Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202011017)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011017

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

27 May 2021


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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak from her kitchen waste pipe.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord has provided two sets of repair records for this investigation. Both records show that the resident reported a water leak in her kitchen on 20 July 2020. One record shows that the contractor then attended on 22 July to complete a temporary fix whereas the second record shows that the contractor attended on either 21, 22, or 23 July to “investigate hidden leak in kitchen”. Both records then show that the contractor attended on 11 August to complete a temporary fix. It is unclear on which occasion the contractor carried out the temporary fix.
  3. The landlord’s internal records show that the resident raised a formal complaint to it on 7 August 2020. Evidence of this complaint has not been provided for this investigation.
  4. On 19 August 2020 the resident called the landlord. The landlord’s call notes show that she was dissatisfied that it had booked a repair appointment for 2 September and wanted the date brought forward.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 29 August 2020. It summarised its understanding of the resident’s complaint to be that her kitchen waste pipe needed replacing, and that she was unable to use her kitchen sink or washing machine. It explained that its previous contractor had failed to resolve the leak, and that “due to the contract change, there [had] been further delays”. It said that it had called the resident on 11 August 2020 to discuss her complaint, and acknowledged that she wanted the repair completed sooner. It said that the repair would take place on 2 September, and apologised that it could not bring the date forward. It said that its contractors would update it following this appointment.
  6. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, as it had not completed the repair, and because there had been “further avoidable delays”. It acknowledged that its communication with her and its new contractor had been poor and apologised for it. It offered her compensation for the inconvenience caused (but did not say how much). It asked her about her launderette expenses, so it could compensate her for that also. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 September 2020. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had only told her the day before the 2 September appointment that it was for an inspection. She said that the landlord should have already been aware of the problem, and that she had advised it that she was only available during the morning of 2 September. The contractors had not attended thus far.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 September 2020. She provided it with her launderette receipts. She said that its contractors contacted her “late in the afternoon” on 2 September to advise her “he had received the job 20 minutes prior” (it is unclear whether the contractor attended or not).  She said that another appointment had been arranged for 4 September, but the contractor asked her to “send a photo instead” (it is understood that this was a photo of the waste pipe).
  9. In an internal email dated 28 September 2020 the landlord noted that it had offered the resident £75 at stage one of the complaint, and that “if we make the compensation higher we can say that this should cover the laundry costs…I would say £150…”.
  10. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 30 September 2020. It reiterated its previous explanation for the repair not being done in July. It apologised for the further delays, its lack of communication, and the inconvenience this had caused the resident. It said a work order had been raised for that day with its new contractors, but this had been cancelled due to the contractor being unwell. It said it advised the resident of this cancellation the day before, and the next available repair appointment was 16 October 2020.The landlord said it had previously offered a goodwill gesture of £75 in its stage one complaint response, and offered her a further £150. It said that this offer covered her launderette costs. It concluded by referring the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  11. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage two complaint response on 19 October 2020. She confirmed that her waste pipe had been fixed. She asked it to clarify why her previous appointments had been cancelled, and why she was rarely informed of the cancellation. She said that she wanted to be reimbursed for her launderette costs, and for the compensation to be handled separately. She said that she had not been previously offered £75.
  12. On 21 October 2020 the landlord responded to the resident. It confirmed that its offer of compensation would cover her launderette costs. It increased its compensation to £250 as a goodwill gesture, but gave no explanation why.
  13. The resident has told this Service that her laundry costs (for which she gave receipts to the landlord) were approximately £122.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for plumbing repairs and leaks. It classes a “minor leak, dripping pipe” as an urgent repair which it will aim to complete within three working days. Its complaints policy says that for complaints which are upheld or partially upheld, its responses should contain an explanation of what happened, details of the corrective action to be taken, and where appropriate details of the measures to be taken to prevent the problem from reoccurring.
  2. The landlord has explained that it does not have a compensation policy.
  3. When the resident reported the leak on 20 July 2020, the landlord attended within its three day target for an urgent repair. Although it is unclear whether the contractor carried out a temporary fix at that first visit, it is evident that the landlord promptly responded to the report. The evidence shows that the landlord then arranged a new inspection for 2 September, but it is unclear whether this appointment went ahead. A repair appointment was also organised for 30 September, but cancelled the day before due to the contractor being unwell. The resident confirmed on 19 October that the pipe had been repaired.
  4. The Ombudsman relies on evidence from the time of the incidents complained about to identify what took place, and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable. However, the landlord’s repair records are contradictory. For example, on 22 July it said it carried out a temporary repair, whereas another record indicates that it only attended for an inspection. It is therefore unclear whether it took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s leak. This ambiguity and lack of clarity means that it is not possible to robustly assess whether the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports were reasonable or not, and is itself a service failure in record keeping.
  5. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked detail and were inaccurate. In its stage one response it advised the resident that the repair would take place on 2 September. The resident then discovered that this was an inspection rather than a repair appointment. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the appointment, or later explain the miscommunication. It also failed to explain in either response what actions it had taken since the resident first reported the leak.
  6. In the landlord’s stage two response it explained why the appointment from 30 September had been cancelled, but failed to explain why it had taken almost two months for this appointment to be arranged. It did not explain what corrective action it was looking to take, or how it would prevent future delays from occurring. Neither response was in line with its complaint policy described above, or in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out that a landlord should aim, in its handling of a complaint, to put things right. Putting things right includes apologies, and compensation where appropriate, but it also includes giving explanations, and informing the complainant “of the changes made or actions taken to prevent the issue from happening again”. The landlord missed its opportunity to clarify what had happened, to justify its actions or inactions, and to demonstrate what it would do to learn and improve.
  7. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it recognised that there had been avoidable delays, and said it would offer the resident compensation for the inconvenience she had experienced. There is no evidence of an offer actually being made, and the resident confirmed that she was unaware of one. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it offered the resident £150, in addition to the £75 it said it had originally offered. The additional sum was in light of the details she had provided, and to cover her launderette costs. It then offered her £25 as a goodwill gesture on 21 October, but, again, did not explain what the gesture was in relation to. The landlord did not properly break down or explain its compensation, or make clear what was compensation and what was reimbursement for the resident’s laundry costs, other than that the total amount included those costs. The landlord’s internal emails show that it considered the additional £150 to be for the resident’s costs, but this should have been made explicit.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s repair records were contradictory and ambiguous. In its complaint responses it failed to explain why there had been delays, or how it would improve its services to prevent similar future issues from recurring. It also failed to explain the compensation it offered the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. In light of the delay, inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay £175.
  2. This compensation is in addition to the £250 (£100 compensation and £150 reimbursement) the landlord offered during its complaint process, which it should also now pay if it has not already done so.
  3. This payment must be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this service when payment has been made.

Recommendation

  1. Many of the landlord’s shortcomings in this investigation related to its handling of compensation issues. The landlord is urged to consider developing an internal compensation policy to provide guidance for staff assessing compensation and to ensure consistency in such decisions.