Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202005513)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005513

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues with her bathroom and kitchen, and the amount of compensation subsequently offered.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling in this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 28 May 2018. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The property is a two storey flat located above another property.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes a stage one response will be provided within 15 working days. A stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days. The policy also notes that a resident “must” be informed when these timescales will not be met.
  4. The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy gives clear diagrams of fixtures in a property and who is responsible for repair issues with those fixtures. Leaks from a bath and issues with the toilet pan are both noted to be the responsibility of the landlord. The policy notes that a toilet not working is considered a ‘priority 2’ repair which it will attend to within 24 hours. It notes minor leaks to be a ‘priority 3’ repair which it will attend to within three to five working days, however, it notes unsafe electrical fittings are a priority 2 issue. The policy also notes that a resident will be given a target completion date when they report a repair.

Summary of events

  1. It is not disputed that in or prior to July 2020, the resident reported a leak coming from her bath and an issue with her toilet flush. The bath leak had penetrated through to the ceiling below, which caused the resident concern that the ceiling could collapse. The leak was also causing mould which the resident was expending money on to address. Regarding the toilet, the resident advised the flush was very slow, taking up to 14 minutes to drain, and overflowing if multiple flushes were made. The resident advised this had already led to some unpleasant incidents.
  2. On 24 July 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint that the issue was yet to be addressed. She advised that at the most recent repair appointment, the landlord’s operative had only been instructed there was an issue with the toilet seat and was unable to repair the flush. The operative had also advised they considered the toilet would need replacing. The resident noted she had also raised her concern about asbestos in the property, and the landlord advised that a surveyor would contact her regarding an asbestos survey, however, she did not receive any follow up. On the same date, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised it would provide its response by 14 August 2020.
  3. Following the landlord’s acknowledgement, no stage one response was given on 14 August 2020, leading the resident to chase up the landlord for a response on at least four occasions by email and also by telephone. She reiterated her complaint and provided photographic evidence of the issues she was experiencing. She also reiterated the unpleasant nature of the issues and her concerns about the safety of the ceiling. She further advised that the leak from the bath into the ceiling was causing the electrical supply to trip off.
  4. On 27 August 2020, the resident noted that the landlord’s surveyor had since attended her property on 21 August 2020 without any prior notice. She expressed her dissatisfaction that she was still to receive any updates or communication and reiterated that urgent action was required. On 2 September 2020, the resident again chased the landlord for a response by telephone.
  5. It is not disputed that in or around September 2020, the landlord carried out an asbestos test and sought to arrange for works to be carried out at the end of September. It also spoke with the resident and offered her a decant while it carried out the works. The resident declined this offer and on or around 14 September 2020, the landlord arranged access to a temporary portable toilet for the resident. The works were delayed, however, and on 28 September 2020 and again on 6 October 2020, the resident requested an update from the landlord.
  6. The landlord provided its stage one response on 14 October 2020. It outlined the above timeline of events and apologised for its delays. In an earlier communication, the landlord advised that the delays were due in part to a change of contractor over this period, however, it also accepted it could have done more to support the resident throughout this period. It advised the works were now due to be completed in October 2020 and offered £500 compensation for its delays.
  7. On 15 October 2020, the resident advised she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation and that she did not consider the offer of compensation to be reflective of the distress and inconvenience she had been caused. She also noted that neither her concerns about electrical safety, nor the time and trouble she had gone to in chasing up the issue had been considered. She subsequently requested her complaint be escalated.
  8. The landlord provided its stage two response on 12 November 2020. It advised that it considered its stage one response to have been reasonable at the time that it was made, but noted that the works had been further delayed, being finally completed on 6 November 2020. It offered an additional £100 for this further delay. It also noted the resident had raised concerns about damage to her personal belongings due to the leak, to which the landlord advised that she should make a claim through her insurer.
  9. Following the landlord’s stage two response, on or around 26 November 2020, the ceiling collapsed in the property beneath the resident’s. The resident subsequently expressed her concerns to the landlord regarding the structural integrity of her property. On 27 November 2020, the resident also advised she was dissatisfied with the stage two response and that the works to her bathroom were not satisfactory. She reported that the new bathroom flooring had bubbled up and the bathroom fittings had not been installed correctly. The taps had also leaked resulting in temporary water and heating loss. The landlord subsequently arranged for its surveyor to visit the same day, however, it is not evident any follow up communication was made to the resident.
  10. The landlord has provided this service with its repair records. The records note that following its visit in November 2020, it did not carry out any further works to the property. The resident subsequently chased an update in March 2021. It is evident that the landlord then carried out works to the kitchen floor of the resident’s property throughout March 2021, however, this service has not been provided with any communications from this time.
  11. Following the kitchen works, on 9 April 2021, the resident requested compensation for her additional food expenses during the period of the kitchen works, during which it was unusable. The landlord replied on 12 April 2021 and advised it had arranged for a post inspection of the kitchen works but did not address the query regarding reimbursement of expenses.
  12. On 4 May 2021, the resident again requested an update and on 7 May 2021, the landlord provided a further detailed response. It apologised for its “poor service,” and advised that it did not usually “provide the response until confirmation received that all works have been satisfactorily completed.” It advised that the compensation offer up to the point of its stage two response would remain the same. In relation to the issues with the bathroom repair and the delays to the kitchen works, it offered an additional £333.28 compensation. It did not advise how it had reached this figure. It also agreed to reimburse the resident £98.56 for her food expenses, meaning its total additional offer was £431.84. It advised that the resident should refer her complaint to this service should she remain dissatisfied with the outcome.

