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

London Borough of Hackney (202227824)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227824

Hackney Council

11 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of a defective kitchen window.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident reported a fault with his window not shutting correctly on 29 November 2021. On 14 December 2021 a contractor temporarily screwed the window shut as an interim repair.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 20 April 2022. He stated that the repairs to his window remained outstanding. He had only agreed to the window being screwed shut as he believed his window would be fixed quickly. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on the 4 May 2022. It confirmed that there had been a delay, but that the contractor would contact the resident within the next 10 working days to arrange the repair. The landlord offered £100 in compensation.
  4. On 4 May 2022 the resident advised the landlord that he was dissatisfied with the response. He advised that having the window screwed shut affected the ventilation in the kitchen. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 15 August 2022. It apologised that the repair was outstanding. It stated that there was a back log on works due to the lifting of covid restrictions. It advised it would continue to chase the works and offered to increase the compensation to £300. The resident responded on the 6 September 2022. He asked to wait until the repair was fixed before accepting the compensation.
  5. The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman on 21 January 2023 as the repairs to the window remained outstanding. He advised that this was having an affect on his mental and physical health.
  6. The Housing Ombudsman has been advised the window was fitted on 12 May 2023. The landlord has since offered a total of £1,110 in compensation for the total delay to the repairs to the window.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident reported that he could not shut his window properly. He stated that it was very cold in his property because of this. The landlord should have inspected the repair and taken action to ensure minimal impact on the resident, while the repair remained outstanding. The landlord screwed the window shut. This was an appropriate temporary repair, as it was winter and there was also a health and safety concern. However, the landlord should have provided the resident with timescales for the repair to be completed. It should have discussed any impact the temporary repair may have on the resident in the future. The resident accepted the temporary repair, without the full information. This meant that he was adversely affected in the hotter summer months.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that normal repairs should be attended to within 21 days. In situations where parts need to be ordered, the landlord can extend this, but the resident should be informed. Between the temporary repair being installed and the resident raising a complaint, there is little evidence that the landlord was proactively chasing the repair or updating the resident. The resident called on 3 occasions for an update and was informed that the landlord would contact the contractor. The landlord did not keep the resident informed of his repair or provide any information as to why the repair could not be completed within its given timescales.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord advised that the contractor would be in touch with the resident within 10 working days to agree an appointment. There is no evidence that this happened. The landlord advised the resident on 19 May 2022 that it was still chasing the contractor. It also advised that the resident could attempt to contact the contractor themselves. The landlord should have considered escalating the repair internally if it was unable to get a response. It also should have taken full ownership in contacting the contractor, given that it had promised the resident contact in its stage 1 complaint.
  4. The resident chased the repair on the 13 June 2022 and the 5 July 2022.  The landlord did not provide any meaningful response until 10 August 2022, when it contacted the resident by telephone. The resident advised the landlord that his kitchen was extremely hot and asked for a temporary fix to the window being screwed shut. The landlord should have considered this request. The landlord chased the works on the same day, but there is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s request for a temporary fix.
  5. On 31 August 2022 the landlord was promised an estimate from the contractor by the end of the day. This was not received, and the landlord chased the contractor on 2 further occasions. The landlord should have been proactively updating the resident. The resident only received an update when he contacted the landlord on 6 September 2022.
  6. On the 15 September 2022 the contractor advised the landlord that a specialist team was needed for the window to be repaired. It advised that this work had been forward to a subcontractor. On the 13 December 2022 the contractor advised that the first subcontractor could not do the work. During this time the landlord should have been chasing the contractor, escalating if needed. There is evidence that the case manager contacted several staff members to progress the case. However, there is no evidence that a clear escalation pathway was followed. The landlord should have ensured it had a clear process in how to escalate a repairs case, when updates from contractors and sub-contractors were not being received. In not having this, there was a further delay which might have been avoided.
  7. The contractor advised it received a new quote for the works to be completed, on 6 January 2023. It confirmed this was sent to surveyors for approval on 16 January 2023. On 14 April 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that the quote had been approved. The Service has seen evidence that the landlord was internally trying to get the quote approved between January and April. However, it was unclear who was responsible for approving the work. The landlord should have a clear process in place for staff to get repairs works approved. Due to the confusion, there was a further unnecessary delay.
  8. On 5 May 2023 the resident advised the landlord that an operative had attended the property to fix the window. He advised that the job was not completed, and that the contractor stated they would return on the 19 May 2023. The resident was not happy with this. The Service has not seen evidence regarding the landlord’s actions in response to the further delay. However, the Service was advised that the window repairs were completed on 12 May 2023.
  9. There were significant delays in getting a repair completed. Some delays were to be expected, due to covid restrictions lifting, a lack of material and labour in the market, and the window needing to be manufactured by specialists. However, there was a lack of urgency from the landlord. It failed to follow clear escalation pathways. It did not have the correct processes in place to ensure that all staff understood who was responsible for approving the works. The landlord did not make sufficient attempts to keep the resident updated. Although the repair was non-urgent it had a considerable affect on the resident. He felt unable to use his kitchen due to very warm months, and he stated that the situation had an impact on his mental health.
  10. The landlord revisited the compensation on 27 September 2023. It offered £750 for avoidable delay and £360 for time and trouble. The compensation offer is in line with what the Housing Ombudsman would order for the delay to the window repair. The Service is aware that following the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 2, the resident requested that he wait until the repair was completed before accepting the compensation. It was reasonable for the landlord to revisit the compensation offered and make a revised offer in line with the delay. However, the landlord did not take this action until more than 4 months after the repair had been completed. The Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a defective kitchen window. However, we will not order further compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within 9 working days. This was within the timeframes for a stage 1 response, as per the landlord’s complaints policy.
  2. On 4 May 2023 the resident stated that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The landlord responded to this email on 19 May 2022, stating that the resident should follow the instructions on his stage 1 letter, if he wanted to raise the case to stage 2. The landlord should have considered the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction in deciding whether the complaint should move to stage 2. Whilst it would be reasonable for the landlord to ask for specific areas of the stage 1 response that the resident was unhappy with, it is unreasonable to delay the escalation due to a specific process. It is also noted that when the landlord responded on 19 May 2022, it should have been aware that the contractor had not contacted the resident as promised in its stage 1 response.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 May 2022 and on 13 June 2022 to escalate his complaint. The landlord responded on 7 July 2022 to say that the request to escalate had been forwarded. The stage 2 was not responded to until 15 August 2022. This was 103 working days after the first time the resident advised he was unhappy with the response. This was considerably beyond the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code time frame of 20 working days.
  4. Due to the significant delay at stage 2 the Housing Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of reports of a defective kitchen window.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 in respect of its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £1,110 offered to the resident for the delays in repairing the defective window. Evidence that all compensation has been paid should be sent to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to review its internal policy for repairs, specifically in how repairs should be escalated when it is unable to get responses from its contractor. The landlord should confirm the outcome of this review within 6 weeks of this report.
  3. The landlord is ordered to review its policy on who is responsible for approving works orders and ensure all staff are aware of this. The outcome of this review should be sent to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider training for staff in recognising when a complaint should be escalated to stage 2.