Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202102300)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102300

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

11 February 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs to the bathroom window of the property.
2. The associated formal complaint into this matter.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house. The landlord has stated that it has several vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and her household relating to health, mobility issues and allergies.
The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it is responsible for the upkeep of external and communal glazing. The handbook goes on to state that it prioritises its repair target completion times into five categories. In the examples for what type of repair is placed in what category “external glazing of boarded window” is given priority 5, and the landlord aims to complete repairs in this category within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. When a complaint is raised, it will send an acknowledgement within three working days and provide a stage one response within 15 working days. If a complainant requests an escalation of the complaint, the landlord will send an acknowledgement within three working days and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair logs state that:
1. A work order was raised by the landlord on 6 January 2020 following a report from the resident that the bathroom window was broken and unable to be closed. Follow-on work was raised on 3 February 2020 to replace the springs in the window and to investigate whether to reglaze the window–pane to give the resident more privacy.
2. The resident informed the landlord on 4 September 2020 that the bathroom window was again broken and unable to be opened. A work order was raised for 4 September 2020 to make safe the window and follow-on work was raised to complete repairs.
3. On 1 October 2020 the resident informed the landlord that the bathroom window was stuck in the open position which had made the property very cold. A work order was raised to board–up the window until the repairs could be completed. A note added to the repair logs stated that the type of window in the bathroom used a new type of opening/closing mechanism which required a specialist contractor to attend.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 November 2020 and raised a complaint relating to the length of time it was taking to repair the bathroom window and the poor communication she had received when raising the matter.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 November 2020 and stated that it aimed to provide a response by 30 November 2020. An appointment was arranged by the landlord to complete repairs to the window on 4 December 2020 and the stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 7 December 2020.
The landlord gave a timeline of events from when the issue was first reported in September 2020, recognised that there had been delays in completing the repair and apologised to the resident for the frustration and inconvenience that this had caused. The landlord also offered the resident £50 compensation for the poor service she had received.
The resident called the landlord on 17 December 2020 and requested an escalation of the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the request on 18 December 2020 and stated that it aimed to provide a response by 19 January 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 January 2021. It explained that it had been attempting to contact her to discuss the complaint. An internal landlord email also sent on 13 January 2021 noted that the repair to the window remained outstanding, highlighted the vulnerabilities of the resident and stated that it had been informed by the resident that there had been five appointments attended by the contractor without repairs being undertaken.
An internal landlord email sent on 18 January 2021 noted that its window contractor had stopped working as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, that a new contractor had been employed and that it would arrange a new appointment with the resident. An internal landlord email chain between 19 and 22 January 2021 stated that it had been chasing up the outstanding repair with its contractor and repairs team.
The resident called the landlord on 16 February 2021 about a failed appointment that day. The landlord’s notes of the call state it was informed by the resident that she had not granted access to the operative who visited as they were not from the specialist window contactor and therefore would be unable to undertake any repairs. The resident requested that an appointment was arranged for 4 March 2021 for the contractor to attend. The landlord’s repair logs state that a work order was raised for the contractor to attend on 4 March 2021 to “check windows mechanism”.
The resident called the landlord on 4 March 2021 to state her dissatisfaction that the appointment was only to measure the window and that no repairs were undertaken. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident also requested to receive the complaint response.
An internal landlord email sent on 4 March 2021 stated that it was informed by the contractor that it would be able to repair the window, but that springs would have to be manufactured which would take four weeks. The landlord called the resident on 8 March 2021 to update her on the status of the repair
The landlord was informed by the contractor on 24 March 2021 that the springs were still on order. The landlord called the resident on 25 March 2021 to provide an update. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that the resident informed it that the ongoing issue was having an effect on her health.
The resident called the landlord on 27 April 2021 and asked for an update on her complaint escalation request.
An internal landlord sent on 28 April 2021 stated that the contractor had arranged an appointment to see the resident on 10 May 2021.
The resident called this Service on 28 April 2021 to state her dissatisfaction with length of time it was taking the landlord to complete repairs to the window and to provide her with a final response to her complaint. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord. The landlord replied to confirm that the complaint had been escalated to stage two of its internal process.
