Hammersmith and Fulham Council (201911091)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911091

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

16 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 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s request for rehousing.
    2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property, disrepair to extractor fans in her kitchen and bathroom, and broken window handles in her dining room.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.

The resident’s request for rehousing

  1. The resident has been on the rehousing register since 29 June 2017 and has a Band 2 priority. On 10 January 2020, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord that she had not been offered ‘‘suitable accommodation’’ despite the health of her children being ‘‘not good’’ and that she was having to sleep on the sofa, which she said was giving her ‘‘aches and back pain’’.The resident asked the landlord to also consider that her disabled child was unable share a bedroom and so they would need an extra room for her.
  2. Under the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme, tenants wishing to transfer to another of the landlord’s properties are subject to an assessment process. The assessment covers a range of reasons for the transfer including occupying overcrowded housing and people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds, including grounds relating to disability.
  3. In its Stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that the Council’s Medical Advisor had considered the resident’s medical evidence, but her banding had not changed.
  4. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  5. The decisions of the Council’s Medical Advisor (CMA), reasonable preference criteria and the application of the Council’s allocation scheme are all matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and as such are outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider under paragraph 39(m).

Background and summary of events.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a Council. The tenancy commenced on 7 July 2016.
  2. The property is a 2 bedroom flat located on the 1st floor. The tenant has two children who live with her at the property.
  3. The landlord has advised that it carried out a tenancy audit on 15 July 2020, and   had no record of any vulnerabilities for either the resident and or other household members. In her complaints to the landlord and her communication with this service the resident has said that she has a daughter with special needs and ‘‘severe asthma’’, and that her son also has breathing difficulties and has an inhaler.

