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

London Borough of Hackney (202322366)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322366

London Borough of Hackney

21 October 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 response to the residents:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Request for rehousing due to overcrowding.
  2. This report also considers the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 2-bed flat, since November 2016.
  2. The resident’s 4 children live with her. The resident has several long-term health conditions and she and her children have asthma.
  3. In 2019 the landlord temporarily moved the family from the property to allow it to carry out works to address issues with damp and mould. They moved back into the property in around December 2020.
  4. The resident says that since 2021 she has been reporting that the damp and mould has returned.
  5. In April 2023 the family’s social worker wrote to the landlord. They said the property was “badly impacted by damp and mould” and this was of “particular concern for the children who are prone to respiratory issues. The social worker said they believed the property was an “unsafe and unhealthy home environment for the children”.
  6. On 13 July 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said:
    1. She had been reporting for 2 years that the property still had damp and mould.
    2. She and her children had health conditions including asthma.
    3. The damp and mould impacted their health and had also caused damage to her furniture and belongings.
    4. The property was overcrowded and she was concerned on the impact this was having on her son who had autism.
  7. In September 2023 the resident’s solicitor sent a letter of claim to the landlord. It stated that the landlord was in breach of its repair obligations under the tenancy agreement and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The letter listed the reported disrepair which included damp and mould throughout the property.
  8. Also in September 2023, the family’s health visitor wrote to the landlord. They said the condition of the property was the worst they had seen and a “public health issue”. They said the landlord was “failing [its] tenants” and the family’s existing health conditions had been “exacerbated by the mould problem” in the property.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 October 2023. It said:
    1. There had been “avoidable delays” in carrying out works to resolve the damp and mould. 
    2. It had identified that there was water ingress from the bathroom which it believed was causing the damp and mould. It had raised an order for the required works and its contractor had contacted her to arrange a commencement date.
    3. It would monitor the progress of the works until completion.
    4. The resident could apply to join the housing register. It had however introduced a new allocations policy which prioritised those in greatest need.
    5. She may therefore instead wish to apply for a mutual exchange instead.
    6. It upheld her complaint in relation to its handling of damp and mould issues.
    7. It apologised and offered £1,200 for delays in resolving the repairs and for her time and trouble.
  10. On 5 December 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. She said the landlord had done nothing to resolve the damp and mould issues. She also said that despite her being overcrowded it had rejected her application to join the social housing register. 
  11. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 January 2024. It said:
    1. The resident’s solicitor had submitted a legal disrepair claim on her behalf in September 2023.
    2. Its disrepair team was dealing with this and it would pass the required works to its contractor for completion “soon”.
    3. As a result, this issue would “not be investigated further as part of [the] complaint”. 
    4. She had made a housing register application and had undergone a medical assessment.
    5. To qualify to join the register due to overcrowding she would need to be lacking 2 bedrooms or have medical needs.
    6. As a result of the assessment she had not been awarded any medical priority. She had appealed this decision but the original decision was upheld.
    7. She was not eligible to join the housing register. It had explained this to her in writing.
    8. It did not uphold her complaint in relation to its handling of her request for rehousing due to overcrowding.
    9. It did however find fault in the time taken to respond to her stage 1 complaint. It apologised for this and offered compensation of £270 for its complaint handling delays.
  12. On 18 March 2024 the landlord provided a stage 2 “follow up” letter. It said:
    1. It had now considered the damp and mould aspect of her complaint.
    2. It had not previously considered the issue as part of her stage 2 complaint due to the legal disrepair claim submitted by her solicitor.
    3. An external survey had inspected the property and identified several works. It estimated the work would be completed by 10 July 2024.
    4. It increased its compensation offer in relation to its complaint handling failures to £440.
    5. It acknowledged there had “clearly been fault” in its handling of her repair issues. It would not offer compensation for this under its complaint process as it would do so as part of the legal claim.
  13. The resident rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation and escalated her complaint to this Service on 4 April 2024. She said she had “lost faith” that the landlord would repair the property and that the condition of the property was impacting the children’s health.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing due to overcrowding.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges the serious nature of the resident’s concerns and we have seen evidence which suggests that the conditions within the property are having a significant impact on the resident and her family. Particularly her young children. However, paragraph 41.c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings.
  2. The Ombudsman’s view is that proceedings have commenced once a claim form and Particulars of Claim, have been filed at court. In this case the resident’s solicitor submitted a claim form in March 2024. The particulars of the civil claim, as stated on the claim form, relate to disrepair including damp and mould.
  3. We acknowledge the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord and its response to her concerns. However, the damp and mould issues raised in the complaint are included in the ongoing civil claim. It therefore follows that based on the evidence that has been provided to this Service, the damp and mould element of the complaint falls outside of our jurisdiction. The resident may wish to discuss the offers of compensation she has received with her solicitor. This should enable her to make an informed decision as to whether or not she should accept the compensation before the matter is heard in court.

