Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202100502)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100502

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

22 April 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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of:
1. a number of repairs in her property, and;
2. her formal complaints.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The landlord’s repairs handbook sets out that it would attend urgent repairs within either three to five working days, giving examples of these as a minor leak, and mechanical extractor fan not working. Routine repairs would be carried out within 20 working days, with examples given as replacement of a damaged worktop and external glazing of a boarded window.
The landlord’s complaint procedure as was in place at the time set out a two-stage process. At stage one complaints should be acknowledged within three working days, and a full written reply sent within fifteen working days.
If the customer was dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage one investigation a more senior manager could review this at the customer’s request. The request should be acknowledged within three working days, and a full written reply sent within twenty working days.
The policy states, ‘We should always try to keep to our published timescales for dealing with complaints. But sometimes investigations take longer…In certain cases, when a complaint is complex, it may be necessary to extend the timescales set out in this policy. If this is the case, the complainant must be informed of the reason why timescales cannot be met and also informed when they should receive a full response. Notification should be sent to the complainant at the first possible opportunity.’
All responses to complaints which were upheld or partially upheld should contain an explanation of what happened and why things went wrong, and details of the corrective action to be taken, including the payment of compensation where appropriate and clear instructions about anything the complainant needs to do.

Summary of events

It is not entirely clear from the records, but the Ombudsman understands that the resident first logged a complaint about a number of repair issues in her property on 3 September 2020. The landlord provided a stage one response on 28 September 2020, in which it detailed the issues to be:
1. A leaking radiator.
2. Damaged pipe box following a leak from above the previous year, with no repairs carried out to the damage in the kitchen.
3. A number of problems in the bathroom.
4. Failure to carry out an electrical inspection.
5. A blocked drain outside the property.
The landlord said, ‘…I understand your concerns given the length of time it has taken to resolve the problems in your home and carry out the electrical inspection.’ It noted that all works had now been completed. It explained that it had recently changed contractors and hoped to be able to provide residents with a much improved service going forward. It upheld the complaint due to the delay in carrying out the repairs and offered £50 in compensation.
In reply that same day the resident explained that it was not the case that all repairs had been completed, as she was still waiting for the issues in the bathroom to be resolved, and the damage to the kitchen to be repaired. She stated that she appreciated the gesture of compensation for the delay but asked about compensation for all the food that was wasted as a result of the leak from above that had occurred in 2019. She said that she had been waiting since last year and had provided ample photos as evidence.
The records then show the landlord attempting to rectify the repair issues in the property. The resident emailed the landlord a number of times during this period complaining about a failure to resolve the issues, missed appointments, new repair issues, and poor communication.
The landlord’s records make reference to a stage two complaint being made on 21 October 2020 but the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of this. The landlord delayed the stage two response on a number of occasions while repair work was ongoing.
The landlord provided a stage two response dated 19 February 2021, apologising for the delay with this. It explained that during a surveyor inspection on 4 February 2021, the following was identified:
1. Waste pipework: The landlord was,’…currently trying to resolve the issue as its affecting other properties within the block.’
2. Bathroom: Works for marks on the walls and ducts and paint peeling from the ceiling following mould treatment, had all been recalled; the seal to the glazing had failed and moisture was trapped in the unit, which would be replaced; following renewal of the trap, the pedestal had been removed and this work had been recalled as the basin was due to be renewed; extra works were required for wall tiles to be re-grouted; the replacement duct to the end of the bath works had been recalled.
3. Kitchen: Extra works were required to the pull cord to the fan.
The landlord said that work orders for all extra works and the recalled works had been forwarded to the contractor, and a schedule of works would follow. The landlord said, ‘Please accept our apologies for the poor service in the standard of the completed works delivered and for the delay you have seen in terms of us putting this right.’ It detailed an increased compensation offer of £250 and apologised for the service failure.
The resident replied on 22 February 2021 stating that she appreciated the additional compensation but wanted compensation for the food that was damaged by the leak in 2019. She said that she had followed this up with the landlord multiple times with no resolution.
The records following on from this again show the resident complaining about the ongoing repair issues, such as contractors arriving with the wrong job description and missed appointments. The landlord provided a stage one response on dated 30 April 2021 in which it apologised for two missed appointments and offered £50.00 compensation for the inconvenience. It noted that an appointment had been made for 4 May 2021 to complete the outstanding works at the property.
The resident requested a stage two response on 11 May 2021, stating that the landlord was failing to resolve the issue, detailing outstanding repairs, poor workmanship, contractors attending with incorrect job descriptions, and poor communication. She said, ‘I do not believe…the council are competent or capable enough to resolve the: systemic inefficiencies and discrepancies in their workmanship (e.g. wrong job notes, lack of communication)’. She said that she had recently discovered more leaks in the property.
A landlord’s record dated 10 June 2021 states, ‘Currently still having leaks in the bedroom and living room. Issues with bathroom. Ceiling is in a state now. Shower needs to be changed. Flush for the toilet has been broken.’
The records then show the landlord attempting to rectify the issues in the property and delaying the stage two response on a number of occasions, saying that this was, ‘…due to your case is complex in terms of the level of repairs needing to be completed.’
