London Borough of Hackney (202407740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407740

London Borough of Hackney

17 January 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

This complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks, including subsequent damp and mould.
2. A pest infestation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a studio flat within an 18-storey block of flats. The landlord told the Ombudsman that it had not previously had any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but that she disclosed vulnerabilities related to her mental health, as well as respiratory issues, during the complaints process.
On or around 2 November 2023, the resident reported a leak coming into her property through the bathroom ceiling. On or around 4 January 2024, she reported that the ongoing leak had caused damp and mould in her property.
On 20 April 2024, the resident made a complaint about how the landlord had handled her reports. She said there was a leak in the bathroom every time it rained. She said this had caused damp, mould, respiratory issues, and a silverfish infestation. She said she could not use the bathroom because the smell of damp was too strong, and she believed the issue pre-dated her moving into the flat.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 May 2024. It said a leak which pre-dated the resident’s tenancy had been resolved before she moved in, and that the present leak was unrelated. It also said:
1. The leak was from a communal roof, and was resolved in April 2024.
2. It had carried out a survey of her flat to identify any internal repairs, and the relevant works were scheduled for 4 June 2024.
3. It does not deal with silverfish infestations, so she would need to deal with the infestation herself.
4. It accepted the process of resolving the leak took longer than expected, and offered £200 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 June 2024. She said there had been no action for a number of weeks, and that the compensation offered was insufficient. She then attempted to escalate her complaint again on further occasions. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint until it received contact from the Ombudsman on 5 September 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 September 2024. It said:
1. It apologised for ignoring the resident’s communication preferences.
2. The leak prior to the resident moving into the property had been resolved before she moved in. That leak was a result of leaking pipework, and was unrelated to the leak she reported in November 2023.
3. The leak the resident reported had been resolved. While she had suggested in July 2024 that the leak was ongoing, its surveyor concluded on 18 July 2024 that there was no ongoing leak. The resident had reported that the leak started up again in September 2024, and it would arrange for an inspection. It had no evidence the resident had reported any issues between May and September 2024.
4. Its initial delay in inspecting other flats was unacceptable, and it could have ruled the other flats out as the source of the leak sooner had it inspected within a reasonable time.
5. A survey of the bathroom was delayed due to a combination of a lack of access and some delays on the landlord’s part. It acknowledged that the scheduled internal works to resolve damp and mould had not yet been completed despite consistent contact from the resident. It said its contractors would schedule the remaining works with her.
6. It increased its compensation offer to a total of £1,000. This was £840 for its failings related to the repairs, and £160 for complaint handling failures.
The resident contacted the landlord on the same day. She said the compensation offered was not sufficient, and she felt ‘cheated’. She said she had been living uncomfortably for almost a year, it was too embarrassing to have friends over given the condition of the property, she had ‘mould poisoning’, and was disabled as a result of her mental health. In response, the landlord increased the compensation offered to £1,200 to account for her vulnerabilities, and referred her to its insurer with regard to any harm to her health.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 September 2024. She said there was an ongoing leak and a failure to book in repairs a year after she first reported it, and she did not believe the compensation offered was sufficient. She said she felt she was owed thousands of pounds in compensation, and also wanted the works to be completed.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that the works started on 14 October 2024, and were completed on 18 October 2024.

Policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out repairs in the following timeframes:
1. Emergency repairs – within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs – within 5 working days.
3. Normal repairs – within 21 working days.
The repairs policy also says that the landlord will take the following steps when attempting to carry out repairs:
1. If a resident has provided a mobile phone number, it will send an appointment confirmation text immediately, followed by another text message before the operative is due to arrive.
2. If it cannot gain access to the property at the agreed time, it will try to contact the resident by phone.
3. If it is unable to contact the resident, it will leave a card saying what time the operative visited. It is the resident’s responsibility to rearrange repairs when access has not been provided, and the repairs timescale will start again from the date the resident contacts the landlord to rearrange the missed appointment.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that she must take reasonable action to control any vermin or pests that enter her home. It says she must report any pests in her home to the landlord.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Under the policy, stage 1 responses must be issued within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses must be issued within 20 working days of an escalation request. This matches the timescales in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord is a local authority. Paragraph 5 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme gives the Ombudsman the power to investigate local authority social landlords only as far as the issues relate to the management or provision of social housing. Any action taken (or not taken) by the landlord in its role as a local authority, rather than its role as a landlord (such as local authority pest control), would not fall within the Ombudsman’s remit, and would be for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to determine.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. Any events after the landlord’s stage 2 response have not completed the landlord’s complaints process, and will therefore not be considered as part of this investigation. Should the resident wish for the Ombudsman to look into the landlord’s actions after its stage 2 response, she would need to make a further complaint to the landlord and complete its complaints process before the Ombudsman could look into it. As such, this investigation will only consider events from 2 November 2023 to 11 September 2024. However, events outside of that timeframe may be referred to for context.
The resident has referred to the effect the leak and subsequent damage (including damp and mould) had on both her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, damage to health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be determined by the courts, as the courts can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings in this regard. The Ombudsman also cannot award damages in the way a court can. However, the Ombudsman will consider any general distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident.

