London Borough of Hackney (202308590)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308590

London Borough of Hackney

17 April 2025

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:
1. Response to concerns raised by the resident about issues reported to him by other tenants.
2. Response to internal repair issues in the resident’s property.
3. Response to concerns raised by the resident about issues with other blocks.
4. Response to the resident’s concerns about the communal areas of his block and the estate.
5. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy at the property which is a 2 bedroom flat. He has lived there since 1996. There are a number of different blocks of flats in the area.
The block and property is partly managed by a Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) which provides housing and property management services. It was set up by the residents to run the estate on behalf of the landlord, who is a Local Authority. It provides housing services including repairs.
The TMO has a management agreement in place (seen by this Service) which sets out the services it will manage, and those that remain the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord is responsible for the actions of the TMO, and it must ensure that the TMO adequately performs the functions covered by the management agreement.
On 24 May 2022 the resident made a complaint on behalf of a resident of a different block about a door repair and paintwork. He made a further complaint on 26 May 2022. This included matters on behalf of other residents, issues in the communal areas of the estate and with the resident’s block.
The landlord acknowledged the complaints on 7 June 2022. It responded to both of the complaints at stage 1 on 13 July 2022 and addressed the concerns. It confirmed the responsibility for the issues and outlined the action it and the TMO would take.
On 25 August 2022 the resident raised repair issues about the inside of his property.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 23 September 2022. He outlined his dissatisfaction with the response. The landlord said it would aim to respond by 10 November 2022.
On 16 November 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2. It addressed the resident’s concerns and those which he had raised for other tenants.
The resident referred his case to us on 27 April 2023. He said the landlord had not resolved issues or responded in its stated timescales. He said residents of other blocks had been treated differently.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident said that other tenants had told him about issues in other blocks and he raised these in his complaints. Paragraph 25.c of the Scheme sets out that for a person to raise a complaint as a representative on behalf of another, the other tenant(s) must have authorised the resident to do so. There is no evidence of such authorisation being given in this case. As such, the landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident about issues reported to him by other tenants is outside our jurisdiction. For clarity this covers the following issues:
1. Door repair and paintwork of another tenant’s block.
2. A tenant not having a key to a play area.
3. Injury caused to other tenants due to fox holes at the rear of another block.
4. The request of other tenants for a fence to be upgraded.
5. The request of other tenants for a play area to be weeded.
6. Other tenants concerns that the estate map was faded and incorrect.
Paragraph 34.a of the Scheme says that a complaint must relate to the actions or omissions of a landlord that have, in our opinion, affected the resident in respect of their occupation of their property. In this case, parts of the resident’s complaint was about his concerns about issues impacting other blocks. As such, the landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident about issues affecting other blocks is outside our jurisdiction because in our opinion, the matters do not affect the resident’s occupation of his own property. For clarity this covers the following issues:
1. Brick walls of another block being knocked over.
2. Lights on other blocks not working.
Within his correspondence, the resident raised concerns about internal repairs in his property. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says that we may not investigate complaints which were made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. As these issues did not part of the formal complaint made to and which completed the landlord’s internal complaints’ procedure, these cannot be considered in this investigation. As such, the landlord’s response to internal repair issues in the resident’s property is not within our jurisdiction.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the communal areas of his block and the estate

For clarity the resident’s concerns about the communal areas of his block and the estate have been addressed individually below.

