Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202003176)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003176

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

8 December 2020

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 refers to:
1. The length of time taken for the Landlord to complete repairs to the Resident’s property.
2. The Landlord’s complaint handling of this matter.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Health concerns

Paragraph 39 (i) of the Scheme states:
The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure;
Whilst we do not doubt the Resident’s comments regarding her family’s health, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the damp and damage and her family’s health. These are matters where the Ombudsman considers it would be more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal. The Resident could seek legal advice should she wish to pursue this. However, we will investigate whether the Landlord’s actions caused the Resident any avoidable distress and inconvenience and whether the Landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable in view of this.

Historic Issues

Paragraph 39 of the scheme states:
1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more that 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure;
The Resident has stated that she had complained to the Landlord about repair issues in her property since 2010. Whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, we can only consider complaints brought to us within 12 months of the landlord’s concluding response to a complaint. Therefore, this report will address the issues related to a leak from an upstairs flat first reported in November 2018 and will not refer to any repair issues that had been reported prior to this time.

Background

The Resident has been a tenant of the Landlord since 30 August 2010 and has held a secure tenancy since 30 August 2011. The property is a ground floor flat.

Summary of events

In November 2018 the Resident reported a leak in her property from the upstairs flat. A contractor had turned off the electricity to her bathroom and her smoke detector as a safety precaution. On 17 April 2019 the Landlord’s repair records show that the Resident had reported severe damage as a result of the leak and the Landlord arranged to reinstate the electricity; a report shows this was completed on 18 April 2019. It also requested that the surveyor attended the property to assess any further requirements. The Landlord raised several repair orders to repair the damage caused by the leak to the Resident’s bathroom between April 2019 and July 2019, which were reported as complete in August 2019.
On 4 October 2019, the Resident raised a complaint with the Landlord. She stated that the contractor had not attended to fix the damage in her property. The Landlord had previously completed a survey on the property in February 2019 following her reports of water damage. It had set up appointments which the contractors had not attended on eight separate occasions. She had taken time off work for each appointment and only received communication on the day about rescheduling. She stated that on 25 September 2019 the contractors had visited the property and stated that they would need to order a new bath and it would be ready to install three days later. She had received an appointment which was then again changed on the day. She expressed concern that her child had asthma and the severe damp in the property aggravated this. She requested the Landlord take action to carry out repair work.
The Landlord responded on 28 October 2019 and stated the following:
1. The Resident had reported a leak in November 2018 and her electrics had been turned off as a precaution. A surveyor had been sent out in February 2019 and established that the electrics would need testing and the smoke detector and lamp would need to be renewed. The appointment for this had taken place on 18 April 2019 and the work had been completed.
2. It apologised that further works had been rearranged and it understood that she had taken time off work for each appointment. It said that it should have kept her up to date and notified as to what was happening.
3. It also apologised that her appointment to have a new bath fitted had also been rearranged and stated that a new appointment had been set for 5 November 2019.
4. It upheld her complaint at this stage as she had taken time off work for each appointment and apologised for the level of service she had received.
5. It offered an award of compensation of £100 for the inconvenience and advised that if she was dissatisfied, she could escalate her complaint to stage two of its process.
On 22 October 2019 a repair request was raised to fit a new extractor fan in the Resident’s bathroom as recommended by its surveyor; this was reported as complete on 30 October 2019.
On 1 November 2019, the Resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the Landlord’s Complaint Procedure. She stated that this was not her first complaint to the Landlord and that she had been complaining since 2010 regarding various repair issues; she stated that she had not received help to date. She was concerned for the health of her children especially her asthmatic son who could not cope with the housing conditions. She stated that she would take her son to a neighbour’s property to sleep each night. She said that on 25 October 2019, the contractor who had arrived was unsure of what work they needed to complete, with the contractors having to call the Landlord’s Repairs Office who also did not know what work was due to be completed. She said this happened again on 31 October 2019. The Resident felt this to be a waste of her time since she had needed to take time off from work for these appointments and she wanted the Landlord to act so that she could maintain a normal routine.
On 23 November 2019 the Resident’s local councillor emailed the Landlord. They outlined the Resident’s complaint and stated that the Resident was still experiencing damp in her property as a result of the previous leak. They stated that she was particularly concerned that the redecoration required because of the leak had not been fully completed and there were cracks in the plaster throughout her property. They requested that the Landlord contact the Resident to address her concerns.
On 9 December 2019 the Resident called the Landlord to ask when she would be receiving its stage two response.
On 15 January 2020 the Landlord responded to a letter from the Resident’s local councillor. It detailed the repair history of the property in regard to the repair works needed and stated that it would be reviewing the Resident’s complaint at stage two along with her dissatisfaction regarding the amount of compensation it had previously offered. It then detailed the repair works which had been scheduled for January and February 2020.
On 9 March 2020 the Landlord issued its stage two response. It apologised for the delay in its response regarding the outstanding repair issues. and stated:
1. It had addressed the previous issues in November 2018 and the works which took place in February 2019 and April 2019.
2. On 16 January 2020 the contractor had attended to replace her bath, on 10 and 11 February 2020 the contractors attended to complete plaster work to the walls and on 19 and 20 February 2020 the contractor attended to carry out works in the bedroom and bathroom.
3. The glass contractor needed to arrange an appointment to fit a new vent in the Resident’s lounge.
4. It acknowledged its previous recognition of service failure laid out in its stage one response and apologised that she felt that its offer of £100 was not suitable compensation for the level of inconvenience she had experienced whilst the repair works were outstanding.
5. It had reviewed her complaint further and considering the length of time taken to complete the repairs, as well as the stress and inconvenience caused, it made an increased offer of £1000 compensation.
6. Now the repair work had been completed, it hoped that the complaint was resolved.

