London Borough of Hackney (202336516)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336516

London Borough of Hackney

28 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 handling of:
1. Leaks.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Defective windows.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a ground floor studio flat.
The resident first raised a formal complaint on 21 September 2023. She said she was still waiting for the landlord to fix the leaks in her kitchen, bathroom, and washroom. The resident also stated that her windows were thin, made of wood, and that rain came through them. She said she was scared as she lived on the ground floor. She said the house was covered in mould and it had made her depressed.
The landlord provided its first stage 1 response on 27 September 2023. It outlined its findings and work completed so far in relation to the issues. It apologised for the delays in addressing them. It said it was actively working on addressing the issue with the leaks and expected to reach a resolution shortly. It stated that it had resolved the leak in her kitchen. The landlord said a carpenter would attend to remedy the windows. It said once it had fully resolved the leaks, the resident would need to raise a repair for surveyor to assess the mould. It offered £170 in compensation for the service failure endured.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 October 2023. She said there were still leaks in her kitchen, bathroom, and washroom. She said the damp and mould was increasing as more water entered her property. She said the mould was now growing on her furniture and she had done as much as she could to prevent it. She said following her formal complaint, all she received was money, and the landlord had not taken any action in relation to the repairs.
The landlord provide a stage 2 response on 12 December 2023 and stated the following:
1. It referred to issues accessing the flat above to remedy the leak and provided a timeline of events. It said it completed the required works on 4 December 2023. It said it would contact the resident on 13 December 2023 to arrange a start date for redecoration works.
2. The landlord said a number of surveys had taken place regarding damp and mould in the property. It said in its latest survey on 19 October 2023, a recommendation was made for additional heating. It confirmed it would install the additional radiators in her laundry room on 3 January 2024.
3. In relation to the windows, it outlined the inspections and repairs which had taken place. It said it had ordered replacement windows and it would contact the resident to arrange an installation date.
4. The landlord said despite a number of attempts to access the neighbours’ flat, it could have done more to rectify the issue earlier. It awarded £400 to reflect the level of fault and £80 for the delay in providing a stage 2 response.
The resident raised a further formal complaint on 3 May 2024. She said she was a care leaver and she had been looking forward to her own permanent home, but instead it had been a nightmare. She said since moving in she had faced issues which included leaks, mould, and poor windows. She said the landlord eventually addressed the mould and redecorated in January 2024. She said the windows remained unresolved.
The resident said she felt unsafe in her home ever since moving in. She reported that her home was burgled on 2 May 2024. She said she had given up hope and was scared for her life. She said she could not live at the property and begged the landlord for help.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 22 May 2024. It said it raised a work order on 17 April 2024 following the residents reports of the bathroom and kitchen windows not closing properly. It said it had originally scheduled for a carpenter to attend on 5 June 2024. The landlord said in response to the report of a break in, it raised an emergency appointment for a carpenter to attend the same day. It said the carpenter secured the windows in the bathroom and kitchen and changed the door locks. The landlord said it had scheduled another appointment to inspect the kitchen window on 22 June 2024.
The landlord confirmed the resident could install a video doorbell for added security. It also referred to the residents request to be rehoused and provided information for why she should consider a mutual exchange. The landlord concluded by saying it could not determine whether there had been a service failure as there were no reports of unsecured windows for her property.
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She said the landlord was aware the windows were outstanding and she had been told the job was closed. The resident confirmed she had been reporting the windows since moving in and that they were a safety hazard. The resident acknowledged the mutual exchange option. She said her home was not in any shape to become someone else’s home with all the issues it had. She said as a female care leaver she was advised she would have priority when moved. She wanted to know what other options were available to her.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 July 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding. It provided a timeline of events and repairs since the resident first reported damp and mould in July 2023. It said it raised an order on 24 May 2024 to renew all UPVC lockable windows and it was awaiting a quotation for that. It said an order was raised following a surveyor visit on 22 May 2024 to stain block and paint the enclosed balcony ceiling. It said the painter who attended on 18 June 2024 advised there was still a leak from the balcony above. It said a surveyor attended on 2 July 2024 to assess the balcony and it was awaiting the report.
The landlord reiterated its advice regarding a mutual exchange. It provided details for its customer services team who it said would be happy to support the resident in her journey to finding a more suitable home. It confirmed that as she had an introductory tenancy, she could not join the housing register. It offered some support links for organisations which could help her following the burglary. It also apologised for its handling of repair issues. It noted that the resident had a liability claim against it as she felt the landlord was liable for the burglary. It said it would not be investigating it in the complaint. It awarded a total of £760 in compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said there was still an ongoing leak and an issue with damp and mould in the property. She said her mental health had seriously declined since moving in and she no longer felt safe living in the property. She said the landlord did not replace the windows until January 2025. The resident said she would like to move to a new, safe, and suitable home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or loss of/damage to personal belongings.
The resident has stated that as an outcome she would like the landlord to move her. The Ombudsman is unable to make such an order. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by landlords at any one time. We also do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority for rehousing.

