London Borough of Hackney (202203466)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203466

London Borough of Hackney

18 June 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. the repairs to the resident’s balcony door.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a 2-bedroom first-floor flat. The landlord said it did not have a copy of the resident’s occupancy agreement because of a cyber attack in 2020. This meant some of its records were inaccessible. The landlord’s repair records note the resident has a secure tenancy. The landlord said it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded on its systems.
On or around 9 July 2020, the resident reported that her balcony door was rotten and had holes in it. The landlord said that it did not have complete repair records for this period, but it had noted that special materials needed to be ordered for the balcony door replacement. The resident re-reported the repair on 2 further occasions between July 2021 and December 2021.
On 22 February 2022, the resident complained to the landlord because:
1. the repairs to her balcony door had been outstanding for 2 years because it had not managed the repair competently.
2. she had taken 2 days’ leave from work for repair appointments, but the landlord did not attend.
3. the landlord’s communication had been poor when she had chased the repair.
4. she had spent additional money to heat the property because of the landlord’s delays.
5. she wanted the landlord to replace the door, compensate her for the 2 days of leave she “wasted”, and reimburse her for the additional heating costs.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 June 2022. It said:
1. it recognised the repair had been outstanding since July 2020, but it did not have all the necessary records to interrogate the reasons behind this because of a cyber-attack.
2. there were technical issues in July 2020 and July 2021 when its operatives had attended and submitted their reports, which meant the repairs were not actioned.
3. it had offered the resident an appointment on 15 December 2021 that she had cancelled because she wanted to speak to a manager first. It said there was missing data due to the cyberattack and it did not know if it had called the resident back or taken further action.
4. the resident re-reported the issue in June 2022 and arranged an appointment to assess the repairs on 30 June 2022.
5. it offered the resident £250 compensation for the time, trouble, and delays related to the repair.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 November 2022. She said:
1. the repair had been managed incompetently and remained outstanding.
2. although the landlord attended to measure for the door on 11 July 2022 it did not attend the subsequent appointments on 12 September 2022 or 30 September 2022.
3. she had chased the landlord on 4 occasions between 13 September 2022 and 27 September 2022 and was unable to speak with anyone.
4. when she did speak to somebody on 29 September 2022, the operative was “incredibly rude.”
5. she wanted the door to be fixed, the landlord to compensate her for the increased heating costs, and the 2 days she had taken off work.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 December 2022, which said:
1. it apologised for the poor customer service the resident had received from her singular point of contact and it would refer this to the relevant personnel protocol.
2. it apologised for the upset caused by the encounter the resident had on 29 September 2022, but it was unable to locate the member of staff the resident had referred to from its records.
3. it was unable to compensate her for any loss of earnings through its compensation policy, but it would ask its insurance service to send her a claim form.
4. it signposted her to its website for money advice relating to her concerns over the increased costs of heating.
5. it had contacted its subcontractor about the replacement of the door and would update her when it had a response.
6. it offered her the following compensation:
  1. £250 it had offered at stage 1 of its complaints process which included £50 for the two appointments it had missed.
  2. £490 for the further delays experienced from 5 July 2021 to 19 December 2022.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman because her repairs were not completed by the landlord, and she felt the offer of compensation did not address her loss of earnings or increased heating bill.
The landlord completed the repair of the balcony door on 24 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s balcony door