Assessment – leaks, damp and mould

The resident reported a leak coming through her bathroom ceiling on or around 2 November 2023. The landlord’s records show that it logged an emergency works order for an inspection, and inspected 2 other flats to identify the source of the leak. It was unable to identify the source of the leak at that time, as it needed access to a further 3 flats to rule them out as the source of the leak.
However, rather than making follow up appointments to access the relevant flats, the landlord marked the repair as complete on 2 November 2023. This was despite it being aware that the leak was ongoing, and that further investigation was needed. This meant that the landlord took no further action until January 2024, when the resident reported that the ongoing leak had since caused damp and mould in her property. This was not in line with its repairs policy or standard industry practice, and its poor handling of the repair created unreasonable and avoidable delays.
On 4 January 2024, the resident reported that there was damp and mould in the bathroom, the ceiling was rotting, and that there was water ingress every time it rained. The landlord booked an inspection for 15 January 2024. Its records show that it attended, but say that the resident did not provide access or answer her phone when the contractor tried to contact her. It therefore closed the works order.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it is the resident’s responsibility to rearrange an appointment if they do not provide access at the arranged time, and the deadline to complete a repair is effectively paused until the resident does so. However, the landlord’s records do not show that the resident was notified in advance of the appointment date and time, either by text message or otherwise. While the operative did try to call the resident when at the property, there is no evidence they left either contact details or a missed appointment card. As such, the landlord has not shown that it followed the process set out in its policy, or properly notified the resident of the appointment to allow her to provide access. As such, it was unreasonable to close the works order in the circumstances.
The landlord has provided no evidence of taking any further action until 28 March 2024, when it raised a works order to inspect the roof. This was despite the landlord being aware that multiple properties were affected by the leak, and the resident having reported that the leak affected her property every time it rained. It booked an appointment for 27 April 2024, and another for 1 May 2024 under a duplicate works order.
Following the resident’s complaint on 20 April 2024, the landlord arranged a CCTV survey for 24 April 2024. The notes from the visit state that the contractor identified and cleared a blocked gully outlet. The appointment for 27 April 2024 did not go ahead, but the landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 1 May 2024. The surveyor noted that a plumber would be attending that day to inspect for leaks, as the ceiling leak appeared active. They then set out a list of internal works that the landlord would need to complete, such as tracing the leak, carrying out a mould wash, and renewing the panels affected by the leak. The notes from the plumber’s inspection that day indicated that no signs of leaks from any other flats were found. The landlord concluded from this that clearing the gully outlet may have resolved the leak.
The landlord raised a works order for the identified follow-on works on 10 May 2024, and asked the contractor to prioritise the works due to the resident’s complaint. While it was appropriate to prioritise the works, it is of concern that the landlord only sought to prioritise them as a result of a complaint having been made, and not because of a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, its existing delays, or the reported impact on the resident’s health. Such an approach does not demonstrate that the landlord took the reports seriously.
When issuing its stage 1 response to the complaint, the landlord told the resident that the works were scheduled for 4 June 2024. It has provided no evidence of any works going ahead, or any explanation for why no works took place at that time. In the absence of any such explanation, the Ombudsman can only reasonably conclude there was no good reason for the delay.
Due to the landlord’s lack of action regarding the repairs, the resident chased a response on 11 July 2024. She said the bathroom was a health hazard, and that a whole bathroom wall needed to be replaced. The landlord’s stage 2 response also said the resident reported that the leak had not been resolved at that time. The landlord arranged a further survey on 18 July 2024. The surveyor’s notes indicated that the leak was ongoing, and identified the same works as the previous inspection in May 2024.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that the leak was understood to be resolved, and that the works it later arranged included intrusive works to the ceiling to resolve any possible causes of leaks. However, that conclusion is not supported by the evidence provided. The resident had reported that the leak was ongoing, and the landlord’s surveyor also stated in their inspection notes that the leak appeared to be ongoing.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to carry out prompt further investigations into the cause of the leak. Instead, it reached the conclusion that the leak was resolved at the time based on assumptions which ran contrary to all available evidence. It relied on works which commenced in October 2024, 3 months later, to demonstrate the leak had been resolved by July 2024, and therefore to mitigate its failings in handling the repairs. This was despite the landlord having had multiple reports from the resident that that the leak was ongoing, and its own surveyor stating in July 2024 that the leak was active. This was demonstrably unreasonable. It is also unclear what the contractors found when carrying out the works, as the landlord has not provided any record of this.
On 1 August 2024, the landlord raised a works order for a mould wash. It has provided no explanation for why it took 2 weeks after the July 2024 inspection to raise a works order. This delay was unreasonable. On 6 August 2024, the resident told the landlord that the leak was ongoing. While the landlord responded to the reports, it did not raise any works orders for further inspections. Its records indicate this was because the staff member dealing with the repairs was only willing to talk to the resident over the phone, despite the resident having told the landlord that she could only discuss the issues by email. A decision to ignore a resident’s communication preferences is not an acceptable reason for delaying further inspections, and the landlord did not respond reasonably to the resident’s further reports.
The landlord’s records say it attended the property to carry out the mould wash on 9 August 2024, and that the resident did not provide access for the appointment. However, it has also provided no evidence that the resident was ever notified of an appointment, or that the contractors either attempted to contact the resident, or left a card to re-book the appointment. As such, the evidence does not support that no access was given for the appointment.
The resident told the landlord on 2 September 2024 that the leak appeared to have stopped again. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 4 September 2024, but no other works had been scheduled at that time. The landlord’s records show it chased its contractors for the remaining repairs on 9 September 2024. However, it only did so after the Ombudsman contacted it to have the resident’s complaint escalated to stage 2. It has provided no evidence of ever chasing its contractor for updates or progress prior to receiving contact from the Ombudsman. This was unreasonable.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with evidence that its contractors started works to the bathroom on 14 October 2024, and were due to complete the works that week. It said the works were completed on 18 October 2024, but has not provided evidence to show whether or not there was an ongoing leak at the time of the repairs.
The resident said she believes that the leak began before she moved into the property, and that it was not properly resolved during the landlord’s voids process. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to support that conclusion. In the absence of any evidence to support the resident’s concern, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the leak was a new leak which started on or around 2 November 2023. By the time of the stage 2 response, the leak and subsequent damage had been unresolved for 10 months. This is a serious and significant delay, for which no reasonable explanation has been provided. The evidence shows repeated failings and avoidable delays on the landlord’s part, including failures to take the reports seriously, to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale, or to appropriately monitor its contractors. It also sought to attribute fault to the resident for not allowing access on 2 occasions, while providing no evidence that it had notified her of the appointments in question, or left cards to rearrange the appointments.
The landlord has accepted that its handling of the repairs was unreasonable, and in its stage 2 response it offered the resident £840 compensation. When the resident disclosed vulnerabilities in response, the landlord increased the compensation offered to £1,040 to take account of those vulnerabilities. As the landlord has accepted its failings, the Ombudsman has considered whether it has done enough to put things right.
In this case, the resident had to live with an ongoing leak and related damp and mould for a significant length of time. She had to repeatedly chase the landlord for repairs following its inaction. She has also reported having to wash in the kitchen and wear a mask to use the bathroom because of the smell of damp, and that she was too embarrassed by the damp to have visitors at her home. She has also reported that the mould in the property worsened her respiratory issues. As explained above, this Service does not award damages or compensation for any impact on health or wellbeing. That would be for a court or an insurer to assess, and the landlord has appropriately referred the resident to its insurer in that regard. However, living in a property you believe is harming your health would inevitably cause a significant amount of distress and inconvenience.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the offer of £1,040 was an appropriate offer of compensation for its delays in resolving the leak and related damp and mould, and the associated distress and inconvenience caused. This is because the compensation offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for serious failings which have a severe long-term impact on a resident.
However, while the landlord has recognised that there were failings in this case, it has not shown that it has recognised all of the failings. For example, it has not recognised its failings around the July 2024 inspection, or its failure to follow its processes for notification of appointments. It has also provided no evidence of assessing any additional compensation for a reported increase in energy bills as a result of the damp and mould, despite the resident specifically including this as part of her complaint. This is not in line with its compensation policy, which says it will consider awards for increased energy bills caused by its failings.
As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint, and the Ombudsman finds there has been maladministration. It should be noted that had the landlord not made an offer of compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance, this would have been a finding of severe maladministration. The Ombudsman has therefore considered what else the landlord needs to do to put things right.
While the Ombudsman does not consider that the additional failings would lead to an increase in compensation for delays in repairs (as the amount offered is appropriate taking into account the entire 10 month delay), it does consider that the landlord should issue a written apology to the resident for the further failings, in addition to assessing whether any more compensation is due for financial loss as a result of increased energy costs. Orders to that effect have been made below. For the avoidance of doubt, if the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision once it has assessed whether compensation for increased energy costs is due, or any amount offered, that would be a new complaint and not a continuation of this complaint.
As the landlord has not provided evidence which shows that the leak has since been resolved, it is also ordered to arrange a post-inspection of the October 2024 works to ascertain whether the leak, together with associated damp and mould, has been fully resolved.

