Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202202428)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202428

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

24 February 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 complainant 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the leaseholder‘s reports of multiple leaks into her property;
2. complaints handling.

Background

The complainant is the leaseholder of the property of the landlord (the freeholder). She is referred to as the ‘leaseholder’ throughout this report. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a lower floor flat, within a complex of similar buildings. At the time of the complaint, the leaseholder had a tenant who resided in the property.
Since March 2020, the leaseholder made multiple reports of a leak entering her property. The landlord attended the property in April 2020, and attempted to trace the leak in the flat above the leaseholder’s property. To complete its investigation, the landlord completed an asbestos report. It received the results of this report 21 May 2020. The landlord attempted to trace the leak again on 12 June 2020 and 29 July 2020, and undertook some repairs. However, the leaseholder continued to report that the leak was ongoing throughout August and September 2020.
The landlord attended again on 26 November 2020, and on 9 December 2020. It couldn’t find the source of the leak, but concluded that it could be coming from a property several floors up. The leaseholder complained about the delay to her repairs in early December 2020. The landlord has not supplied either of her complaints to this service for investigation, but has supplied its complaint acknowledgement, which stated that it should have responded by 21 December 2020.
The landlord responded on 9 February 2021. It apologised for the delay in resolving the leak. It explained that it had gained access to the flats above the leaseholder’s property, but still couldn’t trace the source of the leak. The landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s escalation request on 3 March 2021.
The landlord attended the flat above the leaseholder’s property again on 27 April 2021, and undertook repairs to an overflow and waste pipe. After this, the leaseholder continued to report that the leak was still apparent. The landlord attended again on 13 September 2021 and found a leak in the leaseholder’s kitchen waste pipe, which it repaired. On 20 September 2021, it removed the toilet and identified a leak in the waste pipe, which it also repaired. However, the leaseholder continued to report a leak coming in from the above flats.
The landlord sent its final response on 25 November 2021. It apologised for both the delay in its response and for the delay in repairs. It stated that the works had now been completed and detailed the steps it had taken. In acknowledgement of the poor service the leaseholder had received, the landlord offered £300 in compensation. It then closed her case.
The leaseholder responded on 9 January 2022. She explained that the leak had not been resolved and that the landlord had only fixed two additional leaks that were separate to the main leak. She asked what further steps the landlord was taking to resolve the leak. She also explained that she was not allowed to submit her claim for insurance until the leak was resolved.
The leaseholder continued to chase repairs to her leak throughout 2022, with repair reports being raised to resolve the leak in May, June, and July 2022. In August 2022, the landlord attended the property and again undertook repairs to try and rectify the issue. Finally, the landlord sent a surveyor from its leak management team to the property in October 2022. It has confirmed that the leak was rectified on 17 November 2022.
In referring her complaint to this service, the leaseholder has stated that the leak was ongoing for over two years. During this time her tenant lived with very damp walls, eventually ending their tenancy, as they felt unable to live in the property in such a bad condition. She has explained that the damage sustained to the property was exacerbated by the delay to tracing and repairing the leak. She has also explained that the landlord’s communication has not been acceptable, and that it failed to pay her the £300 compensation promised in its complaint’s procedure.

