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

London Borough of Hackney (202312141)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312141

London Borough of Hackney

28 May 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak into her home. This includes the landlord’s offer of compensation.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives in a three-bedroom second-floor flat.
  2. The resident reported a leak from an upstairs flat on 5 June 2023. A priority repair was raised to trace and repair the leak. A plumber attended the same day but was unable to access the upstairs flat as it was vacant. The landlord inspected the upstairs flat on 6 June 2023 but did not locate a leak. The landlord’s records show that it was unable to gain access to a different flat (owned by a leaseholder) to trace the leak. 
  3. An emergency works order was raised on 9 June 2022. A plumber gained access to the leaseholder’s flat where there was damp found under the bath. It confirmed that the bath may need to be removed to repair the leak.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 June 2023. She said there had been water coming through her ceiling and that a small ceiling crack had become “huge”, and it looked like the ceiling could collapse at any moment.
  5. The leak was repaired in the leaseholder’s flat on 12 June 2023. The landlord ordered a dehumidifier for the resident’s flat.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 16 June 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience that had been caused and confirmed that the source of the leak was wrongly diagnosed and sincerely apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It would investigate the previous visits and misdiagnosis and would take appropriate action. It had not provided the resident with the standard of service it aimed for and would learn lessons to improve. It offered £100 for the time, trouble and distress that was caused to the resident and was provided with the landlord’s insurance details.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said that the landlord needed to pay for the running costs of the dehumidifier which had been turned on for the last month. She explained that the landlord had left her in unsafe and unsanitary rooms and the compensation offered was a “joke and a slap in the face.”
  8. On 19 June 2023 the landlord clarified its compensation offer. It offered £100 to cover the running costs of the dehumidifier and £200 for the time, trouble and distress that was caused to the resident. The landlord advised the resident that details had been provided as to how she could claim through the landlord’s insurance. It confirmed an appointment was booked for 20 June 2023 to inspect the property.
  9. The landlord issued its final response on 3 August 2023 which reiterated the points made at stage 1.
  10. A technical officer attended the resident’s address on 20 June 2023 to complete an inspection following the leak. The landlord’s records state the resident refused access. A second attempt was made, and access was refused again. There was no response on the third attempt to access and a card was left for the resident. It apologised if the resident felt that the technical support officer had acted in an unprofessional manner, however, the records detailed that the resident had behaved inappropriately towards him. It had instructed its contractor to attend between 4 – 7 September 2023. It concluded that it could not find an ongoing avoidable delay, but it agreed that it took time to remedy the leak and offered a further apology.
  11. The resident contacted the Ombudsman after remaining dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked for £600,000 in damages.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident is claiming ‘damages’. The term ‘damages’ is the name used by the court for monetary compensation. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to award compensation in the same way as the courts do. We can however award compensation where we decide a failure by a landlord has caused distress and inconvenience. If the resident is seeking damages based on how a court would award them, she should take legal advice about her options and prospects of success via the courts.
  2. The Service acknowledges the concerns raised by the resident in relation to the impact on her health and the distress this would have caused. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on her health. While the Service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and whether this response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the leak

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide states that it will respond to emergency repairs to prevent immediate property damage, serious inconvenience or possible health and safety risks within 24 hours, and that it may give greater priority for vulnerable residents’ repairs.
  2. The Service understands that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue at the outset, especially in blocks of flats where multiple properties may be involved. Delays in successfully arranging access to flats are understandable and may not be within the landlord’s control, especially when the flats are occupied by leaseholders.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports promptly on the same day. That was within the timescales detailed in its repairs policy. The evidence does suggest that the landlord experienced difficulties in accessing a vacant property. While this may have been the incorrect property, it was not unreasonable to investigate all potential causes.
  4. The Ombudsman does note that there were delays in gaining access into a leaseholder’s flat to resolve the leak. The Ombudsman understands that the 7 days to resolve the leak caused distress for the resident, the landlord did acknowledge that there were failings and missed opportunities to resolve the issue at an earlier stage. The delay was understandably frustrating for the resident and appropriately the landlord offered its sincere apologies for the distress and inconvenience that was caused which was reasonable.
  5. The resident stated that the leak resulted in sewage entering her property. However, the landlord has confirmed that it was a clean water leak. The evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman indicates that it was unlikely to have been a sewage leak, but a clean water leak from the supply fed off the mains water.
  6. Once the leak was identified as coming from the leaseholder’s property, the landlord took immediate action by identifying and repairing the issue. The landlord was not obligated to repair the leak in the leasehold property but did so in this case. It considered the individual circumstances of the leaseholder and responded appropriately to ensure the leak was resolved. This showed a willingness on the landlord’s part even though it was not responsible for completing internal repairs in the leaseholder’s flat.
  7. While it is evident that the general response to the leak was disjointed, which added to the time taken to resolve the matter, the landlord did identify the opportunity to review what had gone wrong, and to learn lessons to reduce the risk of similar mistakes in the future. This was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.  
  8. The landlord appropriately advised the resident on how to submit a claim for any damage caused because of the leak which was appropriate and aimed at managing the resident’s expectations. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was successful in submitting a claim. 
  9. The landlord acknowledged its own failing, offering the resident a total of £300 compensation, £100 for increased cost for running a dehumidifier and £200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident. The Ombudsman considers this was a satisfactory resolution to the complaint and was in line with its compensation policy for moderate distress. 
  10. The Ombudsman has considered that there were unavoidable delays in completing the repairs between June and October 2023, the majority of which were outside of the landlord’s control. For example:
    1. the landlord was not able to gain access on occasion
    2. the resident’s request for a surveyor to attend rather than a technical officer
    3. counter allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the contractor and the resident
    4. disputes over the scope of works due to be completed.
  11. However, there were avoidable delays from October 2023 until January 2024. The landlord confirmed that not all the works had been identified in its initial inspection and decorative works had overrun which caused further delays. It would be appropriate for a further offer of compensation to be made for the delays experienced after the completion of the complaints process. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a further £200 is ordered for the additional delays experienced by the resident. 
  12. The resident has advised the Service that she is unhappy with the workmanship of the repairs, and therefore the landlord should post-inspect the works to satisfy itself that they have been completed to a reasonable standard.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of a leak affecting the resident’s property.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks of the date of this report to:
    1. pay £500 which is made up of:
      1. £300 as offered at stage 2 of the complaints process, if not already paid.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the repairs from October 2023 until January 2024.
    2. contact the resident to arrange a post inspection to determine if the works are satisfactory.

Recommendation

  1. The resident has stated that she incurred additional electricity costs while running the dehumidifier. The landlord should review any evidence provided by the resident and consider if an additional payment should be made.