Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202010889)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010889

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

22 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her property caused by a defective external wastepipe.
The report will also address the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that the repair issues related to the wastepipe had been reported to the landlord in 2019. However, there is no evidence that the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord at the time. The Ombudsman understands that a formal complaint was not logged with the landlord about this issue until September 2020. This investigation report will therefore consider events from March 2020 onwards (this being six months prior to the September 2020 complaint) on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering the available evidence. It should be noted however that all of the evidence provided by both parties has been considered.
As such, whilst this report may reference some historical events for the purposes of context, the scope of this investigation will be limited to consideration of the landlord’s handling of the reports from March 2020 onwards up until the final complaint response of 5 March 2021.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Tenancy agreement:

This sets out the landlord’s general repair obligations. The landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and external parts of the building, which would include external pipework servicing the building.
It also states that the landlord ‘will carry out repairs we are responsible for within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs’.

Repairs policy:

This sets out how the landlord will carry out repairs and the timescales for responding to repair reports, which are noted as follows:
1. Priority 1 Within two hours.
2. Priority 2 Within 24 hours.
3. Priority 3 Within three to five working days.
4. Priority 4 Within five working days.
5. Priority 5 Within 20 working days.
The policy gives an example of a Priority 1 repair e.g. ‘major leaks and burst pipes’ and a Priority 3 repair as ‘minor leak, dripping pipe’.

Complaints policy:

This sets out how the landlord handles complaints and the timeframes for its responses, which are noted as follows:
1. Stage 1 – 15 working days.
2. Stage 2 – 20 working days.
It also states that in certain cases, when a complaint is complex, it may be necessary to extend the timescales set out in the policy. If this is the case, the landlord will notify the complainant of the reason why the timescale for response cannot be met and it will also confirm when they will receive a full response.

