London Borough of Hackney (202342205)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342205

London Borough of Hackney

18 February 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:
1. the impact of repair issues on the resident’s household’s health.
2. the landlord’s handling of:
  1. repairs to resolve water ingress to the front door and the request for a bath to be installed.
  2. damp and mould repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom flat, where the resident lives with her 2 children. The resident told us that she has asthma and depression. She said one of her children also has asthma.
The landlord’s records show that on 21 April 2023 it raised work for its contractor to complete various repairs to the resident’s property, including thermal boarding and decoration.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 18 December 2023. She said she had experienced damp at the property over the last 7 years and that repairs to resolve this were still outstanding. She said:
1. she had been sleeping in the living room with her 2 children since July 2023 as the landlord’s contractor had not completed all work.
2. new beds had not been protected properly by contractors and were now covered in dust.
3. she could not afford to replace possessions that had been “ruined” by damp.
4. the contractor had left a light hanging out of a ceiling and a plug hanging out the wall after she told them to stop work due to her household being ill.
5. when she asked the contractor to restart work, it said the job had been cancelled and returned to the landlord.
6. the contractor had “mucked up” dates by sending an operative who then went on holiday for 2 weeks.
7. she wanted work to be resolved as soon as possible.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 4 January 2024. It said:
1. its surveyor had raised work on 29 June 2022 for its contractor to attend the property and supply thermal boarding to walls and decorate.
2. its contractor had attended on 2 February 2023 to complete an inspection and sent the landlord an estimate for the work on 20 February 2023.
3. it had approved the work on 21 April 2023 and booked appointments with the resident for this work to start on 5 June 2023.
4. its contractor could not gain access on 5 June 2023 and so work was rebooked.
5. there was a further no access appointment on 28 July 2023.
6. work was rebooked for 4 August 2023 but the contractor cancelled this work as the resident asked to re-arrange the work.
The landlord said that its contractor attended the resident’s property again on 5 October 2023 to provide a further estimate for the work. It said its contractor had now sent a new estimate and would contact the resident to arrange a start date. It asked for the resident’s co-operation in providing access for this work and directed her to make a claim to its insurance team for damaged possessions.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 January 2024. She said that she was still having to sleep in the living room as the bedrooms were “not suitable” to sleep in. She said:
1. she was always having to “push things forward” and there was never any correspondence from the landlord.
2. the contractor had come out in October or November 2023 to quote for work again. She said she had since received conflicting information from the landlord about whether it had received this quote.
3. she was “depressed and sick”, and her child now had asthma, which she considered was due to unhealthy living conditions.
4. she wanted to know whether she could be put in temporary accommodation while work was completed.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 February 2024. It set out the previous issues its contractor had reported with gaining access to complete the work. It said:
1. its contractor carried out some repairs but was unable to complete all work.
2. its contractor sent a new estimate for work in October 2023, but the landlord did not receive this until 2 January 2024.
3. the new quote for work was approved on 1 February 2024.
4. its contractor had been trying to arrange an appointment with the resident and wanted to start work the following week.
5. it had reviewed work and did not consider temporary accommodation was required as the work could be completed while the resident remained in the property.
6. the resident could submit a claim to its insurer for damaged possessions and could include a liability claim for ongoing illness.
The landlord said it had found some fault in its delay since February 2023 in completing work. However, it said that a number of no access appointments between June and August 2023 had caused further delay. It awarded the resident compensation of £710, which it said replaced the offer of £115 at stage 1 of its complaints process. This was made up of:
1. £300 for its failings.
2. £260 for avoidable delay.
3. £150 for the vulnerabilities relating to the resident’s respiratory conditions.
The landlord told us repairs were completed to the resident’s property in October 2024, and this was confirmed by the resident. Repair work was completed by a new contractor after the previous contractor again returned the job to the landlord at the end of March 2024. The landlord told the resident in April 2024 that the previous contractor had cancelled the job because of further access issues during February and March 2024. However, the landlord acknowledged then that there were also occasions during this time when the contractor had cancelled or rearrange some appointments with the resident.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman 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 the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The impact of repair issues on the resident’s household’s health

The resident said damp and mould at the property may have had a negative impact on her family’s health. While her concerns about this are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and we note it has already directed her on how to make such a claim.
Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. It follows that we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about the impact of the property conditions on her family’s health. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Repairs to resolve water ingress to the front door and the request for a bath to be installed

The resident raised concerns with us about the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve water ingress to the front door and her request for a bath to be installed. However, we have seen no evidence these concerns have been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. We have seen no evidence the resident has raised these matters as a formal complaint or exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, while the resident’s concerns are noted, these issues are currently outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of these concerns, it would be appropriate for her to raise a formal complaint. If she remains unhappy after exhausting its complaints procedure, she can then bring the complaint to the Ombudsman for consideration.

