London Borough of Hackney (202302393)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302393

London Borough of Hackney

25 March 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak, and the associated damp and mould.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a studio flat on the 10th floor of a 12 storey block. The resident’s tenancy began in December 2021.
The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but the evidence indicates the resident has reported that she suffers from a mental health condition.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 8 November 2022 and reported “large amounts of water” leaking into her property. The notes from the repair log state a “roofer needs to attend”. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2022 and reported there was a leak coming from the roof. She said water was getting in to the lights by her front door, and there was also water in the bedroom. The landlord logged it as an ‘immediate’ repair. The job was marked as complete on the same day, and the notes reflect the electrics were made safe.
The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 21 December 2022 and said:
1. She had reported a leak on 19 September 2022, a plumber attended and she was told it was due to a leak in the roof.
2. The leak had damaged her front door and the recent decorating she had done.
3. She was told to wait for a call about the leak in the roof, but had not heard anything.
4. The leak had started to spread to the bedroom and bathroom.
5. Mould was now present in the corners of the bathroom.
6. Her flooring was damaged by the leak, and she was worried the ceiling was going to collapse, due to damage from the leak.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 22 December 2022 to complete a ‘make safe’ repair to the bathroom ceiling.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 25 January 2023 and said:
1. It had booked an appointment for a roofer to inspect the roof, due to the leak, on 3 February 2023.
2. It had arranged a survey to inspect the water damaged areas within the property, to identify appropriate repairs, on 7 February 2023.
3. It signposted the resident to its insurer to make a claim, if she felt it was liable for the damage to her flooring.
4. It had found when it first attended to inspect the leak it raised a follow on job for a roofer to inspect, and this did not happed. It apologised and said it had asked the relevant manager to raise the issue with the staff involved, so it did not happen again.
5. It offered the resident £120 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in inspecting the leak, and £50 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the issue.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023 and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2, and said:
1. The leak had been an issue since September 2022, and was still not resolved.
2. The £170 it offered did not make up for the fact she had to live with mould in her property.
3. She was unhappy that it had only arranged a survey of the property after she made a complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 February 2023, and made an increased offer of £270 in compensation. It said “alternatively” if she did not want to accept the offer, it could take the complaint to stage 2.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 February 2023 and said that it had attended to complete works to the roof, and the operative had left “without doing the repairs”. The resident emailed the landlord again on the 6 February 2023 and said she found the increased offer of compensation an “insult” and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2.
The landlord completed an inspection of the property on 7 February 2023 and raised the following works:
1. Repair plasterwork and redecorate the affected areas.
2. Clear the ‘passive vent’ in the cavity wall to promote air movement.
The landlord sent an internal email on 22 February 2023 to ask what works were done to the roof on 7 February 2023. It said the order was marked as complete, but there was “no description of the works”. The relevant team responded on 23 February 2023 and said it had “spoke[n] to the operative” who attended. They said ‘blocked outlets’ were identified as the cause of the leak, and it was resolved on the same day.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 9 March 2023, and said:
1. It had completed works to the roof to unblock the ‘outlets’.
2. It found that following the “initial report” of the leak it had attended to the roof works in a “timely manner”.
3. It found the follow up works were not raised until 3 weeks later. It expected to raise follow on works within a week of a leak occurring. It apologised, offered £50 in compensation, and said it had reminded staff of the importance of raising follow on works in a timely manner.