Summary of events

The landlord has provided its repair log which shows the following notes:
1. 25 June 2019 – leak from ‘downpipe at rear of property’. The records show a ‘works order’ was raised and that an ‘extended ladder is needed’.
2. 22 July 2019 – tenant reported bathroom wall previously had mould wash but has returned and now behind tiles please attend and inspect; tenant reports back door stuck shut as it has swollen due to leak from external downpipe. Please attend and remedy.
3. 10 September 2019 – leak from external downpipe. Job for plumber X to confirm where scaffolding to be placed.
4. 17 September 2019 – mould on celling of bathroom, mould imbedded in bathroom tiles and around bath, kitchen back door will not open, woodlice coming from door related to previous leak, skirting board has pulled away from wall paint has come off kitchen wall.
5. 19 September 2019 – tenant reports bathroom wall previously had mould wash but has returned and now behind tiles, please attend and inspect book F/O to remedy surveyor to attend.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate what actions it took in response to the above quoted notes.
The repair log also shows a further similar report on 14 April 2020, and it states, ‘remedy leaking drainpipe at back of property’. The landlord has not provided any evidence of its response to this.
The records show that the resident logged a formal complaint on 11 September 2020 via the landlord’s online system. The notes show:
1. ‘Tc from tenant re repairs. Overflowing external pipe. Ongoing leaking repairs for 2 years from 2 floors above tenant. Reported to repairs numerous times. Surveyor came last year. Damage to walls in kitchen, bathroom and Garden as leak is coming from upstairs outside wall. Kitchen door cannot open now as it is swollen due to water damage. Child now on a Asthma pump due to damp conditions. Last spoke to repairs on Monday who advised tenant to speak to housing officer. Apt booked for 29 September 2020’.
The resident received an auto-acknowledgement response to the complaint.
On 15 September 2020 the landlord’s records note that the resident sent in further details about her complaint.
The resident chased the landlord on 29 September 2020 for a response to her complaint. The landlord responded by saying that a roofer had attended to inspect the roof but found that there was an issue with leaking pipework and the roofer said that a plumber was needed to investigate this further.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 2 October 2020:
1. It summarised the complaint as being about an overflowing external pipe which has been leaking and which has been reported several times; a surveyor had been involved previously but no action was taken to repair the pipe. The leaking pipe has caused damage to the resident’s property in terms of damp and mould and has impacted on the resident’s family’s health.
2. It accepted that this issue had been reported since June 2019 and several jobs had been raised in response to investigate the cause of the leak and carry out remedial works but they haven’t progressed.
3. The landlord confirmed that as it now had new contractors, it was ‘largely starting the process again’. It had arranged for a plumber to attend to inspect the pipework. Once the cause of the leak had been resolved, it would then carry out the necessary repairs to the resident’s property. To this end, it had also arranged for a surveyor to attend and inspect the property.
4. It said it would consider the resident’s request to be moved temporarily into alternative accommodation for the duration of the repairs, but this would be for the surveyor to decide once the inspection is completed.
5. In conclusion it accepted that ‘there’s been a delay in diagnosing the cause of the leak and progressing the work to stop it and that this delay has impacted you because the damage to your flat has worsened over time’. It apologised for this delay and for the inconvenience and impact to the resident. It accepted that ‘the customer service you’ve received since you reported the issue has been below the standard we would expect as we’ve not responded in a consistent manner and some events appear to be missing from our records, namely the outcome of previous surveyor inspections’.
6. It said that it had it had taken away learning from this case and it would ensure that it works with its new contractors to improve its services.
The records note that on 5 October 2020 an appointment was arranged for a plumber to attend to check the pipework and the affected properties and that a surveyor would attend a few days later.
The records show that a plumber attended on 9 October 2020 and inspected the defective pipework.
On 13 October 2020 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said that the property was presently uninhabitable due to the water leaks which had caused dampness throughout the property and she also said that she was not able to use the kitchen as the damp had penetrated the walls. The resident asked to be moved into another property and for the repairs to be completed fully and she questioned the landlord’s estimated timeframe of a few weeks for the repairs and she felt this was unrealistic.
The resident received an auto-acknowledgement of her escalation request.
The landlord’s records show that on 21 October 2020 it had spoken to the resident and updated her on the diagnosis and proposed works. It also acknowledged the resident’s request for a decant.
On 29 October 2020 the landlord’s records show that it had further discussions with the resident following the surveyor’s visit and it acknowledged her request for a copy of the surveyor’s report. The resident was also given advice on how to submit a Subject Access Request.
The landlord’s internal email correspondence on 10 November 2020 noted that its Stage 2 response was due in two days. On 12 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it needed more time to complete its investigations and it would issue its Stage 2 response by the end of the month. The resident responded to this and said that she was living in poor conditions and had been unable to use the kitchen and bathroom.
The landlord’s internal emails show that on 1 December 2020 its complaints team requested an update on when the Stage 2 response would be issued.
On 2 December 2020 the resident contacted this Service. She confirmed her complaint was about a broken wastepipe which was causing damp and mould issues in her property. This Service advised both the resident and the landlord to complete the landlord’s own complaints process first.
The correspondence shows that on 11 December 2020 the landlord’s complaints team were chasing for an update on the Stage 2 response. A further internal chaser was sent on 17 December 2020.
On 4 January 2021 in response to contact from this Service, the landlord said that its Stage 2 response would be issued shortly.
The landlord’s records show that on 6 January 2021 it was still considering the issue of the decant and was awaiting confirmation from its surveyor. A case review meeting took place on 12 January 2021. The landlord has not provided details of the outcome of this case review meeting.
On 18 January 2021 the resident chased the landlord for the Stage 2 response. As she did not receive a response from the landlord, she contacted this Service on 20 January 2021.
The records show that on 29 January 2021 the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of a decant property. The resident was given the keys to the decant property on 1 February 2021.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 1 February 2021 and the landlord responded by saying that it would issue the Stage 2 response within the next five working days.
The landlord’s records note that on 5 February 2021 it was still waiting for the resident to hand in her keys to her property. It also mentioned that the resident had been offered four previous decant properties, which she had rejected. The landlord has not provided the details surrounding these previous offers and/or why they were rejected by the resident. The landlord’s notes show that it had requested details regarding the history of the earlier repairs delay so that it could assess appropriate compensation.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 23 February 2021 to check if she had handed in her keys. The notes show that the resident had not returned her keys due to the ‘matter regarding liability of goods whilst she is decanted’. It was agreed that the Stage 2 response would be issued in the next two weeks.
The landlord noted that if the resident did not hand back her keys and allow access for the repairs, it would need to consider enforcement action. It reiterated its view that compensation needed to be offered in its Stage 2 response.
On 24 February 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the condition of the decant property. The landlord advised her that this would be treated as a separate complaint. The resident also contacted this Service about this new complaint and a separate case was initiated for this.
On 3 March 2021 this Service issued the landlord with a final notice that a Complaint Handling Failure Order would be issued if it did not issue a Stage 2 response.
On 5 March 2021 the landlord issued its Stage 2 response:
1. Apology for service failure – It reiterated its apology for the service failure in terms of the delay in its diagnosis as to the cause of the leak and the repairs progress.
2. Decant – it explained that it had offered the resident five decant properties which she had declined. It confirmed that she did not accept a decant property until 29 January 2021.
3. It said that there was a further delay caused by the resident’s failure to return the keys to her property, and that once it had access to the property it would start the repairs.
4. Compensation – it acknowledged that several jobs had been raised since 2019 to investigate the cause of the leak and carry out remedial works but they hadn’t progressed. In recognition of this, and in acknowledgement of its complaint investigation findings of service failure, it offered the resident £750 compensation.
The resident informed this Service on 11 March 2021 that the repairs had not started yet and she had not yet handed her keys back to the landlord.
On 17 March 2021 the resident accepted the landlord’s compensation offer of £750. However, she said that she remained unhappy and the compensation did not fully reflect what she had gone through. She also said that the issue of damage to her personal possessions caused by the leaks and damp remained outstanding and she was currently compiling a separate claim for damages.
On 25 March 2021 the landlord’s internal emails summarised its position to date:
1. It acknowledged there had been damp issues since June 2019 and that it was not until September 2020, that contractors attended to address the issue, although surveyors had visited before.
2. Between October 2020 to January 2021 there was ongoing action to try to move matters on; two surveyor visits, review of all flats’ plumbing, raising jobs, agreeing decant, referral to supported moves etc and liaison with various parties but no decant offered until December 2020. The decant was accepted on 29 January 2021.
3. The resident handed in the keys to her property on 25 March 2021. So long delay of almost two months before handing back keys which delayed organising the works as she refused to allow scaffolders access through her flat (the access to rear garden).
In August 2021 the landlord provided a further update and said that the works were nearly finished and it was in the process of refurbishing the kitchen. It confirmed that ‘the leak was from leaking communal stack pipe at rear; whole pipe in poor condition and connection with several flats’ pipework broken’.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s handling of the repairs was in accordance with its policies, procedures, and any agreements it has with the resident, and whether it acted reasonably, taking into account what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issues, but also the actions it took within its complaints process.
The landlord has demonstrated in its complaint responses that it has formally acknowledged and accepted its service failures with regards to its handling of this matter. It has acted appropriately by apologising for the service failures in relation to delays in both diagnosing the cause of the leak(s) and completing the repairs to the pipework and to the resident’s property. It has also offered compensation of £750 in recognition of its service failures, which the resident has accepted.
The issue that needs to be considered in whether or not the landlord’s offer is reasonable redress for the service failure. In the absence of the landlord’s own compensation policy, the Ombudsman has considered whether or not the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable in light of our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes) and our published Remedies Guidance.
In particular, the ‘Remedies Guidance’ explains that where there have been service failures by the landlord, if the landlord has recognised the failures itself and has taken appropriate action to put this right, including offering reasonable compensation, then the Ombudsman will not necessarily require that the landlord do anything more. One of the factors that the Ombudsman considers is whether the redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord.

