Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202011986)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011986

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

25 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 length of time taken by the landlord to complete restorative repairs at the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and has been since 19 April 2011.
The property is a one-bedroom flat located on the third floor.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident experienced a fire at his property on 22 August 2019. He was subsequently decanted and placed in temporary accommodation.

Scope

The Ombudsman has acknowledged the resident’s suggestion that stress, caused by the landlord’s handling of the situation, resulted in him having a stroke. While the resident may believe this to be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the stroke experienced by the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.
In reviewing the evidence on this case, the Ombudsman has also seen that the resident raised his dissatisfaction with:
1. The landlord’s decision to install a plug socket underneath the sink.
2. The landlord’s decision to install an electric shower, despite the building having access to communal hot water.
3. The landlord’s decision to remove (and dispose of) the alterations made at the resident’s property.
4. The landlord’s decision not to install like for like fixtures.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s dissatisfaction with his new boiler.
As these were not matters which were raised within the resident’s initial complaint (or that seem to have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process), these matters have not been commented on within this investigation. As per paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
It is noted, nonetheless, that the above concerns have been communicated to the landlord and a new case has been opened with this Service, under case reference 202106610, to explore these issues.

Summary of events

On 6 and 7 January 2020 the resident called the landlord to establish whether any progress had been made with the repair of his property as he had not been provided with an update. The Ombudsman can see that with little response, this was pursued further on 25, 29 and 30 January 2020.
The resident subsequently sought the support of his Local Councillor (LC) in February 2020. On 3 February 2020 the LC wrote to the landlord and highlighted the resident’s concern that little work had been done to repair his property to enable him to move back in. The LC therefore requested that the landlord look into the matter and confirm when the resident could expect to do so.
On 27 February 2020 the landlord advised the LC:
1. Upon suffering a fire in August 2019, the property had been boarded up.
2. Several repairs were raised to bring the property back to standard, however due to health and safety concerns, its contractors could not enter the property. The property was also found to contain asbestos, and this required an air test before being able to begin asbestos removal works. The air test had since been undertaken and the asbestos removal works were due to commence. The full scope of works would be determined after this time.
3. Once the property had been cleaned, works would take approximately 8-10 weeks to complete. An update would be provided by 5 May 2020 on the status of the repairs.
On 3 March 2020 the LC wrote to the landlord further. It was explained that the resident had again made contact to advise that he had not been contacted by the landlord and no update had been provided. The LC questioned when someone had last been in touch with the resident and requested that the landlord begin providing the resident with updates. It was considered unacceptable that an update could not be provided before 5 May 2020.
The landlord responded to the LC on 11 March 2020 explaining that it was dealing with the case as a matter of urgency. It advised that the surveyor dealing with the repairs would provide regular updates to the resident until the works were completed. The surveyor had already spoken with the resident and provided him with direct contact details.
The landlord’s records suggest that it undertook a face-to-face meeting with the resident on 16 March 2020.
On 8 July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord stating that he had received a text to advise that works would commence on 13 July 2020. The landlord informed the resident, however, that works would not take place until the loss adjuster had been involved and this could take up to a month.
On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord to express his dissatisfaction. He raised that he had been waiting to move back into his property, and nearly a year had passed, but the works had not commenced. He stated that the repair team were continuously making excuses.
On 24 July 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a stage one complaint response. It apologised for the delay in the repairs commencing and noted:
1. Its surveyor had contacted the resident on 17 July 2020 to advise that he would make a home visit and would manage the repair. He would be keeping the resident up to date.
2. It was in the process of changing contractor which would hopefully improve the service. The surveyor would assess the repairs needed and schedule these with the new contractor.

The landlord concluded that in recognition of the inconvenience experienced, it would offer £100 compensation.

The Ombudsman cannot see that there was any communication or correspondence following this until the resident raised a further complaint in October 2020. The landlords call records show that on 30 October 2020, the resident advised that over a year and two months had passed since the fire at his property, however he had not been updated on what had been happening since. This was the third time he had complained and yet there had been no communication.
On 3 November 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It advised that the complaint would be considered at stage one of its complaints process and a response would be provided by 20 November 2020.
With no communication on 20 November 2020 however, the resident contacted the landlord to chase up its response. The landlord advised the resident on the same day that there had been a delay in providing a complaint response due to high demands on its service, the impact of the pandemic and the handover to new contractors. The resident would subsequently receive a response in due course.
It appears that the resident spoke with the landlord on 8 December 2020 regarding his complaint. This Service has seen no record of the conversation.
On 18 December 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a further stage one response. It apologised for the delay in returning to the resident and explained:
1. There had been several delays with the structural repair works required for his home. Due to the significant damage caused by the fire, its insurers required sufficient time to carry out an assessment before works could take place. Works were also delayed by the onset of the pandemic and a change in the contractor to carry out the repair.
2. Works would now commence at his property. It could not confirm the exact timeframe for the completion of works. It advised, however, that works such as this could usually take 8 weeks to complete. The landlord anticipated that this could take longer due to operational problems and delays caused by the pandemic.