Appointments were booked for 13 and 15 July 2021 for the repairs to be completed. The resident accepted the appointments and said that she hoped contractors would arrive with the correct job descriptions. She detailed the repair issues as:
1. Leaking to the sitting room celling.
2. Bathroom celling.
3. Kitchen ceiling.
4. Bedroom wall.
5. Make good around the sink.
6. Make good under the sink.
7. Repair damage next to the bath caused by the leak.
8. Paint bathroom wall.
On 13 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying that instead of attending to complete all works, a plumber had arrived that day with a job order to fix the toilet flush only. She explained how very distressed she was by this, especially after the continued failings to complete the works, and moving everything out of the bathroom. The resident asked for the compensation previously offered, for compensation for the damaged food, and for compensation for everything she had been through.
On 15 July 2021 the resident further complained that she had been contacted regarding an ‘investigation’ that a contractor was going to carry out that day. She asked why, after all this time, an investigation was being carried out instead of the works that had been agreed.
Internal records show the landlord chasing this up, confirming that 13 and 15 July were booked for full day jobs with the contractor to carry out the majority of the repairs, with anything remaining to be booked as follow-on jobs on the same day.
The resident chased on 22 July 2021 as she had not been contacted to book in the works. Works were then booked in for 28–30 July 2021, but the resident again reported that contractors arrived with the wrong job orders.
An internal landlord note dated 2 August 2021 states that it would arrange for a surveyor to attend. It acknowledged that the resident would be unhappy with another surveyor inspection but, ‘…this needs to happen and [the contractors] are not doing their job and turning up with incorrect information.’ That same day the resident reported a missed electrician appointment.
Also on 2 August 2021 the landlord responded to a councillor enquiry, saying that it was sorry that the works had still not been completed, and that it was aware that the appointment on 30 July 2021 ‘did not go as planned’. It had now agreed the following works and dates with the resident:
1. Extractor fans for the kitchen and bathroom: Booked for 2 August 2021
2. Bathroom tile grouting, bath panel, mould wash & stain blocking: Booked for 5 August 2021
3. Water damage to bathroom ceiling and near bath, living room ceiling, wall in bedroom and kitchen ceiling: Booked for 6 August 2021
It said that the complaint was now at a stage two and the initial offer of compensation would be reviewed based on the further delays and inconvenience. Finally, the landlord said that it was aware that the resident had raised concerns about a contractor visit that day and was looking into these.
In reply, the councillor asked the landlord to add the following works to the schedule:
1. Painting the bathroom wall which was damaged by the contractor.
2. Small kitchen wall painted.
3. Making good the area under the bathroom sink which had been damaged by the leaks and moving the old sink.
A landlord record dated 3 August 2021 noted that it still needed to determine where the leak in the property was coming from. On 17 August 2021 the resident complained that the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans did not work well and should be sensor operated.
A surveyor visit was carried out on 17 August 2021 to post inspect the contractor’s works. This found that the contractor had itself recommend humid statically controlled fans in both the bathroom and kitchen, but then had not fully carried out this work. The contractor had not fit a new pedestal to the sink in the bathroom as per the work order. The work done to the ducting panel in the bathroom was ‘very poor workmanship’, and the mastic detailing to the wash hand basin was also poor. The landlord recalled the contractor to complete these works.
The landlord provided a stage two response on 15 October 2021, acknowledging the resident’s stage two escalation request dated 12 May 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding. The landlord explained that it was ‘only currently investigating complaint 1882417’ which related to issues following on from works in the bathroom and kitchen as follows:
1. Mould treatment.
2. Making good of walls and ceilings.
3. Tiling.
4. Fan.
5. Cooker hood.
6. Moving socket.
7. Installing basin and pedestal.
The landlord noted that works went ahead during August and September 2021, during which time the resident was in regular e-mail contact. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in carrying out the works and apologised for this and the disruption caused, noting that there were multiple jobs that had to be done including asbestos removal.
It also apologised for the fact that some of the work carried out was not up to an acceptable standard. Its surveyor subsequently inspected the works and arranged for operatives to make the necessary improvements, including:
1. Sealant.
2. Levelling of basin.
3. Duct panel renewal.
The resident had been offered £50.00 compensation at stage one, but the landlord recognised that the resident had suffered additional inconvenience whilst the works had taken place and so offered an additional £100, taking the total to £150.00.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 October 2021. In this she said that she accepted this compensation for the singular incident, but it did not make up for ‘the entire shamble of experience’. She explained it was not one, but countless missed appointments, wrong job descriptions, incorrect tradespersons coming out, several attempts to get work done correctly, and unprofessional staff. She detailed problems she had experienced with a ‘no show’ the previous week.
The resident complained about the landlord delaying its final response, which had meant she had been unable to take her case to the Ombudsman. She listed a number of outstanding, poorly executed works such as a big stain on the ceiling, a hole left in the floor, and the fans being changed three times which had led to condensation damage.
That same day another post inspection by a surveyor identified a number of works that needed to be recalled with its contractor, for example re-fitting a flooring threshold strip between bedroom and bathroom doorway.
The records indicate that the landlord did not ask for the £150 payment to be made until the resident had chased on several occasions.
On 8 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to ask that it pause any more works to her property and await the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation. She said, ‘We have given you so many chances over the past 23 months. I am done. With covid cases rising, I cannot risk having people come in and out of my flat. [The contractor had] enough opportunities to resolve the issues but this has now gone on long enough and I do not believe the council are capable of delivering an adequate level of repair service, managing their contractors and employees and ensuring staff are well informed on the task at hand.’

