Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202114536)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114536

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

31 January 2022

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:
1. The landlord’s response to repairs to the windows – specifically the quality of works and delays experienced and request for compensation.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks through the boiler flue which resulted in an intermittent lack of hot water and heating.
3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Repairs Handbook confirms its statutory responsibility to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property and to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of gas, space heating, and heating water.
The Repairs Handbook confirms the landlord’s target timeframes for repairs:
1. Emergency Repairs are completed within two or 24 hours depending on the priority.
2. Urgent repairs are completed within three of five working days depending on the priority.
3. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
With regards to Emergency Repairs, the Handbook states: “Our first priority is to make the property safe to prevent further damage and / or to remove the immediate danger. It may take longer to carry out a permanent repair; therefore a follow-on appointment may be required to resolve the issue identified. It is our customer service team’s aim to keep you informed at all stages.”
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. The procedure states:
1. Regarding Stage 1, “If a concern cannot be resolved to a customer’s satisfaction at the point of service delivery, or if the customer wishes to make a complaint in any event, a formal complaint must be recorded.”
2. Regarding Stage 2, “If the customer is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Stage 1 investigation, at their request, the Council will arrange for the complaint to be reviewed by a more senior manager.”
3. The timescales for response, from the date the complaint is received, are:
  1. Stage 1: 15 working days
  2. Stage 2: 20 working days

Summary of Events

The resident has stated that there has been a recurrent problem of rainwater coming in through the flue to the boiler, which can cut out the hot water and heating supply. The landlord’s records show that on 19 February 2019, its Planning Team had reported a leaking boiler. On 11 October 2019 the resident reported that the boiler leaked when it rained and the landlord raised an order for the flue to be checked. The resident made further reports on 6 November 2019 and on 20 December 2019, stating when making the latter report that three operatives had already attended and identified no issue.
On 7 October 2020, 19 November 2020, 7 December 2020 and 22 December 2020, the resident made further reports of rainwater running through the flue to the boiler, also stating there was a loss of heating and hot water when making the latter two reports. The landlord noted that the flue may not be sealed.
The landlord’s repair records confirm that on 18 January 2021, the resident raised an emergency repair stating that his bedroom window was not locking and his small child had nearly fallen out. The landlord the following day, on 19 January 2021, raised follow on works as having “made safe”, a “new tilt and turn hinges mechanism [was] required and 7 window restrictors. The landlord’s internal notes indicate that a contractor attended but on 20 January 2020 the resident phoned that day stating that nothing had been done. The resident raised another emergency repair on 20 January 2021 but the resident called on 22 January 2021 stating no-one had attended his property. It transpired that the emergency repair of 20 January 2021 was not passed to an out of hours contractor, so on 22 January 2021, the landlord raised a further order to make safe the window “or screw shut the window” , as it was not locking.
On 28 January 2021, the landlord advised the resident that works were required to nine windows and would need to be passed to a sub-contractor.
On 28 January 2021 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to remedy a leak from the resident’s boiler when it rained. It noted that engineers had previously stated that they could not trace the leak. On 11 March 2021 the landlord recalled the contractor as it still leaked when it rained. The landlord directed the contractor to consider whether a new flue was needed.
