Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202113566)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113566

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

16 January 2023

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 response to the resident’s reports regarding her sink.

Background

2. The resident is a secured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
3. Prior to January 2022, the resident had experienced an ongoing leak from the stopcock under her kitchen sink, which was leaking into the property below. The resident made a formal complaint on 14 January 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the number of visits and the landlord’s response times in carrying out the repair works. She also noted there had been a missed appointment. The resident further reported that during the repair works, the landlord’s contractor had damaged her kitchen sink unit. As a resolution, she requested that the repair works be completed and that she be offered compensation for her time and trouble.
4. The landlord provided its stage one response on 27 January 2022. As part of its response, it offered £200 for the delays experienced by the resident. It also noted that repair works were completed prior to providing its response. The resident has advised the leak was solved by an operative who “tighten[ed] the bolt nut that was next to the stop cock to prevent it leaking.”
5. Following the resident’s reports of damage to her kitchen sink unit, it is not evident that the landlord raised any repair works until 5 April 2022, despite numerous other attendances for the leak.
6. The landlord provided its stage two response on 17 June 2022, which included the following:
   1. It apologised for its lack of communication and poor service.
   2. It acknowledged that in resolving the leak, its operatives had not always carried out the work to its usual standards, that its staff could have dealt with the matter more urgently, and that the resident had had to contact it numerous times.
   3. It also acknowledged the length of time it had taken to resolve the complaint and that it had not kept the resident informed as much as it should have during the complaints process.
   4. It further highlighted that the resident had mentioned inaccuracies in its stage one response, for which it apologised.
   5. It also advised that an appointment had now been arranged for 21 June 2022 to repair the sink unit.
   6. It increased its initial £200 offer of compensation to £750, which it said was for “the delay, inconvenience, and the negative impact the whole process had” on the resident, and that it had considered the Ombudsman’s guidelines when awarding this.
7. The resident has advised that the sink unit was repaired on 22 July 2022, as she cancelled the June appointment due to her availability.
8. The resident referred her complaint to this service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She considered that neither the landlord’s response, nor compensation offer, adequately redressed the distress she experienced, her time and trouble in pursuing the matter, and the poor service she received. 

Assessment and findings

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will “carry out repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable time, giving priority to emergency repairs.”
10. The landlord is responsible for repairs to prevent leaks into the resident’s property. The landlord also has an obligation to ensure it has complied with its repair responsibilities for any other properties it manages, such as that of the resident’s neighbour below. It is not disputed that the landlord carried out works to address the leak, and that it also carried out works to rectify damage caused to the resident’s sink unit caused during the earlier repairs.
11. Part of the resident’s complaint related to her concerns that the landlord did not rectify the issue correctly in the first instance, leading to further visits and prolonging the leak. The landlord has not provided comprehensive repair records detailing each visit and what works were undertaken. The landlord’s stage one response noted the resident raised her concerns on 14 January 2022, however, the evidence provided to this service indicates it was aware of the concerns on 12 January 2022. The resident has advised she initially reported concerns on 29 December 2021, although she described the issue as initially resulting from an overflowing boiler extraction pump. It is unclear if the landlord therefore considered this a separate issue. The landlord has advised that it resolved the issue with the stopcock between 14 and 17 January 2022, which is in line with the resident’s account of the repair works. In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged there had been inaccuracies in its stage one response, although it did not then clarify what the correct timeline was, which would have been helpful.
12. Given that the resident had expressed concern with the number of visits and times she had to chase works, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the initial attempts to resolve the leak did not meet its expected standards. It also appropriately acknowledged that its poor communication was a significant factor in its service failings. The landlord appropriately upheld this element of the resident’s complaint. Additionally, while the leak did not affect the functionality of the kitchen, the resident was nevertheless inconvenienced by having to provide access and chase repairs. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord recognised the impact on the resident in its response.
13. The landlord initially offered £200 compensation at stage one to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Following its stage one response, it is not disputed that there were further delays to the works to rectify the damage to the resident’s sink unit. Despite having raised concerns in January 2022, it is not evident that the landlord raised works until April 2022. In the absence of any reasonable explanation, such a delay without any updates would have caused the resident further distress as she would not have known how or when the issue would be resolved.
14. In addition to the delays to these works, the landlord did not provide its stage two response until June 2022, again without an explanation. Such a delay is also unreasonable and would have caused the resident distress. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for these failings in its stage two response, and increased its offer of compensation to £550.
15. The resident has raised concerns that she was not consulted about an appointment in June 2022 to complete the works, for which she was unavailable, resulting in further delays. Based on the evidence provided to this service, the resident was made aware on 11 May 2022 of the landlord’s intention to attend this appointment, and she subsequently requested the appointment be brought forward. This was not arranged, however, and it is not evident that the resident informed the landlord she would therefore be unavailable. While it would have been helpful for the landlord to have clarified its intention before attending, it was nevertheless reasonable that it did not consider this a missed appointment for which it was responsible.
16. In her complaint to this service, the resident has implied that the landlord should consider the financial impact on her in having to take time off work and for her administrative work in chasing the matter. The Ombudsman notes that resident’s are required to provide access for reasonable works. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not specifically offer compensation for this. Additionally, the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the complaint has already been considered by the landlord in its offer of compensation and acceptance of service failure. A request for actual lost earnings would require assessment of liability and a claim to the courts. However, it was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation in recognition of the overall inconvenience caused by the considerable delay to resolve the overall situation.
17. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the issues and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
18. Given that communication issues with the resident and its repairs team continued following its initial response, it is of noteworthy concern that the landlord repeatedly committed to improve its services without communicating a robust way in which it would do so, other than providing feedback. Having reviewed the complaint following its final response, in correspondence with the resident in August 2022, the landlord appropriately acknowledged “we could have expanded further to advise you of the steps that we have taken to prevent the situation arising again for any of your residents.” As such, it provided the resident a more comprehensive explanation of various steps it said it had put in place to improve its service going forward. As the landlord highlighted, good practice would have been to outline this at an earlier stage, but ultimately it has acknowledged this omission, and in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles has shown a willingness to learn from outcomes and has considered what can be improved in terms of its processes.
19. In explaining the delay to repair the sink unit, the landlord said that it “would have liked the works be carried out far sooner, however, unfortunately this was not possible, and this is the earliest time we could get operatives out.” Although the evidence shows that the landlord made attempts between April and June to bring this forward, it appears that this was hindered by further miscommunication and confusion between the landlord and its repair service regarding when this repair would take place. Thus, it cannot be robustly said that the delay was unavoidable as the landlord implied, and was further evidence of where the landlord’s communication could have been clearer. Although the landlord has taken sufficient action to redress its service failing in this complaint which were proportionate to the overall issues, it is of concern that communication issues appear to be a recurrent theme in the landlord’s service delivery. A recommendation has been made in light of this.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

21. It is recommended that the landlord undertakes a formal review of its record keeping practices, to ensure quality records are kept of its repair inspections and activities.
22. It is recommended that the landlord undertakes a robust, formal review of its communication practices with not only residents, but with a particular focus on ensuring efficiency and clarity of communication between its repairs service and complaints team.