The resident reported the repair to the landlord on or around 9 July 2020, the resident made the initial report to the landlord about her balcony door. The landlord’s repair records noted the resident’s balcony door was rotten and required replacement.
Whilst the landlord has referred to a cyber attack as a reason it has no records, it is not clear if, nor is there evidence that, the landlord checked what information its contractors held about the repairs. It was open to the landlord to try to ensure it recovered records to demonstrate what actions it had taken from July 2020.
Section 11 of the Housing Act 1985 places an obligation on landlords to complete repairs to the structure and exterior of the property and this includes doors. Landlords must carry out lasting and effective repairs within a reasonable time when it is put on notice of repairs by residents. This is to avoid impacting the resident’s enjoyment and use of their property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that urgent repairs are those that do not cause danger to occupants but need to be put right to prevent inconvenience and keep the property in a reasonable condition. It says it will attend to an urgent repair within 5 working days.
The resident notified her landlord that the balcony door still required replacement on 22 June 2021. The resident told this service that this had caused her distress and inconvenience because it had left her property cold over the winter months which meant she had to spend more money on her heating bills. The landlord replaced the resident’s balcony door on 24 May 2024.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
The evidence shows in response to the resident’s report, the landlord re-opened a job for the balcony on 22 June 2021. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it attended the resident’s home on 5 July 2021, this was 10 working days after the resident’s report. There is no evidence of the landlord explaining its delay to the resident. This was inappropriate because the landlord failed to communicate its delay to the resident, and in any event, acted outside the timeframes in its repairs policy when it responded.
There is no evidence of the landlord’s findings following its inspection on 5 July 2021. The landlord said in its stage 1 response, the operative had encountered an “issue” submitting a report with follow-up works. The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed to monitor the repair effectively. It should have identified the missing inspection report and/or contemporaneous notes indicating what action was required to complete the work. The landlord ought to have liaised with its contractor so it could action the repair. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the repair at an earlier stage.
The landlord liaised with its contractor on 24 December 2021. The contractor said its sub-contractor could not remember the job and there would need to be another visit due to the time elapse. This was 6 months after the resident’s report on 22 June 2021. It is noted this was only after the resident had chased the repairs on 5 further occasions (25 October 2021, 1 November 2021, 10 December 2021, 15 December 2021, and 20 December 2021.)
This was inappropriate because this caused time and trouble to the resident in chasing the repairs through to completion. This also caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident because she said the property was cold in the winter months and had cost her additional money to adequately heat her home.
The evidence shows the landlord offered the resident an appointment on 15 December 2021 to reinspect the balcony door. The landlord said the resident declined this because she wanted to speak with a manager. It said there was no record that it called the resident back. The landlord cancelled the job and took no further action. This was inappropriate because the landlord ought to have called the resident, given the delays she had already experienced. The Ombudsman considers the landlord missed an opportunity to mitigate the resident’s complaint when it failed to contact her. It also missed an opportunity to flag internally the repair was outstanding and required monitoring.
The resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s failure to carry out the replacement of her balcony door on 22 February 2022. There is no evidence of the resident receiving a response. This will be discussed further in the complaint handling section of this report. However, concerning the substantive repair, the landlord acted unreasonably because it ought to have identified the repair had been outstanding for 8 months at this stage and actioned the repair urgently.
The resident chased the landlord on 15 March 2022 for a response. It responded to her informally on 18 March 2022 and said the job it had raised in December 2021 had been cancelled. However, it had re-raised the job and gave her a new reference. The resident responded on 21 March 2022 and explained she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s short communication and asked the repair to be escalated immediately.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident until 13 June 2022, following contact from this service. This was inappropriate because the Ombudsman expects landlords to progress repairs without our input and update residents promptly about the progress of repairs. By this point, the resident had experienced a delay in having the door repaired from July 2020 which was almost 2 years. In light of this, the landlord’s response demonstrated it did not understand the full extent of the resident’s position. This caused further frustration for the resident who said she felt “she was going around in circles” and was “being repeatedly ignored.” The landlord’s consistent failure to monitor the repair combined with its poor communication contributed to the fractured landlord and tenant relationship. The evidence does show, however, that the landlord attempted to call the resident 4 times between 13 June 2022 and 16 June 2022 but did not receive an answer.