Events after the complaints procedure

The landlord completed works to clear the passive vent and the interior plastering on 10 and 13 March 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 March 2023 and said a decorator had not turned up when it had said they would. She also raised a concern that she still had mould “all over” her flat, and the leak was ongoing.
The landlord responded on the 24 March 2023 and apologised that the decorator had not turned up, and said it would raised the matter with the appropriate team. The response was silent on the leak.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 May 2023 and said the leak was still active. She said that the redecoration and mould wash was “rendered useless” because water was still leaking into the property. It is unclear whether the landlord responded.
The resident contacted this Service on 24 May 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the leak issue was still active, and the landlord had not taken the appropriate action to resolve it.
In response to enquiries from this Service, the landlord told us on 14 March 2024 that it had not inspected or completed any further works in relation to the reported leak. In response to our query, it said it had raised an urgent inspection and said:
1. It had booked an appointment to do further roofing works on 26 March 2024.
2. It had done some works in January 2024.
3. It had arranged for an inspection of the resident’s property to consider the damp, mould, and water damage.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s guidance on damp and mould for residents gives advice about reducing condensation, and the importance of adequate ventilation. The guidance lists other possible causes of damp and mould which include leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and ‘cold bridging’. It advises resident’s to contact its repairs centre if they suspect any of the above as the cause of damp.
The landlord’s website gives guidance on repair timeframes which are broken down as follows:
1. Immediate repairs (danger to life) it will attend within 2 hours to make safe and identify any follow on repairs.
2. Emergency repairs it will attend within 24 hours to make safe and identify any follow on repairs.
3. Urgent repairs it will attend within 5 working days.
4. Normal repairs it will attend within 21 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy has 4 tiers of compensation which are broken down as follows:
1. Between £50 and £100 for a “minor” failure in service.
2. Between £100 and £600 for “no permanent” impact or detriment.
3. Between £600 and £1,000 for “significant” impact or detriment.
4. Over £1,000 for “serious” and “significant” failings that result in a long term impact.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure and aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The same policy states that the landlord considers the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when calculating compensation.

