The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202009648)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009648

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

30 April 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 is about the landlord’s response to reports of leaks from the resident’s toilet.
  2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the installation of a new toilet.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has had a secure tenancy with the landlord since 25 June 2018. The resident lives in a property with her partner and children. The property is fitted with a disabled toilet which was used by the previous occupier, and this is the only toilet in the property.
  2. On 13 July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report that her toilet was leaking. The landlord’s repair records note that the landlord attended the property on both 15 and 21 July 2020 to examine the issue. The evidence indicates that particular parts were required to carry out the repair and these were fitted a week later on 27 July 2020.
  3. On 20 August 2020 the landlord’s internal emails recorded that the resident had asked for the toilet to be replaced. The landlord noted in these emails that this was not work it typically carried out.
  4. On 22 September 2020 the resident’s downstairs neighbour contacted the landlord to report that there was a leak coming from the resident’s property. The landlord raised a works order noting that the resident’s toilet was leaking again at the base and that the leak was uncontainable. The records stated that water was flooding the bathroom and affecting the neighbour below.
  5. The following day, 23 September 2020, the resident refused access to the landlord’s contractors when they attended the property, saying she was unaware of any leak from the water closet. The same note was recorded for an attendance the following day, 24 September 2020, at which time the resident again denied access to the contractor.
  6. On 5 October 2020 the landlord recorded a works order to trace and remedy the leak coming from the resident’s toilet that was affecting the property below. The evidence suggests that this was the same leak that was first reported on 22 September 2020 given the landlord’s repair records have the same description of the issue repeated on the later date and there is no evidence to indicate the original report was resolved.
  7. On 6 October 2020 the landlord’s repair records noted the leak had been caused by a problem with the PVC pipe connecting the cistern to the toilet which was the wrong size. A temporary fix was made to the stop cock, and it was noted that the new polyvinyl elbow from the cistern needed repairing. On 9 October 2020 the landlord repaired the leaking flush pipe on the toilet. On the same day the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s response to the repair issues with the toilet and her request for a new toilet to be installed.
  8. On 11 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to note that it would be delayed in providing its complaint response based on the need to carry out further investigations into its handling of the issue.
  9. On 25 November 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that, because the toilet was in working order it would not replace it. It noted that the resident’s dissatisfaction with her particular model of toilet sounded like an inconvenience for her, but that it couldn’t install a new toilet on this basis given the toilet was working and functioning properly.
  10. On 26 November 2020 the landlord provided its complaint response to the resident, apologising for extending the deadline for this as well as its failings in response to the reports of leaks. It noted it had liaised with the client repairs team following the reported issues with the toilet and recognised that delays had occurred in its response. It stated that its staff had reviewed the resident’s request to replace the disabled toilet, but that because the toilet was in working order it would not be replaced. It stated that this was because it was not a repair issue but would instead be considered an upgrade. It was satisfied that a thorough investigation of the complaint had been carried out at stage one of its complaints process and offered compensation of £25 to the resident for the delays in carrying out repairs to the toilet.
  11. Evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman of a separate complaint about similar issues being raised with the landlord in March 2021. Given this information post-dates the original complaint being brought to the Ombudsman which exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 26 November 2020, this information will not be considered as part of the investigation.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the resident is required to give access to the landlord to carry out repairs or improvements that may be necessary.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook notes that the landlord is responsible for plumbing repairs and leaks, as well as sanitary fixtures and fittings except for water closet seats, sink units and taps. Minor leaks are considered to be a priority three repair, which requires a response within three working days.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to reports of leaks