Pest control

The landlord has not provided copies of any relevant pest control policies. The only policies it has provided relate to its role as a local authority rather than its role as a landlord. As set out above, its actions as a local authority (rather than as a landlord) do not fall within the remit of this Service, as they fall outside of its housing management function. In the absence of any relevant policies, this Service will consider whether or not the landlord’s actions were in line with standard industry practice.
The resident first reported a silverfish infestation on 20 April 2024. She said it had been caused by the ongoing leak. In response, the landlord told her that silverfish would be her responsibility to resolve, as it did not deal with silverfish infestations.
In line with industry best practice, landlords may be responsible for dealing with pest problems if the pests are thought to be entering the property through defects in the structure of the building, even if there are no pest control obligations set out in the tenancy agreement or related policies. At the time the landlord told the resident she would be responsible for the silverfish infestation, it had not taken any steps to investigate the cause of the infestation. Without any such investigation, the landlord cannot reasonably conclude either way whether or not the infestation was its responsibility or the resident’s.
As the landlord has provided no evidence of attempting any investigation into the cause of the silverfish, it has not shown it responded appropriately to the resident’s reports. The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of pest control.
To put things right, the landlord must arrange a pest control survey to determine whether there is an ongoing silverfish infestation in the bathroom and, if so, what the likely cause of the infestation is. It must also assess whether, based on the results of that inspection, any additional compensation is due to the resident for any failings on its part. An order to that effect has been made below.