Assessment and findings

Bathroom repairs

  1. It is not disputed that the responsibility for repairs to the bath and toilet lay with the landlord. The landlord was evidently aware of both issues as it had attempted repairs prior to the resident’s complaint, however, these were unsuccessful.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy notes it will attend to a broken toilet within 24 hours. Following the resident’s formal complaint on 24 July 2020, the landlord would have been aware that its earlier attempts to repair the toilet had failed, and that the issue was ongoing. While the resident advised the toilet eventually drained within 14 minutes, this is clearly not an adequately functioning toilet. While the landlord acknowledged her complaint and advised it would respond to her within 10 working days, this did not negate its repair responsibility. Having been made aware that the toilet was still not functioning, the landlord should have attended to the issue within the timeframes of its repairs policy, or justified its position as to why an extended amount of time was required. The landlord did not raise any further repairs at this time, which unreasonably left the resident with an ongoing unpleasant issue and left her unsure of how it would be resolved.
  3. The resident also reported her bath leak was affecting her downstairs ceiling. As with above, while the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint, having been made aware the leak was ongoing, it failed to raise any further repair works. The landlord’s repair policy requires that it attend to such a leak within three to five working days, however, the landlord did not make any further investigations within this time period. In her further communications, the resident additionally raised electrical safety concerns regarding the leak, which should have increased the priority for the landlord to address the issue, however, it continued not to raise any further works or keep the resident updated. This would have once again left the resident distressed and unsure of how it would be resolved.
  4. Following the further concerns raised by the resident, including that there may be an issue with asbestos, the landlord appropriately arranged for its surveyor to attend, however, the resident has advised it did not advise her of the date for the appointment, leading to the surveyor turning up unannounced. This service has received no evidence to indicate prior notice was given. The Ombudsman considers it best practice to ensure any appointments are discussed with a resident and advance notice is given when possible, which the landlord did not do in this instance. Additionally, following such an appointment, the landlord should endeavour to provide a resident with an update within a reasonable timeframe, however, despite the resident chasing such an update, this was not given by the landlord.
  5. Following the landlord’s asbestos survey in September 2020, the landlord appropriately arranged for the necessary repair works and also arranged for a temporary toilet for the resident. It also appropriately offered the resident a decant. While this service has not been provided with written communication or telephone notes from this period, it is not disputed that this was communicated effectively. Following delays to the works, however, the resident requested an update on two occasions, which the landlord failed to respond to. This would have left her distressed and unclear about when the works would now take place.
  6. The next communication from the landlord was its stage one response. While it appropriately explained that the delays were due to a change of contractors, this update should have been provided to the resident at the time. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged it could have done more to support the resident and that it apologised. It also appropriately provided a timeframe for the rescheduled works. Given that the resident had reported in July 2020 that the issue had not been solved by the landlord’s earlier attempts to repair, and it was now some three months later that the repairs were booked in, along with its poor communication throughout this period, it was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation to reflect this.
  7. While the landlord’s offer took into account its delays and poor communication, the resident subsequently advised she was dissatisfied with its offer as it did not reflect her concerns about health and safety, or the time and trouble she had gone to chase up the issue. Given her concerns over safety, in particular electrical safety as a result of the leak, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have commented on this and advised how its offer of compensation reflected this distress, which it did not do. Additionally, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to offer compensation to reflect time and trouble in addition to the distress caused by delays, which the landlord also did not consider in its offer.
  8. While the repairs were subsequently delayed from the updated timeframe advised by the landlord in its stage one response, it appropriately acknowledged these delays in its stage two response and increased its offer of compensation by £100, which was a reasonable increase to reflect this further delay. The Ombudsman considers that offers of compensation in this context are to reflect a landlord’s service failure and not to recompense any damage to personal belongings. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to make any claim for damage to her belongings as a result of the leak to her insurer. The resident is also able to seek further legal remedies in relation to damages outside of this service’s investigation.
  9. Having carried out the repair works, the resident reported a number of defects which needed further works. She also reported an issue with her kitchen floor following a ceiling collapse in the property below. It is evident that the landlord agreed to these, but that there were further delays to it carrying out these works, leading the resident to request a further response. The landlord’s complaints handling is discussed further below, however, the Ombudsman notes that these further issues were not the substantive issues raised as part of the resident’s initial complaint investigated at stage one and two. Despite this, only a single further response was offered in relation to these new elements of the complaint.