On 27 June 2022, the repair notes stated a joiner was required to make and install the door. The evidence shows the landlord completed the job on its system. However, there is no evidence the landlord took action to appoint a joiner to do this. This was inappropriate because it was further evidence of the landlord’s failure to action, manage and progress the repair.
The landlord told the resident it had arranged for an operative to assess the repair on 30 June 2022. The repair records show the operative took the measurements of the door at this appointment. They also show a job was raised on 25 August 2022. It also arranged an appointment for 12 September 2022 to complete the work. It is unclear why it took the landlord a further 2 months to raise the repairs. Given the repair had been outstanding for beyond 2 years at that point. This was a significant and unreasonable delay by the landlord to action the repair.
The resident said she took a day of annual leave to accommodate the appointment. She said the contractor did not attend the appointment and that she had chased the landlord on 5 occasions between 13 September and 27 September to find out what was happening. There is no evidence the landlord responded to her until 29 September 2022. The landlord did not dispute that it failed to attend the appointment on 12 September 2022 and offered the resident £25 for this. The landlord took action to acknowledge the missed appointment which was appropriate.
The resident said the staff member she spoke with on 29 September 2022 was rude to her. The landlord said when it investigated this it could not locate the individual the resident had spoken to but acknowledged the resident’s distress. The evidence indicated this was because there were no notes taken by the individual taking the call. The landlord missed an opportunity to explain what it would do to prevent this from happening in future, such as providing training to the repairs team about record-keeping for its telephone queries.
As a result of this conversation, the resident said the landlord booked an appointment on 30 September 2022, but that it did not attend. The landlord did not comment on its investigations into this appointment in its stage 2 response. However, the landlord offered the resident £25 in its final response to acknowledge this failure. Given this was the fourth appointment the resident had reported had been missed, the landlord ought to have explained what it intended to do to prevent this from happening again.
There is evidence of the landlord chasing its contractor in December 2022. The contractor gave an appointment for 9 January 2023 to complete the work. This was rescheduled for 23 January 2023 by the contractor “due to availability.” It is unclear if this was due to the resident or the contractor’s availability, however, in either event, this would have been beyond the landlord’s control.
The resident notified the landlord that the appointment on 23 January 2023 was not attended. The landlord said it would make enquiries and update the resident. There is no evidence the landlord made enquiries or updated the resident until after she chased it on 15 February 2023. This was inappropriate because the landlord failed to do what it said it would do and this resulted in the resident spending further time and trouble chasing it for an update. In addition, this contributed to the overall delay because the landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the work.
When the landlord did contact the contractor, they said they had attended the appointment, but nobody had answered the door. The resident contested this and said she had been waiting inside the property for the whole day. The Ombudsman is unable to comment further on this event because there was no tangible evidence provided by either party with which to draw a meaningful conclusion.
On 28 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update. The landlord said when its contractor provided an update, it would update the resident. The repair records noted on 15 March 2023 the job was sent to a specialist contractor. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 March 2023 to ask if its contractor had been in contact. There is no evidence of the resident responding to the landlord’s query. There is also no further evidence of the landlord trying to contact the resident to follow up on the repair until 17 October 2023. This is after the resident called to chase it. Around this time the repair records noted the job was closed on the contractor’s system and the landlord asked for it to be re-opened.
It is unclear what, if anything, the landlord did to monitor or escalate the repair to the resident’s balcony door between March 2023 and October 2023. This is concerning to note given the resident first reported the issue in July 2020, almost 3 years prior. In addition, there was no evidence the landlord tried to mitigate the impact of its delay on the resident such as considering temporary heaters or discretionary payments towards heating bills.

