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

Hackney Council (202212255)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212255

Hackney Council

7 November 2023


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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repair issues in the property including a leak, hole in a bedroom wall and damp and mould. 
    2. A request for a rent rebate following an alleged overpayment.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. From the information available, the resident did not raise concerns regarding an alleged overpayment of rent until August 2022, some time after the landlord provided its final complaint response. This service has not seen evidence that the landlord has had the opportunity to address and investigate her concerns.
  3. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made “prior to exhausting a (landlord’s) complaints procedure”. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of a request for a rent rebate following an alleged overpayment.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s original complaint focused on a leak and hole in the wall of her double bedroom and the landlord’s stage 1 response only addressed these issues. However, in her complaint escalation request, the resident referred to further issues with damp affecting her single bedroom and living room ceiling. Records show the landlord decided to add these issues to the complaint and that it advised it would address them within its stage 2 response.
  2. While providing information to this investigation, the landlord advised it had reconsidered the case and made a revised offer of compensation. The landlord’s records show it had agreed to add issues related to the single bedroom and living room to the complaint and its final offer of compensation, while made over a year after the conclusion of its complaint procedure, related to its handling of repair issues affecting the single bedroom between August 2021 and August 2023. This service therefore believes it reasonable that this investigation considers the landlord’s handling of repair reports relating to the resident’s double bedroom, single bedroom and living room and will also consider its actions up to an including August 2023.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom, converted flat on the 1st floor. Although this service has not seen a copy of her tenancy agreement, the landlord has confirmed she has resided there since 2009.