Assessment

Leak

According to the leaseholder’s lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the building including the guttering, rainwater, soil, and waste pipes. It also states that the landlord has the right to enter the property for the purpose of carrying out its obligations at all reasonable times upon reasonable prior notice (except in an emergency). Residents must permit the landlord to enter the property for the purposes of viewing and examining the state of repair of the property.
The landlord’s repairs handbook explains that a minor leak is classed as an urgent repair and should be completed within three to five working days. If the repair cannot be resolved immediately, a temporary solution should be put in place until such time as a permanent repair can be carried out.
Based on the landlord’s policies, when the leaseholder reported the leak in March 2020, it should have attended within three to five working days. It did not attend within these timescales, undertaking repairs in April 2020. It is not evident why there was a delay to its inspection.
Given the age of the building, and the requirement for invasive repairs, it was reasonable that the landlord arranged for an asbestos report prior to completing any further inspection. Following the results of this report, the landlord carried out further inspections and repairs in June and July 2020.
The leaseholder subsequently advised the landlord that the repairs had not been successful, however, despite multiple reports from the leaseholder between August 2020 and September 2020, the landlord did not carry out a further inspection until November 2020. It is not evident why there was such a delay, which would have caused frustration and distress for the leaseholder and her tenant.
Following its further inspections, the landlord determined that the leak may be originating in other properties in the building, and so sought to gain access to these, which it did in February 2021. While this delay would have caused frustration for the leaseholder, the Ombudsman understands there can be reasonable delays in obtaining access to multiple properties. In such circumstances, however, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep the leaseholder updated. It is not evident this occurred.
The landlord completed a further attempted repair in April 2021, however, this did not solve the leak and the leaseholder continued to report leaks throughout 2021. The landlord did not carry out further inspections until September 2021. Once again, it is not evident why this delay occurred.
The landlord identified leaks with the waste pipes in the leaseholder’s property, and completed repairs in September 2021. The Ombudsman notes there can be difficulties in tracing the source of a leak, and given its inspections had not uncovered a separate source of the leak, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider these works to have solved the leak until it was informed otherwise.
Following the leaseholders reports that these leaks had been separate to the main leak, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out further inspections, however, despite further reports between May 2022 to July 2022, the landlord did not attend again until August 2022. Once again, it is not evident that the landlord provided any updates or explanation for this delay, which would have caused distress for the leaseholder.
When a landlord receives ongoing reports of a reoccurring issue where previous attempts to repair have been unsuccessful, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to consult an expert to provide an opinion. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord arranged for a specialist surveyor to assess the leak in October 2022, following which, the leak was rectified in November 2022.
A delay to repairs does not always constitute a failing, if for example, the landlord is attempting to find a lasting solution to a complicated repair issue. However, the landlord would be expected to update the leaseholder regularly on their repairs. It would also be expected to manage the repair effectively, and to continue to work on the issue to find a solution. Although the landlord investigated the leak on numerous occasions, it neglected to treat the issue as an ongoing problem. It continuously closed the repair without undertaking inspections or enquiries to ascertain if the leak was rectified. This was not reasonable, as the leaseholder was then required to continually chase the landlord to re-investigate the issue. It failed to act proactively to find a solution to the leaseholder’s ceiling leak, which according to its policies should have been responded to as an urgent repair. This resulted in the leak remaining ongoing for over two years. This was a failing in the circumstances.
As stated above, the landlord is expected to appropriately communicate with the leaseholder, to manage her expectations effectively. However, the landlord did not update the leaseholder properly, which resulted in her continuously having to chase for updates and further repair appointments. There was also an issue with the landlord’s internal communication, as the landlord attempted on numerous occasions to action repairs with its contractors, without gaining a meaningful response. A landlord is required manage its inter-departmental relationships effectively, to provide an appropriate service to its residents. The landlord’s communication in this case was not adequate, which is a failing in the circumstances.
The landlord acted appropriately in its final complaint response by acknowledging that its service had been inadequate. It apologised for the delays in tracing the leak and in responding to her complaint. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder, the landlord offered her £300 in compensation.
However, the landlord again did not use this opportunity to ascertain if the leak had actually been rectified. It detailed repairs undertaken to a different leak in its response, and subsequently closed the complaint. This was inappropriate, as the landlord should have consulted its records, where it would have seen that the leaseholder had continued to report the leak as a repair issue after its most recent repair visit. According to this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) if a resident’s repair remains outstanding at the time of sending a final response, the landlord would be expected to detail the steps it intended to take to put that issue right. It would also then be expected to follow these steps through to completion. The landlord failed to properly identify the issue, and did not create a plan on how to put the issue right. This is a failing, and resulted in the leaseholder’s repair remaining an ongoing issue for the next year.
In the circumstances, the failings and unreasonable delays without updates identified above amount to maladministration, for which compensation is appropriate. It is not disputed that the leak into the property affected the leaseholder’s tenant’s enjoyment of the property, ultimately leading them to leave the property. In recognition of the impact caused by the landlord’s failure to conduct timely inspections and repairs, and its poor communication, an amount of £800 compensation is appropriate in the circumstances. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £300.
Given the reoccurring nature of the leak, the landlord is also ordered to contact the leaseholder to enquire as to any ongoing issues, and to take timely further action if required.

Complaints handling

The landlord has not supplied the leaseholder’s complaints to this service for investigation. However, it wrote to her initially on 3 December 2020 in response to her complaint, stating its stage one response was due on 21 December 2020. It sent a holding later on 6 January 2021, stating that its response was delayed, it did not give a new deadline for its reply, responding on 9 February 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s escalation request on 3 March 2021. It promised to send a reply by 1 April 2021. However, it finally sent its final response on 25 November 2021. While the landlord had further communication with the leaseholder during this period, it is not evident it managed her expectations regarding its formal complaint response.
Both of the landlord’s responses exceeded those times set out in its policy. Additionally, it also failed to state the new deadline for its responses when explaining that its response would be delayed.
The landlord has stated that its responses were delayed because it did not have any updates to the leaseholder’s repairs. According to this service’s complaints handling code, a landlord’s complaint process should be used to identify any issues in how it has handled a leaseholder’s concerns (rather than simply providing updates), so that it can put any mistakes right. It should have responded within the correct timeframes, with a clear explanation of why any errors had occurred and detailed any steps it intended to take to put things right.
In line with general good customer service standards, the landlord should also have questioned why it did not have any updates on a repair that had been outstanding for so long. It should have then taken steps to create a meaningful action plan to solve this ongoing issue for the leaseholder. When the landlord finally did reply, it failed to provide an adequate complaint response as it did not assess the correct repair. The delay in responding to the leaseholder, its delay in escalating her complaint, as well as the actual substance of its complaint response were all inadequate. These are all failings in the circumstances.
Based on the above findings, there was maladministration by the landlord, for which compensation is appropriate to reflect the impact caused to the leaseholder. An amount of £200 compensation has been ordered, being £100 for the unreasonable delays to each response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the leaseholder’s reports of multiple leaks into her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,000, comprising:
1. £800 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder by its failure to correctly address the leaks;
2. £200 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £300. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Contact the leaseholder to enquire as to any further leaks.
2. Investigate how it manages, reviews and organises ongoing repair issues with its contractors. It should ascertain how to create a better channel of communication between the parties, to provide a better service to residents.
3. Review how it handles complaints from residents. It should re-train staff if necessary, to ensure that its responses are in-line with the guidance set out in this service’s complaint handling code.