Key Points
- Hackney Council, a local authority, failed to address a tenant’s reports of unsafe windows and balcony door in her fourth-floor two-bedroom flat, where her toddler son with autism climbed on windowsills and banged on damaged frames, posing a fall risk.
- The tenant has lived in the property since April 2003 with her two children: a toddler son diagnosed with autism lacking danger awareness, and a teenage daughter with visual/hearing impairments affecting balance.
- Reports from multiple professionals highlighted dangers: an independent occupational therapy (OT) assessment on 19 April 2022 noted “severe rot” in living room window/door and toddler leaning on window; a 10 May 2022 medical report stated windows falling apart, balcony door not shutting, uneven flooring; another OT on 4 August 2022 expressed “extreme concern” over unsecured windows/balcony door lacking locks/restrictors.
- Kitchen flooring remained uneven since 2018 reports, preventing the daughter’s independent access and causing falls, breaching disability needs.
- Damp and mould in bedroom stemmed from rotten window frames; independent survey on 28 May 2022 confirmed rotten beading/frames, broken ironmongery, failed glazing, black mould in hallway due to poor ventilation.
- Delays attributed partly to 2020 cyber-attack impacting records, but council aware of vulnerabilities for years; repairs stalled post-2019 survey when tenant rejected repair spec preferring replacement.
- Housing Ombudsman determination on 7 September 2023 found severe maladministration in repairs to kitchen, windows/balcony/damp; maladministration in transfer handling and complaints.
- Ombudsman ordered £5,722 compensation (£3,472 loss of amenities, £1,000 distress from repairs delay, £750 transfer time/trouble, £500 complaint pursuit), chief executive personal apology, temporary suitable accommodation, repair completion within 8 weeks, transfer update, and strategic review of cyber-attack impacts.
- Stage one response (8 July 2022) offered £500, acknowledged delays; stage two (18 August 2022) raised to £600, promised decant details but failed to deliver.
- Tenant submitted transfer application in October 2019 with medical evidence; suspended due to cyber-attack, council failed to communicate or restore.
- Internal emails revealed poor coordination: “washed hands” of contact, lack of ownership/customer care; works ordered July 2022 but many outstanding as of 2023.
- Broader context: Hackney Council faces criticism over SEND housing, with parents like Niki Lampaski (Housing Inclusion Hackney) decrying “adversarial/traumatising” reviews failing vulnerable families.
Hackney (East London Times) March 18, 2026 – Hackney Council ignored a woman’s repeated concerns over the safety of her autistic child at risk of falling from unsecured windows in her social housing flat, the Housing Ombudsman has ruled in a scathing determination. The watchdog found severe maladministration after years of delays in repairs despite professional warnings, ordering substantial redress and urgent action. The case underscores ongoing challenges in council housing for vulnerable families in the borough.
What Did the Housing Ombudsman Find?
The Housing Ombudsman investigated complaint 202200858 against Hackney Council, determining severe maladministration on 7 September 2023.
It ruled the council failed to respond reasonably to repair requests for uneven kitchen flooring since 2018, which prevented the disabled daughter from accessing the kitchen independently, having a detrimental impact on her needs. Similarly, severe maladministration occurred in handling unsafe windows, balcony door, and resultant damp/mould, with the fourth-floor property posing death/serious injury risks heightened by the children’s vulnerabilities.
As detailed in the full report by the Housing Ombudsman, the council was aware for five years of insecure features but did not prioritise effective temporary fixes or replacements, despite OT and medical evidence of the toddler
“climbing onto the windowsill and banging on the windows.”
Maladministration also marked the transfer application process and complaint handling, where responses failed to resolve issues or acknowledge disabilities adequately.
Why Were the Children at Risk?
The tenant’s toddler son has autism, lacking danger awareness, while her teenage daughter suffers visual and hearing impairments affecting balance. An independent OT assessment for the daughter on 19 April 2022 recommended rehousing to a three-bedroom ground-floor property not in a block, noting “severe rot” in the living room window/door and the toddler observed leaning on the window. A 10 May 2022 medical report warned:
“some of the windows are falling apart and door to the balcony cannot shut properly. There is uneven flooring. [Child] climbs onto…the windowsill and bangs on the windows.”
