Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

London Borough of Hackney (202301936)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301936

London Borough of Hackney

13 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the repair of leaks from the property above the resident.
    2. Handling of the repair of the resident’s bathroom and hallway ceilings damaged by the leaks.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat located on the first floor of a 5-story block.
  2. On 12 October 2022 a leak was reported from the property above the residents and was marked as completed on the same day. On 31 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say that her property was affected by the leak from the property above. A surveyor’s inspection was conducted to assess the damage and a job ticket was raised on the same day to conduct various remedial works. The remedial works were booked for 11 January 2023.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 January 2023 to report a further leak from the property above. The landlord attended on the same day and confirmed the leak was from the bathroom in the property above. It noted that sealing and grouting was required.
  4. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 24 January 2023. She stated that an operative attended to repair damage from the leak, but the work completed was not satisfactory, and the ceiling was left bumpy. She said the whole ceiling should be plastered. The resident said she was still expecting ingress from the property above as the leak had not been repaired. The resident questioned why the landlord had completed remedial work without fixing the repair.
  5. In its stage 1 response provided on 3 February 2023 the landlord confirmed that the work conducted on 11 January 2023 was completed, with no follow-on repairs required. It said that the operative who conducted the work confirmed that they do not fill ceilings. It said it would arrange for an operative to re-attend the resident’s property and inspect the work. It said that there was still an outstanding repair to prevent the leak in the property above which would be conducted as a matter of urgency on 6 February 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 3 February 2023. She said that once the leak was fixed, her ceiling needed to be plastered to avoid further issues. She said that asking for the operative to re-attend her property would not resolve the issue. She had received a text to say an operative would be attending on 6 February 2023, but she felt that was pointless as the leak was in the property above, not hers. The resident wanted to know why it was taking so long for the issue to be fixed. She said that water was entering her property on an almost daily basis and that it was stressful. She said the continuous smell of damp was alarming and if the ceiling was not repaired properly, it would become a serious hazard.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 March 2023 which outlined the following:
    1. It had identified fault and avoidable delay in remedying the leak.
    2. It confirmed that the leak should have been addressed prior to the remedial work in her property being undertaken.
    3. It said a surveyor would inspect her property to determine if plastering was required.
    4. It said that the text sent to her regarding an appointment on 6 February 2023 was sent in error. It offered £25 in compensation for this error.
    5. It apologised for the inconvenience and offered a further £140 in compensation.
  8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to rectify the concerns raised. The resident wanted the landlord to arrange for the works to the ceiling to be completed.


Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. 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.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy categorises a water leak that cannot be contained and risks flooding the property as an immediate response.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines financial redress for avoidable distress 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. Time and trouble – generally related to the effort a complainant has had to make to achieve an outcome to their complaint which can include unreasonable delays or other failings in dealing with an issue or completing an investigation. Where warranted, this is unlikely to be less than £100 or more than £300.
  4. Its compensation policy also states that where an appointment was missed by the landlord, and the landlord was at fault, a set sum of £25 compensation will be payable.

The landlord’s handling of the repair of leaks from the property above the resident.

  1. The first leak from the property above the resident was reported on 12 October 2022. The landlord’s notes stated that it was an uncontainable leak from a newly installed boiler which was flooding the property. The repair records note that the job was completed on the same day, however, there were no details of what actions it took. The landlord’s initial response to this leak was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy.
  2. Three months later, on 2 January 2023, the resident reported a further leak from the property above. The records show that the landlord attended on the same day and that grouting and sealing was required around the bath. The Ombudsman would expect to see what action the landlord took to make the repair safe and for any follow on works to have been prioritised. It is concerning that there is no evidence of this.
  3. On 24 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the leak had not been fixed and on 2 February 2023, she stated that it was getting worse. Given that uncontainable leaks are listed as examples of immediate repairs in the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord would have been expected to have attended within 2 hours on the same day. The landlord’s records give no detail of what action the landlord took in assessing the leak following the reports on the above dates.
  4. On 25 January 2023 the landlord informed the resident that there was still an outstanding repair to prevent the leak in the property above. Internal emails provided from the landlord highlight that there was confusion regarding whose responsibility it was to raise the follow-on work after the reported leak on 2 January 2023. The follow-on work was not raised until 25 January 2023, the day after the resident submitted her formal complaint. The landlord should establish the cause of its failure to progress the works order and take steps to prevent it from happening in future.
  5. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management says that keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate and detailed records relating to repairs. This is so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it acted in accordance with what was discussed and with its policies.
  6. The repair took place on 6 February 2023, which was 24 working days after the initial report and exceeded all repair timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. 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 the repair required was not complicated and the landlord did not act proactively. Given the lack of clarity regarding how the leak was initially made safe and that the resident reported the leak was getting worse, the delays were unacceptable.
  7. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that there was an avoidable delay in remedying the leak in the property above which caused water ingress into the resident’s property. It apologised for the inconvenience it had caused the resident and offered £140 in compensation for the delays. As the landlord also found avoidable delay in the handling of its repair to the resident’s ceiling following the report on 31 October 2022, it is assumed that the £140 was offered for both instances. The landlord did not provide an explanation for the delays or any learning actions it would take to ensure this was not repeated in the future. It also did not consider the time and trouble on behalf of the resident when offering compensation.
  8. As such, the total compensation was not proportionate to the identified failings. The landlord acknowledged some of the failures in this case, however, it needed to account for all the failures. As a result, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair of leaks from the property above the residents.