Summary of events

  1. On 9 August 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. Her complaint regarded two repair issues affecting her double bedroom, a leak and a “hole in the wall”. She advised the leak recurred each time it rained, and water ingress had now damaged her flooring and left the room smelling of damp. Despite repairs having been carried out to the windows and guttering and the installation of sealant along the wall, the issue had not been resolved. Regarding the hole in the wall, she advised a surveyor had carried out a virtual inspection over WhatsApp but following this she had heard nothing more. As an outcome to her complaint, she wanted the landlord to plaster the “crumbling wall” and for the leak to be “assessed and fixed properly”.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 August 2021. It advised that as part of its investigation, it had spoken to its contractor, its Neighbourhood and Housing team and it had reviewed “all available repair history”. It made the following comments and findings:
    1. Regarding the reported leak, it noted that a repair order had been raised (the date it was raised was not specified) for a plumber to repair a broken water pipe at the rear of the resident’s property. However, it advised it was unable to “find any information regarding the complaint” due to the “limited history on the (repairs) system due to the Cyber Attack”.
    2. It noted the resident stated she had informed it that the leak occurred when it rained and it therefore believed this suggested “a structural issue”. It advised it had raised a further plumbing order to “trace the leak and report back” and an appointment had been booked for 2 September 2021.
    3. Regarding the reported hole in the wall, its records confirmed an inspection had been carried out via WhatsApp on 20 July 2021. Following this, it stated a repair order had been raised and issued to its contractor to “carry out the relevant repairs”. It acknowledged the contractor was yet to progress the repairs and advised it asked them to “prioritise these works due to the delays”. It advised that the contractor would be in touch with the resident “in the coming days” to book a repair appointment.
    4. It apologised for the “inconvenience caused by the issues”.
  3. On 25 October 2021, the resident replied to the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated. She raised the following concerns:
    1. The leak had affected her property for “more than 3 years” and the job the landlord referred to in its complaint response (regarding a broken water pipe) had “no relevance to the ongoing issue”.
    2. The landlord had caused further delays by having to raise a new repair due to its inability to find records of the previous works order.
    3. While a plumber did attend on 2 September 2021, they found “no sign of a leak due to the fact…there are no pipes running along the bedroom wall”. She advised that she had informed the landlord of this “continually”.
    4. The landlord’s failure to resolve the issue meant her kitchen ceiling had “caved in” and fallen on her.
    5. The contractor had so far not contacted her regarding the hole in her wall. She noted the landlord’s stated timeframe for completing “normal repairs” was 21 working days and, while she considered this was not a “normal repair” and should have been attended too sooner, it was “53 working days and counting” and it had therefore exceeded even that target. She considered the landlord was therefore in “violation of the Homes Fitness for Human Habitation Act 2018”.   
    6. She asked to be compensated for damage caused to her flooring and “a room being out of bounds”, stressing that despite residing in a 2-bedroom flat, she had had to put a bed in her living room as 1 room was out of use.
  4. On 2 November 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and advised it would be “in touch…shortly”. It sent a further email on 23 November 2021, again acknowledging her escalation request but incorrectly stating this had been received on 17 November 2021. It advised it aimed to provide its stage 2 complaint response by 15 December 2021, although it would advise her if there would be any delays.
  5. Records show that on 23 December 2021, the landlord called the resident to discuss the repair situation and her complaint. It noted the resident had confirmed the “window and wall in the double bedroom have been repaired” but the “damp in the single bedroom” and an unspecified issue with the living room ceiling remained outstanding. An internal request was made for the repairs “to be completed as soon as possible” after Christmas.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 March 2022. It apologised for the delay in providing its final response, stating this was due to the “lack of information provided” by its repairs service. It made the following comments and findings:
    1. It reiterated it had raised a repair order on 21 July 2021 following a survey carried out over WhatsApp. The order was to “remove crumbling plaster to…bedroom LHS (left hand side) wall, repair cracks with mortar and cover with mesh tape”. It raised additional orders to “apply bonding and setting plaster coat” and “prepare and paint disturbed areas to match existing”.
    2. It accepted the repairs had not been completed until 9 November 2021. However, it also noted that in October 2021 (the specific date was not detailed) it had approved a “variation of the job order” for works to be carried out to the resident’s second bedroom and living room ceiling. While it did not specify the exact works that had been added to the order, it acknowledged that when repairs were completed on 9 November 2021, they only related to the original order from July and did not include those added in October 2021.
    3. It offered a further apology for the “unacceptably long and avoidable delays in dealing with the reported repairs”. It also offered £200 compensation “in recognition of the avoidable delays”. It stated its contractors had attempted to contact the resident “by calling (her) mobile and also leaving a calling card…on 22 March 2022” regarding the outstanding works and asked that she make contact to agree a start date for the repairs. It advised the resident of her right to escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained unhappy with its final response.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this service on 6 September 2022. She expressed her continued dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s repair handling, advised she had rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation and noted it did not acknowledge “the ordeal” of the delayed repairs. She stated that while a leak “within the single bedroom was resolved” earlier in the year, “the leak in the living room and within the double bedroom persist”. She also advised that the landlord had carried out an inspection in May 2022 which identified damp in the property, likely caused by a roof leak which had resulted in continuing wet patches on “the wall and ceiling of the double bedroom and the living room”. In further correspondence with this service on 25 September 2022, the resident clarified that, due to the repair delays she had experienced, she wanted to be compensated “for the loss of a bedroom over a number of years” and the “emotional, mental and physical harm” she had been caused during that period.
  8. In August 2023, while providing information for this investigation, the landlord advised it had “re-considered the compensation amount offered at stage 2”. It stated it had taken into consideration “the condition of the (resident’s) single bedroom and (her) inability to use the room due to its condition”. It asked this service to relay its new offer to the resident, which totalled £5,078.07. This included a partial rent rebate for the period of August 2021 to August 2023, £1,050 to reflect avoidable repair delays during the same period and a further £1,000 to reflect her time and trouble and the distress caused.
  9. On 30 October 2023, this service contacted the landlord to clarify what its revised offer of compensation was intended to address, as the original complaint had related to the resident’s double bedroom, rather than the single bedroom which the revised offer had referenced. It initially advised the revised compensation offer related to the issues raised within the resident’s original complaint only (the leak and hole in the wall affecting the double bedroom). However, it then clarified that, as per its discussion with the resident on 23 December 2021, it had added the issues with the single bedroom to the resident’s complaint. Its final compensation offer therefore covered “the double bedroom hole in the wall, living room ceiling affected by the leak, damp in the single bedroom and takes into account avoidable delays addressing the damp, (the resident’s) time (and) trouble, distress (and) inconvenience”.  