The landlord’s obligations.

The landlord’s website gives guidance on repair timeframes which are broken down as follows:
1. Immediate repairs (danger to life) – it will attend within 2 hours to make safe and identify any follow on repairs.
2. Emergency repairs – it will attend within 24 hours to make safe and identify any follow on repairs.
3. Urgent repairs – it will attend within 5 working days.
4. Normal repairs – it will attend within 21 working days.
The guidance says there a number of ways it can support vulnerable customers. This may include giving greater priority for repairs or carrying out work outside of its usual policy. It uses the example of additional security works for victims of domestic violence.
The landlord’s compensation policy has 4 tiers of compensation which are broken down as follows:
1. Between £50 and £100 for a “minor” failure in service.
2. Between £100 and £600 for “no permanent” impact or detriment.
3. Between £600 and £1,000 for “significant” impact or detriment.
4. Over £1,000 for “serious” and “significant” failings that result in a long term impact.
Landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, as per the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). For the purposes of this report, this can include leaks, damp and mould, and secure windows.
More specifically, the HHSRS refers to entry by intruders. It says that this hazard is concerned with keeping a dwelling secure against unauthorised entry and maintaining its safety. It said the cause could include poor lighting around the dwelling area, and “poorly constructed/fitted/in disrepair/inadequate locks.” It states preventative measures could be well lit and defined pedestrian routes, window locks, dead locks, security lights, and spy holes/chains on entrance doors.

Leaks.