On 11 March 2020, the landlord advised the resident that the supplier did not have the parts required for the window repairs because they were very old, therefore the contractor was seeking parts from other sources which was causing a delay. On the same day, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord stating the repair to his bedroom window had been outstanding for two months. He also asked for the compensation offered under a previous separate complaint (reference 1718376), which concerned three missed appointments for repairs to the kitchen unit, flooring and a door hinge, to be reviewed.
On 16 and 17 March 2021 the landlord phoned and texted the resident to advise that the window parts had arrived and it would be attending to complete works on 18 March 2021. There is no evidence that the appointment was agreed or that works were completed on 18 March 2021 in any case.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord raised again the works order in respect of the bedroom window made on 19 January 2021, recalling the contractor.
On 11 May 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint under the refence 1881465. It noted that the window repair had been ongoing “for a while” and that an appointment was booked for 12 May 2021 to complete works. It noted a senior member of staff had spoken to the resident on 7 May 2021 but the resident had not provided further information as requested. The landlord offered £100 compensation in respect of the inconvenience experienced by the resident.
Within the response of 11 May 2021, the landlord also considered its response to the previous Stage 1 complaint under reference 1718376. It noted that it had originally offered £150 compensation and confirmed an increased offer of £200. The landlord advised there were no new service failures therefore it would not be increasing the offer further.
On 14 May 2021 the resident escalated the complaint, expressing concern about the repairs service in general and stating that for over a year, there had been an unresolved issue of water leaking via the boiler every time it rained, cutting the hot water off. He noted that there had been many job orders raised and closed but the issue was unresolved. With regards to the window issue, the resident stated that when in January 2020 he found his bedroom window completely broken and wide open, the landlord did not attend on an emergency basis but took seven days to come, during which time there was a danger of his three year old son falling down many floors.
On 18 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident having spoken to him earlier that day. It confirmed an increase of the Stage 1 offer of £200 made under complaint 1718376 to £400 on the basis that the boiler flue issue was still not resolved, as the resident was still experiencing a leak into his property when it rained. It stated it would ask its contractor to make another visit. The landlord also stated that regarding complaint 1881465 it would offer an additional £50 to make a total of £150 for the window repair. The landlord noted that the resident remained dissatisfied therefore it would escalate the complaint to Stage 2.
On 24 May 2021, the landlord raised an order for its contractor to attend the resident’s property as he had reported that the leak was still occurring when it rained. On 23 June 2021 the landlord recalled the contractor noting that it should check all the flues on the side of building and trace the leak into property.
On 19 July 2021 the landlord raised a new repair order stating that a supervisor should “attend and check over [the] issues with water leaking in from the flue, and then report back.
On 25 August 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint, apologising for the delay in the response. It reiterated its apology for the poor service provided in respect of the window repair but stated that it would not increase compensation to include loss of earnings as this was not its practice. It noted that its offer of £300, increased from £200 at Stage 1 was in line with its Compensation Policy and was still available.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord raised a further repair request after the resident reported again that there was no heating or hot water and that water was coming to the boiler via the flue when it rained.
On 6 October 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord rejecting the landlord’s Stage 2 offer of £300 and stating that the Stage 2 response omitted to consider the issue of water entering his boiler every time it rained. He requested a further Stage 2 response for this issue. There is no evidence that the landlord responded.
The landlord has provided photographs to this Service showing that it carried out “flue gas analysis” measurements on 15 and 23 December 2021. There is no evidence that it confirmed to the resident the outcome of the checks or how they related to his reports about water leaking through his flue and affecting the operation of his boiler.