Assessment and findings

  1. In her correspondence with both the landlord and this service, the resident stated that repair issues had affected her property for around 10 years. The resident’s comments are noted, however in this case the Ombudsman’s focus will be on the events from around 6 months prior to the resident’s complaint of August 2021. This is in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (normally within 6 months of the matters arising).
  2. The resident has also stated that the condition of her property had a negative impact on her physical and mental health. While this service understands the resident’s position and the concerns she raised, the Ombudsman is not able to determine whether there is a causal link between a landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and any decline in reported health issues or conditions. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further, she may wish to seek independent advice. 

The landlord’s handling of repair issues in the property including leaks, a hole in a bedroom wall and damp and mould

  1. Regarding the resident’s reports of damp and mould and a leak affecting her single bedroom and living room ceiling, the landlord has acknowledged there were “avoidable delays” in its handling of these issues, which continued long after it provided its final complaint response in March 2022. As noted above, in August 2023, the landlord advised it had reviewed the case and significantly increased its compensation offer to the resident from an initial £200 (relating to the hole in the wall and leak affecting the double bedroom) to £5,087.07 which it stated was related to the resident’s inability to use her single bedroom between August 2021 and August 2023, identified avoidable repair delays and the distress, time and trouble she had been caused. It later clarified that this revised final offer also took into consideration issues related to the resident’s double bedroom (the leak and the hole in the wall). In the circumstances, and as the landlord has acknowledged and accepted that there were service failures in this case, it rests with the Housing Ombudsman to assess whether the compensation of £5,078.07 was fair.
  2. The landlord’s original compensation offer of £200 to reflect “avoidable delays” relating to the resident’s living room ceiling and single bedroom was clearly inadequate, given that it had added these works to the open repair order in October 2021 and yet, as of March 2022, they remained outstanding. Its offer also did not take into consideration further delays relating to its handling of the leak affecting the double bedroom and the reported hole in the wall.
  3. Having completed a visual inspection in July 2021, while the landlord appropriately and promptly raised relevant orders and passed these to its contractor, these were not progressed in a timely manner. This caused the resident to complain, given she had not heard anything further from the landlord since the inspection. Despite apologising for this in its stage 1 complaint response and advising the contractor would soon be in touch to arrange an appointment, by the time the resident escalated her complaint in October 2021, she stated the contractor had still not been in contact. It was not appropriate that, following its initial complaint response, the resident was subjected to further delays, and this suggests that, despite having passed an order to its contractor, the landlord did not have full oversight of the repair. Records show this was completed on 9 November 2021, some 4 months after the landlord carried out an inspection, well outside its target timeframe for a “routine” repair.
  4. There was also evidence of delays relating to its response to the reported leak. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that a job had been raised previously to inspect a pipe outside the resident’s property. Internal landlord correspondence indicated this was raised as an emergency repair on 30 July 2021 and attended to the same day, which was appropriate. However, it is of concern that the landlord was unable to ascertain further information regarding this appointment, which it blamed on the cyber-attack it suffered around that time. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it should have had more robust record keeping practices and the resident was caused further delay by the need to re-raise the order due to its inability to establish what had happened during its previous attendance, such as whether the cause of the leak had been identified and if any follow-on repairs had been, or needed to be, raised.
  5. When a further appointment took place on 2 September 2021, according to the resident the cause of the leak was not identified as there were “no pipes running along the bedroom wall”. However, the landlord’s records do not include details of the outcome of this appointment, and it is unclear what happened after this, although it is noted that records show the resident appeared to confirm the leak was resolved in late 2021/early 2022. This was further evidence of what the Ombudsman considers to be avoidable delays and due to gaps in its repair records, the landlord is unable to demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s reports reasonably or in a timely manner.
  6. Regarding the reported damp and mould in the property and the condition of her single bedroom, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord acted positively first by adding these issues to the complaint and then revisiting the compensation offer it made in its final complaint response. It is also acknowledged the landlord has provided this service with further repair records regarding the steps it took to address the reported damp and mould in the property, including damp and mould surveys and inspections, and that it has recognised the resident was unable to use her single bedroom for a significant period due to failings in how it responded to the resident’s repair reports.
  7. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation relating to the reported damp and mould in the resident’s single bedroom was appropriate and in line with what this service would expect to see in the circumstances. The landlord accepted the resident was unable to use this room for an extended period and its compensation offer was based on a partial rent rebate for a 2 year period. Additionally, it offered compensation which appropriately reflected the extent of the delayed repairs themselves and the distress these would have caused the resident, as well as the time and trouble she spent pursuing the repairs and her complaint.
  8. Based on the delays, poor communication and low offer of compensation regarding the repairs relating to the resident’s double bedroom and the length of time it took to address the reported damp and mould in her single bedroom (which it agreed to add to the complaint), the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its overall repair handling. A finding of severe maladministration would have been made, had it not been for the landlord reassessing the case and offering compensation regarding the single bedroom which sought to “put things right” for the resident.