  10. The landlord’s further response appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about her food expenses during works to the kitchen and offered specific compensation to reimburse her. It additionally appropriately acknowledged that its service had been poor for which it apologised. It offered further compensation to reflect its further delays, however, it did not provide an explanation of how it reached the figure offered, which would have caused confusion for the resident in whether it was a fair offer she should accept. The Ombudsman notes it is best practice to include information about how an offer of compensation is reached where possible, which the landlord did not do in this case.
  11. In summary, the landlord failed to initially raise works in accordance with the timeframes of its repairs policy, despite the resident raising the issue repeatedly and explaining how the issue was affecting her. It also failed to acknowledge her further concerns regarding safety issues caused by the leak affecting her electricity. While it eventually arranged works, it failed to give timely updates following the delays to those works. The initial stage one response appropriately acknowledged its delays and offered apologies, however, it did not acknowledge the safety concerns raised by the resident, which would have been appropriate given the amount of times she had reiterated her concerns. While the landlord’s explanation of how it reached its offer of compensation did not take into account these additional concerns, nor the time and trouble expended by the resident in chasing up her complaint, the Ombudsman nevertheless considers the overall amount to have been reasonable. Its additional offer of compensation for its further delays in its stage two response was also reasonable, as was its offer of compensation made in relation to the kitchen and rectification works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, taking into account the delays to the works, the landlord’s poor communication, and the subsequent impact on the resident, the total compensation offered amounts to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  12. The Ombudsman notes, however, that had the landlord not identified its repeated delays and offered apologies along with its offers of compensation, a finding of maladministration would have been made in this case.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy notes it will provide a stage one response within 15 working days. Following the resident’s formal complaint on 24 July 2020, despite not raising repair works as discussed above, the landlord appropriately advised it would provide a formal response within its targeted timeframes. It is not disputed, however, that it did not provide a response within this timeframe, nor any update, despite repeated requests from the resident. Indeed, its next communications were in relation to the repairs in September 2020, and the notion of providing a formal response appeared to be abandoned.
  2. The Ombudsman considers that it is sometimes appropriate to complete works to resolve a complaint prior to issuing a formal complaint response. This may reasonably result in the subsequent response being issued beyond the landlord’s target timeframes. In such instances, however, the landlord’s policy, as well as best practice, note that it must communicate this to the resident. The landlord did not, however, make any communication to the resident that indicated why it had not provided its formal response when promised, nor did provide a revised timeframe of when it would do so in the future. This would have left the resident concerned about when she would receive a formal update and caused her time and trouble in chasing it up on a number of occasions.
  3. Following its stage one response, and the resident’s subsequent request for an escalation, the landlord appropriately provided its stage two response within a reasonable timeframe. Following this response, the resident remained dissatisfied and requested a further response. She also raised concerns about the standard of the bathroom works and also delays to required works to her kitchen floor. In some circumstances, a landlord may use its discretion to include a related issue that was not a part of a stage one complaint into its stage two investigation. Given, however, that the stage two response had already been issued, it would have been appropriate to consider the resident’s concerns about the delays to the bathroom rectification works and kitchen works as a separate complaint.
  4. The landlord’s further response in May 2021 also did not identify itself as a complaint response under the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Additionally, the resident was not offered the option of a stage two investigation. Instead, she was referred to this service after what was essentially a stage one response. The purpose of a landlord’s internal complaints procedure is not only to reasonably investigate a complaint, but also to demonstrate to a resident that such an investigation has been carried out. By failing to frame its May 2021 response as part of its internal complaints procedure, the landlord denied the resident the reassurance that this had occurred, and also denied her the opportunity to escalate her complaint prior to a referral to this service, which would have left her distressed that her additional complaints had not been investigated correctly.
  5. The landlord also framed its May 2021 response in the context that it only provided a formal response following completion of any relevant works. As discussed above, this approach is reasonable, but only where the resident has been informed this is the case and where updated timeframes are given when available. This service has not been provided with any evidence, however, to suggest such a communication was made, causing the resident to expend further time and trouble in repeatedly chasing an update.
  6. The landlord’s failure to initially respond to the resident’s complaint for a significant period of time, despite having initially committed to providing a response in August 2020, along with its failure to correctly apply its complaints policy to the further issues with the bathroom works and kitchen works would have caused distress to the resident and constitute service failure. Given the length of the delays, the lack of communication, and the denial of a stage two response in relation to her further complaints, a further amount of £100 compensation is appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues with her bathroom and kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Bathroom repairs