Further, an OT safety assessment on 4 August 2022 stated they were
“extremely concerned about the state of the windows and balcony door in the property”
as none locked or had restrictors, risking falls; the OT chased responses on 8 August. Photographs showed rotten wooden frames splitting, gaps around the balcony door, black mould, and peeling plaster. An April 2022 NHS paediatric audiologist report linked uneven flooring to frequent falls.
What Repairs Were Delayed and Why?
Issues dated back to 2018 reports of windows, balcony door, and kitchen floor. A 2019 survey led to orders, but stalled in March 2019 when the tenant rejected repair specs for windows, insisting on replacement; the kitchen window was screwed shut due to wet rot. A May 2021 virtual survey promised priority works, unfulfilled; March 2022 assurances of 10-day action also failed.
A 28 May 2022 independent survey found uneven kitchen flooring/units, non-working extractor exacerbating hallway mould, rotten windows/door frames, damp damage. Council logs show works raised 6/13/14 July 2022 for windows, plaster/mould, extractor, flooring, balcony—but many listed incomplete (e.g., balcony door “no access” April 2023), conflicting with statements. A 2020 cyber-attack disrupted records/tracking, but the Ombudsman criticised poor recovery and coordination.
Internal emails from June-July 2022 highlighted chases for updates, with a senior manager noting:
“We do not wash our hands of a job or resident contact…we need to own the customer journey.”
Complaints team noted “limited coherent information,” lack of “customer focussed approach.”
How Did Hackney Council Respond to Complaints?
The council’s stage one response on 8 July 2022 understood the complaint as mishandling unsafe property reports due to disabilities and repairs (windows, balcony, damp/mould); it listed delays (2019 resident non-agreement, 2021 unapproved specs, late July 2022 order), apologised for “unacceptable delays,” offered £500, and scheduled contractor visit 13 July.
The tenant rejected it on 15 July, escalating 20 July for ignoring transfer, medical disregard, unsuitable temp accommodation, inadequate redress (£7,000 sought).
Stage two on 18 August 2022 reiterated details, apologised again, raised compensation to £600, promised decant details/transfer update post-team inputs—but evidence shows no follow-through on decant (needed for kitchen works, ~6 weeks). In May 2022, the council allegedly told the tenant it couldn’t log complaints due to cyber-attack, unreasonable 18 months post-event. The Ombudsman faulted responses for unfulfilled promises, poor transparency on internal failings.
What Happened with the Transfer Request?
The tenant applied for transfer in October 2019 with medical evidence, referred by GP for stress-related psychological assessment (17 March 2022 letter).
August 2022 emails revealed it was suspended (reason unknown), blamed on cyber-attack; council asked re-application without restoring position. Policy allows “extremely exceptional” management transfers outside normal process, “like for like.” Ombudsman found failure to communicate suspension caused distress; by February 2023, urged online register form (unconfirmed sent). Local mayor’s 6 September 2022 letter requested priority repairs/transfer assessment.
What Remedies Did the Ombudsman Order?
The determination ordered: chief executive’s personal apology within 4 weeks; £5,722 total compensation (replacing prior £600), comprising £3,472 rent abatement (30% for 3 affected rooms May 2021-2023), £1,000 repair distress, £750 transfer trouble, £500 complaint pursuit.
Further: transfer position update (2 weeks), suitable temp accommodation verified by OT (2 weeks), specified repairs complete (8 weeks: 4 windows, balcony door, kitchen floor, plaster/mould, extractor).
Strategic review: alert suspended transfer applicants, revisit disability cases, survey block for similar issues. Compliance evidence due within 4 weeks.
Is This Part of a Broader Pattern in Hackney?
The case aligns with criticisms of Hackney Council’s SEND housing handling. At a 11 February 2026 meeting, Niki Lampaski of Housing Inclusion Hackney warned of “fragmented” “traumatising” processes failing safety relocations for vulnerable children like her non-verbal autistic son Erik.
Parents accuse “adversarial” reviews brushing aside distress/medical evidence. Separate cases involve eviction threats to autistic families, council suggesting distant temp accommodation disruptive to routines.
A council spokesperson in related coverage acknowledged duties to assess suitability (size, health, location) via medical evidence. These incidents highlight systemic pressures on Hackney’s housing for disabled households.