  9. An order is therefore made for the landlord to pay the resident the revised offer of £5,078.07 it made in August 2023. While it is noted the landlord advised this service the final amount was intended to reflect all the repair issues raised by the resident, in this service’s opinion, its initial offer was clearly intended only to address the issues related to the single bedroom. As noted above, its original offer of £200 was made in relation to issues which affected the resident’s double bedroom. It advised this service it had adhered to its compensation policy by awarding £10 per week for delayed repairs between November 2021 and March 2022. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not appropriately reflect the failings it acknowledged, and others identified within this report. A further order is therefore made for the landlord to pay additional compensation of £700 to better reflect the delays and poor communication regarding the double bedroom repairs. This amount is in replacement of, rather than instead of, the £200 offered in its final complaint response, making a final total of £5,7078.07 awarded for its poor handling of the reported repair issues.
  10. This service has also noted that the has stated the damp and mould issue has not been resolved. An order is therefore made for the landlord to reinspect the resident’s property and ascertain whether any outstanding issues remain. If any are identified, it should provide an action plan and provide a timeline for carrying out relevant repairs. It should also clarify its position regarding whether it will further compensate the resident for any issues relating to her living room and single bedroom that remain unresolved post-August 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. After the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 August 2021, records show the resident responded in October 2021 and asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 2 November 2021. However, 3 weeks later it contacted her again and stated it had received the request on 17 November 2021. This caused at least a 2 week delay in progressing the resident’s complaint through its procedures. While the level of detriment this caused to the resident was not significant, it would likely have caused her confusion and raises concerns over the landlord’s record keeping and its handling of the complaint process overall.
  2. Of further concern was the fact the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until March 2022, some 5 months after it originally acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. While the landlord apologised for the delay, its explanation that it had been caused by a “lack of information” being provided by its repairs team was not sufficient. Although it is acknowledged the landlord experienced a cyber-attack during this period and lost access to a large number of records, its final response did not provide this as a reason for the apparent lack of information. This indicates there may have been further issues with obtaining necessary information from relevant service areas and suggests the landlord’s internal communication and information sharing could have been better.
  3. Whilst it is not the remit of this Service to investigate the information technology arrangements of the landlord, the absence of records clearly had an impact on its ability to provide complaint responses in line with its stated targets. This was not appropriate and, whether directly affected by the cyber-attack or not, the landlord’s final response should not have been delayed to such a significant extent. The unavailability of information should not have had an impact on its response time. It should have ensured it provided the resident with updates regarding the delay and as part of a prompter response, acknowledged any issues it had had in accessing relevant information.
  4. Regarding its management of the complaint, it was reasonable that the landlord expanded the scope of its investigation following the resident’s escalation request. This demonstrated a flexible approach and suggested the landlord, at least initially, was attempting to address all concerns raised by the resident, even if they had not formed part of her initial complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an example of good practice.
  5. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, too brief to appropriately address all the concerns the resident had raised. It did not adequately address identified delays when dealing with repairs to the double bedroom – these had increased since it acknowledged them in its stage 1 response – and it lacked detail regarding the delays associated with its handling of repairs related to the single bedroom and living room ceiling. It stated some of the delay had been caused by its contractor’s inability to contact the resident but other than stating a calling card had been left 2 days prior to its complaint response, did not elaborate on when or how many times it had attempted to make contact.
  6. The landlord’s offer of £200 compensation was also not a fair reflection of the delays the resident had experienced. Its offer failed to take into account the fact it had already acknowledged earlier delays in its stage 1 response (when it should already have considered making a small offer of compensation) and did not appear to offer any redress for the impact these delays would have had on her. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, a higher award of compensation which took into consideration the impact on the resident would have been appropriate.
  7. Although its final offer was not reasonable, in this case the landlord then made a significantly increased offer of compensation when providing the Ombudsman with information requested for this investigation. The Ombudsman’s Outcomes Guidance (available here: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Outcomes-Guidance-September-2022.pdf) advises that it is not in the spirit of our Dispute Resolution Principles or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code for a landlord to make a substantial offer of redress at the end of a long process with the effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further. Although it was positive that the landlord reviewed the case, reconsidered its final offer of compensation and considered the events that occurred post-complaint, an effective complaint procedure should identify significant service failures at the earliest opportunity and aim to provide reasonable redress from the very first stage. This ensures fairness to all resident who access its complaint handling procedures.
  8. Its approach in this case also highlighted apparent confusion as to what its final offer was intended to address as, during correspondence between the landlord and this service, its position changed more than once as to whether the £5,078.07 was intended to reflect only the repairs related to the single bedroom and living room, the repairs relating to the double bedroom or all repairs together. While the landlord engaged positively in attempting to clarify matters, the lack of clarity regarding its original offer and apparent record keeping was not appropriate and caused confusion both for the resident and this service.
  9. Overall, considering the delay in providing its final complaint response, lack of clarity over which repairs were being addressed within the complaint, its failure to consider compensation at stage 1 and its inadequate final offer at stage 2, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the complaint. An order has been made to provide further compensation to the resident to reflect these identified failings and resulting impact on her.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of repair issues in the property including leaks, a hole in a bedroom wall and damp and mould.
    2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to a request for a rent rebate following an alleged overpayment is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