Assessment and Findings

The time taken to complete repairs in the Resident’s property.

Following a report of a repair issue, the Landlord would be expected to investigate a repair in line with its Repairs Policy. The Repairs Policy states that emergency repairs should be carried out within 24 hours, urgent repairs should be carried out within a maximum of five working days and routine repairs should be carried out within 20 working days. It is unclear how the landlord categorised the repairs, but it appears they would fit into the routine category as although necessary, they would not be considered urgent or emergency as they did not pose a significant immediate risk to health and safety.
The Resident stated that the issues had begun in November 2018 following a leak into the property. The works to resolve the damage to her flat was reported to be complete in March 2020 in the Landlord’s stage two response. It was reasonable for the Landlord to request a surveyor attend the property first to assess the damage which may have affected when the repairs were raised, despite this, it is not disputed that there had been a significant delay in completing works to the Resident’s property. The Landlord agreed that the Resident received poor service during the repair works following a leak in the building; it apologised and offered financial compensation of £1000 to recognise its service failure.
The Resident’s complaint and the Landlord’s subsequent responses have highlighted key communication errors between the Landlord and its contractors. The Resident has stated that on multiple occasions the contractors showed up at her property not knowing what work they were meant to be completing. The Landlord has recognised that this was not the level of service it should provide. It should be noted that this would have increased the time taken for works to be completed. The Landlord should take steps to improve communication with its contractors to provide a seamless service to its residents. The Landlord should also review its policies on missed appointments and the notice needed to rearrange an appointment to ensure that residents do not miss work obligations as a result of its miscommunication. The Landlord has acted reasonably by offering an award of compensation to address the missed appointments and inconvenience to the Resident.
The Landlord stated that it had completed all works before 9 March 2020. On 15 July 2020, the Resident said that the repair works to her property had not begun. The lock-down in response to the Covid-19 pandemic further delayed the scheduled repair works. The Landlord agreed to start the work on 29 June 2020 but had failed to attend the property. The plastering work needed to the property was still ongoing in September and October 2020, over six months after the date of the final response. This Service acknowledges that the current Covid-19 pandemic may have had an impact on the length of time taken to complete these further works. The Landlord should consider writing to the Resident to acknowledge that the property needed additional repair works following its final response in March 2020 and apologise for the further delay in recognition of the added inconvenience this may have caused her and her family. This Service has considered the added inconvenience caused by the further delays. However, the delays were largely outside the Landlord’s control, although it could have done more to keep the resident informed during this time. Overall, the compensation offer of £1,000 remains reasonable, taking into account the further delays.
It is not disputed that the length of time taken to repair issues in the Resident’s flat was unreasonable. The Landlord has offered reasonable redress for the length of time taken to complete repair works by apologising and offering an award of £1,000 in recognition of the inconvenience this may have caused. The Landlord has stated that it did not have a Compensation Policy; This Service has therefore assessed this offer of compensation alongside the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. £1,000 is more than reasonable in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and recognises the Landlord’s maladministration and the impact on the Resident; remedies in this range are appropriate when there has been a significant effect on the Resident. The Landlord should offer £1,000 compensation again. It would be appropriate for the Landlord to provide a detailed breakdown of any compensation paid to its residents in any complaint response. This policy should explain how the Landlord calculates its compensation to demonstrate it is an appropriate amount given the circumstances. As there is some discrepancy as to whether the works are complete, it should take steps to review the property. It should also survey the property and complete any further repairs related to the leak, including damp and mould damage.