In this case, there were a number of reported leaks. It should be noted 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. This is especially relevant in a block of flats where multiple properties may be involved. However, the delay in resolving the leak from the flat above was not appropriate. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks. The reasons are provided below.
The first report of a leak by the resident was on 4 July 2023. The landlord’s notes stated that the resident reported a leak in her storage room. The landlord raised repairs to trace and remedy the leak. It also raised a repair to make safe the electrics, as the leak was next to the fuse board and light. The repair notes on 7 July 2023 stated that an electrician attended and made the electrics safe. The landlord closed the job for tracing and remedying the leak on 5 July 2023. The notes stated that the leak was from the flat above and access was needed for as soon as possible.
It was appropriate for the landlord to raise the jobs for the electrics as immediate and the leak as an emergency. This was in line with its repairs guidance. While the landlord attended to the leak within the required timeframe, it did not complete the repair as it needed to access the property above. It was not appropriate that the landlord closed the job without raising any follow on works. Given the notes said it needed to access the property above “asap,” we would expect to see this prioritised and any action the landlord took to gain access at the time. There is no evidence of this.
The resident reported the leak from the flat above again on 30 July 2023. While the landlord recorded it as an immediate repair, it closed the job the following day with notes stating that it needed access for the neighbour’s property. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it arranged to gain access to the flat above several times with no access. The landlord stated that it gained access to the flat on 29 September 2023, and it approved the works on 30 October 2023. It said it completed the works to repair the leak on 4 December 2023, this was 5 months after the residents initial report.
While the landlord referred to attempts to gain access to the neighbour’s flat, the repair records do not substantiate this nor do they show consideration to escalating the no access visits. In its first stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it could have done more to rectify the issue. It offered £400 to reflect the level of fault and impact on the resident. At that point, its level of redress was reasonable.
Alongside the leak from the property above, the resident reported a leak from a pipe on her boiler on 24 July 2023. The landlord raised it as urgent which would require the landlord to attend within 5 working days. It initially arranged an appointment for 31 July 2023 but this was rearranged as the resident was not available. The landlord attended on 15 August 2023. While follow on works were required, we cannot determine that there were any unnecessary delays in the landlord’s handling of this leak.
Similarly, the resident reported a leak from the cold water feed on the cistern in the bathroom on 24 July 2023. The landlord attended the next day and carried out the repairs. This was appropriate.
The landlord has provided the documentation it completed while the property was void. The landlord’s lettable standards booklet notes that it will complete any outstanding repairs before the resident moves in. The Ombudsman has seen 2 documents dated 6 April 2023 and 25 May 2023 and while the property was in void, which refer to a leak from the flat above. The landlord’s records show that it raised an emergency repair for the flat above on 11 May 2023. On 17 May 2023 it closed the case stating that it could not find any leaks.
The document dated 25 May 2023 was annotated with the words “major leak from property above”. There are no further records which show the landlord completed any further repairs related to the leak prior to the resident moving in. This was a failing and suggests that the property may not have been in a lettable condition. In not addressing the leak this impacted the resident’s enjoyment of her home upon moving in. It also likely caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience in her repeatedly reporting and living with the leak.
While the landlord stated that it repaired the leak from the flat above in December 2023. In its second stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the leak from the balcony above was still present and that it needed to raise further repairs. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she is still experiencing a leak. The additional delays in addressing the leak were not appropriate and the landlord’s handling of the leak prior to the resident moving in was not in line with its policy. Orders will made to address this.

Damp and mould.

The Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. While we can see that the landlord had made some attempts to put things right for the resident. Its records do not sufficiently evidence that it followed its policies and procedures or considered all the potential risks.
The records show the resident first reported mould in and around her bathroom taps on 12 July 2023. When the resident reported the issue again on 1 September 2023, she said previously a man had attended and cleaned the taps. The landlord’s repair records do not reference this. On 11 September 2023 an operative attended, the notes stated that on attendance the resident did not allow access and said there was no mould affecting her taps. It said it informed the resident that she would need to reschedule another appointment if she wanted a surveyor’s inspection. This was reasonable.
In its first stage 1 response the landlord told the resident to arrange for a surveyor to assess the mould once it had fully resolved the leak. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. It is acknowledged that without remedying the leaks, it may be difficult to complete lasting remedial works to any damp and mould in the property. However, the landlord should be able to show how it assessed the risk to the resident and acted in line with its obligations. The resident said her whole house was covered in mould. Therefore, it should have inspected the property and considered what action it could take following that. It is a failing that it did not do so.
The resident escalated her complaint and continued to report damp and mould all over her home. On 23 October 2023, the landlord inspected the property and raised repairs for removing mould in the laundry room. The notes also said to consider additional heating in the laundry room. The mould wash and redecoration was completed on 9 November 2023. The repair notes stated that it would fit a new radiator in the new year. This was completed on 2 January 2024.
On 21 November 2023 the resident reported more damp and mould in her living room and the landlord raised a job for an inspection. The notes state this was completed on 27 November 2023, but there was no record of what action the landlord carried out at the time.
In its first stage 2 response the landlord stated that it had conducted a number of surveys in relation to the damp and mould. The landlord has not provided any of the survey reports. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the landlord’s decision making and overall handling of the issue was reasonable. For example, the radiator took 2 months to be fitted, this does not seem reasonable or in line with its repair timescales.
Overall, it is evident that the landlord took some steps to address the damp and mould in the property. However, on the absence of the inspection reports and detailed repair notes, we cannot conclude that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould was sufficient. It should have inspected the property before advising the resident to request a surveyor once the leaks had stopped. This would have shown a pro-active, risk based approach to handling the issue.
The resident continued to report damp and mould in 2024 and in her recent communication to the Ombudsman in April 2025 she has stated that it is still present in her property. As such, orders will be made to address this.

