London Borough of Hackney (202314849)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314849

London Borough of Hackney

17 September 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks in his property and the quality of work completed.
2. Request to be transferred to alternative accommodation.
The Housing Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The property is a first floor flat, and the resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
On 13 June 2022 the landlord completed a survey of the property in response to the resident reporting damage to his hallway and bathroom following a leak. The landlord arranged follow-on work including works for damp to the hallway and bathroom plastering.
The resident contacted the landlord a number of times between August 2022 and November 2022 to find out when the work would start.
On 6 November 2022, the resident experienced a new leak from his bath which was flooding the property. In response, the landlord attended within 24 hours to make the property safe. Follow-on work to the bath was completed on 10 November 2022.
On 6 November 2022, the resident raised a complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. He explained that nobody had contacted him following the reports of leaks from June 2022 and he had now experienced further flooding from the bath which damaged his flooring and personal items. The resident said he was concerned about the safety of the property due to the number of leaks and wanted the works to be completed or to be permanently moved (decanted) to an alternative property.
On 15 November 2022, the landlord left a voice message for the resident. It said it the contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment. However, the contractor did not contact the resident.
On 25 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said it had not received a response from the contractor. This was therefore escalated to the landlord’s management. The landlord also offered £280 in compensation to the resident in recognition of the delays to complete the repairs, the lack of communication from the landlord’s contractors, and the stress caused. The landlord told the resident that if the contractor had not contacted him within 7 days, then he should call again to escalate the complaint.
On 28 November 2022, the resident requested that his complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. He said repairs were still outstanding and there had been no contact from the landlord’s contractors to arrange the repairs. The resident explained he wanted the works to be completed, compensation for the cosmetic damages, and for the affected areas to be redecorated. The resident also requested for a new inspection to ensure the property was safe from future flooding or to be moved to alternative accommodation.
In recognition of the resident’s request to be moved, the landlord arranged a new inspection on 6 December 2022 to identify if this was required. Whilst the landlord did not identify a need for a decant, it identified additional works. This included damp treatment to the bathroom and hallway and redecoration of the hallway after the damp treatment was completed.
On 23 January 2023, the resident experienced a new leak from his radiator pipes. The landlord attended to the leak within 24 hours.
On 10 February 2023, the resident told the landlord that his toilet was blocked. The landlord identified that follow on work was needed following this leak. The resident included this in a later complaint.
On 9 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The response said, in summary, that follow on works had been scheduled for 15 March 2023. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £545.
The landlord also said that any personal belongings which had been damaged needed to be assessed as an insurance claim.
Whilst the landlord said that the work was scheduled for 15 March 2023, the works were not completed until 15 May 2023.
The resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and has requested the Housing Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He has also said the compensation offered is not reflective of the delays and the distress caused. He has raised concerns about the quality of work completed in the property. He is seeking compensation from the landlord and to be permanently moved to alternative accommodation in recognition of the impact the situation has had on him.
Following the resident’s referral to the Housing Ombudsman on 24 July 2023, it is noted that the situation is still ongoing for him. The resident has explained that issues arising as a result of communal works to the building continue to impact him. It is noted the resident has raised new complaints about issues relating to the temporary boiler, ongoing toilet repairs, communal works, and raised his request to be rehoused again following further leaks. This completed the landlord’s complaints procedures in April 2024.
The resident said the landlord moved him to a hotel in June 2024 following a new leak in his property from the balcony and he returned to the property at the end of August 2024. This was whilst the landlord completed further works to the property relating to new leaks.
The resident has also advised this service that he has instructed solicitors to act on his behalf in representations against the landlord and its handling of the issues he has experienced. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that the claim is currently in a pre-action stage with no court date set.
The Housing Ombudsman has also noted that there is local media interest relating to wider issues affecting other residents in the block.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation will focus on events from November 2021. This was 12 months before the resident raised a complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman scheme which says we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
In addition, we will consider the actions taken by the landlord after issuing its final response in March 2023 in its attempts to satisfactorily resolve the issues raised in resident’s complaint about leaks prior to March 2023. We can see the resident raised a new complaint in November 2023 about other issues, including more recent leaks and the landlord issued its final response to that in April 2024. This investigation will not consider the details of the newer complaint. This is because it concerned new issues that were not raised in the resident’s original complaint. The resident may be able to bring the latter case (which concerns different issues to this one as explained in paragraph 18 of this report) to the Ombudsman as a separate complaint if he wants to.
In its final complaint response, the landlord explained that any damages caused to the resident’s personal belongings should be progressed through its liability insurance procedure. It was fair and reasonable for the landlord to provide this information. Landlords are entitled to use insurance as a means of managing liability claims and the landlord would not be obliged to deal with a claim outside the insurance process. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to consider matters of insurance and therefore we will not comment on this aspect of the complaint further.
Throughout the complaint, the resident said his mental health has been adversely affected by the landlord’s handling of the issues in his property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony about this, however, it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and specific health conditions of the resident. We will, however, consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of the landlord’s actions or inaction as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health.
The resident has said that he has started legal action against the landlord. the Ombudsman can consider complaints where there is ongoing legal action at the pre-action stage, but we would cease our investigation if the case is the subject of formal court action. The landlord has told us that there is no court date scheduled at the moment, therefore we have completed our investigation on the understanding that any legal action involving the resident’s property is currently at a pre-action stage.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy separates repairs into different categories. These categories include immediate repairs and emergency repairs, which cover things such as flooding, risk to life and limb, uncontrollable water leaks, and blocked toilets where there is only 1 in the property.
The landlord’s timescales for immediate and emergency repairs are:
1. Immediate: Within 2 hours
2. Emergency: Within 24 hours
Whilst the policy does not provide timescales for follow-up work, it does provide a timescale of 21 working days for normal repairs. It is fair to conclude that most follow-on work should be completed within this timeframe, which aligns to industry best practice.