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s bathroom and hallway ceilings damaged by the leaks.

  1. The first leak reported was on 12 October 2022 and was marked as completed on the same day. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 October 2022 to say that her property was affected by a leak from the property above and an appointment for a surveyor was made. It is unclear when the appointment took place with the surveyor, however, the follow–on work was scheduled for 11 January 2023. The landlord’s repair policy indicates that a normal repair should take place within 21 working days, and this did not happen. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have completed the follow-on work earlier or to have communicated with the resident regarding the reasons for the delay.
  2. On 6 February 2023 the resident stated the landlord did not attend her property when she had received a text which said it would be attending. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed the text was sent in error and apologised for that. It offered the resident £25 for the missed appointment, which was in line with its compensation policy.
  3. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it sent a painter to attend the resident’s property on 17 February 2023. It stated that the resident sent them away as she had requested that the ceiling was replastered and “not patched up/made good”. It was not appropriate for the landlord to have attempted to redecorate the ceiling prior to assessing the damage caused by the leak. The landlord should have arranged for the resident’s property to be inspected once the leak was repaired. By not doing so, it did not demonstrate any learning from the same failing which took place just 1 month earlier.
  4. In her formal complaint the resident said that the work which was completed on 11 January 2023 was not satisfactory and that it had left the ceiling bumpy. She said the whole ceiling should be plastered. On 7 March 2023 the resident informed the landlord that there were cracks across the ceiling. In its stage 2 response dated 8 March 2023 the landlord stated that it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the ceiling and decide on the best course of action going forward. This was the appropriate action for the landlord to take regarding the resident’s concerns.
  5. As stated previously it offered £140 for the avoidable delays from 31 October 2022 onwards. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings and had made an offer of redress to put things right. However, there was no regard to the impact of the delays on the resident and therefore, the compensation offered was not proportionate or in line with its policy. Again, the landlord did not provide an explanation for the delays or any learning actions it would take to ensure this was not repeated in the future. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s bathroom and hallway ceilings damaged by the leaks.

Post internal complaints procedure.

  1. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the works were completed on 25 August 2023. The resident has disputed this and stated that the work remains unsatisfactory. On 21 September 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it had recalculated her compensation for avoidable delay to £320. This was reflective of the period from 11 January 2023 to 25 August 2023. It also offered a further £200 to reflect the resident’s time and trouble regarding her complaint. It apologised for the experience she had had. The £520 compensation was paid to the resident, in addition to the £140 which was paid following its stage 2 response.
  2. This assessment has focussed on the landlord’s actions in response to the reports from October 2022 up to the landlord’s final response in March 2023. However, the Ombudsman finds that the overall offer of compensation which amounts to £660 in total, was proportionate to the failings identified in this case. As such, an order of further compensation will not be made. The adverse findings in this case should encourage further learning and action from the landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman has recently made orders to the landlord about reviewing its record keeping. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further orders around these in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair of leaks from the property above the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its repair of the resident’s bathroom and hallway ceiling damaged by the leaks.


Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to arrange an inspection of the resident’s home and assess if any further work is required. It should then communicate what further action it intends to take. If it intends to take further action, then it should provide an outline of its intended actions with a timeline for events. If it proposes no further action, then it should write to the resident explaining its decision making.
  2. To pay the £660 it has offered in compensation to the resident if it has not already done so.
  3. The landlord should conduct a review of this case to identify any actions it will take around improving its repair processes. This is so it will have a clear oversight of works and a communication plan in place when works will not be completed in line with its stated policy. The review should include consideration of why follow on works were undertaken prior to the substantive issue outstanding being resolved. The landlord should also establish the cause of its failure to progress the works order and take steps to prevent it from happening in future.
  4. The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should reflect on its complaint handling in this case. When a compensation offer is revisited after the landlord’s complaint process is exhausted it is harder for the landlord to demonstrate it will act fairly and consistently in all cases.