Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Hackney (202302021)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302021

London Borough of Hackney

30 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of upsurges in water into her property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from her neighbour’s property above.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Jurisdiction

  1. In escalating her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns with the landlord’s response to an upsurge of water in her property. While the serious nature of this matter is acknowledged, the evidence provided to the Service does not demonstrate that the resident has raised her concerns with the landlord through its complaints process.
  2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are “made prior to 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”. It follows that this complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. If the resident wishes to pursue these issues, she will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. She does not live at the property, and it is uncertain if there was anyone living at the property at the time of the complaint. She will be referred to as the resident throughout the report. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the seventeenth floor in a block of 20. The neighbour living above the resident’s property is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 23 January 2023 the resident reported a leak between her living room and bathroom. On 30 January the resident told the landlord her property was being damaged. The landlord attempted to trace the leak to the property above the resident’s property on the same day. However, it was unable to access the neighbour’s property to complete this. It completed this on 2 February 2023 finding the source of the leak was from her neighbour’s kitchen units which allowed water to leak when the kitchen taps were used.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 5 February 2023. She said she had reported the leak and subsequent damage to her property on 17, 20 and 23 January 2023 and chased this on 24, 26 and 30 January 2023. She was concerned no further action had taken place since it told her on 2 February it would replace her neighbour’s kitchen cupboards. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 21 February. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. It requested the appointment in her neighbour’s property be brought forward. It apologised for the difficulties she had in communicating with it. It also provided details on how to raise an insurance claim for any damage to her property.
  4. The resident chased the repair on 21 and 28 February 2023. The landlord raised a work order on 24 March. It attempted to complete the repair at the neighbour’s property on 31 March. It was unable to gain access on the day so did not complete the repair.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 April 2023 as the leak continued from the property above. The landlord responded on 4 May. It said on 3 May it had scheduled a repair at her neighbour’s property for 16 May. It apologised for the delay and upset caused and offered compensation of £150. It advised her to make contact with her insurer as soon as possible.
  6. The repair was completed at the neighbour’s property on 16 May 2023. There were no further reports of a leak from the resident from this point on. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 1 June. On 9 July, the resident provided her bank details for the landlord to pay compensation to her. She chased this on 24 July. On 14 September, the landlord paid £200 compensation to the resident. It stated this was £50 at stage 1 and £150 at stage 2.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from her neighbour’s property above

  1. The landlord’s repairs procedure confirms it has three different categories for repairs as follows:
    1. Immediate repairs, which it will attend to within 2 hours. It says this is to make sure there is no danger to residents or serious property damage. It gives an example of flooding.
    2. Emergency repairs, which it will attend to within 24 hours. It says this is to make sure there is no danger to residents or serious property damage. It gives an example of water leaks where uncontrollable.
    3. Urgent repairs, which it will attend to within 5 working days. It says this is work where there is no danger to the occupants or public but needs to be put right to prevent inconvenience and keep the property in a reasonable condition. It gives examples as rotten timber flooring, blocked sinks or taps that cannot be turned.
    4. Normal repairs which it will attend to within 21 working days. It gives an example of replacing tap washers.
  2. The landlord’s “repairs promise” aims to “complete all repairs within the agreed timescales and deliver repairs which are right first time.” It confirms it has the right to enter its tenant’s homes at all reasonable hours and a tenant must let it in if asked. It confirms it can force entry when required. It confirms it will keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair.
  3. In her complaint the resident would state she reported the leak to the landlord on 17 and 20 January 2023. The Ombudsman can only find evidence of the resident reporting this on 23 January. The landlord would confirm in its stage 1 complaint response it believed the resident had first reported the leak on 23 January. It is unclear whether the landlord has failed to keep a record of this correspondence, or if it is the case that it has failed to provide it in response to our information request. However, we have not been provided with the evidence and we are unable to consider the resident’s comments in relation to this further.