Summary of events

  1. On 15 April 2019, the landlord raised a job requesting an investigation into the causes of damp in the resident’s bathroom and two bedrooms. There is no evidence of what initiated the investigation request. On 9 May 2019, the landlord’s records note that it called the resident three times, there was no answer and so left a voice message regarding the investigation visit which had been rebooked for the 14 May 2019. On 17 May 2019, a further job was raised in response to reports that the resident’s extractor fan was also not working. The landlord’s records indicate that the inspection was carried out on 23 May 2019. The investigation report has not been seen by this service and there is no evidence of any works being carried out at the resident’s property following that investigation.
  2. A job requesting a further investigation was raised on 11 June 2019. The inspection took place on 16 July 2019 and a job was raised on 22 July 2019 to carry out the works identified during the inspection. The landlord’s repair records note that the works included applying mould wash to the resident’s bathroom wall and the overhaul of the extractor fans in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. A copy of the inspection report has not been seen by this service. On 12 August 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the mould was on both her bathroom walls and ceiling. The landlord’s records note that the works identified during the inspection on 16 July 2019 were completed on 29 August 2019.
  3. On 23 September 2019, the resident contacted the landlord again to report damp in her children’s bedroom and that the extractor fan in her bathroom was not working properly and was still making a noise. The landlord noted that it had attempted to call the resident on 14 October 2019 about these matters but that there was no response and the resident did not have a voicemail.
  4. On 9 November 2019, the landlord carried out a further inspection of the resident’s property, following which, on 19 November 2019, another job was raised to overhaul, and make good around, the extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom, mist coat and replace silicon around bath ‘‘as mould would not wash off’’. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 16 December 2019 to replace the fan in her bathroom, but the work could not be completed because the landlord hadn’t been able to source the correct fan by that date.
  5. On 10 January 2020, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident explained that there was damp in her children’s’ bedroom and that her child was ‘‘at risk having difficulty on breathing problem with damp mould condensation’’. The resident said that her house was ‘‘very cold and damp’’ and that she had ‘‘black mould on walls’’, and no carpet as she had to throw it away ‘‘as the damp had ruined it’’.
  6. On 16 January 2020, the landlord raised a new job to carry out a mould wash in the resident’s bathroom and bedroom.
  7. On 22 January 2020, the landlord issued its Stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord said that it was sorry that the standard of service the resident had received had been ‘‘below what we would expect, and we will review your case with our contractor with a view to improving our service for the future’’. The landlord also apologised to the resident for delays and the inconvenience, said that it appreciated that managing the issues had ‘‘not been easy’’ and offered the resident £250 compensation.
  8. The landlord acknowledged that, whilst it had arranged for a mould wash, in response to the resident’s first report the issues with damp on 22 September 2017, ‘‘this resolved the problem in the short term, but not the underlying causes of the damp’’. The landlord said that it was ‘‘sorry to learn that the mould has repeatedly returned and can appreciate the frustration in having to keep getting in touch to ask for further action’’. The landlord also acknowledged, and apologised to the resident, that whilst it had arranged for its contractor to replace the fan in the resident’s bathroom, the work could not be completed because they had been unable ‘‘to source the correct fan by that date’’. The landlord said it would be fitting new fans to both the resident’s kitchen and bathroom on 23 January 2020, which would be followed up with a mould wash on 28 January 2020. The landlord also advised the resident that it would be referring her property to its ‘‘new damp surveying contractor to review whether any further actions are needed’’.  The landlord said that the damp surveying contractor would be in contact directly with the resident to arrange a suitable appointment.
  9. On 27 January 2020, the resident email the landlord so say that she was not happy with the landlord’s offer and so wanted her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its formal complaints process. The resident explained that ‘‘there had been delays investigating the damp and mould so many times’’ in her children’s room. The resident said that this was ‘‘specially’’ the case with her 2-year-old baby, who she said has had his health ‘‘so badly’’ affected. The resident went on to explain that she had had several visits from the landlord surveyors and contractors over the past 2 and half years, ‘‘without responding and the problem hasn’t been resolved’’. The resident also said that there had been delays in fitting new extractor fans and that the landlord had ‘‘not turned up been waiting so long and cancelled all my disabled child appointment as I have children’s with special needs’’.
  10. The landlord’s records indicate that new fans were installed in the resident’s bathroom and kitchen on 27 January 2020, with a follow up mould wash taking place on 28 January 2020.
  11. The landlord issued its Stage 2, and final, response on 6 March 2020. The landlord said that the outstanding repair works in relation to the damp in the resident’s property had been completed and that during those works additional works had been recommended to reduce the likelihood of the damp reoccurring.  A copy of the recommendations have not been seen by this service. However the landlord advised that its contractor, was scheduled to attend the resident’s property on 26 March 2020, to carry out work to increase airflow and reduce moisture in her property and that works had also been scheduled for 9 April 2020, to address the broken handles to the windows in her dining room area.
  12. The landlord confirmed that the £250 compensation offered in its final response was not its final offer and that the level of compensation would be finalised on completion of the remaining works in relation to the damp. The landlord said that was ‘‘disappointed’’ that it had been unable to resolve the resident’s complaint ‘‘at the first opportunity’’ and that it was sorry it had to be escalated. The landlord also said that the resident’s escalation of her complaint provided a clear record of what the landlord should do to put things right, and that it hoped the resident now felt that this had been achieved. The landlord ended by advising the resident that she could now contact the Ombudsman if she wanted to progress her complaint further.
  13. On 17 June 2020, the landlord carried out another inspection of the resident’s property and reported that a further mould wash was required to the ceiling in the resident’s bathroom. The landlord’s records note that a job was raised on 22 June 2020 and completed on 27 July 2020.
  14. On 16 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm its final position regarding compensation and to apologise to her ‘‘for all the delays (she had) experienced and the length of time that this matter was left unresolved’’. The landlord said that ‘‘taking into consideration everything that has happened and the service (she) received’’ it would like to increase its offer of compensation to  £500.00 compensation for the inconvenience she experienced.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. The policy states that Complaints should be acknowledged within three working days, and a full written at Stage 1 reply sent within fifteen working days. If a resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response at Stage 1 they can request that their complaint be escalated to Stage 2. The policy states that the request should be acknowledged within three working days, and a full written reply sent within twenty working days.
  2. The policy also states that when things have gone wrong the landlord should admit fault and set out a package of measures to put things right, including the payment of compensation, which the policy says does not necessarily mean an acceptance of liability. The policy does not indicate what it considers a reasonable level of compensation to be and does not have a compensation policy.
  3. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook states that ‘Although we aim to attend to repairs as quickly as possible, we cannot carry out every repair straight away, so we have to prioritise different types of repairs.’ The policy explains that repairs are given one of five priorities: Emergency repairs Priority 1 (within two hours) Priority 2 (within 24 hours); Urgent repairs Priority 3 (within three working days) Priority 4 (within five working days) and Routine repairs Priority 5 (within 20 working days).
  4. The handbook also lists examples of what type of repair falls within each of the above priorities. A mechanical extractor fan not working is listed as Priority 4.  Damp and mould are not listed nor are broken window handles.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property, disrepair to extractor fans

in her kitchen and bathroom and broken window handles in her dining room.