Request for rehousing due to overcrowding.

  1. When a tenant of a local authority landlord applies for re-housing on the grounds of reasonable preference (for example because they are homeless, overcrowded, or need to move on medical or welfare grounds) they must apply via the social housing register.
  2. Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  3. The assessment of the resident’s social housing register application is a service provided by the landlord in its capacity as a local authority. This aspect of the complaint therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), not this Service. The resident may refer her case to the LGSCO if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issue.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will deal with claims for compensation arising from property damage or injury through its insurance team and not through its complaints process.
  3. The complaints policy also states it will not investigate matters subject to legal disrepair claims under its complaints process. It says this applies when a resident has informed it “that they are taking legal actionand a claim has been issued at court”.
  4. It took the landlord 63 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It failed to acknowledge, explain or apologise for this delay in its response. This was inappropriate and a considerable departure from the timescales in its own policy and those outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  5. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted there had been failings in its handling of her reports of damp and mould and offered compensation for this. It also outlined the works its contractor would be undertaking and said it would monitor progress of the work. This was appropriate.
  6. The stage 1 response did not however address all the concerns raised by the resident in her complaint. It failed to mention her concerns regarding the health of her family or damage caused to her furniture and belongings.
  7. We acknowledge that the landlord’s complaint policy states that it will not deal with claims for damage to health or property through its complaint process. It should reasonably however have explained this within its complaint response and signposted the resident to its insurance team.
  8. Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it suggested that the resident apply for a mutual exchange. Given that it had acknowledged the extent of the damp and mould within the property, this was inappropriate. Not only would the resident have difficulty in finding someone to exchange with, the incoming tenant would be moving into a property with an ongoing damp and mould problem.
  9. The landlord provided its first stage 2 complaint response within the timeframe outlined within its policy and the Code. The response addressed the resident’s concerns regarding her request for rehousing. It detailed in reasonable detail her applications and why she was not eligible to join the housing register.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response noted its delays in responding at stage 1. While it should reasonably have done this within its stage 1 response it was right that it did so when it recognised the issue and offered compensation. The compensation it offered for its complaint handling failings is broadly in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  11. The landlord’s first stage 2 response stated that it would not investigate her concerns regarding damp and mould as she had submitted a legal disrepair claim.
  12. At the time of the stage 2 response her solicitor had submitted a letter of claim initiating housing conditions Pre-Action Protocol under civil procedure rules (CPR). The claim had not however been issued at court. Therefore it was unreasonable and an incorrect application of its policy that that stated it could not investigate the issue.
  13. It is accepted that the landlord did attempt to rectify its mistake by issuing a further stage 2 response. This however was 71 days after the resident’s escalation request which far exceeded the timeframe outlined in the Code and its own policy. We also note that it did not clearly acknowledge that it had failed to correctly apply its own policy when it did not consider the issue previously. 
  14. The landlord did however increase its offer of compensation to £440 in consideration of its failure to address the damp and mould issue in its previous stage 2 complaint response. This offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  15. We note that, while the landlord has acknowledged complaint handling failings and made offers of compensation, it has not addressed all aspects of the resident’s complaint. We cannot therefore consider that it has offered reasonable redress to the resident.
  16. Overall, the landlord:
    1. Delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
    2. Failed to address all aspects of the complaint.
    3. Incorrectly applied its complaints policy in relation to legal disrepair claims.
    4. Delayed in providing a final complaint response.
  17. While the landlord did take steps to try to put right some of its complaint handling failures, we have identified further failings. We therefore consider that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, and have ordered a further sum of compensation accordingly.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing due to overcrowding is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for its failings in relation to complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident £250 for the further complaint handling issues identified by this report. This is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
    3. If it has not already done so, contact the resident and signpost her to its insurance team in relation to her concerns regarding damage to her health and belongings.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.