The landlord acknowledged that the resident had not received the service that it would have liked to have provided. In consideration of this and the delays that the resident experienced, it therefore concluded that it would offer £100 in compensation.

On 5 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord advising that he had gained access to his property and no works had commenced.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident attempted to contact the landlord on 8, 11, 13, and 14 January 2021 requesting an urgent call back. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was done.
Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 15 January 2021 to encourage it to provide the resident with a stage two response if it had not done so already. The landlord was advised that the resident had been waiting for a year and a half for his property to be repaired and did not consider £100 compensation to be satisfactory.
The landlord wrote to the resident to confirm receipt of his stage two escalation request on 29 January 2021. It advised that it would offer the resident a complaint response by 12 February 2021.
On 11 February 2021 the landlord provided the resident with its stage two response. It advised:
1. The outstanding works to the resident property were ongoing. It noted that its surveyor had been liaising with the resident and was on site on 18 and 22 January 2021. The kitchen had now been removed, the walls re-boarded, the floors stripped, and new windows were expected to arrive during the week.
2. While the resident had asserted that there had been an agreement (which the Ombudsman has not seen) in which the alterations made to his property could be left as they were, the surveyor had confirmed no such agreement. If structural changes had been made, these needed to be assessed to ensure that they were suitable for the property and did not pose a health risk.

The landlord advised that it had reviewed the compensation previously offered for its poor customer service, delays, and inconvenience, and would be increasing this by a further £300 (£400 in total). It noted that the resident was offered suitable temporary accommodation while the works were ongoing and had been offered compensation for the same issue under a previous complaint.

Assessment and findings

The length of time taken by the landlord to complete restorative repairs at the resident’s property.