Following a call on 18 January 2022 in which the resident chased up the repair raised on 5 October 2021, the landlord arranged another contractor visit.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to repairs to the windows – specifically the quality of works and delays experienced and request for compensation

After the resident reported that a bedroom window could not be locked which presented a danger to his small child, the landlord had a responsibility under its Repairs Policy to carry out an emergency repair, and in line with this it raised an Emergency 24 hour job order. However, the resident in his complaint to the landlord advised that it did not make the window safe until seven days. The landlord’s repair records do not confirm exactly when the window was made safe. However, the records show that the landlord had to raise three repair orders, on 18, 20 and 22 January 2021 before the emergency repair was marked as completed. It is therefore evident that the landlord did not make the window safe in line with the timescale set out in its Repairs Policy.
The Repairs Policy recognises that a follow-on appointment may be required to carry out a permanent repair to resolve the issue identified and also notes that it is the landlord’s aim to keep the resident informed at all stages. In line with this the landlord advised the resident that it had difficulty sourcing the necessary parts to complete the repair, which would cause a delay. Nonetheless, it did not provide a timeframe or regularly update the resident, thereby not taking adequate steps to manage his expectations and leaving him uncertain. Furthermore, having obtained the parts on 16 March 2021, there is no evidence that that the landlord was proactive in arranging works after its initial proposed appointment of 18 March 2021. Ultimately, it did not make an appointment to complete the works to the bedroom window until May 2021, over two months later. This represents an unreasonable and avoidable delay in the completion.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
In this case, it is noted that the landlord has acknowledged there has been service failings which have led to inconvenience and delays. The landlord has therefore acted appropriately by apologising to the resident and offering compensation. The resident should be aware that the Ombudsman’s consideration of redress is not to award ‘damages’ or reimburse costs in the way that a court or insurance company might; but to ensure an amount is awarded that proportionately recognises a likely level of distress and inconvenience experienced by a resident, due to any identified service failures on a landlord’s part.
In this case the landlord offered compensation, £100 in the Stage 1 response, which was increased to £150. Whilst the landlord did not explain how it arrived at this figure, this amount constituted redress that satisfactorily resolved both the delay in completing the emergency repair and in completing the permanent repair. In reaching this decision, this Service has considered that there were two missed appointments to make safe the window and landlord typically offer £10-£20 for missed appointments. Also, under the “Right to Repair” legislation, which applies to social landlords, compensation of up to £50 can be awarded for delays to small, urgent repairs up to the value of £250.
There was also a delay in completing the permanent repair. However, an aspect of the delay was due to the mitigating factor of the need to source parts. Also, aside from the initial delay, the window had been made safe pending completion of the full repair. Taken altogether, the landlord’s offer of £150 was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
This means this Service considers it appropriate to make a finding of reasonable redress for this aspect, which may have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not taken steps to acknowledge and provide redress for its failings. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling or impact of window repair was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledges and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks through the boiler flue which resulted in an intermittent lack of hot water and heating

The landlord is obliged to keep in good repair and proper working order the installations in the resident’s property for the supply of gas, space heating, and heating water. Therefore it is obliged to respond to the resident’s reports of loss of heating and hot water, and his related concerns about leaks through the boiler flue.
The landlord’s repairs records show that since 2019 the resident has made several reports of rainwater leaking through the flue towards the boiler, and that on many occasions, according to the resident’s reports, this caused the boiler to stop operating. According to the resident’s report of December 2019, the landlord has sent operatives to visit in line with its repair obligation; however, no issue was identified and therefore the leak remained unresolved.
The resident continued to report rainwater running through the flue in 2020 and 2021. It is the case that leaks may not always manifest visibly or in the same way, or may have more than one cause, and it may not therefore be straightforward to diagnose and remedy the problem. Nonetheless, where an issue, such as a leak, is repeatedly raised – even where there are large gaps in time – this could be indicative of a structural or more serious issue requiring the landlord to make extensive investigations to trace the cause. Moreover, in this case, the leak caused the boiler to stop working which not only caused the resident distress and inconvenience from the loss of hot water and heating, but which also again indicated potential damage to the boiler. This reinforce the need for the landlord to investigate the leak.
However, although the landlord’s raised repair orders, it did not take sufficient steps to identify and resolve the leak. There is no evidence that the landlord asked its contractor to provide written inspection reports or to explain what actions it had taken to investigate the leak. It remained the case that the contractor did not identify the leak but the landlord did not explore other options, such as commissioning a different contractor/ surveyor, carrying out water tests or inspecting from the outside. Also, it was not until June 2021 that the landlord asked its contractor to inspect all the flues, but there is no evidence of the outcome of the order which indicates that the landlord did not maintain oversight of the order. It is also not evident that the landlord provided updates to the resident. As a result, it provided no reassurance to the resident that it would resolve his concerns about the leaks to the boiler, and prolonged his uncertainty.
The resident raised his complaint of leaks through his flue when escalating complaint 1881465. The landlord made an offer of compensation of £200, indicating that it considered that there was some service failure on its part. However, the landlord did not investigate the complaint and did not explain how its award was calculated. Specifically, it did not consider the fact that the resident had reported issues with leaks to his boiler for an extended length of time – since 2019, the number of repeated reports he had, and how it responded on each occasion. It also did not explicitly take into account the impact of the leaks and loss of heating and hot water. The landlord therefore did not take the necessary steps to assess to what extent there was service failure on its part. As such, its compensation offer was perfunctory and arbitrary, not reflecting the circumstances of the case. Moreover, it did not demonstrate that it had heard the resident and had recognised the distress and inconvenience caused.
Given the service failures identified taken together with the length of time that the issue of leaks to the boiler has been unresolved and cumulative impact, it is not considered that the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the circumstances of the case. In reaching this decision, this Service has considered the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which states: “awards of £250 to £700 – Remedies in the range of these amounts may be for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples could include:…
1. failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs;…
2. repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving complaint.