Communal entry door

The communal entrance door to the resident’s block is the responsibility of the TMO. However, the door entry system is the responsibility of the landlord.
The resident raised the issue of the communal door being rusty within his complaint on 26 May 2022. He has stated that the problem is a long-running one. Despite this repair issue being the responsibility of the TMO, the landlord failed to address this concern within its stage 1 response. There is no evidence that the landlord had contacted the TMO to make sure it was actioning this issue.
The resident raised the issue again with the landlord on 23 September and 24 October 2022. He said that the door had been open for the last 4 days. The wiring had been almost completely ripped out and the apparatus cover was missing. It is not clear from the evidence if the wiring was for a door entry system. If it was, this would be the landlord’s responsibility. It is noted that the TMO chased the landlord about this on 24 October 2022.
Despite being made aware of the issue by the TMO, there is no evidence that the landlord either considered if it was responsible or that it checked if the issues had been actioned by the TMO.
By the time of its stage 2 response on 16 November 2022 the door had not been fixed. Within its response, the landlord said it had chased the TMO and would update the resident once it had a response.
The evidence shows that although the repair responsibility for the door itself was for the TMO to conduct, the landlord did not show that it had considered whether the faulty wiring issues (which was the landlord’s responsibility), had any impact on the works required to fix the door. It also failed to ensure that the TMO was carrying out its required duties about the rust on the door.
There was a lack of oversight and co-ordination to resolve the situation.

Bicycles and fire safety

The landlord’s fire safety policy says that it will keep communal areas clear of obstacles that could prevent safe escape. It will also carry out a fire risk assessment. This assessment was not provided to us and was not accessible via the landlord’s public facing website.
The landlord’s tenancy guide says that items should not be left in communal areas around and inside the block. Such items will be removed.
The TMO is responsible for fencing at the block.
Within his complaint (26 May 2022) the resident said that bicycles had been left in hallways of his block and locked to fences. As such, the fences needed repainting.
It is not clear when the landlord attended to inspect the block, however, it said within its stage 1 response on 13 July 2022 that it had not found any bicycles in the communal areas. However, it had found a bicycle abandoned on a communal balcony. It had reported this to the TMO. The resident disputes that the inspection for bicycles ever took place.
The resident reiterated his concerns about the presence of bicycles. He also raised a concern on 23 September 2022 that the fire risk assessment actions for his block had not been actioned.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said that bicycles attached to railings had been removed. It is not clear if this removal was done by the landlord or the TMO. It said if it happened again, bicycles would be removed once the correct process had been followed.
It said it had spoken to its Fire Safety Team who had confirmed that issues about fire safety in the block had been resolved. It did not provide any information as to what the issues were or what action had been taken. It’s response therefore lacked some transparency and failed to provide reassurance the complaint had been fully addressed by showing what action it had taken to come to its decision.
The landlord took steps to ensure that the bicycle it had found was removed by the TMO. It had taken the resident’s concerns seriously by inspecting the area. However, it failed to provide the details of when the inspection took place and how it had concluded there were no fire safety issues. This is something it is reasonable to expect the landlord should have a record of and be able to provide for confidence and transparency in its actions as part of its complaint response.

Overgrown bush

The resident raised a complaint about a bush which was planted on a private freeholder’s land. It overhung a public footpath. The landlord is not responsible for the actions of the private freeholder, nor the public footpath.
After the resident’s complaint the landlord wrote to the private freeholder and asked for the bush to be cut back. It advised the resident that it had taken this action within its stage 1 response.
The resident felt that the landlord needed to take stronger action against the freeholder. Following this, the landlord then made contact with the highways department.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that the TMO had asked it to take action. In response it had contacted the council’s highways team and horticultural team for assistance. They stated they would be undertaking the appropriate investigations and action.
In handling the resident’s complaint, the landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concern on board. It contacted the company responsible and the appropriate departments of the Council and asked them to take action. These were appropriate and reasonable actions for the landlord to take to resolve the situation for the resident, as it was not responsible for the bush.

Electrical switch cupboard

The landlord is responsible for electrical cupboards within the blocks on the estate.
The resident raised his concern on 26 May 2022 about an electrical switch cupboard being used by a local trader for storage for around 20 years. The landlord inspected the area, although it is not clear when.
In its stage 1 response (13 July 2022) it said that when it had attended it had not been able to access all of the electrical cupboards. None of those which had been inspected were being used for storage. It said that if the resident could clarify which cupboard was being used inappropriately, and if there was evidence of a fire-code breach, it would look into this if further.
It is not clear why the landlord could not access all the cupboards for which it was responsible. It did, however, confirm that it had not permitted them to be used for private storage.
The resident confirmed the location of the cupboard on 23 September 2022.
The landlord advised at stage 2 that it had shared the concerns with the TMO and the council’s Fire Safety Team. It had requested that a joint visit be carried out as a matter of urgency. It would monitor the case to ensure that appropriate action was taken.
The resident told the landlord the location of the relevant cupboard on 23 September 2022. It was around 6 weeks after this date that the landlord conducted its inspection based on the resident’s information. This was an inappropriate and unreasonably long time to respond given its commitment to deal with the matter with urgency.
Although its suggestion of involving other agencies and departments was reasonable to address a possible fire risk, it did not demonstrate that it had responded to the complaint appropriately or in a timely manner given the potential hazard.