The Landlord’s complaint handling

The Landlord’s Complaint Policy states that it has a two-stage Complaint Procedure. The Landlord should acknowledge a stage one complaint within three days and should issue a full, written response within 15 days. The resident is then able to escalate their complaint should they remain dissatisfied. The Landlord should acknowledge a stage two complaint within three working days and should send a full written response within twenty working days. The Landlord’s policy states that in some instances when a complaint is complex, it may be necessary to extend the timescales set out in this policy. If this is the case, the Landlord must inform the resident of the reason why timescales cannot be met and advised of when they should receive a full response.
The Landlord responded to the Resident’s initial complaint, made on 4 October 2020, on 28 October 2019, which is in line with its Complaints Policy. The Resident escalated her complaint on 1 November 2019 and did not receive a response until 9 March 2020. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the Landlord had informed the Resident of the delay in issuing the stage two response. There is evidence to suggest that the Resident called the Landlord’s contact centre to chase this response. The Landlord did not act appropriately or in line with its Complaints Policy in its handling of the Resident’s complaint. The Landlord has provided internal emails to this Service on request for information. This Service notes that the delay in issuing its stage two response has, in part, been due to a delay in internal communication. The Landlord should consider taking steps to improve the communication between its departments to ensure a seamless service for its residents and prevent future recurrences of this delay.
The Landlord has recognised the inconvenience caused by the length of time taken to complete the repairs in the Resident’s property. Still, it has not fully acknowledged its service failure in responding to the Resident’s complaint. It has apologised for the delay, but this does not suitably redress the inconvenience or time taken to pursue the complaint. It is not clear from the Landlord’s stage two response whether the offer of compensation included inconvenience caused by its delay in issuing a stage two response. This Service acknowledges the Landlord’s previous offer of £1,000 in compensation to be sufficient to address its service failures in respect to the time taken to complete repairs, as well as the inconvenience caused by missed and failed appointments and the delay in its complaint handling. The Landlord should consider writing to the Resident to apologise for any further inconvenience caused by its complaint handling and further delays to repair work. This Service recommends that the Landlord generate a Compensation Policy to specify how it would calculate any compensation and why, in its opinion, this was sufficient to provide further clarity to its residents and this Service.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the Landlord in respect of the time taken to complete repairs.
In addition, there was reasonable redress by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The time taken to complete repairs in the Resident’s property.

The Landlord has taken steps to acknowledge its service failures in relation to the time taken to complete repair works to the Resident’s property. It has acknowledged that the Resident received poor service and the length of time taken to complete repair works was unreasonable. It has reasonably redressed the Resident’s complaint by apologising and offering her an award of compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and distress this may have caused. This Service acknowledges the amount of £1000 to be more than reasonable in relation to the circumstances in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

The Landlord’s complaint handling

The Landlord has not handled the Resident’s complaint in line with its Complaints Policy. There was a significant delay in the issuing of a stage two response which has not been suitably redressed by the Landlord. The Landlord has apologised for its delay but this is not proportionate to the level of inconvenience caused to the Resident, who needed to chase the Landlord on multiple occasions for a response. As stated above, this Service acknowledges the Landlord’s offer of compensation to be sufficient in addressing the inconvenience caused by the delay in completing repairs as well as the delay in its complaints handling. It is recommended that the Landlord generates a Compensation Policy to use as a reference when handling complaints if it has not already done so. This should specify how an amount would be calculated and why this was sufficient in its opinion.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:
1. The Landlord should consider writing to the Resident to apologise for its service failures and the further delay in completing repair work to her property.
2. The Landlord should pay the Resident its previous offer of £1000 (broken down as follows):
  1. £700 for the inconvenience and distress caused, and the length of time taken to complete repair works to the Resident’s property.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience caused by numerous missed or failed appointments.
  3. £200 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in its complaint handling.
3. The Landlord should generate a Compensation Policy to use as a reference when handling complaints. This should specify how an amount would be calculated and why this was sufficient in its opinion.
4. The Landlord take steps to improve the communication between its departments to ensure a seamless service for its residents and prevent future recurrences of this delay.
5. The Landlord should also consider reviewing its policies on missed appointments and the notice needed to rearrange an appointment to ensure that residents do not miss work obligations as a result of its miscommunication.
6. As there is some discrepancy as to whether the works have been completed, the Landlord should consider taking steps to review the works. It should also survey the Resident’s property and complete any further repairs related to the leak and ongoing damp and mould