Scope of investigation

Damp and mould repairs

The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of damp issues since 2016. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may become unavailable. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be completed. In this case the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repair work on 18 December 2023. Taking this into account, our investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of this work since February 2023. This was when it noted it had arranged for its contractor to attend to inspect repair work and provide a quote.
The resident also raised concerns to us that thermal boarding and decorative work completed by the landlord since its stage 2 complaint response has not resolved damp and mould. The landlord also told us that the resident had raised concerns about the inconvenience and expense she had incurred during the work subsequently completed. While we acknowledge these concerns, it would be appropriate for the resident to raise these matters with the landlord. Should she be unhappy with how it addresses her concerns, she could then raise a fresh complaint with the landlord. However, in light of what the resident said, we have recommended that it contact her to discuss her ongoing concerns about these matters.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs guide, which is available online, sets out its aim to complete normal repairs within 21 working days. It goes on to say that it will tell the resident how long the repair is going to take and will keep them updated about the progress of the work. It also says that it will closely monitor the effectiveness of any contractor working in a resident’s home.
The landlord has a temporary decant, major repairs procedure. This says that it will temporarily decant residents when essential work or improvements are needed, and its surveyor considers the extent or duration of the work mean that a temporary decant is “essential”.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Damp and mould repairs

When the resident complained to the landlord in December 2023, she expressed dissatisfaction that repairs to address damp and mould at the property were still outstanding. She said that work had since been cancelled, and the contractor had attended again to complete a new quote for the work.
Records we have seen show that this work was initially booked to start on 5 June 2023 and was to be completed over a number of days. However, the contractor told the landlord that day that it had been unable to gain access for the work. Later that day the contractor told the landlord it had rebooked work for the end of July 2023.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord set out several no access or rescheduled appointments its contractor had reported. It said these had resulted in delays and its contractors eventually cancelling the work due to 8 no access/rescheduled appointments.
Information from the contractor note a number of occasions when it had no access following booked appointments, or when appointments were rescheduled by the resident. The contractor stated appointments had been rescheduled for different reasons between June and August 2023. These included due to the resident/her family being unwell, other appointments and family bereavement.
We acknowledge the need for the resident to reschedule some of these appointments may have been unavoidable. However, it was inevitable that this would delay the contractor in completing work to the property, and it eventually resulted in it returning the job to the landlord. In its complaint responses the landlord said that access issues between June and August 2023 had delayed work. However, it also acknowledged some delays since February 2023, on its part. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge and apologise for this. Better oversight would have helped to avoid the prolonging of the outstanding repair work.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs (published in March 2019) sets out that landlords should monitor the progress of repairs. But there is no evidence the landlord maintained an adequate level of oversight of the work during this period. Work was returned to the landlord on 24 August 2023. But it took no steps to contact the resident or establish the position with the repair work. That was despite the contractor asking that the landlord take “action on your end”. It should reasonably have taken action to understand what was happening about work and address any access issues. It aims to complete normal repairs within 21 days, but this work had clearly gone far beyond this timeframe.
As set out earlier, the landlord’s repairs guide states that it will closely monitor the effectiveness of contractors working in a resident’s home. It should have been more proactive by monitoring and taking action to progress the repair work after this was returned by the contractor in August 2023. That it did not do so was a failing, particularly given the time this repair had already been outstanding. Maintaining appropriate oversight of the repair work would have ensured the landlord could take steps to attempt to resolve some of the issues with access and chase the contractor’s new quote for repair work.
When the resident sent her escalation request in January 2024, she queried whether she could be placed in temporary accommodation while work was completed. The landlord responded to this point in its stage 2 complaint response. At this time, it said it did not consider temporary accommodation was necessary. But the resident had said in her complaint and her escalation request that she was having to sleep in her living room along with her 2 children. Given this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange to inspect her concerns about this.
That there is no evidence the landlord considered inspecting the resident’s property until April 2024 was a failing. That was particularly so as she had told it of her household’s asthma and respiratory issues. Even if the landlord considered there was no need for temporary accommodation during work, there were other steps it could have considered taking to address the resident’s concerns about the work being completed while she remained at the property. For instance, given that work was to be undertaken in both bedrooms, it could have considered plans for completing repairs, and whether measures could be taken to lessen the impact on the resident and her family. Doing so, and discussing this with the contractor and the resident, would have provided some reassurance to her. That there is no evidence the landlord considered this action is a failing.
The landlord later arranged to inspect the resident’s property to consider whether she should be placed in temporary accommodation during work. She confirmed its surveyor had attended on 25 April 2024. However, the landlord did not adequately record what it had found or discussed with the resident about this. That was a record keeping failing. It should have recorded details of its visit so that it could adequately demonstrate how it had considered the resident’s concerns.
In its stage 2 complaint of February 2024 the landlord awarded the resident compensation of £710 in recognition of its failings, the avoidable delays in repairs and the vulnerability issues she had raised. We acknowledge that access issues contributed to delays in work. But there was also delay and poor oversight of the repair work by the landlord. The level of compensation awarded by it appropriately recognises the impact of its contribution towards the delay in work. However, as identified above, the landlord should reasonably have inspected the resident’s concerns about remaining in the property during work at an earlier stage. Instead, it delayed until April 2024 before doing so. With consideration of the circumstances of the case, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord make a further award to the resident to recognise the impact of this failing. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs.

