Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202016601)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016601

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

23 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s bathroom repairs.
    2. The subsequent complaint handling.

Background 

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported that there was a leak from the flat above on 13 May 2019 and a work order was raised to remedy the leak and complete minor follow-on repairs. A surveyor’s visit was completed on 20 November 2019, which outlined the required repairs to the resident’s bathroom. On 21 January 2020, the resident was advised that the contractor would contact him within two weeks to discuss the works and the resident subsequently chased the repairs on several occasions. 
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 9 December 2020 as the repair works to his bathroom had not begun and he had not been contacted with any further information, despite calling the landlord every week for updates.
  4. In the landlord’s final response on 19 October 2021, it said that all of the repair works had been completed, except the shower screen installation. It offered £500 compensation in light of the delays and inconvenience caused. It stated that it had since replaced its contractor. It also said that the works had been delayed as the resident wanted to choose the bathroom tiles.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said that he remained dissatisfied as there were still outstanding repair issues in the bathroom. He also did not think the level of compensation offered by the landlord was appropriate.

Assessment and findings

Bathroom repairs

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building and keeping all installations for sanitation in repair and proper working order. Therefore, the landlord would be responsible for resolving the leak and completing any subsequent repairs to the bathroom. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. As a result, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of the leak and take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified. As the work would have required additional planning, it is reasonable to expect that it would exceed the typical timeframe; bathroom replacements also usually fall under scheduled planned works. Despite this, the landlord would be expected to make reasonable progress with the works and keep the resident regularly updated. Although the inconvenience the outstanding repairs would have had on the resident is acknowledged, there is no evidence to suggest that there was a loss of the bathing or toilet facilities; therefore, the repairs would not have been considered as an emergency.
  2. The resident initially reported the leak on 13 May 2019 and the landlord raised a work order to remedy the leak and complete minor repairs. Follow on work was then raised on 6 September 2019 as the bathroom tiles were falling off the walls, as a result of the leak. A contractor attended on 29 October 2019 and made the tiles safe, but could not complete the works and requested that a surveyor attended. The surveyor’s visit took place on 20 November 2019, but we have not been provided with a copy of the report. That visit resulted in further work being identified, but there is no evidence of any such work being undertaken until 16 June 2021, despite several work orders being raised.
  3. There were some delays that the landlord did not have control over. The bathroom repair works were originally scheduled to begin on 19 March 2020, but was postponed due to supply delivery issues; it is unclear however whether this was communicated with the resident. The landlord has also referenced COVID-19 as a reason for the delays, but similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord discussed the impact COVID would have on the works with the resident. During the repairs, asbestos was discovered which also delayed the works. The repair records stated that there was a change in subcontractor on 25 May 2021, which meant that the property had to be re-inspected and measured. It was also noted on 16 June 2021 that the resident wanted to purchase tiles for the contractors to fit and the landlord stated in its stage one response that this caused a delay in the works.
  4. Despite the fact that the landlord was unable to control some of the factors that caused delays, it would be expected to advise the resident of any delays and regularly update him on the expected timeframe of the works. There is no evidence to suggest that this happened, which led to the resident having to consistently call the landlord in order to chase updates and appointments. The resident also had to chase follow-on appointments, such as when a contractor said he would reattend with the correct equipment and for poor quality of work.
  5. The repairs records do not leave a clear indication of the timeline of the works, so it is difficult to assess whether the landlord made reasonable progress to complete the repairs, despite the delays it encountered. However, as a substantial amount of work took place between 15 June 2021 and 21 June 2021, it is clear that the delays were excessive, from when the surveyor initially identified the works on 20 November 2019. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its voids and repairs works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regard to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard.
  6. It is unclear from the records whether all the required repairs were completed. The resident had raised issues that he still required a new electric fan to be fitted, a glass shower shield fitting and the toilet to be screwed down. The toilet pan was screwed down on 14 December 2021, however there was no evidence the other work had been completed. As a result, the work has remained outstanding for over two years.
  7. The landlord has learnt from the complaint by ultimately replacing its contractor. It has also acknowledged the delays by offering compensation and apologising. However the compensation offered is not proportionate to the extreme length of the delays and the number of missed opportunities (given the resident’s regular contact) for the landlord to rectify the issue earlier. Therefore the landlord will be ordered to offer additional compensation to acknowledge the level of inconvenience the resident experienced.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will issue a response for a stage one complaint within 15 working days and a stage two complaint within 20 working days. Although the landlord adhered to its complaint response timeframe at stage one, it significantly exceeded it at stage two. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 March 2021 and the landlord issued its stage two response on 19 October 2021, a total of seven months later. The resident had to constantly chase updates from the landlord in regards to the repairs and his complaint. While the landlord did apologise for the delays, it failed to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations in regards to timeframes. As a result, the landlord caused the resident significant additional time and effort in pursuing the complaint. While the landlord did acknowledge the delays, it did not offer compensation for its complaint handling failure.
  2. In its complaint response, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to account for the significant delays and provide a clear explanation of the repair works. However, the only reason the landlord attributed the delay to within its complaint responses was that the resident had caused a delay due to selecting the tiling. This was an unreasonable response as while a tiling choice may delay a repair service, it would not affect the complaint process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the bathroom repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. Pay the resident £250 (in addition to the £500 it has already offered) to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by its significant repair delays.
    2. Pay the resident £150 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
    3. Contact the resident and provide a clear timeframe of any works, if any remain outstanding. If any are remaining the landlord should consider a further offer of redress for the additional time taken to complete the overall job.