Complaint handling

Under the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord was required to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation request.
The resident made a complaint on 20 April 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 May 2024, 25 working days after the resident made her complaint. The landlord has provided no explanation for this delay, so the Ombudsman can only conclude the delay was avoidable and unreasonable.
The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 13 June 2024. She said it had been weeks since the landlord had taken any action, and she did not believe the compensation offered was sufficient. In line with the Code and its complaints policy, the landlord should have logged the resident’s escalation request and issued a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It did neither. Instead, it failed to escalate the complaint until contacted by this Service on 5 September 2024. This was unreasonable.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 response, the information it included in the response was not supported by its records. For example, it told the resident that its surveyor had concluded on 18 July 2024 that the leak had been resolved. This was despite the surveyor’s notes stating that the leak appeared to be ongoing. It also said there was no evidence the resident had ever reported an ongoing leak after the repairs in May 2024, despite the resident having made further reports in July and August 2024, and the landlord having responded to those reports.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to ensure that its complaint responses were accurate. Its failure to do so indicates it did not carry out a reasonable investigation into the complaint, and was a further example of poor complaint handling.
While seeking to escalate her complaint, the resident repeatedly asked the landlord to only contact her via email, and not to try to call her. When a resident sets out specific communication needs, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to try to accommodate those needs. Instead, the landlord repeatedly ignored them, and put pressure on the resident to discuss the matters over the phone. It said this was because it was too busy to exchange emails. This was inappropriate.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that its complaint handling fell short. It accepted that it had failed to respond to the resident’s escalation request, and had ignored her requests for all communication to be via email. It apologised, and offered £160 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
The Ombudsman does not consider that the compensation offered is sufficient to make up for the failings in its complaint handling. The unreasonable delays in responding to and escalating the complaint caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience, and prevented her bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman prior to September 2024. She also had to chase the landlord for responses, and had to contact the Ombudsman before the landlord would issue its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration.
To put things right, the landlord should pay the resident £300 for its failings in complaint handling (inclusive of the £160 offered in its stage 2 response). This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but which have no permanent impact. The landlord must also arrange refresher training for all of its complaint handling staff. Orders to this effect have been made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, including subsequent damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of pest control.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology for the failings identified in this report. The apology must be from a member of the landlord’s senior management team.
2. Arrange for a post-inspection of the works carried out to resolve the leaks, damp and mould, to determine whether the issues have been successfully resolved, if it has not already done so. It must also write to the resident within that 4-week timeframe to confirm whether it considers the issues resolved, or whether further works are needed. If further works are needed, it must confirm when those works will be completed and how long they are likely to take.
3. Arrange for a pest control survey to investigate the reports of silverfish in the bathroom. Within 2 weeks of that inspection, the landlord must write to the resident to confirm the following:
  1. The results of the inspection.
  2. Whether or not, based on the inspection, the silverfish infestation potentially developed as a result of the leak.
  3. If the infestation was potentially caused by the leak, what steps it intends to take to resolve the infestation, and when it intends to take those steps.
  4. Whether, as a result of the inspection, it considers that any further compensation is due to the resident for delays, distress and inconvenience, or financial loss, as a result of its handling of her reports.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of both the inspection report and its letter to the resident.

Pay the resident £1,340 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report. This is inclusive of the £1,200 previously offered, and is broken down as follows:
1. £1,040 for its poor handling of leaks, damp and mould.
2. £300 for its poor handling of the associated complaint.
Write to the resident to request evidence of increased energy bills as a result of the leaks, damp and mould. The landlord must then assess any further compensation for increased energy costs in line with its policy, and write to the resident with the outcome of its assessment within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to arrange refresher training for all complaint handling staff to avoid the recurrence of the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timeframes set out above.