Landlord’s handling of the repairs

Looking now at the facts of the case, the first point to note is that the landlord’s repair responsibilities in respect of the resident’s reports of damp in the property require it to ensure that there are no external defects or issues with the structure of the property that may be causing, or contributing, to the damp. In this case, the landlord was notified of potential leak(s) from a communal external wastepipe in June, July and September 2019 and again in April 2020. It is clear from the limited records, and from what the landlord has said, that it failed to act appropriately in response to these reports. It has said that at the time it had a different contractor and it does not have full details of what the contractor did in response to these reports. It has said that since August 2020 it has now got a new contractor in place.
The landlord’s comments are noted, however, it is ultimately responsible for the actions of its appointed contractor. The fact remains that the landlord has not provided sufficiently detailed evidence of its actions in response to the repair reports and the contact from the resident. The need for good record-keeping cannot be emphasised enough and it is important not only so that the landlord can provide an efficient and timely service to its tenants, but it also allows for an accurate audit trail of its decision-making after the event which can help in resolving complaints and learning from complaints to improve services. The landlord is therefore reminded of the need to ensure that its new contractor maintains clear and accurate records.
The landlord has acted appropriately by acknowledging its initial failure to promptly and properly investigate the problem with the pipework. It has apologised for this and it has acted reasonably by taking this into account when considering compensation.
Looking now at what happened after the new contractors were involved following the September 2020 complaint from the resident. It is noted that the landlord took action to investigate the pipework and plumbers and surveyors were duly in attendance and it was agreed that repairs were necessary. The landlord accepted in early October 2020 that it would consider the need for a decant.
With regards to arranging the decant property, it is noted that this was not finalised until late January 2021, almost four months later. The landlord has said that the reason for this delay was that it had made several offers of decant properties to the resident, which she had refused. Due to the lack of available evidence, the Ombudsman has not been able to make a determination on the cause of this particular period of delay. But from looking at what is available, it would appear that the first decant offer was not made until sometime around 6 January 2021 as the landlord’s notes refer to it waiting for a surveyor’s decision up until this point. The fact is that there is no evidence to show exactly when the resident was offered a decant and/or why she had refused the decant offers that were made initially.
Once the decant had been finalised in early February 2021, the landlord should have then arranged for the repairs to commence. However, looking at the facts, as at the time of issuing the Stage 2 complaint response on 5 March 2021, the landlord had still not commenced any repairs. The landlord has said that the delay in starting the repairs was due to the fact that the resident was not providing access and was not returning the keys to her property. This may be so, but once again, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate this. There is reference in its internal correspondence to an ongoing discussion with the resident about returning her keys and there being potential disputes about storage of her possessions and access for the scaffolding via her garden, but the Ombudsman has not been provided with clear details of these issues.
Putting that aside, the fact remains that the landlord acknowledged in early October 2020 that there was a potential problem with the communal pipework leaking since June 2019 and that it had failed to properly assess this at the time. It confirmed in October 2020 that it would inspect the pipework and carry out the necessary repairs. Looking at the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy, it is clear that the landlord has not demonstrated that it caried out the repairs within a reasonable time. It had spent approximately five months between October 2020 and March 2021 agreeing what repairs were necessary and arranging a decant for the resident. The necessary scaffolding was not put in place until April/May 2021. It must be noted that during this time the resident was still living at the property in damp conditions until 1 February 2021.
The Ombudsman considers that there was an unreasonable delay on the part of the landlord in arranging the repairs. This was a service failure and resulted in a delay in addressing the issues that were potentially causing the damp within the resident’s property. Whilst the delays are evident, the Ombudsman also needs to consider the impact on the resident. To this end the resident has said that living in the damp conditions has impacted her, and her family’s health and well-being. This is duly noted however, the Ombudsman is not able to make a determination on the possible causal link between the damp in the property and the health consequences of living in these conditions. If the resident believes that her health may have been adversely affected by the damp, she will need to seek her own legal advice in this regard in relation to any possible negligence and/or personal injury claim against the landlord.
Looking at all the evidence that is available and taking an overall view on the landlord’s handling of this matter, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has acknowledged its failure to complete the repairs in a timely manner and it has apologised for this. The landlord has responded appropriately by offering compensation in recognition of the service failures and has said that it will use this case as a learning experience to ensure that such errors do not reoccur.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord identified that there had been service failures in its handling of the repairs, and that it has offered the resident reasonable redress for this. The landlord’s offer of compensation recognises the service failures noted above and represents proportionate and reasonable redress for those service failures taking into account the degree of inconvenience caused, and the impact on the resident. The amount offered by the landlord is broadly in line with this Service’s ‘Remedies Guidance’ which sets out the general level of compensation where there has been a ‘considerable service failure or maladministration’ and ‘failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs’.

Landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Having considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, the Ombudsman is of the view that there were shortcomings on the part of the landlord. In that it did not handle the complaint appropriately or in a timely manner and it missed opportunities to try and resolve the matter earlier.
Looking at the facts, the complaint was logged on 11 September 2020 and an automated acknowledgement was issued the same day. The Stage 1 response was then issued on 2 October 2020, which was within the 15 working days timeframe stipulated in its complaints policy.
However, with regards to the Stage 2 response there were communication issues and delays after the escalation request had been acknowledged on 13 October 2020. The landlord was required to issue its Stage 2 response within 20 working days i.e. by 10 November 2020. The available evidence shows that it did not in fact issue its Stage 2 response until 5 March 2021, almost four months later. This was clearly an unreasonable delay and a service failure.
The Ombudsman has taken into account that the landlord’s complaints policy does allow it more time to issue its Stage 2 response if the case is particularly complex and further investigation is required. The correspondence shows that the landlord did indeed notify the resident on 12 November 2020 that there would be a delay and that it would issue its Stage 2 response by the end of November. However, since that correspondence the landlord failed to issue its Stage 2 response in a timely manner, and it also failed to update the resident of the ongoing delay.
The landlord did not act appropriately as it failed to follow its complaints process. It delayed in carrying out its investigation of the complaint and took four months to issue its Stage 2 response despite several reminders from the resident and the intervention of this Service. Its failure to act in a timely manner meant that the resident experienced unnecessary additional inconvenience from not receiving a reply and having to chase progress with the assistance of this Service, which was unreasonable. By not responding to the resident about the complaint in a timely manner, it has failed to comply with its own complaints policy and missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her property caused by a defective external wastepipe.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns and has accepted that there were service failures in its handling of the repairs. It has apologised for the identified service failures in respect of delays in completing the repairs and it has accepted responsibility for this. It has offered compensation which, in light of the available evidence, and this Service’s ‘Remedies Guidance’ is reasonable and proportionate redress for the service failures in this case related to the handling of the repairs.
With regards to its handling of the complaint, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaints policy and it failed to respond to the complaint in a timely manner.

Orders and recommendations

Order:

Within the next four weeks the landlord is ordered:
1. to pay the resident compensation of £150 for the complaint handling service failure.
Evidence of compliance with the above order to be provided to this Service within four weeks.

Recommendation:

If not already done so, the landlord should provide the resident with information and assistance with how to make a claim for the damage to her personal possessions under its own insurance cover.