  1. The landlord failed to raise any repairs following the resident’s complaint which alerted it to the fact her toilet and leak issues were ongoing, despite its repairs policy requiring such issues to be dealt with within 24 hours and three to five days respectively. It also missed the opportunity to raise the works following the resident’s further reports of safety concerns regarding her electricity, which it also failed to acknowledge at all.
  2. The landlord did not alert the resident to its surveyor’s attendance, nor did it provide any updates following the inspection. While the landlord subsequently appropriately arranged for works and a temporary toilet, these works were delayed and it did not initially provide an update to the resident despite her requesting one on several occasions.
  3. The landlord appropriately acknowledged these delays, for which it offered an apology, including the delays referred to in its May 2021 response, and its total offer of compensation in relation to all these delays amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord failed to provide an initial formal response in the timeframe it had advised the resident or provide any updates as to an amended timeframe despite multiple requests from the resident.
  2. The landlord also failed to deal with the resident’s further complaints regarding the delays to her kitchen works and bathroom rectification works in accordance with its complaints policy, instead choosing to offer a further response which did not allow the resident the option to request an internal review.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and make arrangements to pay its previous offers of compensation and expenses totalling £1,031.84 should this have not yet been paid.
  2. The landlord to take steps to ensure that its complaints handling staff are aware of the details of its complaints policy. This should also include consideration of this service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/corporateinformation/policies/dis puteresolution/guidance-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.