London Borough of Hackney (202301222)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301222

London Borough of Hackney

17 July 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 response to:
1. the resident’s reports of a leak and associated repairs in her bedroom.
2. the resident’s reports of damage caused to her belongings from the leak.
The Ombudsman has decided to consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom third floor flat and holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The block of flats consists of 7 floors.
The resident’s daughter raised the complaint and communicated with the landlord throughout the case. For ease of read, the resident and her daughter will both be referred toin the report as ‘the resident’.
On 20 November 2022, the resident reported a leak into her bedroom. The landlord logged the matter as an immediate repair and attended on the same day.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 5 January 2023. She was dissatisfied that the landlord failed to identify the source of the leak when it attended on 20 November 2022. She reported that brown water continued to leak into her bedroom. She advised that the matter had caused damp and mould, and that personal items were damaged.
On 25 January 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. Its out of hours team visited on the 20 November 2022 but were unable to stop the leak.
2. It was sorry for the delays and the leak had now been stopped.
3. A surveyor would inspect the property on 31 January 2023. Following this, repair works would be raised to address the damp and mould.
4. If the resident felt the landlord was liable for damage caused to her belongings, she could contact its insurers to raise a claim. Otherwise, she could contact her contents insurers.
5. It offered the resident £120 compensation for delays to stop the leak.
On 31 January 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She remained dissatisfied that it took the landlord 9 weeks to resolve the leak. She said a surveyor was due to attend but did not turn up.
The resident added further details to her complaint on 1 March 2023. She reported that she had not been informed of the survey outcome which took place over a month ago.
The landlord issued a stage 2 final complaint response on 30 March 2023. In summary it said:
1. It repaired the neighbour’s waste pipe on 18 January 2023 which resolved the leak.
2. It delayed arranging follow up works after the surveyor attended the property.
3. The delays were avoidable, and it offered £310 compensation.
4. It had booked appointments to address the repairs in the bedroom caused by the damp and mould.
The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 3 August 2023. She remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not completed the repairs in her bedroom. She said that the leak caused her considerable distress over a prolonged period, and she lost personal belongings.
On 14 November 2023, the landlord amended the compensation amount and offered an additional £1,310.32 for the condition of her bedroom whilst repairs were outstanding. The final compensation offer was £1,620.32.
The resident informed the Ombudsman in July 2024 that she remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. She feels that the landlord was not accountable for its failures over a 12-month period. To resolve the complaint, she wants a higher offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation and jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme outlines that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timeframe.
Part of the complaint concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to her belongings from the leak. The Ombudsman notes that this was raised in the resident’s stage 1 complaint and responded to by the landlord in its initial complaint response. However, the resident did not escalate this matter to stage 2, and it was therefore not addressed in the landlord’s final response. As such, this aspect of the complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
Although the resident expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s handling of this issue when referring the matter to the Ombudsman, the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to this matter at both stages of its complaints process. Therefore, after careful consideration the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to her belongings from the leak is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident referenced how the leak impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about this. However, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the leak and problems with the resident’s health. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme which says that we may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. Nonetheless, consideration will be given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and associated repairs in her bedroom.