Footpath

The resident made a complaint on 26 May 2022 that an area of footpath was a trip hazard. The landlord said at stage 1 that the TMO was investigating the path. It is not clear why the landlord communicated this, as the landlord was responsible for the footpaths on the estate.
Within its stage 2 response (16 November 2022) it said that works were being undertaken and should be completed by the end of November 2022. It did not acknowledge that there had been a delay of around 6 months between the resident’s report and the planned works. The failure to acknowledge the delay was inappropriate.

Conclusion

In summary, the landlord responded appropriately to some of the issues complained about, however, it failed in its response to some of the other issues in the following ways:
1. It did not show it had factored whether the wiring issues impacted the required repairs to the door.
2. It failed to ensure that the TMO was carrying out its required duties in respect of the condition of the communal block door.
3. Although it inspected the area in relation to complaints made by the resident, it did not have a record of when this inspection had taken place and what had been identified.
4. It did not inspect the electricity cupboard in a reasonable timeframe given the possible hazard reported.
5. It did not acknowledge that there had been a delay of around 6 months between the resident’s report of the trip hazard on the path and the planned works.
Given the failures identified, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal areas of his block and the estate. To acknowledge the effect of these failures on the resident, compensation of £200 has been ordered. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days. If additional time is required at either stage it will let the resident know.
Our complaint handling code (the Code) says that landlord’s should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It should then respond at stage 1 and 2 within 10 and 20 working days from the acknowledgement.
The resident submitted complaints on 24 and 26 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged these on 7 June 2022. This was 8 working days from the first complaint, so outside the timeframe of the Code.
The resident chased a response on 4 and 10 July 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay and said this was due to the complexity of the case. It responded to both complaints at stage 1 on 13 July 2022. This was 26 working days from the acknowledgement. This was 16 working days outside its response timeframe.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 23 September 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 24 October 2022, over a month later. It sent its stage 2 response on 16 November 2022. This was 38 working days after the escalation request. This was outside the timeframe of its policy. The landlord apologised for the delayed acknowledgment and response. It advised this was due to requiring input from a number of different teams.
Although understandable given the number of issues, the landlord did not keep the resident informed that it required additional time, as per its complaints policy.
The landlord acknowledged delays at both stages of its complaints procedure, but it did not consider the inconvenience this had caused to the resident and the time he had spent chasing responses. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling. To acknowledge the impact of this on the resident, compensation of £150 has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 25.c of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident about issues reported to him by other tenants, is outside our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to internal repair issues in the resident’s property is outside our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 34.a of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident about issues with other blocks is outside our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal areas of his block and the estate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. Pay a total of £350 compensation to the resident. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £200 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s concerns about the communal areas of his block and the estate.
  2. £150 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Provide a written report to the resident and Ombudsman. It should say what action the landlord has taken for the following issues since the end of the internal complaints procedure. It is to confirm if any of the issues are outstanding. If so, it should provide a plan of action for carrying out the works with associated timescales. Any necessary works should start before the end of the 8 week period:
  1. Action taken to address the issue with the electricity cupboard.
  2. What actions the Fire Safety Team had taken to resolve the fire safety concerns in the resident’s block.
  3. What action it had taken relating to the trip hazard for the footpath.

Recommendation

The landlord is to contact the resident to complete a walkaround with him in his estate. If the landlord considers these to be beneficial, the landlord should consider arranging similar walkarounds with residents from other estates.