  1. There were avoidable delays when responding to the resident’s reports regarding her double bedroom, including the need to carry out an additional inspection due to a lack of records and the failure of its contractor to progress these works once ordered. While the landlord acknowledged these in its stage 1 response, further delays occurred which were not recognised in its final complaint response. It also failed to offer redress for these delays above an apology. There were further avoidable delays as orders relating to the single bedroom, which were added to the original works order, had not been, at the time of its final complaint response, progressed. However, evidence shows the landlord has accepted that there followed further significant delays in resolving reported damp and mould issues in the single bedroom and living room and made an appropriate offer of compensation to address this.
  2. The landlord delayed providing its stage 2 complaint response and its explanation that this was down a lack of available information was not appropriate. It failed to offer appropriate redress during the complaint procedure and, while it acted positively when reassessing the case and offering a significantly increased offer of compensation, there was confusion regarding which aspects of the complaint this addressed. 

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, pay the resident £1,100, consisting of:
    1. £700 compensation to reflect the repairs delays relating to the double bedroom. This replaces the £200 offered at the end of its complaint procedure.
    2. £400 compensation to reflect the failings within its handling of the complaint.
  2. The landlord is also ordered to pay the revised offer of £5,078.07 compensation it made in August 2023 to reflect repair delays affecting the single bedroom and living room ceiling.
  3. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the repair issues addressed within this report. The apology should be provided by its Chief Executive’s office.
  4. The landlord is ordered to, within 8 weeks of the date this determination:
    1. Contact the resident to arrange a further inspection of her single bedroom and living room relating to reportedly ongoing damp and mould. It should provide this service with a copy of its inspection report and, if any repairs are identified as being required, provide this service and the resident with an action plan setting a timeline for completion of the works.
    2. Clarify whether it will consider awarding further compensation to the resident if it is identified that any repairs relating to the single bedroom remained unresolved after August 2023.