  1. Leaks were reported at the resident’s property on both 13 July 2020 and 22 September 2020. Under its repairs policy the landlord was obligated to respond to these reports within three working days. The first leak reported on 13 July 2020 was attended by the landlord’s contractors on 15 July 2020. This was in line with its timescales, however the issue was not properly resolved until new parts were installed two weeks after the report on 27 July 2020. As a result the issue with the leak was left outstanding over this period. The available evidence indicates that this was a minor leak and therefore would not have had a substantial impact on the resident. Though the time taken to carry out the repair went beyond the three day policy timeframe, it did attend the property within this period and the evidence indicates that it was taking steps to carry out the repair. Specifically it was waiting for particular parts to be delivered, a delay which was somewhat outside of its control. The evidence indicates that the resident was made aware of the reason for this delay.
  2. Another leak was reported to have occurred by the resident’s neighbour in the property below her on 22 September 2020. The landlord’s repair records note that this leak was affecting the neighbour’s property and was stemming from the resident’s flat. A job order was raised and the landlord attempted to attend the property on both 23 September 2020 and 24 September 2020 but was denied access by the resident. As a result, the resident contributed in some way to the delay in repairing the leak. The evidence indicates that the landlord did attempt to explain the issue to the resident, being that the downstairs neighbour had reported that the leak was affecting her property. This was an appropriate step to take in an attempt to gain access to resolve the issue. Given the seriousness of the repair however it is unclear why the landlord did not take further steps to gain access to the property when the resident refused access, given the leak was significant enough to have reached the neighbour’s property.
  3. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the leak was not fixed for approximately two weeks. Between 24 September 2020 and 5 October 2020, the records note that the leak was still affecting the flat below. Given the fact that the landlord was aware the leak was ongoing, it should have taken further steps to gain access to the property rather than waiting two weeks for further reports to come in. However once the landlord was granted access to the property, it carried out the repair promptly: a job order was raised on 5 October 2020, the landlord attended the property the following day on 6 October 2020 and the issue was recorded as being resolved on 9 October 2020. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the leak was having a significant adverse impact on the resident: the neighbour was the reporting party and the resident had in fact denied access to contractors two weeks earlier on the grounds that she was not aware of the repair issue.
  4. Following the resident’s raising of a complaint, the landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the repairs, acknowledged the inconvenience these caused to her and offered monetary compensation in recognition of this, which were appropriate steps to take in the circumstances. The complaint response refers to the delays in a general sense, which indicates that the £25 was offered as compensation for the delays in finalising both the July and September/October repair issues. The landlord has not provided a compensation policy or any documentation which sets out how it calculates offers of compensation to residents for service failure. As a result, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation that it implements this, if it has not done so already.
  5. Given the fact that the landlord was taking steps to resolve the repair issue in July 2020 and was managing a reasonable delay while it waited on parts to arrive, the offer of £25 was appropriate as redress to the resident given the minimal impact the leak would have had on her. Furthermore, the leak that occurred in September and October 2020 did not have a clear negative impact on the resident, as it is not apparent that she reported it to the landlord; rather it was her neighbour who reported the issue. Therefore, while the landlord may have failed to resolve the leak within its timeframes, the resident is not entitled to more compensation on this point. This is because there were no unreasonable delays by the landlord in October 2020, there is no evidence that this later leak negatively impacted the resident and she contributed to the delays by denying access to the landlord’s contractors when they attended the property to resolve the issue.

Resident’s request for a new toilet

  1. The resident requested the landlord replace the disabled toilet as she says her children find it difficult to use. However she has not provided any other evidence to support her request for this upgrade to be carried out, instead only stating that it causes some inconvenience to her children in using the toilet.
  2. The landlord has responded to the resident’s request in turn by having its specialist contractor and staff members inspect the toilet and bathroom following the leak reports and its carrying out of the necessary repair work. On the basis of this inspection, the landlord satisfied itself that the condition of the toilet did not justify its replacement. It undertook discussions amongst a particular specialist team about the request and set out its position that it was not obligated to do the work. This position was considered and agreed on by multiple members of staff. It established that the toilet was usable in its current condition and that the resident’s request would be considered an upgrade which was considered unnecessary.
  3. On this basis, it responded appropriately to the resident’s request by giving due consideration to it and coming to a decision in line with the available evidence. However the landlord should ensure its repairs policy is clear on the circumstances in which it would consider carrying out an improvement or upgrade to existing fixtures and fittings.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord regarding its response to the reports of leaks from the resident’s toilet.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s request for a new toilet.

Reasons

  1. The landlord was delayed in responding to reports of the leak coming from the resident’s toilet. Though some of the delays were contributed to by the resident’s own actions, the landlord failed to meet its repair timeframes in responding to the reports. Nevertheless, it recognised the delays which it contributed to, apologised for these and offered appropriate compensation to the resident as redress.
  2. Though the resident has requested the toilet be replaced, the landlord’s response to the repair issues was appropriate and it has justified its position that the toilet does not require an upgrade based on a reasonable investigation of the issue.

Recommendations

  1. I make the following recommendations:
    1. That the landlord, within the next four weeks, pay to the resident its previous offer of £25 for the delays in carrying out repairs to the leak issue. The finding of reasonable redress is conditional on this recommendation being carried out.
    2. That the landlord implement a compensation policy which includes reference to how the landlord would calculate compensation to be paid to residents for service failures in circumstances such as these that may arise in future.