  4. Upon receiving the resident’s report of 23 January 2023, the landlord appropriately logged the report as “immediate”. However, there is no evidence it attended at the resident’s or neighbour’s property within 2 hours. The entry in its log shows as “cancelled” without further explanation. As such the landlord failed to investigate the issue within its policy timescale, take steps to manage the issue or take the issue seriously. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it believed it had attended on 23 January but could not gain access to the neighbour’s property. It said it had no evidence to support this as it had “received no report”. This suggests further issues with the landlord’s record-keeping and communication with its contractors.
  5. The landlord took further action on 26 January 2023 raising the work again. However, its records show it could not access the neighbour’s property on the same day. It is uncertain why it was delayed in taking action between 23 and 26 January as the additional days were ‘working days’. This reinforced that the landlord was not taking the issue seriously or attempting to resolve the issue, particularly as it had recorded the issue as “immediate”. It would not attend at the neighbour’s property again until 1 February. From the initial report of 23 January, this was equivalent to 7 working days elapsed. Although it is acknowledged it could not gain access on one occasion, this timescale was inappropriate. It exceeded its immediate, emergency and urgent timescales for response.
  6. After investigating the report at the neighbour’s property on 1 February 2023 the landlord prioritised further work as “normal”. Although this was appropriate for the repair to the neighbour’s kitchen it was inappropriate for the ongoing leak at the resident’s property. The landlord should have prioritised the repair as at least “urgent” in accordance with its Repairs Policy. This would have been appropriate given the damage the resident was reporting at her property. She was reporting the leak had caused water damage to her property and was continuing to cause water damage. This could have ensured its timescale for repair was 5 working days. Its failure to correctly prioritise the repair for the resident caused inconvenience and distress to her. It was further evidence it was not taking her seriously and was responsible for prolonging the issue and potentially causing further damage to her property.
  7. The landlord was reactive in its approach throughout the complaint and not proactive. It took no action between 1 and 21 February 2023. It only seemed to start taking action due to its stage 1 complaint response of 21 February. It told the resident in its stage 1 response it had “requested the appointment be brought forward in case of cancellation.” This did not take place. The resident chased the repairs on 21 February, but the only action taken by the landlord following this was on 24 March. This was to raise a further work order to renew the kitchen units at the neighbour’s property. It is uncertain why no further work was completed between 21 February and 24 March. The landlord did not explain this or any gaps in taking action in its later stage 2 complaint response. There was further error in the landlord’s record-keeping on 28 February when its records marked the repair as “complete”.
  8. The work order raised by the landlord on 24 March 2023 had a target date of 23 June. This timescale was equivalent to 61 working days so exceeded even its “normal” prioritisation. It arranged an appointment at the neighbour’s property for 31 March but was unable to gain access. The neighbour would later confirm he “forgot about the appointment.” The landlord reraised the work order on 3 and 19 April but took no action in between. Its action prolonged the leak in the resident’s property causing inconvenience and distress to her.
  9. There were further errors with the landlord’s record-keeping on 19 and 27 April 2023 when it recorded the repair as “complete.” This would cause confusion on 2 May when the landlord suggested to the resident the repair was complete at the end of February 2023. The resident provided it with further evidence to suggest this was not correct. This caused detriment to the landlord and resident’s relationship and whether she could trust the information it was giving to her.
  10. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 April 2023 as she was concerned the leak had not been resolved. It is reasonable to conclude her neighbour’s use of his kitchen taps was continuing to cause water ingress to the resident’s property. This is reinforced by the resident continuing to raise her concerns about the water damage being caused in her property from 17 April up to 3 May. However, the landlord took no action during this period. There is no evidence it changed the prioritisation of the work order or took steps to bring it forward. As with its stage 1 response, it seemed to take action only as a result of its stage 2 response. On 3 May, the landlord booked a repair at the neighbour’s property for 16 May. It confirmed this to the resident in its stage 2 response.