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the leaseholder. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’
The resident has explained to this Service that the situation has caused her a great deal of distress, frustration, anxiety, and disruption over the 23 month period it was ongoing. She states that she and her son have had to move furniture for works to be carried out that then weren’t done, wait in for many unattended appointments, deal with contractors attending with wrong job descriptions, multiple attendances to get a job right, and a poor standard of workmanship. She has also explained that the continual attendances during Covid-19 put her and her son at risk, and she had to disinfect her home each time.
To resolve her complaint, the resident would like compensation for the adverse effect these matters have had on her, and for the landlord to pay her so that she can arrange for her own contractors to carry out unfinished work in her home, as she has lost faith on the landlord’s contractors.
As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord for information such as its repairs records and copies of any inspection reports or surveys, the dates that the repairs referred to in the formal complaints were first reported, dates they were completed, and explanations for any delays with these.
The information the landlord has provided in response is very brief, and it is not possible to determine from this exactly when each repair was first reported, or when the works were completed. The landlord has explained that it was not able to tell from its system the reasons for the delays in the works being completed.
This lack of records is concerning and a failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
The landlord has stated, that in spite of the difficulty in determining what happened, ‘…what is clear is multiple repairs were raised for the same issues which means poor management from our side (in terms of raising the same repairs multiple time with no escalation, and our contractor carrying out numerous repairs without resolving the problem properly).’
In light of this, the acknowledgment in the formal complaint responses of a number of delays with the repairs, and the records demonstrating the need for contractors to reattend on a number of occasions, it is clear that there has been a significant service failure by the landlord, and that it has not handled the repairs at the property in line with its repairs policy. The resident was not ‘treated fairly’.
Therefore, this investigation focuses on whether the landlord has taken enough action via its formal complaint process to ‘put things right’ for the resident and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Complaint one