The landlord’s handling of the leaks and the quality of work completed

When the landlord surveyed the property in June 2022, it identified works to be completed in the property following an earlier leak. This included work to the hallway and bathroom wall. Between June and November 2022, there is no evidence which shows the contractor tried to arrange this appointment with the resident despite the landlord saying it would. The resident regularly chased the landlord for updates and the landlord emailed the contractor after his calls requesting it contacted him. The contractor did not appear to follow up on these emails and prompts from the landlord.
These delays by the landlord’s contractor prolonged the issues for the resident. The landlord recognised the challenges it was having with its contractor and this was escalated to management. However, the delays continued, and the landlord had an opportunity to explore alternative arrangements to ensure that the works were being completed in accordance with its repairs policy, particularly when it recognised itself that its contractor was not delivering as it expected. The landlord remains ultimately responsible for the actions of its contractors when they are working on the landlord’s behalf.
It would have been understandably worrying and distressing for the resident to experience these delays. In addition, the time and trouble caused to the resident by having to regularly contact the landlord for updates over a 6 month period was unfair. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said that the work to complete these works were scheduled for 15 March 2023. However, this was subsequently rearranged and the work was not fully completed until 12 May 2023.
On 6 November 2022, a new leak from the bath added to the situation in the property. Following the leak from the bath, the landlord arranged for an emergency plumber to attend on the same day and follow-on work was passed to another contractor to complete. This was in accordance with its repairs policy.
Whilst the landlord promptly addressed the issues with the bath, it is noted the resident was left without a bath panel after the leak was fixed. This is because the resident was under the impression that the wider works were going to be completed before the bath panel was refitted and he declined earlier appointments. The bath panel was refitted on 21 April 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to rearrange this in recognition of the resident’s concerns. However, it is understandable to see why the resident would have been frustrated by this in light of the overall delays.
When the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure, he raised further concerns about the safety of the property. In recognition of the resident’s concerns, the landlord arranged for a new survey of the property. Whilst works were identified, the landlord did not consider that the resident needed to be moved due to the repairs.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £545 after its final complaint response. This was comprised of:
1. £370 for delays in completing repairs
2. £100 for distress, time and trouble
3. £75 for missed appointments
In his complaint, the resident also said he was dissatisfied with the quality of work completed in the property. The evidence seen by this service indicates that the landlord’s contractor caused damage when completing the works to the leaking bath on 6 November 2022. This was repaired on 10 November 2022. Whilst we recognise that accidental damage can and does happen, it is fair to understand why the resident was dissatisfied with the quality of work being completed in view of the landlord’s contractors causing further damage. The landlord’s notes say this damage caused a new leak. The landlord took steps to put right the damage by repairing it and within a reasonable timeframe once it became aware of it, which was an appropriate response to this issue.
In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord recognised it got things wrong. It made a final offer of £545 to resolve the resident’s complaint in recognition of its errors. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and was a reasonable offer of redress. The landlord recognised it got things wrong and took steps to put things right based on the situation at the time of the resident’s complaint.
In conclusion, whilst there were notable delays to complete the follow-on works, the landlord recognised this and made an offer to resolve the resident’s complaint. This service therefore makes a finding of reasonable redress with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and the quality of work completed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred

