London Borough of Hackney (202224483)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224483

London Borough of Hackney

1 May 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:
1. Issues with the resident’s gas appliances and roof.
2. Repairs to the resident’s kitchen, taps and boiler following a leak in the property.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 26 November 2007. The property consists of 2 bedrooms, over 2 floors in a 4-storey block. The landlord is a local authority. The resident said the landlord is aware that she suffers from PTSD, arthritis, and Barrett’s disease. The resident’s daughter also resides in the property and has mental health difficulties.
On 3 January 2023, the resident reported an uncontrollable leak under her sink. The landlord attended the property on the same day and turned the resident’s water supply off to stop the leak.
On 12 January 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in which she said:
1. She had called the landlord’s out-of-hours repairs service on 3 January 2023 as water was “pouring” out from her sink. The resident said that a plumber attended the property, but they left the resident without access to drinking water.
2. A plumber returned to the property on 4 January 2023 and found issues with the resident’s pipework, which they said would need further repair work. The plumber told the resident that they would raise an order for the landlord to deliver bottled water to her.
3. The landlord had not provided any bottled water and she was still without access to drinking water in the property.
4. She was unable to use her kitchen and the leak had damaged her flooring and washing machine. The resident said she wanted compensation for the damaged items and compensation for the cost of purchasing takeaway meals while she was unable to use her kitchen.
5. The external drainage had flooded.
6. She was unhappy that the landlord had not completed the repair works.
7. She had multiple vulnerabilities, and her daughter was also residing in the property. The resident said she needed fresh drinking water due to her health conditions.
On 1 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it explained:
1. It had delivered bottled water to the resident on 17 January 2023.
2. It had carried out works in the resident’s property on 25 January 2023, which included the removal of a section of the wall to access a rotten pipe. The landlord said it also fitted and plumbed in the new washing machine.
3. The delays were unavoidable due to the complexity of the leak. The landlord said its staff were busy attending to multiple repairs.
4. It was sorry for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
5. It had offered the resident £50 compensation for the 14 days she was left without drinking water.
6. The resident would need to contact her contents insurance and make a claim for her damaged belongings, or she could make a claim through the landlord’s insurance.
On 6 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. In her escalation request, the resident said:
1. She had no heating or hot water in the property due to issues with the pipework.
2. There were still outstanding repair works.
3. The number for the landlord’s insurance department did not work.
4. She was unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord had offered.
On 6 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it explained:
1. It had raised a repair on 6 January 2023 for a plumber to remove a section of the wall to access a rotten pipe.
2. It had arranged an appointment for a plumber to attend the property on 12 January 2023. However, the plumber did not attend. The landlord said it rearranged the appointment to 25 January 2023.
3. It had not raised a follow-on repair when it removed the section of wall in the resident’s kitchen. However, the landlord said it had arranged for a plasterer to attend the property on 29 March 2023.
4. It had arranged for a plumber to attend the property on 7 March 2023 following the resident’s reports that the water was not flowing properly through the taps. The landlord said it had also arranged a further appointment on 13 March 2023 to inspect the damage caused by the leak.
5. The resident reported that her boiler was not working on 17 February 2023. The landlord said an engineer attended on 18 January 2023 and carried out remedial works to repair the boiler. The landlord said the resident reported further issues with the boiler on 28 February 2023. The landlord said it had arranged a further appointment for 21 March 2023 to inspect the boiler.
6. The telephone number it had provided for its insurance department was correct. The landlord advised the resident to claim the costs she had incurred through its insurer.
7. It had offered the resident a further £150 compensation (£200 compensation in total) which comprised of:
  1. £75 for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint
  2. £50 for repair delays
  3. £25 for the missed appointment on 12 January 2023.
In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. She is unhappy with the length of time taken to carry out repairs to her kitchen, taps and boiler.
2. She is unhappy with the standard of communication from the landlord.
3. She is unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord has offered.
4. Her flooring was damaged, and she had to purchase a new washing machine.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, 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 Scheme states:
“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before 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 timescale”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider the landlord’s reports of issues with the resident’s gas appliances and roof.
On 9 January 2024, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that there were issues with the safety of her gas appliances, and the landlord had issued a safety warning notice not to use her appliances. There is also a reference in correspondence between the resident and the landlord about issues with the resident’s roof.
However, the resident did not raise any issues about the safety of her gas appliances or the roof within her complaint on 12 January 2023. As such, the landlord has not addressed this in its complaint responses. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman.
The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress them as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen, taps and boiler following a leak in the property

