide a fair and thorough response to its repairs handling, in line with its repairs policy.
2. The landlord did not explain the reasons why the repairs were unresolved or what actions it would take to ensure it does not happen again. It is not surprising that as it did not do this, the same issues reoccurred.
3. The overall repairs handling, the landlord’s failures, and the distressing situation for the resident were not fully recognised when it considered the level of compensation.
The landlord did not dispute that there were delays in its handling of the outstanding repairs in the property, which were not in line with its repairs policy. However, when responding on 10 March 2022 to the resident’s complaint about the delays it did not explain the reason for them. The landlord offered £50 compensation at that time but is not clear how the landlord arrived at this compensation amount. Its compensation policy starts at £100 for distress caused and it was inconsiderate to offer £50 at that stage given the multiple delays in repairs.
At the point of the stage 2 response, the time taken to complete the following repairs were:
1. Blocked drains and kitchen sink – 248 working days.
2. Bathroom panel – it is unclear when this was first raised, however, the landlord confirmed that tickets were raised prior to the complaint and the repairs were not successfully resolved. It took 16 working days from the formal complaint for the job to be completed.
3. Bathroom taps – it is unclear when these were first raised and resolved. This is due to lack of clarity between the reports made for both the bathroom basin taps and bath mixer taps.
4. Bathroom pipe – 170 working days since the formal complaint and remained unresolved.
5. Living room ceiling – 170 working days since the formal complaint and remained unresolved.
There is no doubt that the landlord’s delay in completing repairs in the property caused the resident distress and inconvenience. This is apparent in her complaints and correspondence with the landlord. The additional offer of £100 at stage 2 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble does not fully recognise the impact. Given its failure to fully resolve the repairs and to respond to the stage 2 escalation, this amount should have been higher.
The landlord has stated that the repairs to the ceiling were completed on 6 December 2022 and the resident stated that the bathroom pipes were repaired in August 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 September 2023 and revised its compensation offer to “£330 for the length of time it took to actually resolve the issues”. It said this was in addition to the original offer of £150 at stage 2. The resident has told us that she is not satisfied with the works to the living room ceiling. The landlord should satisfy itself that work undertaken is at an acceptable standard. This will form an order of this investigation.
In its final response, the landlord offered the resident a total of £150 in compensation. The level of compensation offered was not in line with its policy or reflective of the impact to the resident. Further compensation has been ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Some of the repairs remained unresolved and there was avoidable delay in completing them. For the landlord’s failures in the above paragraphs, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the outstanding repairs, including the level of compensation offered.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2-stage process. It aims to responds to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s first response to the resident on 10 March 2022 was within its published timescales. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 March 2022 and despite further emails to the landlord asking for an acknowledgment, the landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 6 October 2022. In its email to the resident, it incorrectly stated that her request was submitted on 27 September 2022 and said it would aim to respond by 25 October 2022. The landlord provided its final response on 4 November 2022, 8 months after the stage 2 escalation. The delay in responding to the resident was unacceptable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it noted the resident requested the complaint to be escalated on 16 March 2022, but it could see that it was not escalated at that stage. The landlord should have provided the reasons for not responding to the resident and offered compensation in line with that. It did not keep the resident updated following any delays and therefore failed to comply with its complaints policy. The time and trouble the resident spent in pursuing her complaint was greater than necessary.
While the stage 2 response addressed the outstanding issues and confirmed that tickets had been raised for them. Again, it did not explain the reasons for the further delay, and it did not confirm when it expected the jobs to be completed. This would not reassure the resident who had already had numerous tickets raised without the jobs being completed. The landlord offered a further £100 to account for the resident’s time and trouble to have the issues resolved. As per its compensation policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to also consider compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
In its final response it summarised the resident’s complaint to include her inability to use the shower due to irregular water pressure. The shower was not a matter which was raised or addressed at the first stage of the investigation. It also referred to other issues which were not raised in the first stage of the investigation. It was not appropriate for the landlord to have commented on these matters in its final response without having conducted a full investigation. In doing so, it did not demonstrate that it understood the complaint. The Ombudsman expects that where additional complaints are raised during an investigation, the landlord should log this as a new complaint. This is to ensure the resident is afforded the opportunity for a 2-stage consideration of the matters.
While the landlord made an award of £150, the amount did not sufficiently compensate the resident for the impact of the landlord’s failures. Nor did it recognise the time and effort expended because of the landlord’s lack of response to the stage 2 escalation. As a result, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the resident’s property, including the level of compensation offered.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to arrange an inspection of the resident’s home and assess if any further work is required. If it intends to take further action, then it must provide an outline of its intended actions with a timeline for events. If it proposes no further action, then it must write to the resident explaining its decision making.
In light of the complaint handling failings identified in this case, the landlord should:
1. Review the complaint handling failings which have been identified and confirm to the Ombudsman whether action has already been taken to ensure that the failings are not repeated.
2. If not, confirm to the Ombudsman what action will be taken to reduce the risk of these failures happening again.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £1000 compensation comprising of:
1. £800 for the delays in carrying out the repairs and any distress and inconvenience caused as a result. This is inclusive of all compensation offered to the resident so far.
2. £200 in recognition of the landlord’s failures in the complaint handling.
The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord should reflect on its record keeping in this case. It should consider whether the system used for raising repairs could be better used in relation to information sharing with its contractors.