Defective windows

The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s communication with the resident about the replacement windows was not appropriate. It was not transparent about the status of the window replacement and regarding what action it had taken. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the windows. The reasons are explained further below.
The landlord’s records show the resident first reported an issue with the windows on 19 September 2023. The resident said the wooden bathroom and UPVC kitchen windows were not locking properly. In its first stage 1 response the landlord said it booked the window repairs for 5 October 2023 but there was no access. The landlord attended on 17 October 2023. The notes stated that it overhauled 2 UPVC windows and it left them locking and working. It said follow on works were needed to replace the catch on the kitchen window. The landlord confirmed the wooden window in the corridor should be replaced with a double glazed unit due to condensation issues.
Following the resident’s report, it would have been reasonable to see evidence of the landlord first satisfying itself that the property was secure against unauthorised entry. This would have been in line with its obligations under the HHSRS and would have helped to establish whether it needed to conduct a more urgent repair. There is no evidence of the landlord doing this. It was positive the windows were left locking on 17 October 2023, however, it did not raise the follow on works for the catch on the kitchen window. There were also no notes related to the bathroom window. As such, the repair was not completed.
On 22 October 2023 the resident said her windows were broken and that one did not open properly. She highlighted that she was on the ground floor and said she was on edge everyday. On 2 November 2023 she said the laundry room window was rotten and the lock was broken. She said the wind kept opening the window. The landlord raised a job for this on 6 November 2023 and it was closed on 7 November 2023. As the resident had made it clear that the property could not be secured, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended sooner. The repair notes do not state why the job was closed or what action was taken to secure the windows.
On 16 November 2023 the landlord’s notes refer to a new UPVC window to the drying room. In its first stage 2 response on 12 December 2023, the landlord said, “the replacement windows have now been ordered but it can take between 8-12 weeks for these to be fabricated”. It is unclear which windows it was referring to. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed what action it had carried out to ensure the windows were secure in the meantime.
The resident was burgled on 2 May 2024. She said it appeared the property had been entered via the kitchen window. She said she had been chasing the landlord to replace that window as it did not have safe locking system. The resident said following the burglary she was traumatised and no longer wanted to reside in the property.
The landlord’s records said that it appeared the flat was entered on the “blind side.” It described this side as having no communal lighting or communal security camera. Recommendations were made for a 4 metre metal fence with a large, padlocked door, external sensored lighting, and security cameras. To date, those recommendations have not been actioned. We have made an order for the landlord to provide its position on the recommendations, alongside any other target hardening measures which could reduce the risk of unauthorised entry.
The landlord confirmed that following the report of a burglary, it raised an emergency repair and the windows were secured. It said a carpenter also attended on 3 May 2024 and changed the front entrance door locks and night latch. It said an order had been raised on 24 May 2024 to renew all the UPVC lockable windows, renew the kitchen side hung casement window, and reglaze 2 internal doors. It said it was awaiting a quotation for the windows. The landlord also noted that the resident had reported her bathroom windows not closing properly on 17 April 2024 and it said it had previously raised an order for someone to attend on 5 June 2024.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have attended sooner when the resident reported her bathroom windows not closing properly on 17 April. This would have been in line with its repairs policy and obligations under the HHSRS.
It did however, evidence that it acted in line with its policies to secure the property following the burglary. It was also reasonable for it to not discuss liability due to the ongoing claim at the time. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s remit to establish negligence or liability for the burglary or any damages. It was positive to see that the resident was able to raise this via the appropriate avenue.
The landlord’s overall response was confusing as there was no acknowledgement of the windows which it said it had ordered in its previous stage 2 response. In December 2023, it told the resident it would take 8-12 weeks for the windows to be ready. The resident continued to report issues with her windows in 2024 and prior to the burglary. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging its prior commitments and providing an update on the order it had already raised. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she was later told that no order had been made. It is not appropriate that it did not provide an explanation for why the order did not go ahead.
In its second stage 2 response the landlord stated that it had raised an order to renew all UPVC lockable windows. It said it would prioritise a quotation for the windows and update the resident accordingly. On 14 August 2024 the resident confirmed that the landlord had not completed the window works. She said she was still scared everyday. She said surveyors attended and discussed methods to help with security but no action was taken. She said she was begging for help and an update. The resident said the landlord replaced the windows in January 2025.
Overall, the landlord failed to evidence that it had acted in line with its obligations and it did not manage the resident’s expectations. The time taken to replace the defective windows was not acceptable. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shown how it had considered the risks. If the landlord was satisfied that it had reduced the risk, it should have communicated this to the resident with the reasons why. In not doing so, this likely led to significant distress and inconvenience to the resident in repeatedly reporting the issues and being concerned for her safety.

