Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202124361)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124361

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

14 September 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 its agreement to replace the resident’s shower doors.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in flat. The resident mentioned in her complaint correspondence that her shower was designed for disabled access. It was not apparent if this was installed for the resident, due to her health condition which is known by the landlord, or if the landlord considered her health condition to be a disability.
3. On 21 June 2021 the landlord raised the following repair; “walk in shower doors are leaking, sealant and rubbers need replacing and the handle is coming off”.
4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 29 July 2021. She said that since raising the repair, the landlord had attended her home to measure her shower doors for replacement, on more than one occasion, but they had yet to be replaced. She said that the contractor failed to attend her property the previous day to complete this.
5. The resident chased the landlord for a completion date and a response to her complaint, in August and September 2022. Although the landlord made internal enquiries during this period, the earliest evidence of it updating the resident was when it spoke to her on 15 September 2021, and apologised for the delay and for its poor service. It issued its stage one complaint response the following day and apologised that the replacement had not yet been completed. It said because the correct measurements had been taken, it would replace the doors on 22 October 2021. It offered the resident £100 compensation for “the significant delays and inconvenience” caused. The resident subsequently informed the landlord she would wait to see if the job was completed, before accepting its offer of compensation.
6. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 October 2021, as she was dissatisfied that the contractor had failed to turn up to complete the works and said she had not been notified beforehand. Because the issue had not been resolved, she believed the £100 compensation previously offered was not sufficient.
7. The works had still not been completed by the time the landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 10 December 2021. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response and again for the delay to carry out the works. It said it had arranged for the work to be completed on 16 December 2021, and that it would liaise with its contractor to ensure the appointment went ahead. It revised its offer of compensation to £200 for the continued delays, inconvenience and its poor customer service.
8. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 December 2021 and reported that the replacement had not been actioned that day, due to incorrect doors being ordered. The shower doors were subsequently replaced on 24 February 2022. The resident contacted the landlord the same day and reported that the works had not been completed satisfactorily, which would cause continued water leakage. She also reported other works to the shower she believed remained outstanding.
9. The landlord agreed to undertake a post-inspection on 3 March 2022, but the appointment did not go ahead. Subsequently, the resident made further enquiries with the landlord regarding how it would resolve the situation. It was unclear what actions the landlord took following this. The landlord made internal queries regarding the resident’s concerns in March and April 2022, but it was not apparent if these were responded to nor if the resident was updated.
10. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she said that the issue had still not been rectified, and she was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of communication regarding the issue.

Assessment and findings

11. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to “sanitary fixtures and fittings except WC seats sink units and taps”. There is no dispute that the landlord agreed to replace the resident’s shower doors.
12. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, routine repairs are expected to be responded to within twenty working days. Whilst the landlord has not specified what category it classed the works under, it appears that these would fit into the routine category, given that the evidence does not show that the landlord received any report of the issue posing any significant risk to health and safety, which warranted an emergency response.
13. It is sometimes the case that a landlord is not able to keep to defined timeframes for repair works due to factors beyond its control such as the need to order parts from a supplier. In such cases, it is good practice for the landlord to liaise regularly with the resident to explain any difficulties and manage their expectations, and to take meaningful steps to resolve the outstanding repairs as quickly as possible. In this case, it was apparent that the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it did not complete the works within a reasonable timeframe.
14. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged where its service was less than it should have been. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in providing its response, for the continued delays in progressing the repair, the missed and unscheduled appointments by its contractors, its poor customer service, and for the inconvenience caused. In light of its ongoing failings, it revised its initial offer of £100 compensation, to £200. Overall, this would have been seen as an appropriate amount of compensation if it had completed the repairs on 16 December 2021 as agreed. However, this did not go ahead due to the incorrect doors being ordered and they were not replaced until just over two months later on 24 February 2022, eight months after the initial repair had been raised.
15. In her correspondence with the landlord, the resident also indicated that the offers of compensation would have been suitable redress at the time of the complaint responses, if the works had been satisfactorily completed on the dates the landlord had committed to.  Following the final response in January 2022, the resident informed the landlord she was unhappy with compensation offered “as the job has still not been done…and as I’ve still no update on when it will be done.” In response, the landlord said it would review its offer of compensation because of the continued delays, but there was no evidence of it doing so, nor if it subsequently communicated its position regarding this to the resident. This was inappropriate given that the landlord committed to doing this, and further demonstrated its poor communication.
16. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a further inspection to be undertaken on 2 March 2022, given the resident’s dissatisfaction that the works had not been completed adequately, as it would need to do this in order for it to satisfy itself if its obligations had been met. However, the appointment did not go ahead, and the evidence does not show if the landlord took any robust action to investigate the issue further. This was unreasonable as the landlord has not confirmed that the repair has been carried out correctly or taken steps to rectify it if it has not been carried out correctly.
17. This Service’s dispute resolution principles (published on our website) suggest that landlords should learn from outcomes. In this case, it would have been good practice for the landlord to use its complaints response to identify and communicate any lessons it could have learnt from the failings it identified. Lacking this, added to the continued delays and landlord’s poor communication following it final response, giving the impression that the landlord failed to learn from its mistakes.
18. The landlord has failed to put right the further inconvenience and time and trouble the resident would likely have experienced over a considerable timeframe, in pursuing her complaint. The landlord has also not demonstrated that it has taken appropriate action regarding the resident’s ongoing concerns, particularly with the quality of the work that was undertaken in February 2022. A higher amount is more proportionate, that is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests we may award £250 to £700 for circumstances where there has been failure by the landlord over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy to address repairs, and a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

20. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident further compensation of £200. This is in addition to the £200 compensation offered by the landlord in its final response, which it should now also pay if it has not done so already. The total compensation should be £400.
    2. If it has not already done so the landlord is ordered to undertake a post-inspection of the works. The landlord should provide a written update to the resident regarding its findings, and a clear and firm timeframe for completion of any further works identified, also copying in this Service.

Recommendations

21. It is recommended that the landlord reviews any lessons it can learn from the failings identified in this case, and in light of this, considers what changes it can implement to its service delivery to prevent such instances from reoccurring.