When the resident reported a leak from her kitchen on 3 January 2023, the landlord attended the same day to inspect the property. The landlord said it turned off the water supply to the resident’s kitchen to control the leak. The landlord’s initial attendance was prompt and in line with its repairs policy, which states it will attend to immediate repairs within 2 hours and emergency repairs within 24 hours.
However, there were delays in the landlord completing follow-on repairs in the resident’s property. While the landlord attended the property to turn off the water supply on 3 January 2023, it did not complete repairs to the pipework until 25 January 2023.
The landlord’s repair records show that it categorised the issue as an “urgent repair.” The landlord’s repairs policy states it will deal with urgent repairs within 5 working days. However, there was a delay of 16 working days. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and that there was no water supply to the property until 17 January 2023, the delay was not appropriate.
While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there was an expectation that the landlord updated the resident on the progress of the repairs. The evidence shows that this was not the case. For example, while the landlord offered £25 compensation for a missed appointment on 12 January 2023, there is no evidence it kept the resident informed that the appointment would not go ahead. The evidence also shows that the landlord made several changes to appointments between January and February 2023.
There was also a delay of 14 days from the landlord turning off the resident’s water supply, to it providing the resident and her family with drinking water. The landlord’s repair records show that it was aware that the resident required drinking water and that she had no water supply to the kitchen. However, it did not provide the resident with drinking water until 17 January 2023. This was not appropriate. The resident said that the lack of drinking water severely impacted her and her family. It is not clear from the evidence whether the landlord turned off the water supply to the whole property or whether it isolated the water supply to the kitchen area only. However, the resident said she was unable to use her kitchen, wash, bathe or cook.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards.
A property might be unfit for human habitation because of water supply or sanitation problems. Landlords have a separate obligation under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. In this case, the landlord must also keep in repair and working order installations such as boilers, pipes and electrics.
The landlord should have had due regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities and any other person residing in the property. When the landlord was aware that there was no drinking water in the property, it should have considered whether the property was fit for human habitation. It should have also considered whether a temporary decant was required. The evidence shows that the landlord did not consider this. This was not appropriate.
On 16 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord by email and reported that there were issues with her boiler leaking. The resident said that she did not have any heating or hot water in the property. The landlord categorised the issue as an “emergency repair”. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Despite this, the landlord said it attended the property on 18 January 2023 and completed repairs to the boiler. This was outside the timescales in the repairs policy.
The landlord failed to address the heating and hot water in its complaint responses or offer the resident a temporary heating solution. It is good industry practice for compensation to be considered for loss of heating and hot water, if the problem has gone on for more than a few days in the colder months of the year, unless temporary heating and water heating facilities were provided.
The landlord should have considered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of having no heating or hot water, and any financial costs the resident incurred. This is because the landlord is responsible for providing hot water in line with its repair responsibilities and it did not do so. The resident should not be expected to bear any additional costs of obtaining hot water during this period.
There were further delays between 25 January and 29 March 2023 in the landlord completing works to the resident’s wall, which it had partially removed in order to carry out repairs to the pipework. In addition, the resident reported further issues with her boiler on 22 February 2023. However, the landlord did not inspect the boiler until 21 March 2023. This was not appropriate.
On 22 February 2023, the resident reported that water from her taps was not flowing properly. The landlord said it attended the property on 7 March 2023 and found the taps to be working correctly. While there was some delay in the landlord attending the property, it was within its repairs timescale which states it will attend to “normal repairs” within 21 working days.
The landlord’s communication with the resident from January to March 2023 was unreasonable. Throughout the complaint, the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates and on multiple occasions explained the impact that the leak and the water supply had on her and her family. The evidence shows that the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord between 3 and 12 January 2023 to request an update on the repairs and access to drinking water. The resident also contacted the landlord on several occasions in February and March 2023 to chase for an update on the repairs.