  1. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that the resident had experienced issues with damp back in September 2017. The landlord also acknowledged that whilst its previous response, to arranged for a mould wash, had provided a short-term solution, it had not identified the underlying issues. Whilst this has been noted, this complaint focuses on events following the resident’s report of the damp reoccurring in April 2019.
  2. The resident first reported the reoccurrence of damp in her property on 15 April 2019. Having been made aware that the issue of damp in the resident’s property had returned, it was appropriate, on 15 April 2019, for the landlord raised a job requesting an investigation into the causes of damp in the resident’s bathroom and two bedrooms, and to identify any works that may be required to address it.
  3. Over a period of approximately 13 months, following the resident’s report of 15 April 2019, the landlord carried out four investigations, on 23 May 2019, 16 July 2019, 9 November 2019 and 17 June 2020. With the exception of the inspection of 23 May 2019, where there is no evidence of any works being carried out, following each inspection the landlord carried out works to the resident property. However, each time the resident reported that the issue had not been resolved and it was not until the 27 July 2020, 15 months after the resident’s initial report of 15 April 2019, that the landlord confirmed that all the works had been completed.
  4. In its final response of 6 March 2020, the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the delay in investigating the underlying causes of the damp, and in fitting the new extractor fans. The landlord explained that its contractor was scheduled to attend the resident’s property on 26 March 2020 to carry out the additional works and so it would review its initial offer of £250 compensation once all the remaining works had been completed. The landlord did not explain what the additional works were just that their contractor would be carrying out ‘‘work to increase airflow and reduce moisture in the resident’s property’’.
  5. In its final response of 6 March 2020, the landlord also said that the works to repair the broken window handles in the resident’s dining room had been scheduled for 9 April 2020. It is unclear whether this was in response to a service request or recommendations from the investigation of 9 November 2019, there is no evidence of the resident pursuing a repair that had previously been reported. The works were not completed on 14 July 2020, three months later. However, on 26 April 2020, the landlord’s records note that it had been ‘‘unable to source supplies’’ for the broken handles ‘‘due to covid’’.
  6. On 16 July 2020, the landlord did what it said it would do and wrote to the resident to regarding its review of its initial offer of £250 compensation. The landlord once again apologised to the resident for ‘‘all the delays’’ she had experienced and the fact that ‘‘the repairs were outstanding at (her) place of residence for such a lengthy period’’. The landlord said that in consideration everything that has happened and the service the resident had received, it would like to offer the resident £500.00 compensation for the inconvenience she had experienced.
  7. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we considered both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events.
  8. The extent to which a landlord recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We may refer to a landlord’s own remedies policy and any other relevant guidance when considering whether the steps that the landlord took to resolve the complaint were reasonable.
  9. The landlord has confirmed that it does not have a compensation policy. I have therefore used the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance to assess the reasonableness of £500 compensation offered by the landlord. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance suggests awards between £250 and £700 for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but no permanent impact on the complainant.
  10. In its final response the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its service failure. The landlord initially offered the resident £250 but said that it would review its offer once all the works had been completed. The landlord did what it said it would do and subsequently increased is offer of compensation to £500. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the landlord’s increased offer of £500 for its acknowledged service failure, was fair and proportionate to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of those failures.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord for its acknowledged service failures in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property, disrepair to extractor fans in her kitchen and bathroom and broken window handles in her dining room.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its delay in investigating and completing works following the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property, disrepair to extractor fans in her kitchen and bathroom and broken window handles in her dining room.
  2. The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation which was fair, proportionate and offered reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience its service failure caused her.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, that within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord pay the resident the £500 it offered the resident in its letter of 16 July 2020.