From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Hackney (202324924)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324924

London Borough of Hackney

15 May 2025


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 residue in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a high-rise block.
  2. On 8 June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord a black residue was affecting her property, marking her fabrics and furniture. The landlord attended the property in October and November 2021 for unrelated matters.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 4 January 2022. She said she had been reporting the black residue since 2019 and despite visits to her property, no action had been taken to remedy the issue. The resident asked the landlord to redecorate her property to resolve her complaint.
  4. On 28 January 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged it had not made a report from its previous visit and advised it would inspect the property again the following week.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 September 2022. In its stage 2 response dated 14 October 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns and offered her £200 compensation. The landlord also said it was the resident’s responsibility to redecorate her property, and it would not assist with this.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  2. In her correspondence with us, the resident states the issue has been recurring since 2019. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 4 January 2021 to 14 October 2022. This being 12 months prior to the original stage 1 complaint being made, through to when the landlord issued the stage 2 response. We consider this a fair timescale for both parties due to the passage of time and availability of evidence.

Reports of residue

  1. The resident has told us she lived in the property for 10 years before the black residue started to appear. She also said she experiences issues with damp and mould, which are separate from the residue which her complaint was about.
  2. On 8 June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord the black residue had returned to her property, appearing on walls, ceilings, and appliances. She said a previous inspection of her boiler in 2020 had found no defects and she did not know where the substance was coming from.
  3. The landlord attended the property in October 2021 and treated some areas of damp and mould. Both parties agree on this. However, the visit did not involve the identification or treatment of the black residue the resident was referring to. The landlord attended the property on 19 November 2021 to complete an inspection. The landlord’s notes state the inspection was in relation to unrelated issues.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy states a normal repair will be attended within 21 working days. The resident could have reasonably expected the landlord to attend her property within this time frame to ascertain whether it was responsible for the issue she was experiencing. This did not happen.
  5. On 4 January 2022 the resident made her complaint to the landlord. She said no action had been taken to address the issue and she believed the air in her flat was being polluted. She wanted to know what was causing the residue, for the landlord to repaint the property, and to be reimbursed for the cost of cleaning her affected items.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 January 2022 and said:
    1. It had arranged for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property in 4 days’ time.
    2. If the resident believed the landlord was liable for damage to / cleaning of her belongings, she could submit a claim to its insurer.
    3. It could not reimburse the resident to cover the cost of redecoration to her property as “the Area Surveying Manager and Technical Support Officer who will inspect your property on 1 February will arrange for decoration works to be carried out in your property.”
  7. The landlord’s response did not acknowledge its delay in responding to the issue. The response was also confusing, and it gave the resident the impression the landlord would arrange to redecorate her property.
  8. The surveyor attended the resident’s property on 1 February 2022, almost 8 months after the issue was first reported. The landlord’s notes from the visit recorded the boiler system “might be the possible cause of the problem”. Further notes dated 21 February 2022 stated the boiler was working satisfactorily and air tests confirmed no “products of combustion” were being expelled into the property.
  9. The landlord contacted the resident on the same day and informed her the issue was “thermal tracking/ ghosting”. It said in light of the boiler air test, it appeared the residue was emanating from “everyday use” of the property. It said she was responsible for the cleaning and decorating.
  10. The landlord has not provided any rationale for its diagnosis. While the landlord is entitled to be informed by its surveyor, there is no surveyor’s report available setting out the findings of the inspection. Open-source information relating to the issue of thermal tracking, shows it can be related to normal everyday use of the property. But its presence can also be a sign of building air leaks or insulation defects. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, which includes the walls of the property. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord considered these alternative causes or communicated to the resident they were not the source of the residue she was experiencing.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 May 2022 and asked when the redecoration work would take place, as stated in the stage 1 response. She contacted the landlord again on 29 May 2022 after receiving no reply. On 31 May 2022 the landlord responded to the resident and informed her she was responsible for the redecoration.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 May and 20 June 2022 stating she was confused with the diagnosis. She said the surveyor said, “this is the only thing he can think off”, which made her doubt the findings. After receiving no reply, the resident escalated her complaint on 15 September 2022.
  13. In its stage 2 response dated 14 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the delay in establishing what the issue was, but said it was satisfied with the explanation it had provided of thermal tracking. The landlord signposted the resident to the conditions of her tenancy agreement, which stated she was responsible for decorating the inside of her home and apologised for misleading her in its earlier response. It offered her £200 compensation for the distress caused.
  14. The landlord also said the problem the resident was experiencing was a “lifestyle issue” and advised she could improve the situation by allowing adequate ventilation and addressing condensation.
  15. The evidence shows the landlord was correct in stating the resident was responsible for redecorating under the terms of her tenancy agreement. However, the landlord’s notes indicate that from previous visits to the property, it was aware the resident regularly used a dehumidifier in her home to ensure moisture was adequately managed. It was unreasonable of the landlord to blame the issue on the resident’s lifestyle when its own observations appeared to conflict with its diagnosis.
  16. The resident told us she was upset when the landlord said her lifestyle was the cause of the issue. She stated she was further frustrated by the landlord failing to give her any meaningful advice as to how she could rectify the situation. The resident says she is concerned as the issue continues to get worse.
  17. In summary the landlord failed to act in line with the timescales set out in its policy when the issue was reported, and at times its communication with the resident was poor. The property was inspected 8 months after the issue was originally reported. When the boiler was ruled out as being responsible for the residue, the landlord determined the issue was caused by the resident’s lifestyle and provided some advice. This was contrary to the information it held on the resident. The landlord failed to account for potential alternative causes for the residue. The resident is still living with the residue 4 years later.
  18. This combination of failings leads to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of residue at the property. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £500 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of residue at the property.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £500 compensation (inclusive of any compensation already paid) for failings in its handling of reports of residue at the property.
    3. Appoint a suitably qualified surveyor to carry out an inspection of the property to confirm / rule out alternative causes of the thermal tracking. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor provides a full report to it, including photographs and a scope of any works identified, within 10 working days of the date of the inspection. The landlord must provide the resident and us with a copy of the report within 5 working days of receipt.
    4. Following receipt of the inspection report (survey), the landlord must ensure any works required are commenced within 28 days of the date it receives the report. The landlord must, within 9 weeks of the date of this determination, provide evidence that it has commenced the works or provide reasons and evidence as to why it has not/cannot start the work within these timescales, together with amended start times. If no works are identified, the landlord must provide the resident with meaningful and relevant advice as to how she can best manage the issue and provide us with a copy of the email or telephone transcript in which that advice is given.