The complaint and level of compensation offered

Three of the landlord’s complaint responses were not provided in line with its timescales set out in its complaints policy. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged this and offered compensation, it should reflect on the reasons for the delays and what it could have done differently.
As already stated in the report, the landlord’s complaint responses were confusing at times and the complaints did not appear to have been fully investigated. An example of this was in the second stage 1 response, the landlord said it could not see any failure but failed to consider its previous commitments with the windows. This led the resident to have to escalate the complaint as the landlord did not put things right for her. Its second stage 2 response still failed to fully consider the previous window order and the detriment to the resident as a result.
It is unclear whether the landlord’s lack of consideration to the previous window order was an oversight or due to poor record keeping. The report has already highlighted how the lack of relevant reports and sufficient repairs notes has hindered this investigation. The landlord should reflect on its record keeping in this case and how it may have impacted its ability to respond fully to the complaint. If it has not already done so, it should consider what changes it could make to its record keeping process to ensure it clearly logs its decisions.
Throughout her complaints, the resident referred to being a care leaver and how she felt the landlord should have done more to support her. While the landlord provided the options available to her regarding moving and some support links for the burglary. It would have been reasonable for it to acknowledge her vulnerabilities and provide its position on whether it could do more to support her. As per its policy this could have included considering priority repairs and added security measures.
Overall, the landlord offered £1,240 in compensation which was broken down as follows:
1. £480 awarded in its first stage 2 response. This was to address the level of fault in its handling of the leaks and the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. £760 awarded in its second stage 2 response. It said this was to reflect the level of fault in its handling for the repair issues and its communication. It was also to incorporate the delays in responding to the complaint.
While the amount offered went some way to putting things right for the resident and was in line with its policy. There was some failures which it did not account for and for which additional compensation would be appropriate. As such, the Ombudsman awards an additional £750 for:
1. £200 for its handling of the leak from the flat above prior to letting the property and the impact on the resident. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for a failure to acknowledge its failings and therefore no attempt to put it right.
2. £100 for the landlord’s failure to evidence that it had responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in line with its obligations. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where a failure was not fully put right.
3. £300 for the landlord’s handling of the windows. This includes the failure to fully assess the risks associated with the resident’s safety and in progressing repairs it had committed to. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for both a failure to acknowledge its failings and not fully putting them right.
4. £150 for the complaint handling failures. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where the resident was adversely impacted by the failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Leaks.
2. Defective windows.
3. The complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in this report.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,990. This is inclusive of the £1,240 it previously offered, if it has not already been paid.
The landlord must carry out a full inspection of the property. The inspection should identify the cause of any ongoing leaks and damp and mould in the property. Once this has been completed it must contact the resident to provide the outcome of the inspection, along with a completed risk assessment, and written action plan with timeframes for carrying out any repairs.
The landlord must consider the resident’s safety concerns and provide its position on the security measures recommended following the break in. Any consideration should be in line with its policies and obligations under the HHSRS.
The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendation

The landlord should reflect on its record keeping in this case. If it has not already done so, it should consider what changes are required to its record keeping process to ensure its decision making is sufficiently recorded.