Complaint

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was timely. While its stage 2 response was just outside the target outlined in its complaints policy, it appropriately contacted the resident in advance and apologised for the delay. Its complaint responses addressed most of the issues raised by the resident. However, while it acknowledged some delays in its handling of repair work, it did not address the resident’s specific concern that the contractor had sent an operative who then went on leave for 2 weeks. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), the landlord should have ensured that it addressed all concerns the resident had raised. It should reasonably have addressed this point, by querying the matter with the contractor if necessary. That there is no evidence it considered this point at all is a failing. It meant it did not demonstrate to the resident that it had considered all her concerns. It is also apparent from her subsequent correspondence that she was left feeling the landlord had ignored this matter.
The landlord should also have provided the resident with an appropriate response to her concerns about the condition in which contractors had left the property. It directed her to make a claim to its insurer for any damage to her possessions. But, given that it was in the process of arranging for the same contractor to return, the landlord should reasonably have addressed her specific concerns that her possessions had not been adequately protected during work. We note that work subsequently raised in April 2024 included an instruction for contractors to use dust sheets. But by not addressing the point when responding to the complaint, the landlord missed an early opportunity to provide the resident with some reassurance around this.
As noted earlier in the report, the landlord should reasonably have taken steps to consider the resident’s concerns about work being undertaken while she remained in the property. She had told it in her initial complaint in December 2023 and in her escalation request that she was sleeping in the living room with her children. That it did not arrange to inspect the resident’s concerns about this until the end of April 2024 was a failing.
Finally, we note that the landlord’s stage 2 response refers to an earlier award of £115 it said it made to the resident at stage 1 of the complaints process. But its stage 1 response makes no reference to such an award. The landlord should reasonably have checked the accuracy of its stage 2 complaint response. Its incorrect reference to an earlier award confused matters and was a failing.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. With consideration to the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to recognise the impact of its failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the impact of repair issues on her household’s health is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve water ingress to the front door and the request for a bath to be installed is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
3. service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £960, made up of:
  1. £710 previously awarded for failings it identified.
  2. £150 for the impact of the further failings identified in its handling of the damp and mould repairs.
  3. £100 for the impact of complaint handling failings.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. review failings identified in its monitoring and oversight of the damp and mould repair work. It should consider whether it has adequate processes and guidance in place to ensure failings identified on this case are not repeated.
2. remind staff of the importance of making adequate record of inspections.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident about:
1. her ongoing concerns about damp and mould issues, if it has not already done so.
2. her concerns about the inconvenience and expense she incurred during the repair work completed in October 2024, if it has not already done so.