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

London Borough of Hackney (202225946)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225946

London Borough of Hackney

6 December 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the front and rear communal door and the resident’s front door.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. In March and July 2022, the resident reported repair issues with the communal door. In addition, the resident reported issues with the communal door and her front door in January 2023.
  3. On 9 February 2023, the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She explained she reported multiple issues with the front and back communal doors between March 2022 and January 2023. In addition, the resident stated in January 2023, she reported her flat had been broken into via the cat flap which she previously asked to be removed.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 8 March 2023. It explained that its electrical services manager raised the incorrect work order for the communal door. The landlord stated it resolved the error shortly after by raising the correct work order and replacing the magnetic door lock on the communal front door. It apologised for the delays in completing the door repair and explained that this was due to job materials being required. The landlord also confirmed that it would monitor the door entry system to ensure that it is operational at all times .
  5. On 8 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She explained the communal door broke again, therefore stated that the landlord did not put monitoring in place as agreed. The resident also explained that the landlord’s stage 1 response did not address all her points in her initial complaint, such as removing the cat flap from her front door.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 August 2023. It acknowledged that the repairs to the front communal door could have been completed in a more-timely manner. In regard to the rear communal door, the landlord apologised for the delays in repairing the door. It also stated that in August 2023, she reported that when it rained, water would come under the front communal door into the hallway. The landlord stated it had raised a work order for a storm guard to be fitted to resolve the issue. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the works to remove the cat flap on the resident’s door. It confirmed that the required materials to carry out works on the cat flap had arrived, and it would book an appointment for the repairs to the cat flap to be completed. The landlord also explained that the resident could claim on its liability insurance if she believed she has suffered a loss, which the landlord was liable for. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the failures in the handling of the door repairs and the resident’s complaint. It offered £570 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairing the doors and £300 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for the cat flap to be removed and blocked securely.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the front, rear communal door, and the resident’s front door.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairing internal and external doors including defective locks, letterboxes, spy holes and closers. Also, damaged, or loose door frames or handles.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also includes information on the landlord’s repairs timescales. It states that it will respond to an immediate repair within 2 hours, an emergency repair within 24 hours, an urgent repair within 5 working days and a normal repair within 24 hours.
  3. In March 2022, the resident reported a repair issue with the communal front door. The landlord responded appropriately by arranging for its contractor to attend the property on 24 March 2022. The contractor adjusted the door frame, which resulted in the door locking and closing correctly. In addition, the landlord’s contractor also attended the property on 25 July 2022 to replace a button on the panel on the communal front door. The landlord acted reasonably by completing the necessary repairs to the communal front door.
  4. In December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that the communal front door was not closing and locking. The landlord’s notes from 5 January 2023 state that the resident had experienced a break in at her property due to the communal door issue remaining outstanding. The notes also confirm that the landlord told the resident that it had booked an appointment for 8 February 2023 to repair the communal front door. Considering the resident’s property had been broken into, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to handle the repair urgently. However, the landlord failed to do this.
  5. The landlord failed to attend the resident’s property on 8 February 2023, as agreed. Due to the repair remaining outstanding, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 9 February 2023. She explained she reported multiple issues with the front and rear communal doors and stated that the issue with the communal front door lock was outstanding. In addition, the resident reported her flat had been broken into via the cat flap which she previously asked to be removed.
  6. On 15 February 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended the building and changed the magnetic door lock on the communal front door. The landlord’s notes state the door was secure and operating correctly. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response issued on 8 March 2023 that there were delays in it repairing the communal front door and it apologised and explained that the delay was because the landlord’s contractor was waiting for materials. The landlord also stated it would monitor the door system to ensure it was working. The Ombudsman recognises the delay would have been outside the landlord’s control. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated the reason for the delay to the resident at the time.
  7. Shortly after the communal front door was repaired, there was a further repair issue with the door and the resident informed the landlord about this in her escalation request sent on 8 March 2023. She also stated if the landlord was unwilling to remove the cat flap from her front door, they should place her in a property that can be secured properly.
  8. Following the resident’s escalation request, the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 15 March 2023. The contractor replaced a fuse in the communal front door. The landlord responded appropriately by completing the repair to the door. A further issue was reported with the communal front door lock, and this was repaired during the same month. No further issues were reported with the communal front door lock after this.
  9. Although it repaired the communal front door, the removal of the cat flap was still outstanding. Considering, the resident’s property was broken into via the cat flap, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to remove the cat flap as a priority. The landlord’s contractor eventually visited the resident’s property on 7 July 2023 to inspect the cat flap and identify the materials required to complete the necessary works.
  10. On 17 August 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended the building to inspect and repair the rear communal door. In addition, during August 2023, the resident informed the landlord that water would come under the communal front and rear door when it rained. Therefore, the landlord’s contractor also inspected the gaps under the communal doors when it visited the building on 17 August 2023. The landlord acted reasonably by arranging a contractor to inspect the door repair issues.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 August 2023. It confirmed that it would fit a storm guard on the communal doors to resolve the issue with water going under the door when it rained. It also confirmed that it would arrange an appointment for the removal of the cat flap. The landlord also informed the resident that she could claim on its liability insurance if she believed she had suffered a loss, which the landlord was liable for because of the break in at her property. The landlord acted appropriately by referring the resident to its liability insurer. Matters of liability fall outside the complaints process and landlords are entitled to use insurance as a means of managing such costs. The landlord’s insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot assess the actions of the insurer, if a claim is made to it as we can only investigate the actions of social landlords.
  12.  The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in completing repairs to the communal doors and the removal of the cat flap. The landlord apologised for the delays and offered the resident £570 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience this caused. The compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable and sufficient to recognise the delay in the completion of the door repairs. It is also compliant with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation, which is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact.
  13. Although the landlord offered the resident sufficient compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the door repairs, after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it failed to remove the cat flap from the resident’s front door. The landlord has stated that it raised a work order on 20 February 2024 to remove the cat flap, but stated the resident refused the work. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord’s contractor attended her property on 8 March 2024, to remove the cat flap. However, the contractor planned to block the cat flap with plywood, which would not permanently secure the door. The resident explained she declined this work, as she informed the landlord that the door would not be securely blocked with plywood.
  14. The Ombudsman recognises that having a secure door is very important to the resident, particularly as her property was previously broken into via the cat flap on her front door and because of previous locking issues with the communal front door. Therefore, the landlord should complete the necessary works to remove and block the cat flap on the resident’s door, which will leave the door secure. If the landlord cannot complete the necessary works to the cat flap to keep the door secure, it will need to replace the front door. The landlord may want to hire a contractor which specialises in door repairs if it is unsure which repairs are required. As the removal of the cat flap is still outstanding, there has been a service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the front and rear communal door and the resident’s front door.

The associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord has confirmed that it did not have a complaints policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. It introduced a complaints policy on 1 December 2023.
  2. The Code also states that a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
  3. The resident first submitted her complaint to the landlord on 9 February 2023. Following this, it took the landlord around 1 month to provide its stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2023. The response was late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the Code. In addition, the landlord also failed to address all the resident’s complaints points, and did not respond about the communal rear door or the removal of the cat flap on the resident’s front door. This was unreasonable and the landlord’s stage 1 response was not compliant with the Code.
  4. On 8 March 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. There was a considerable delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response, which was issued to the resident on 18 August 2023. The delay would have caused inconvenience, and the resident was delayed in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
  5. Although there was a delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 complaint response, the response did address the resident’s complaint points about the rear communal door and the cat flap on the resident’s door. In addition, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it failed to address all her complaint points in its stage 1 complaint response. It also acknowledged there were delays in responding to her complaint. The landlord apologised for the errors and offered the resident £300 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling errors. This was a reasonable offer, in line with the remedies guidance as referenced above. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front and rear communal door and the resident’s front door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. The landlord to carry out the required repairs to remove the cat flap from the resident’s front door whilst leaving the door remaining secure. Or if this is not possible, the landlord should replace the resident’s front door. The landlord must inform the service once the door has been repaired or replaced.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above order within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £870 compensation made in its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.