Complaints Handling

The Ombudsman has also identified discrepancies in the landlord’s complaints handling. The Stage 2 response, which only made reference to the window complaint, did not accurately state the landlord’s offer for this issue and therefore the decision was not based on correct information. The response stated that it had offered £300 compensation after offering a further £100 at Stage 1; however, the landlord had offered £150 for the window issue in the further correspondence of 18 May 2020.
The Stage 2 response, in noting that the landlord had offered £300 suggested that the landlord had taken into account the £200 offered for the three missed appointments made under 1718376 that was confirmed in the Stage 1 response; However, this was a separate complaint the window complaint. There was no reference made in the Stage 2 response of complaint 1718376, nor had the resident escalated complaint 1718376. Therefore, the landlord was not sufficiently clear on what complaints it had considered when sending the stage 2 response.
This Service expects landlords, when dealing with complaints, to follow this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles which are::
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

As noted above the landlord did not investigate the resident’s complaint about leaks to his boiler. It therefore did not follow a fair process or demonstrate that it had heard the resident in order to put matters right, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. There was also no good reason for the landlord to add the compensation of £200 with the offer made for complaint 1718376, to total £400, as this conflated two complaints which were separate.

The landlord’s Complaint Procedure states that a formal complaint must be registered if a resident wishes to make a complaint. Therefore, the landlord should have raised a new complaint to investigate the resident’s complaint about the leak to his boiler. The resident asked the landlord on 6 October 20 to investigate his complaint about the leaks to his boiler separately, as a new Stage 2 complaint. This was a reasonable request as the landlord had not demonstrated that it had considered the facts of the case, and assessed the level of service failure and adverse effect on the resident. The landlord therefore had the opportunity to put right its failure in the handling of this complaint. However, it did not investigate the complaint or even respond to the resident. Therefore its failing in the handling of the complaint remained resulting in the resident not receiving a meaningful response despite him pursuing a response.
There were also delays in the handling of the resident’s complaint as both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses were not sent within the timeframe stated in the Complaints Procedure, with no holding responses or explanation for the delays provided.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in response of the resident’s complaint about the quality of and delays to repairs to his window.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its handling of his reports of leaks through the boiler flue which resulted in intermittent hot water and heating.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Whilst there were delays by the landlord in completing the emergency repair to the bedroom window and then in carrying out a permanent repair, its offer of £10 was proportionate to the circumstances of the case and constituted redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.
Although the landlord raised repair orders, it did not take sufficient steps to identify and resolve the leak. The landlord made a compensation offer, but given its service failures taken together with the length of time that the issue of leaks to the boiler has been unresolved, it is not considered that the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
There were discrepancies in the Stage 2 response which did not make sufficiently clear what complaints had been considered. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s complaint about leaks to his boiler. It therefore did not follow a fair process or demonstrate that it had heard the resident in order to put this matter right, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord also delayed in sending out the Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord pays the resident £500 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of his reports of leak to his boiler flue causing loss of heating and hot water. (This supersedes the landlord’s offer, therefore if it has paid the £200 offered within the complaints procedure, this leaves £300 to pay).
The landlord writes to the resident to confirm the findings of its investigations into the leak to his boiler flue and loss of heating and hot water. If repairs have been identified the landlord should make clear what works will be carried out and make arrangements for completion of the works. If further investigation is required, the landlord should confirm who will be carrying out the investigations and make arrangements for the resident’s property to be inspected as necessary.
The landlord pays the resident £100 in respect of distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble experienced by the resident from the failures in the handling of his complaint.

Recommendations

As the finding of reasonable redress in respect of the window complaint is contingent on the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation, the landlord should pay the resident this amount if it has not already done so.
The landlord provides guidance for staff on how to deal with reports of recurrent leaks / with situations where the source of the leak is not straightforward to trace.