  12. The landlord completed the repair to the neighbour’s kitchen units on 16 May 2023. This resulted in rectifying the leak caused to the resident’s property. In total from 23 January 2023, the repair took 78 working days. This exceeded “normal” prioritisation by 57 working days and “urgent” prioritisation by 73 working days. This was an inappropriate timescale for completing the repair and caused uncertainty and distress to the resident.
  13. Communication from the landlord to the resident was limited throughout the complaint. Between 23 January and 16 May 2023, the only evidence of it keeping the resident updated was in its complaint responses of 21 February and 4 May. The only other contact was its error in contacting her on 2 May when it believed incorrectly the repair was complete. Whilst the leak was present at the resident’s property it would have been appropriate for the landlord to keep the resident updated on what action it was or would be taking to rectify the issue. Its failure to do this caused uncertainty, inconvenience and distress to the resident.
  14. Throughout the complaint there is no evidence of the landlord considering or working with the neighbour to manage the overflow from his taps in his kitchen. Had the landlord done this it may have been able to mitigate any water damage to the resident’s property. Furthermore, had it done this and explained its approach to the resident it would have demonstrated it was taking the issue seriously.
  15. In her complaint of 5 February 2023, the resident raised her concerns with speaking to a different person each time she called and having to explain her circumstances each time. This suggests errors with the landlord’s record keeping as its records should be sufficiently detailed to allow any relevant staff member to access the relevant case history. It admitted in its stage 1 complaint response it should have referred her to its leaks hub team which could take ownership of the repair. Its failure to do this sooner caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident.
  16. In its stage 1 complaint response of 21 February 2023 the landlord told the resident she had an insurance policy included in the service charge she paid. It explained she had a 90-day notification period to make an insurance claim from when the damage first occurred. The resident raised concerns later the same day. She asked by the time the leak had stopped and the walls had dried, that 3 months would have passed. She asked the landlord what to do. The landlord failed to respond to this point until its stage 2 response of 4 May. This was an inappropriate amount of time to leave this issue unresolved for the resident, causing distress and uncertainty to her.
  17. The landlord’s stage 2 response advised the resident to raise her insurance claim as soon as possible. It is uncertain if the resident went on to do this. Its delays in rectifying the leak caused the repair to go on beyond 90 days. The landlord should have considered this in its approach and considered what it could have done to support the resident’s insurance claim. This could have included providing a letter confirming it was responsible for delays in rectifying the issue. On 8 June 2023, she asked the landlord to liaise with its insurer for damage to her property. It appropriately informed her on 22 June she needed to contact her insurer directly. It is not clear if the resident subsequently progressed her case to the insurer.
  18. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered £150 compensation for the delay in completing the repair. This fell within the landlord’s Compensation Policy of £100 to £300 for “time and trouble”. The landlord’s compensation award was not proportionate to the failures identified in this report. Its award of compensation failed to acknowledge the following points:
    1. It failed to acknowledge its lack of communication with the resident on the matter over a prolonged period. It failed to explain the reasons for the delay in completing the repairs to the leak.
    2. Its award failed to acknowledge the total detriment caused to the resident, including distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty throughout the delayed repair.
    3. It failed to acknowledge its failure to prioritise the resident’s concerns causing delays and prolonging the leak in the resident’s property.
    4. It failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about making an insurance claim over a prolonged period.
  19. In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy for all the repairs required. It was delayed in assessing the leak between 23 January and 2 February 2023. It failed to prioritise the repair and used a timescale only relevant to the repair at its tenant’s property. It failed to consider the impact on the resident and did not complete the repairs at the neighbour’s property in an appropriate timescale. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate and on the instance it did contact her it provided incorrect information due to inefficiencies in its record keeping. Its delays in responding to the resident’s concerns about insurance caused further uncertainty from the resident on what to do.
  20. The landlord failed to rectify the leak and communicate over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £500 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the neighbour’s property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.