Reports of a leak, and the associated damp and mould

It is noted that the resident raised a concern about damage caused to her flooring by the leak. The landlord, appropriately, signposted her to its insurer so she could explore a claim on its insurance, if she believed it was liable for the damage. It is not the role of this Service to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. As such, the resident may wish to pursue a claim with the landlord’s insurer.
When the resident first reported the leak is disputed. Throughout her complaint the resident maintained that she first reported the leak in September 2022. The landlord’s repair log does show the resident reported a loss of water in September 2022, but no mention of a leak is on the notes. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim she reported the leak at the same time, it is not possible to determine if that is the case. The evidence shows that the landlord was definitely on notice about the leak from 8 November 2022. Due to a lack of any evidence indicating otherwise, this investigation has considered that the landlord was on notice about the leak from 8 November 2022.
The landlord’s record keeping about the leak when it was first reported, on 8 November 2022, is poor. There is a lack of notes on what was found at the visit, or what the outcome was. The inadequate record keeping can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the delays in responding, and its overall inappropriate handling of the issue. The evidence shows there was a lack of follow up on its initial visit, and the resident was left unclear on what actions it planned to take to address the issue. This caused an inconvenience.
The resident reported a further leak on 22 November 2022, and the landlord attended to make the electrics safe on the same day. This was in line with its repairs timeframes. However, the evidence indicates no follow on was booked at that time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter, and evidence the landlord was not proactive in progressing with a thorough investigation of the cause of the leak. The resident was evidently distressed by water ingress into her property, this distress was increased due to the lack of proactive action by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged that it had not progressed with a roof inspection within a reasonable timeframe in its stage 1 complaint response. This was appropriate. It outlined that it planned to inspect the roof on 3 February 2023. The proposed date was 61 working days after it was put on notice about the leak, and well outside of its target repair timeframe. That it did not bring the inspection forward was unreasonable and a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s record keeping around the roof inspection, in February 2023, was also poor. There were no notes recorded about the findings of the inspection, or what work it had/intended to complete. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter, and further evidence its poor record keeping contributed to the overall delays. It is concerning that internal emails sent around this time indicate that its own notes had “no description of the works”. That it needed to have a verbal discussion with the operative to identify what they had done provided further evidence of its poor record keeping.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management cites that poor record and information management play a pivotal role in findings of maladministration in repairs cases. The evidence available suggests that the landlord’s poor record keeping around the repairs in this case impacted on its ability to respond to the repair in a timely manner. The particular issues in this case are that it did not book follow on repairs, or appropriately record the outcomes of repairs visits. This left its officers not knowing the stage the repair was at, or what the proposed next steps were. Considering the impact its poor information management had on the resident’s complaint, an appropriate learning order is set out below.
The landlord’s inspection of February 2023 cited that “condensation” was the main issue within the property in relation to the damp and mould. Considering it accepted that water ingress was an issue since at least November 2022, and was still outstanding at the time, this was inappropriate. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s investigation of possible causes of damp and mould at that time were not thorough. It has since become apparent that the roof was still leaking, as recently as March 2024. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that condensation may not be the only cause of damp and mould in the property.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not adopt the recommended approach to damp and mould, as set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. The report said that landlords having “technical staff and repairs managers willing and able to properly inspect and remedy issues was crucial to being able to identify root causes”. It is apparent that the landlord did not conduct an appropriately thorough assessment of the property to identify possible “root causes” of the damp and mould. As such, an appropriate order is made below.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of 9 March 2023, appeared to contradict the assessment of its own actions in relation to the roof leak. The stage 1 response admitted a failing that there was a delay in inspecting the roof. The stage 2 response cited that it had attended in a timely manner. This was inappropriate. The evidence shows the inspection, and works to the roof, took place well outside of its target timeframes. It is noted that it accepted there was a delay in booking follow on works, but the £50 it offered, at stage 2, was inappropriate considering its evident failings.
When the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, it was of the view it had resolved the roof leak. However, shortly after it sent its response, the resident put it on notice that it had not resolved the leak. The landlord has accepted that it took no action at the time. This was unreasonable, and a further failing in its handling of the matter. This caused the resident further distress of the landlord not responding to her concern that her property was still leaking.
The detriment experienced by the resident is increased by the fact she raised the issue again in May 2023, and the landlord did not respond. It is concerning that the landlord appears not to have raised a further inspection of the resident’s property until this Service made enquiries. The landlord accepted it did not take appropriate action once it was on notice about the leak from March 2023. There was an unreasonable delay of a year before it acted on the resident’s report. It is noted that it reported it did some works in January 2024, but the lack of engagement with the resident on how the leak was impacting on her property is concerning.
The landlord offered a total of £320 in compensation for its handling of the leak, and the associated damp and mould. Its stage 2 complaint response appeared to contradict its earlier assessment that there was a delay in responding, this was inappropriate. As the matter remains outstanding, the offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. The landlord failed to learn from its admitted failings about not following up on reports of repairs, and did not respond to the resident’s reports of the leak in March 2023. As such this Service has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
It is noted the landlord has booked a repair to the roof for 26 March 2024. Due to the identified failings, and previous lack of follow up, this Service has made an appropriate order below.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 23 working days after the complaint was made. This was outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy, and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and a shortcoming in the landlord’s complaint handling. While not an excessive delay, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response, which was inappropriate. The resident experienced an inconvenience of a delayed complaint response without appropriate recognition, or redress.
The landlord created a protracted complaint process by not automatically opening a stage 2 complaint when the resident asked it to, on 2 February 2023. The landlord sought to revisit its offer of compensation outside the complaints process, which was inappropriate. The resident explicitly said she wanted her complaint taken to stage 2, and not to do so was outside of the complaint handling principles set out in the Code. The Code states “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2”.
It is noted the landlord sought to make an increased offer of compensation to try and put things right. However, the evidence indicates it gave no reason for doing so, and no assessment of its handling of the matter, which was inappropriate. The resident was cost further time and trouble by emailing it again, on 6 February 2023, to restate her position that she wanted her complaint to be considered at stage 2.
The result of the above delay meant the stage 2 complaint response was sent 26 working days after it was made. This was also 3 days outside of the deadline the landlord set in its stage 2 complaint acknowledgment. Again, this was not an excessive delay. The fact the landlord did not apologise, or acknowledge the delay, was a shortcoming in its complaint handling, which caused an inconvenience.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, and the associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were delays in responding to the repair initially, and throughout. The landlord’s record keeping around the repair was poor. Its stage 2 complaint response appeared to contradict its earlier assessment that there was a delay in responding, this was inappropriate. As the matter remains outstanding, the offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. The landlord failed to learn from its admitted failings about not following up on reports of repairs, and did not respond to the resident’s reports of the leak remaining in March 2023.
There were delays at both stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delays in it complaint responses. The landlord created an unfair complaint process by delaying taking the complaint to stage 2, and offering compensation outside of the complaint process.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £945 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £320 its offered in compensation for its handling of the leak, and associated damp and mould.
  2. A further £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak and associated damp and mould.
  3. £125 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a review into its handling of the leak, damp, and mould to identify points of learning to prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
  1. The failings identified in this report.
  2. Its poor record keeping.
  3. The lack of follow up on the resident’s reports of repairs.
  4. The recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on damp and mould; and knowledge and information management.
2. Meet with the resident to agree an action plan on how it will monitor if its repair to the roof, of 26 March 2024, is successful.
3. Considering the lack of appropriate investigation into possible causes of damp and mould, instruct an appropriately qualified damp surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The inspection must identify any possible causes of damp and mould, and recommend any repairs that may be needed.