London Borough of Hackney (202338344)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338344

London Borough of Hackney

9 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of a leak and the associated repairs in the property.
2. The complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident has asthma.
The resident first reported a leak to the landlord on 23 May 2023. On 7 June 2023, the resident reported that due to the leak there was damage to her kitchen, hallway and bathroom walls, and ceilings. She said the skirting boards were lifting up, smelled, and had started to turn black. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 14 June 2023. It recommended repairs which included renewing the skirting boards, hacking off the damp stained wall and ceiling plaster, re-plastering, and re-painting where there was defective plaster. The landlord said it would also need to install an industrial dehumidifier.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 July 2023. She said surveyors had been to the property but the landlord had not carried out any repairs.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 October 2023. It apologised for any inconvenience, distress, and discomfort in her not enjoying her home. It also apologised for the delay in responding at stage 1 and said it was due to needing to obtain information. The landlord said it was yet to receive an update from the technical officer leading the work and it had escalated it to the surveying managers. It said it had asked them to call the resident as soon as possible with an update on the works. It advised that it needed to commission a survey for the deteriorating service pipework in the communal ducts which appeared to have caused the initial leak into the resident’s property. It offered £230 in compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 October 2023. She said the landlord failed to send an electrician to ensure the property was safe following the leak. She said the stage 1 response did not provide her with any dates as to when the repairs would start or how long they would take. The resident said she would need to inform her employer to get the time off. She said she had made her initial report in spring and it was now winter. The resident said she had asthma and the works would have an adverse effect on her health and quality of life. She said the landlord also failed to acknowledge the tremendous costs to her of installing an industrial dehumidifier.
The resident felt the stage 1 response failed to consider the repair history for her property. She said it was not the first time she had had to endure the impact from deteriorating pipework within the communal ducts. She confirmed she had not received any communication from the officers involved. She said she was emotionally drained by the attitude and maladministration of the landlord’s repair team.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 November 2023 and stated the following:
1. It outlined the action taken since the resident reported damage caused by the leak. It said it had contacted its contractor to arrange an appointment for as soon as possible and to discuss how long the work would take to complete. It apologised that the works had not yet commenced.
2. It had reviewed the repair history and the last time the resident reported a leak was in 2018, which was over 5 years ago. It said it would not include that report in its investigation as it would not investigate issues that were over 12 months old.
3. It was unaware at stage 1 of the complaint that the resident had asthma. It said it would consider the impact that the outstanding repairs had on her when reviewing the compensation offer. It asked the resident to let it know if there were any requirements she had for when the works commenced to minimise the impact on her asthma.
4. It said following her report on 7 June 2023, it raised an urgent order to assess her property. It said it did not have record of the resident reporting an impact on her electrics and therefore it did not arrange for an electrician to attend her property.
5. It apologised for not acknowledging the running costs of the dehumidifier. It said it would confirm with the contractor if it still needed to install a dehumidifier.
6. The landlord apologised for the delays in carrying out the repairs and responding to the resident. It offered a total of £765 in compensation. This was broken down as £240 for the avoidable delay in carrying out the repairs, £375 for the impact of the delays, and £150 for the delay in providing the stage 1 response. It said if there were further avoidable delays and it needed to install a dehumidifier, then it would review its compensation offer.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had another surveyor attend in December 2023 but still no repairs or start date. She said it was impacting her health and work life. The resident felt the landlord had been negligent. She felt the landlord should have sent out an electrician following the report of a leak. She said the property still smelled, the skirting boards remained detached from the wall, and the ceilings were still stained.

Post internal complaints process

The landlord completed the works on 1 March 2024. On 19 March 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident to offer further compensation. It apologised for the delay in not offering it sooner. It offered an additional £360 for the delays and impact caused between 24 November 2023 and 1 March 2024. It also offered £28 to cover the use of the dehumidifier for a week. The revised total of compensation offered was £1,153.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has stated that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Although, we will consider any impact that likely resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident

The resident’s report of a leak and the associated repairs in the property

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 which the landlord did not put right.
2. Between £100 and £600 for where there was “no permanent” impact but it resulted in an adverse effect on the resident.
3. Between £600 and £1,000 for “significant” impact or detriment to the resident.
4. Over £1,000 for “serious” and “significant” failings that result in a severe long term impact on the resident.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If we find that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has not provided any records which show what action it took following the initial report of a leak on 23 May 2023. The resident has stated that the landlord resolved it 10 days later. The time taken was not appropriate nor was it in line with its policy for emergency repairs.
The landlord said that the resident did not report any issues with the electrics and it carried out an inspection on 14 June 2023. There is no evidence of the resident reporting an issue with the electrics at the time. However, the landlord should have inspected the property sooner and shown consideration to the potential risks to her electrics. In not carrying out those actions, the landlord did not pay due regard to its policies or its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
In its complaint responses, the landlord said it would commission a stock condition survey for the deteriorating pipework in the communal ducts. While the resident did not report any further leaks, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider what steps it needed to take to prevent it happening again. It said it would update the resident on the progress of the stock condition survey. The landlord has not provided any update to this Service on the survey or any outcome from it. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to update the resident as agreed, if it has not done so already.
It is clear from the internal correspondence provided by the landlord that there were difficulties with receiving updates from relevant staff members and raising work orders with the correct teams. There was evidence of it escalating the issues, but with little progress.
While it can be reasonable for landlords to have multiple teams to deal with different business areas, this should not impact the service provided to the resident. In this case, it was clear that the lack of joined up approach contributed to the delay. It also likely caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident who was repeatedly chasing a date for the repairs. The overall time taken to complete the repairs was almost 9 months, which was not acceptable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its failures and referred to administration errors for why its contractors did not receive the work order. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have expanded on what action it had taken to avoid such issues in future. This would have helped to reassure the resident and the Ombudsman that it would not repeat the same mistakes again.
The resident informed the landlord in her stage 2 escalation that she had asthma and was concerned about the impact that any works would have on her condition. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it was not aware she had asthma prior to her escalation. The Ombudsman has also not seen any evidence of the resident informing the landlord prior to that. The landlord said it would consider any additional impact caused to the resident and review its stage 1 compensation offer.
It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident if she had any requirements when the works commenced which would help minimise the impact on her asthma. This was a pro–active response and showed consideration to any risks posed to the resident. It was also reasonable that once aware of the resident’s asthma, the landlord reconsidered the overall impact on her and its compensation offer. It is disappointing, however, that given the knowledge of the resident’s health condition and the time of year, it still took the landlord a further 4 months after the stage 2 response to carry out the repairs.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £240 for the avoidable delay in carrying out the repairs and £375 for the impact of the delays. The amounts offered for the repairs were reasonable and in line with its policy for failures which had a significant impact on the resident.
As stated, the additional delays following the stage 2 response were not appropriate. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer further compensation of £388 to reflect the further delays, as agreed in its stage 2 response. The amount was in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of maladministration.
Overall, it was not disputed that the landlord failed to respond to the leak and the subsequent damage in line with its obligations and policies. The significant delays likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses, it apologised, and it offered an appropriate amount of compensation.
The Ombudsman would have found maladministration, if not for the steps taken by the landlord to put right its failures. As such, we have found reasonable redress.

Special investigation

In May 2025, this Service issued a special investigation report about the landlord. It highlighted our concerns about its handling of repairs, and specifically leaks, damp and mould. The report also highlighted concerns regarding the landlord’s knowledge and information management. It outlined that as reflected in this case, the landlord’s use of ‘workarounds’ and dependency on staff to manually populate fields across disconnected databases, left it vulnerable to human error.
The report recommended that the landlord produce a performance reporting framework to ensure relevant scrutiny and oversight functions receive transparent, accurate, and insightful information and data. The landlord has committed to implementing this by 1 September 2025. As such, we will not make any further orders or recommendations in relation to the failures in this report. If it has not already done so, the landlord should reflect on the specific errors which led to the delays in this case and how its new proposed frameworks should assist with those issues going forward.

The complaint

In its stage 1 acknowledgement the landlord informed the resident that it would usually take 10 days to respond. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 60 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint, which was not appropriate. The landlord said the reason for the delay was due to it waiting for information.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have updated the resident when it became apparent it would not meet its deadline and provide the reasons for its delays. In not doing so, this would not have managed the resident’s expectations. And it likely caused her significant time and trouble in chasing a response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response 21 working days after the resident’s escalation. This was slightly outside of its 20–day timeframe. However, the landlord has provided evidence of it keeping the resident updated and it provided the reasons for the delay. These actions would have reasonably managed her expectations.
The landlord acknowledged both delays in its complaint responses and apologised for the impact on the resident. It offered £150 for the delay in providing the stage 1 response. The Ombudsman finds the amount offered was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy for where there was no permanent impact but it adversely affected the resident.
In her stage 2 escalation, the resident had referred to it not being the first time she had been impacted by the deteriorating service pipework within the communal ducts. In its response, the landlord stated that the last record of a reported leak was from 2018. It appropriately explained that the resident did not bring a complaint to it at the time. It said that as over 12 months had passed since the report, it would not be able to include it in its investigations. The response was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
As stated, the compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable. The landlord committed to awarding further compensation after the stage 2 response if there were any further delays and costs for the dehumidifier. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have awarded the additional compensation sooner. But it was appropriate for the landlord to have followed up on its promise following completion of the works.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 1. However, the landlord showed fairness in its stage 2 response. It addressed each concern raised and put things right by offering compensation in line with its compensation policy. It was positive that it reviewed its compensation upon receiving more information which may have altered the impact on the resident. And it followed up on its commitments made regarding further delays and compensation.
As a result, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of a leak and the associated repairs in the property.
2. The complaint.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the £1,153 offered in compensation.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should update the resident on the status of the stock condition survey for the communal pipes and any associated works.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should reflect on the specific errors which led to the delays in this case and how its new proposed frameworks will remedy such issues going forward.