  21. The Ombudsman has previously found maladministration following investigations into complaints with the landlord involving property condition and record keeping. This was reviewed in the Ombudsman’s case reference 202213556 of 21 December 2023 where wider orders were set for the landlord to review its record keeping. It was also asked to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on KIM. As such the same order will not be repeated in this report.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Feedback and Complaints Policy confirms it wants to do its best to resolve issues. It wants to “learn from mistakes to prevent similar problems in the future.” Stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process has 2 options. Option 1 is “get it sorted” where it will seek “to agree a solution with (the resident) and do its best to ensure the problem is put right.” If a resident feels it has not addressed the problems raised, they can ask for a formal consideration. This is Option 2 “investigate it.” It will respond to stage 1, option 2 complaints in 10 working days.
  2. If a resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response it can ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. It will respond to stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. If the landlord needs to extend its response beyond the timescales mentioned it will inform the resident of this within 5 working days.
  3. The landlord’s Feedback and Complaints Policy has no recorded timescale for when it will acknowledge complaints. It acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 5 February 2023 on 6 February 2023, an appropriate timescale. There is no evidence the landlord offered the different “options” for resolution of her stage 1 complaint as it says it should in its Feedback and Complaints Policy.
  4. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 21 February 2023. This was equivalent to 12 working days and exceeded the 10-day timescale in its policy. There is no evidence of the landlord explaining any delay to the resident in accordance with its policy. It also failed to acknowledge this delay in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 21 February 2023 acknowledged the frustration caused to the resident. It explained what action it had taken up to 3 February. However, it failed to explain what it had done between 3 and 21 February and why it was delayed in taking further action. This caused uncertainty and confusion to the resident on its approach. This was particularly pertinent as she was concerned about the increasing damage the leak was causing in her property.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 April 2023 and raised a new complaint about the same issue on 18 April. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s 17 April escalation. It rejected her complaint of 18 April as a duplicate. It failed to inform her it had done this from this point on. In failing to acknowledge her escalation or new complaint it left the resident uncertain about whether it was considering her concerns or taking her seriously.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 17 April 2023 on 4 May. This was equivalent to 13 working days and in accordance with 20 working days in its policy. The landlord stated the resident’s escalation was received on 18 April. This was incorrect as it was received on 17 April. This caused uncertainty to the resident on whether it was considering her complaint as an escalation or as a new complaint.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to address why the repair had not been completed at the neighbour’s property up to that point. Its failure to be transparent on its action or inaction caused uncertainty and distress to the resident. It also failed to acknowledge its lack of communication throughout her complaint or to update her on what action it was taking. The resident also raised she was unable to raise an insurance claim until the landlord had repaired the source of the leak. She said its delay in doing this meant she would exceed the 3-month timescale she had to complete this. The landlord did appropriately explain how to raise an insurance claim, but it did not specifically address her concerns. This caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.
  9. The resident provided her bank details to the landlord on 9 July 2023 in order for it to pay the £150 compensation it had offered to her. She chased this again on 24 July 2023. The landlord did not pay this to the resident until 14 September. This was equivalent to 49 working days. The landlord failed to explain the delay to the resident or apologise.
  10. On 14 September 2023 the landlord paid the resident £200 compensation which it said was £50 at stage 1 and £150 at stage 2. The Ombudsman can find no evidence of the landlord mentioning a compensation award of £50 at stage 1. It is uncertain what this award is in relation to. This was not explained to the resident in its stage 2 response or any other correspondence. This has caused uncertainty in the assessment of the resident’s complaint handling and to the resident.
  11. A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation of her complaint causing uncertainty to her. It failed to explain the reasons for its delay in completing the repair throughout its complaints process. It also failed to acknowledge and apologise for its lack of communication about the pending repair or fully address her concerns regarding an insurance claim. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. The landlord will be ordered to apologise for the service failures identified and pay compensation of £100.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of upsurges in water into her property, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from her neighbour’s property above.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord to carry out the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. The landlord is ordered to apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from her neighbour’s property above and the impact on her.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £600 In compensation. Compensation to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the inappropriate handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from her neighbour’s property above.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and unreasonable complaint handling.
      3. The above amounts include the £200 already awarded by the landlord.