It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The landlord said there are no outstanding issues regarding the resident’s kitchen, sink, taps or boiler. However, the Ombudsman has been unable to confirm this with the resident. It would therefore be reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident and confirm whether there are any outstanding works in relation to the kitchen, sink, taps or boiler. The Ombudsman understands that there was a further leak in the resident’s kitchen on 22 August 2023, but the landlord attended the property on the same day and completed repairs.
The resident raised concerns about damage to her belongings, including damage to her flooring and washing machine, which she said was a result of the leak in the property. In addition, the resident said that she incurred costs for takeaway meals and laundrette expenses between 3 and 25 January 2023 as she was unable to use her kitchen. She also said she had no access to water between 3 and 17 January 2023.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings and the additional costs incurred until 1 February 2023, when it provided the resident with details of its insurance department.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s insurers have declined the resident’s claim. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as it can only consider the actions of the landlord.
Landlords would only be responsible for damage to household goods and contents where it knew there was a defect and did nothing to prevent it from causing damage, or it delayed carrying out works. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord knew the leak was likely to occur and failed to take steps to prevent it. On that basis, it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not offer compensation for the damaged goods via its compensation policy.
Whilst it would be reasonable for the landlord to contribute to the increased cost of food during the period the resident could not use her kitchen, the Ombudsman has not seen that the resident provided evidence of these expenses to the landlord.
The resident has explained that the condition of the property and the landlord’s lack of communication has exacerbated her physical and mental health conditions. However, when there is injury or a pre-existing medical condition has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medicolegal report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial. It would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions about the cause of her health conditions based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely to be better suited to the legal process as a personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property.
While the landlord has offered some compensation to the resident, the compensation does not reflect the failings identified. In summary, the landlord was at fault because:
1. It failed to maintain regular communication with the resident.
2. There were delays in it completing repair works to the resident’s pipework.
3. There were delays in it providing the resident with access to drinking water.
4. It failed to assess whether the property was habitable and whether a temporary decant was required.
5. There were delays in it carrying out repairs to the resident’s boiler in January 2023.
6. There were delays in it completing repairs to the resident’s kitchen wall.
7. There were further delays in it inspecting the boiler in February/March 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints procedure states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. There was a delay of 14 working days from the resident’s initial complaint on 12 January 2023, to the landlord’s stage 1 response on 1 February 2023. This was 4 working days in excess of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
While the delay was not excessive, the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure meant that it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to her concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 6 February 2023. This service contacted the landlord on 27 February 2023 and asked it to respond to the resident. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 28 February 2023 and provided its stage 2 response on 6 March 2023. While the landlord appeared to only acknowledge the resident’s escalation request after the involvement of this service, the landlord offered the resident £75 compensation for its delay in acknowledging her escalation request. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of compensation was reasonable for the delay.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord’s response was in line with the timescales set out in the Complaint Handling Code.
While the landlord has offered some compensation for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request, the landlord has not acknowledged the delays at stage 1 of its complaint’s procedure. As such, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and has ordered the landlord to pay compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the resident’s gas appliances and roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen, taps and boiler following a leak in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. The head of complaints or repairs must make the apology in writing after reviewing this report.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £1,175, broken down as follows:
  1. £1,100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home in handling the repairs.
  2. £75 for the landlord’s communication and complaint handling failures.

The total compensation is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord during the complaint procedure. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident.

Recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should contact the resident and confirm whether there are any outstanding works relating to the kitchen, taps or boiler.