In the resident’s complaint and correspondence with the landlord he requested to be permanently moved to alternative accommodation in recognition of the repair issues in the property. Whilst the landlord completed a survey to assess the condition of the property in light of the resident’s concerns, it did not identify a requirement to transfer the resident to an alternative property, either permanently or temporarily. The landlord advised the resident of this decision in February 2023.
It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a survey to check the condition of the property, it should have then assessed the resident’s request to transfer in view of the survey findings and explained its decision at the time. It is unclear why the landlord delayed in explaining the outcome of his request to be moved. There was a 2-month gap between the inspection and him being notified of the outcome. This was after he prompted the landlord again.
The landlord’s lettings policy, available on its website, says that in the event of serious disrepair within a home, then the transfer would be managed by a designated officer within the Lettings/Rehousing Team. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this process as a result of the resident requesting to be permanently moved. This is likely because the landlord did not assess the situation as serious disrepair. It was fair for the landlord to reach a judgement, based on the findings of its appropriately qualified staff. However, the landlord should have explained the basis for its decision to the resident and provided further advice around rehousing at this point, such as how the resident could register on the local choice based letting system.
Whilst the Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move, we would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have the details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have an even higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness or fleeing serious domestic abuse. It is noted that the landlord has now provided the resident with advice around rehousing as a result of his later complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not recommend that the landlord does so again.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused. The landlord is ordered to apologise in writing to the resident in recognition of this failure. In the letter, the landlord should also pay attention to the further issues identified in this report for its delays to complete repairs and the issues related to its complaints handling, as outlined in the following section.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a 2 stage complaints process. It will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy also says that if there are delays in issuing the response, the landlord will communicate this to the resident.
At both stages of the resident’s complaint there were delays by the landlord in issuing its response:
1. Stage 1: 5 working day delay
2. Stage 2: 50 working day delay
Whilst the stage 1 delay was minor, the stage 2 delay was notable. Failure to adhere to policy timeframes for complaint responses is a service failure. This failure is further exacerbated by the fact that the landlord did not explain the reason for the delays during or after the investigations.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £100 is appropriate for the delay at stage 2 of the complaint process. This would have caused inconvenience to the resident as he had to wait longer than he should have done for the landlord’s final response before being able to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the concerns about the landlord’s handling of Leaks in his property and the quality of work completed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 c of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 52.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman by the same date:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £645, made up of:
  1. £545 already offered through its complaints procedure, unless this has already been paid
  2. Additional £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint
  3. Compensation payments should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any potential rent arrears.
2. Write an apology letter to the resident for the failures identified in this report.