The landlord’s repair guide outlines that it is responsible for water leaks and flooding. Information on the landlord’s website about leaks says that all reported leaks will be attended to by a plumber at the latest by the end of the following day to either fix or schedule any work needed to repair it.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines 4 types of repair categories: immediate repairs, emergency repairs, urgent repairs, and normal repairs. Immediate repairs include matters such as flooding. Such reports will be attended to within 2 hours. Emergency repairs include uncontrollable water leaks. The landlord will attend to these within 24 hours. If further works are required, a follow up visit will be arranged. Urgent repairs accounts for matters where a fault does not cause danger but is an inconvenience. Normal repairs will be attended within 21 working days.
The landlord logged the leak as an immediate repair on 20 November 2022 and attended within a few hours. Upon attendance it was unable to trace the source of the leak as the neighbour did not allow it to remove a panel in their kitchen. The Ombudsman appreciates that this was outside of the landlord’s control. However, in such circumstances and in line with the landlord’s policy it should have raised a further work order to re-attend and identify the source of the leak. The landlord failed to take these steps. The resident said in her complaint that she incurred time chasing the landlord on the following day to attempt to resolve the issue. The landlord has not disputed this. However, records show that it failed to update the resident or book to re-attend following these contacts. The landlord’s initial response was not proportionate or reasonable.
The resident did not regularly chase the landlord between November 2022 until early January 2023 whilst the leak was ongoing. However, the landlord was reasonably aware of the leak having logged it as a highest priority repair and having attended on 20 November 2022. The landlord should have retained clear records of its visit including a description of the leak and any required follow-on visits. No records from its attendance were maintained. The landlord’s poor record keeping likely contributed towards its lack of follow on action to resolve the leak.
On 5 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that brown water continued to leak into her bedroom through the ceiling, she had to change bowls every few hours, she was unable to sleep in the room, and she had to move her belongings. Records show that the landlord took no action until it attended and stopped the leak on 18 January 2023. This was over 8 weeks after the original report. The landlord evidenced a continued lack of accountability and urgency to resolve the issue.
The resident first reported damp and mould in her bedroom as a result of the leak on 5 January 2023. In response, the landlord recorded the need to assess the damp and mould once the leak was resolved. A surveyor was due to attend the property on 31 January 2023 and the landlord clarified this to the resident within its complaint response. However, the resident reported on the day that they did not show up. The landlord failed to explain why the surveyor did not attend, nor did it apologise for this. This was likely to have damaged the landlord tenant relationship as the landlord failed to keep its commitment.
Records do not confirm the extent of the damp and mould in the bedroom. It was insufficient that the surveyor did not record this from their visit which took place on 2 February 2023. However, the resident reported that the damp and mould caused by the leak affected her floor, ceiling, and wardrobe in her bedroom. She said that she regularly wiped mould from the floor.
The landlord acknowledged in its final response that there were delays for the surveyor to raise repairs to address the damp and mould after they attended. The landlord frequently chased up the surveyor to request the outcome of the inspection but did not receive a response to a number of the contacts. Records show that the surveyor had not uploaded a report to the system over a month after the visit. As such, follow on repairs to address the damp and mould were not raised until 18 March 2023. The poor internal landlord communication resulted in delays to address the repairs. Further, the resident incurred time and trouble chasing the landlord.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it committed to complete repairs on 26 April 2023, 24 May 2023, 25 May 2023, and 13 June 2023. Works included replastering, stain blocking, and painting within the bedroom. It was unacceptable that the landlord failed to adhere to some of these appointments. The matter was exacerbated as when the landlord did complete repairs, it later identified that some had not been completed to the required standard and further appointments were booked. Records show that the follow-on redecoration works were not completed until November 2023. The landlord did not evidence a ‘right first time’ approach which its repairs policy says it adopts. The resident experienced significant delays for all the repairs to be completed. This would have caused her frustration.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. 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, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s final offer of compensation made to the resident was £1,620.32. This comprised of £310 for avoidable delays and distress and inconvenience caused. It also applied a rent rebate for one fifth of the rent between 20 November 2022 until 9 November 2023. The Ombudsman considers this offer of redress on the higher end of what we would consider suitable as there is no evidence that the bedroom was out of use beyond when the leak was stopped. Having said this, there were considerable failings in the landlord’s handling of the leak and the associated repairs. The repairs were not fully completed until almost a year after the leak occurred. Therefore, the level of compensation is appropriate to reflect the significant inconvenience caused to the resident over a 12-month period.
Throughout the complaint responses, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised where its service had fallen short. However, there were several repeated failings in this case and no evidence that the landlord identified the root cause of these issues. For example, there were failings with the landlord’s internal communications, the landlord did not adhere to booked appointments, and there were ongoing delays for it to address repairs with no explanation. Further, the landlord failed to keep its commitments made within its complaint responses. Overall, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has learnt from its failings or that similar issues will not recur. Therefore, although the compensation is considered an appropriate level, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and associated repairs due to the above.
To put things right, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of this case to identify where its service fell short. As part of this, it should consider what caused the repeated failings. The review should address the landlord’s internal communication issues, failure to attend pre-booked appointments, and ongoing delays to address repairs. Following this, it should identify steps to take and if necessary, implement new processes or training to prevent reoccurrences of similar issues to this case.
The landlord is currently the subject of an Ombudsman special investigation. Special investigation reports are conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allow the Ombudsman to conduct further investigations beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. Some of the failings identified in this complaint have been the subject of orders made on other complaints that are being considered as part of the special investigation.
If the landlord has recently conducted a comparable review that addresses the shortcomings identified in this report and has set out its identified actions to remedy the shortcomings, then it may share this with the Ombudsman in place of a management review.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that a stage 1 complaint response will be issued to residents within 10 working days of a complaint being raised. Once an escalation request is received, the landlord aims to issue a response within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the day it was made. Following this, it issued a stage 1 complaint response on 25 January 2023. Although this was outside of the landlord’s 10 working day timeframe, the delays were not significant.
At stage 2, the landlord took 47 days to issue its final response. These delays were significantly outside of the landlord’s published response time. The landlord waited for an outcome from its surveyor before issuing the complaint response. However, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code outlines that, ‘a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.’ The landlord unnecessarily delayed issuing the response whilst it waited for an outcome from the surveyor.
Having said this, it was positive that the landlord communicated with the resident whilst she was waiting for the stage 2 response. It offered an apology and explained the reason for the delay.
After stage 2, the landlord failed to complete repairs on the dates it said it would and several repairs remained unresolved. The resident experienced further delays. As such, the landlord re-opened the complaint on 14 November 2023 and increased its compensation offer to reflect the further delays. The Ombudsman considers that compensation amendments after stage 2 can be seen to undermine the quality and consistency of the landlord’s decision making. However, due to the circumstances of this case and prolonged delays following the stage 2 response, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate that the landlord increased its compensation offer.
Overall, there were delays at both stages of the complaints process. It was positive that the landlord apologised within its stage 2 response for the delays and provided updates to the resident. However, it did not offer any compensation for its failure to respond within its stipulated policy timeframes. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £100.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to her belongings from the leak falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and associated repairs in her bedroom.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £1,720.32 comprised of:
1. £1,310.32 (if it hasn’t already been paid) as offered by the landlord on 14 November 2023 to account for the condition of the resident’s bedroom for a 12-month period and delays to address repairs.
2. £310 (if it hasn’t already been paid) as offered by the landlord at stage 2 to account for avoidable delays and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated repairs.
3. £100 for its delays responding to the resident’s complaint. It should ensure the compensation is paid within 4 weeks from the date of this report.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of this case. As part of this, it should consider what caused the repeated failings in its handling of the leak and associated repairs. The review should address the landlord’s internal communication issues, failure to attend pre-booked appointments, and ongoing delays to address repairs. Following this, it should identify steps to take and if necessary, implement new processes or training to prevent reoccurrences of similar issues to this case. The landlord should present the findings to its senior leadership team and share the outcome of its review with the Ombudsman. The landlord should share its findings with the Ombudsman within 8 weeks from the date of this report.