Summary and conclusions

Overall, the evidence shows there was an unreasonable, significant, and avoidable delay in carrying out the repairs. This was severe maladministration because:
1. the repair took from July 2020 to 24 May 2024 to complete. This was an unreasonable period of 3 years and 9 months.
2. the landlord’s management of the repair, when the resident chased this, was poor because it consistently missed opportunities to action or monitor the repairs through to completion.
3. the landlord failed to demonstrate it tried to mitigate the impact of the delay by considering temporary heaters or discretionary financial help towards the resident’s heating bills.
4. the landlord consistently failed to respond to the resident or to regularly update her with revised timeframes for the completion of the repair and this seriously undermined the landlord and tenant relationship.
This caused a significant impact on the resident over an extended period because:
1. she had to live in a property that was cold in the winter months because of the landlord’s delay. This caused a loss of enjoyment as well as financial worry at a time when the price of energy was high.
2. she had to chase the landlord on numerous occasions, and she did not always receive responses. When she did receive responses, they did not consider the time she had been waiting. Often the landlord told her it would give her an update and then failed to do so.
3. she had rescheduled her work commitments to allow access to the property, but the landlord’s contractors did not attend its appointments on at least 3 occasions.
As a result, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer of redress was not proportionate to the failures identified in this investigation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation.
The landlord will be ordered to pay the resident £1,100 in compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience because of the landlord’s delay in completing the repair, missed appointments, poor communication as well as the loss of enjoyment of her property from July 2020 and May 2024. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range in cases where the landlord has made errors which affected the resident, and the landlord has not done enough to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states:
1. a complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however, made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by an organisation, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
2. the resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ to treat it as such.
3. stage 1 responses must be issued within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
4. stage 2 responses must be issued within 20 working days of the escalation request.
5. outstanding actions must be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint policy states: “A complaint will be raised when the customer expresses dissatisfaction with the response to their service request, even if the handling of the service request remains ongoing.” It also mirrors the timeframes set out in the Code.
The landlord said the resident’s original complaint was made on 13 June 2022 following a referral from the Ombudsman. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 22 February 2022 explaining her dissatisfaction with:
1. the ongoing issue with her balcony door replacement for the previous 2 years.
2. the subsequent repair appointments.
3. the impact of the delays on her heating costs.
4. the communications of the landlord.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this email met the definition of a complaint for the purposes of the Code and the landlord’s policy. There is no evidence the landlord responded to or acknowledged the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction at this stage. This was inappropriate because the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The Ombudsman had to intervene to ask the landlord to respond at the first stage of its complaint process. This should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to manage complaints without the involvement of this service. This was a failure by the landlord that caused additional time and trouble to the resident in pursuing her complaint.
The resident raised a complaint on 22 February 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 June 2022, which was 85 working days later. This was inappropriate because the landlord did not act in accordance with the timeframes set out in the Code and its complaint policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 November 2022. The landlord issued its final response on 19 December 2022, which was 27 working days later. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
The landlord provided the resident with a single point of contact for the repairs as part of its stage 1 response. The evidence shows there was a breakdown in communication throughout the resident’s complaint because the landlord did not provide timely updates on the progress of the outstanding repair. This was a failure that caused uncertainty and frustration to the resident. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this in its final response and said it would refer to its personnel protocol. This was an appropriate response to this singular issue.
Given the overall communications of the landlord were consistently poor, it is concerning to note the landlord’s complaint responses did not reflect any wider learning it had taken from the resident’s experience. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles require landlords to learn from outcomes and to put things right. The landlord failed in this regard.
When taken together, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling because:
1. the landlord failed to identify the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction which delayed it from triggering its complaint procedure at an earlier opportunity.
2. the landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaint policy and the Code because delayed in responding at both stages of its complaint procedure.
3. the landlord failed to demonstrate it had considered any wider learning from the resident’s complaint around its communication with residents.
To put things right, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay £250 compensation to acknowledge the overall distress and inconvenience as well as the time and trouble caused to the resident due to the failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s balcony door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. The Chief Executive must make the apology in writing after reviewing this report for:
  1. the significant and avoidable delay experienced by the resident.
  2. the landlord’s repeated failure to action or monitor in completing the replacement of the resident’s balcony door.
  3. the poor communication the resident experienced with the landlord throughout this issue.
  4. the ineffective complaint handling which included the missed opportunity to take important learning from this case.
2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £1,350 consisting of:
  1. £1,100 in compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience because of the landlord’s delay in completing the repair, missed appointments, poor communication and for the loss of enjoyment of her property during July 2020 and May 2024.
  2. £250 to acknowledge the failures identified with its complaint handling.
  3. the landlord is entitled to offset the £540 compensation paid to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint procedure.
3. Upon submission of heating bills from the resident, the landlord must assess them and consider offering a proportion of the resident’s heating costs to recognise the increased cost between:
  1. 1 October 2021 – 30 April 2022.
  2. 1 October 2022 – 30 April 2023.
  3. 1 October 2023 – 30 April 2024.

The landlord must set out its decision in writing to the resident within 28 days of the date of receiving the bills. The landlord must detail this to the Ombudsman.

The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of the date of this determination. In respect of the order at paragraph 51(c), the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance within 28 days of receiving the resident’s bills.