The landlord did acknowledge in its stage one response the length of time it had taken to resolve repair issues, and explained that it had recently changed contractors and hoped to be able to provide residents with a much improved service going forward. It was appropriate that the landlord outlined what action had been taken to prevent a recurrence of the delays that the resident had experienced, but as can be seen, this action did not result in an improved service.
Although the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s stage two complaint, it can be seen from the records available that the resident was reporting a number of issues with the ongoing repairs. The stage two response did again acknowledge ‘the poor service in the standard of the completed works delivered and for the delay you have seen in terms of us putting this right.’ It also made an increased compensation offer of £250.The resident was seemingly satisfied with the £250 but pointed out that there was no reference to her claim for damaged food. The landlord did not respond to this, or to her follow up attempts to obtain a response on this matter.
Neither did the landlord offer an explanation of ‘what happened and why things went wrong’ as set out in its complaint policy, or it detail any action it would take to prevent a recurrence of the failings.
Further, it took the landlord four months to provide the stage two response as it delayed this while efforts to resolve the repairs were ongoing. While the landlord’s complaint policy did allow it to extend timescales for certain cases, it is not reasonable to delay a complaint response for such a long period to await ongoing repairs: A response should be sent, and then outstanding repairs/actions should be tracked and updates provided to the resident.
Overall, the response to this complaint did not do enough to ‘put things right’ for the resident and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Complaint two

The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the stage one complaint made by the resident, but it can be seen from the records that the resident continued to report the same issues. A landlord internal record dated 8 April 2021 states, ‘Further to and despite closing this Stage 2 complaint in February, I have received numerous emails from the complainant…’ with it noted that issues were ongoing. As such, the stage one response apologising for two missed appointments and offering £50.00 compensation was inadequate in light of the ongoing repair issues and complaints that the resident was raising.
The resident was clear in her stage two escalation about her concerns regarding ‘systemic inefficiencies’, poor workmanship, contractors attending with incorrect job descriptions, and poor communication. It took the landlord five months to respond to this as it again delayed while repair issues were addressed, (as above, this was unreasonable). As before, the landlord acknowledged failings and delays which was appropriate, but its response did not provide any explanations for these, or any action taken to ‘learn from outcomes’. Landlords should look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or systems to the benefit of all residents: This did not happen.
Neither did the landlord directly address the resident’s concerns about poor workmanship, incorrect information, or poor communication.
The landlord offered an additional £100 in compensation. Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of identified service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. In this case, £100 was insufficient given the ongoing and prolonged nature of the failings in this case, and the level of frustration, distress, time and trouble that the resident experienced due to these.
In light of the above, a series of orders and recommendations are made below to remedy the negative impact the failings had on the resident, and to ensure that the landlord ‘learns from outcomes’. The sum ordered takes into account the length of time that the situation was ongoing, the high number of attendances to repair/put right, and the cumulative impact on the resident.
The resident has recently detailed to this Service a number of repairs she explains are outstanding in her property and has asked the landlord to pay her so she can employ her own contractor to put these right. She has also referred to a number of repair issues in the communal areas. From her description of the issues, it appears that most of these are separate to those repairs that formed the basis of the formal complaints, and so fall outside of the scope of this investigation. However, given the issues that the resident has clearly experienced in obtaining a reasonable repairs service from the landlord, a recommendation is made in this regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Section 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. a number of repairs in her property;
2. the formal complaints, and;
3. record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord’s responses to the formal complaints have gone some way to addressing the impact the failings in its handling of the repairs had on the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it has, to an extent, acknowledged where things have gone wrong, apologised and offered a financial remedy. However, the remedy offered did not reflect the extent of the service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result, and there is no indication that it has ‘learnt from outcomes’ or taken steps to identify why the failings happened and to prevent these from recuring.
In terms of the complaint handling, it was unreasonable to delay providing its stage two response, and this caused the resident further time and trouble and frustration. The landlord gave no response to the resident’s ongoing requests to be compensated for damaged food, which was also frustrating.
Finally, there were failings in the record keeping relation to these repairs.

Orders

Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £900 (comprised of £650 for the adverse effect the failings in the handling of the repairs had, £175 for the frustration caused by the delayed stage two responses, and £75 for the failure to respond to the request to be compensated for damaged food). If any of the amounts previously offered via the complaint process have already been paid to the resident, these can be deducted from the total.
2. Conduct a review of its handling of the repairs detailed in this case to identify what went wrong, and any actions/changes that might be necessary to its repairs service to prevent a recurrence. This should include consideration of situations where the same repair is raised multiple times with no escalation, and where contractors carry out numerous repairs without resolving the problem properly. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.
3. Review its record keeping practices to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained of works raised and completed. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider carrying out an inspection in light of the resident’s reports that there are a number of outstanding repair issues, to determine what these are. It should then confirm to the resident whether it would be willing to reimburse her to arrange any necessary works herself.