This Service has assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs and it is clear to the Ombudsman that the landlord allowed a significant length of time to elapse before it began undertaking the required work. The Ombudsman has also identified a clear failure to manage the resident’s expectation throughout this time.
In review of all of the evidence within this case, however, while the repairs had been mis-managed, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord offered a reasonable level of redress, which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.
It is not disputed that the landlord should have offered the resident a better service prior to his first complaint on 8 July 2020. The Ombudsman notes that the resident had been living in temporary accommodation for almost 11 months by this time and yet had received little correspondence / communication to advise him on the steps that would be taken to restore his property and when this might take place so that he could move back.
Despite chasing the landlord for updates and involving his LC, there was still little interaction from the landlord and a clear failure to maintain communication. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord acknowledged this within its stage one response on 24 July 2020 and made an offer of compensation in recognition.
It is unclear whether the resident considered this to be satisfactory in resolving his complaint, but the Ombudsman cannot see that he contested the landlord’s response (or the compensation) within the 20-working day grace-period offered by the landlord.
The Ombudsman has noted that prior to this time, the landlord explained that it had been delayed by the impact of the pandemic, a change of contractor, and the discovery of asbestos in the property which subsequently required an air test before the asbestos could be removed. It was explained (in February 2020) that after this time, a full scope of works would be determined, and it was reiterated within its stage one response that the landlord’s surveyor would be assessing the repairs needed and arranging for works to take place.
With this in mind, the Ombudsman would have expected works to have commenced soon after the landlord’s stage one response, and also that the landlord would, after recognising its shortcomings, maintain frequent communication with the resident to provide him with updates. On reviewing the evidence available, however, it does not appear that this was done.
The Ombudsman has been unable to identify that there was any communication with the resident after the landlord’s stage one response in July 2020, up until he raised a further complaint at the end of October 2020. This was unacceptable and indicated that the landlord had not learnt from the previous outcome (contrary to the Housing Ombudsman Service’s dispute resolution principles – to be fair, to put things right, and to learn from outcomes).
Records suggest that the resident had not received a full response until 18 December 2020, almost six months after the landlord had proposed to keep him updated. This was inappropriate. While the Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s explanation that due to the extent of the fire, sufficient time was needed for the insurer to carry out an assessment before works could commence, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord / insurer was given this. It was therefore unclear why after a year and four months, the landlord had only just confirmed that works would be commencing.
What’s more, this provided no excuse for the landlord’s lack of contact. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have maintained contact with the resident throughout this time to inform the resident of any delays / obstacles preventing it from commencing works.
Despite advising the resident’s LC in February 2020 that after the property was cleaned, it would take approximately 8 to 10 weeks to complete works, this did not happen, and the resident was left waiting indefinitely. The resident had not been made aware of the landlord’s plan of action or the scale of the works required (despite the suggestion that an updated would be provided on 5 May 2020 and that the state of repairs would be assessed in July 2020). Contrary to good repair handling practice, the landlord thus failed to manage the resident’s expectations, and this resulted in the resident continuously chasing the landlord for answers. This was unacceptable. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord made a further offer of compensation (£100) within its stage one response, however in the Ombudsman’s view, this failed to satisfactorily reflect the resident’s experience.
At stage two, however, given that the landlord still failed to appropriately maintain communication with the resident throughout January 2021, it was appropriate that the landlord reviewed the resident’s experience and adjusted its offer of compensation on this basis. As well as highlighting the progress that had been made with the repairs, and acknowledging that some remained outstanding, the landlord also increased its offer of compensation to £400 to account for its poor service, inconvenience, and delays. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was appropriate.
In the spirit of putting things right, and as the works were still not complete by the time of the landlord’s final response, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have provided an update on the estimated completion date. As the resident was eager to move back to his home, this would have been useful in managing his expectation and providing some closure to the protracted issue.
The landlord did, however, offer an estimate timescale within its response in December 2020 also signposting that this could be longer. The Ombudsman is content that the landlord advised of the upcoming works to be completed, offered the resident an apology for its poor service, and made an offer of compensation which fairly reflected the resident’s experience. This was satisfactory in resolving the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Under the landlord’s complaints policy, complaints should be responded to within 15 working days at stage one. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord confirmed for the resident that it would offer him a response by 20 November 2020, following his complaint on 30 October 2020.
Despite this agreement, however, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord failed to honour this timescale. The Ombudsman appreciates that following contact from the resident in which he chased his complaint response, the landlord did offer a reasonable reason for its delay in issuing its stage one reply. Still however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s approach was inappropriate.
In line with good practice (and point 3.11 of the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code), the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make the resident aware, where it is unable to meet its deadline, of any delays / obstacles it faces prior to reaching the deadline. This forewarning would have allowed the landlord to manage the resident’s expectation, preventing disappointment on the day that the response was due, and preventing the resident from having to chase a response. It is clear, however, that the landlord did not do this.
The landlord’s complaints policy also explains that where it is unable to offer a complaint response within the timescales suggested, the complainant should be advised of this at the earliest possible opportunity and should be given an indication of when a full response will be received. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord did this either.
As the landlord had not advised the resident when he would subsequently receive a response, the resident was unclear when his concerns would be addressed and whether the landlord had taken his complaint seriously. This was inappropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the length of time taken by the landlord to complete restorative repairs at the resident’s property, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. While an unreasonable length of time had passed before the landlord had begun undertaking works to restore the resident’s property and return him to his home, the landlord did acknowledge this within its final response and offered an apology, as well as making an offer of redress which was sufficient in recognising its omission. The Ombudsman has noted that at this time, the works were still incomplete, and the resident was still unaware of when this might be finalised. It was acceptable, however, that the landlord had begun undertaking works at the property, had provided an estimated turnaround timeframe, and that its surveyor was liaising directly with the resident to put the outstanding issues right.
2. Although the landlord explained its reasons for being unable to meet its stage one response timeframe, this explanation should have been offered at an earlier time. It was inappropriate that the landlord provided this only after being chased by the resident for its reply. What’s more, the landlord failed to advise the resident when he would likely receive a response. The landlord subsequently overlooked the opportunity to manage this situation, despite delaying the resident in achieving resolution. While it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have recognised this omission within its final response, the Ombudsman cannot see that it did. This was therefore a further missed opportunity to acknowledge that matters could have been better handled.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the service failure, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £50.
The above payment should be made within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination.

Recommendations

As the finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis of the landlord’s previous award (£400), the landlord should ensure that it makes this payment if it has not done so already.
Throughout this case, the Ombudsman has identified a clear issue with the landlord’s communication and with its management of the resident’s expectations. This can be seen both through its management of the resident’s repair and through its handling of the complaint. The landlord should therefore make note of this and identify an improved system of working with residents to ensure that in future cases, dialogue / communication is maintained, updates are provided, and expectations are managed in line with good customer service. To further support this, the landlord should also encourage its staff to review the Complaint Handling Code, available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website.