Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202104254)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104254

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

21 March 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 repairs to the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of a ground floor bedsit in a block.
4. The landlord’s Repairs policy notes it is responsible for baths/ hand basins, brickwork, external decoration, electrical wiring, surrounds and floorboards, lighting, light fittings and plastering, plumbing repairs and leaks, skirting boards, and stairs. Repair timescales vary, with the maximum routine time being 20 working days.
5. The landlord’s Complaints Policy notes stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 15 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. In certain cases, when a complaint is complex, it may be necessary to extend the timescales, 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.

Summary of events

6. In August 2020, the resident formally complained noting that there were multiple repairs needed to her property and since the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions, operatives had attended her property but works remained outstanding. The landlord acknowledged the complaint noting a response would be provided by 13 September and it would inform the resident should the response be delayed.
7. On 28 October 2020 the landlord provided its Stage One response.  The landlord explained that:
   1. The resident had reported ongoing repairs since the commencement of her tenancy ten years ago.  Recent issues included an operative had started rendering around the wall at the back of the house which was not finished. A seal had been put on the kitchen ceiling due to damp, but this was also unfinished. There were loose tiles in the kitchen and the bathroom skirting was rotten.
   2. The wrong workmen had been sent out, appointments had been missed and works had been left incomplete.
   3. There was now damp on the external wall which was causing a smell in the kitchen and bathroom.
   4. The location where sand and materials for the rendering were left in the garden, was attracting mice and there was a problem with fruit flies.
   5. The landlord’s surveyor had inspected on 11 September and raised repairs for plastering, redecorations, external rendering and repairs to the stack pipe, bath panel and tiling which were arranged for 12 November 2020 between 8:00am and 1:00pm
8. In response the landlord acknowledged that the Covid-19 had had an impact but works should have been monitored more closely and completed. It offered £100.00 compensation as an apology and goodwill gesture.
9. Following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 13 November 2020, as the repairs remained outstanding, the landlord acknowledged this and advised that a response would be provided by 21 December, and again should any delay occur, it would advise her.
10. The resident further complained on 4 December noting she continued to chase updates on works, with contractors not attending when they should and the issue around the leak and damp smell was worsening. On 18 December the resident noted that due to the incomplete works mice had now entered her property. On 21 December the landlord noted it required additional time to investigate all issue complained of and it would update the resident in due course but provided a direct email address as a point of contact.
11. In January 2021, the resident chased a response to her complaint on multiple occasions, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord responded, though internal emails note it was aware the resident was chasing a response.
12. The landlord provided a final response to the complaint on 9 March 2021. The landlord’s final position was that it:
    1. Accepted that there had been continued delays and repairs were not managed correctly.
    2. Accepted it should have acted more quickly and should not have required as much chasing from the resident.
    3. Confirmed it had raised the necessary work orders and its contractors had confirmed the outstanding works had been booked in as they needed to allow the property to dry, following the drainage defects repairs that were completed on the 14 January 2021, and that its electrical contractor was asked to return to rectify the bathroom light.
    4. It offered a total of £210.00 compensation.

Assessment and findings

13. Whilst the resident has noted that she has been complaining of issues for over 10 years, the Ombudsman’s consideration of matters cannot span that period of time. This is as due to the passage of time; it makes it difficult to ascertain events that have happened as recollections fade. Also, paragraph 39e of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. As the Ombudsman is unable to confirm that a formal complaint was made prior, consideration has been given to events from January 2020.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy clearly sets out timeframes for which repairs will be completed. From the repair records provided it is clear that the landlord did respond to the resident’s repair request and priority issues, such as stopping the leak through the bathroom light; was attended to in a reasonable period of time. However, follow on works like reinstating lighting to the resident’s bathroom were excessively delayed, even when having regard to the Covid-19 pandemic and this is not disputed by the landlord. As such the Ombudsman must consider whether the redress and actions taken in the landlord’s complaint responses was adequate.
15. Throughout the course of the complaint the resident made clear that there had been multiple missed appointments, contractors had attended and were unable to complete the required works and the situation was having a negative impact on her mental health. Whilst the Ombudsman is unable to make a causal link between matters complained of and any alleged impact on one’s health, the Ombudsman is able to consider the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble the resident has experienced.
16. Given the extensive delays and failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy in addressing the repairs, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration (service failure) by the landlord and its offer of compensation was insufficient to remedy the failure.
17. Additionally, from the evidence on file, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord advised the resident that the initial stage 1 response would be delayed and which date she would receive the response. Additionally, it is clear that the landlord was aware of the resident chasing the stage 2 response, as internal emails note this, however there is no evidence that a further acknowledgement was provided, explaining any further delay, or providing a timeframe for the response. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and given the distress that was clear from the resident’s communications, this exacerbated the service failure.
18. In considering compensation, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance notes that awards in the region of £250-£700 may be for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Given the failures identified above the remedy offered by the landlord was insufficient. In relation to the outstanding works, the Ombudsman is aware that following the landlord’s final response, a further inspection was carried out and the resident was to be decanted. This again highlights the severity of the matter and the extent of the work needed to the property, which the resident continuously sought a resolution for and in the course of the complaint, the landlord failed to provide.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration (service failure) by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s repair reports and associated complaint.

Reasons

20. The landlord unreasonably delayed in addressing the repairs in the resident’s property and its offer of compensation was inadequate to remedy these failings.
21. The landlord did not follow its complaint procedure as it did not keep the resident updated or provide a date by which she would receive its final response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

22. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays the resident a total of £600
    1. £210 as offered in its final response
    2. £290 for the delay in completing repairs, including missed and failed appointments.
    3. £100 for the delayed complaint responses and failure to provide adequate updates.
    4. Payment should be made within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

23. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord ensure its staff acknowledge follow on responses from resident’s keeping them updated and providing specific dates for which they should receive complaint responses.