The resident called the landlord on 28 April 2021 to express her frustration that she had not received a stage two response and her concern that the contractor was only going to repair one window when they visited.
An internal landlord email sent on 20 May 2021 stated that the contractor had booked an appointment to fit the new parts to the window on 17 June 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 May 2021. She noted that she had still not received a stage two complaint response despite making the escalation request in December 2020. She also informed the landlord that there was confusion surrounding what windows had been measured by the contractor and she was concerned that the June 2021 repair may not go ahead. The landlord replied on 21 May 2021. It apologised for the delays experienced by the resident and confirmed the 17 June 2021 appointment.
On 27 May 2021, the landlord was informed by the resident that as a result of the bathroom window being closed the room had started to develop damp and mould. The landlord arranged an appointment for 9 June 2021 for a surveyor to visit the property and inspect the bathroom.
On 4 June 2021, the resident called the landlord and explained the outstanding issues of the complaint. The landlord notes of the call described the reasons as:
1. It was unacceptable that a repair to a single window had taken over five months and remained outstanding.
2. The situation had been very stressful and has had an adverse effect on her existing medical conditions.
3. The quality of the workmanship so far had been poor, and the specialist window contractor should have attended sooner. The resident also requested that the landlord inspect the quality of the work.
4. She was concerned that the same problems she had experienced with the bathroom window were now happening with another window in the property.
5. She described the problems she had experienced in calling the landlord when attempting to get updates.
The resident called the landlord on 18 June 2021 to inform it that the previous day’s appointment did not go ahead as the contractor had attended with the wrong type of springs for the window. The resident also informed the landlord that she was satisfied with the service and advice given by the surveyor who had attended to inspect the damp and mould. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that it informed the resident that it would attempt to rebook the appointment for a Saturday in order to avoid further delay.
An internal landlord note added on 25 June 2021 stated that it had been informed by the contractor that it expected to have the correct parts by 30 June 2021 and that it would then schedule a new appointment.
The landlord received another update from the contractor on 14 July 2021. It was informed that the correct parts were still on order and that the contractor would provide another update in the first week of August.
The resident called the landlord on 16 July 2021 and asked for an update on the status of the complaint. The landlord replied on 19 July 2021 after not being able to call the resident back. It apologised for the “very poor” service she had experienced and noted that “the service you are experiencing is totally unacceptable”. The landlord informed the resident that the matter had been escalated internally and provided a single point of contact to keep her informed on the status of the repair and complaint.
On 5 August 2021, the landlord confirmed an appointment to repair the window for 18 August 2021. It then sent the stage two complaint response to the resident on 6 August 2021.
The landlord recognised the delays in completing repairs to the bathroom window and apologised to the resident for its poor service. The landlord explained that its original windows contractor and ceased operations during the Covid-19 pandemic and that the new contractor required the manufacturer of replacement metal springs before the repair could be scheduled.
The landlord also accepted that the resident had received poor customer service during this process. It offered her £500 compensation for its service failures as a gesture of goodwill.
During a telephone conversation with this Service on 18 November 2021, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as:
1. Outstanding repairs remained in the bathroom, kitchen and to the ceilings in the property.
2. The quality of the completed repairs was not to standard.
3. Her household was put at risk to Covid-19 as a result of the number of operatives who visited the property.
4. A surveyor’s report was lost, which had caused further delays to the outstanding work.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the compensation offer be increased to £1,000.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled repairs to the bathroom window of the property

In its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not properly followed its repairs policy and that the length of time it took to repair the bathroom window was not acceptable. The landlord apologised and offered £500 compensation for its service failures.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong. It put things right by apologising to the resident and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by making changes to its window contractor and assigning a single staff member as a point of contact to the resident. The landlord also escalated the matter internally to senior management to identify any other lessons that could be learned to avoid similar issues occurring in the future.
The compensation payment offered by the landlord is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
In this case, it took several months and several, emails, and telephone calls by the resident until the repair was completed. During the process the landlord had experienced issues with having to change its contractor and delays in having the replacement parts for the window manufactured. Some of these delays were outside the landlord’s control. However, the landlord had also sent several operatives to the property who did not have the experience of the specific type of window in the bathroom and could not undertake any repairs. This caused significant delays, stress and inconvenience to the resident. A payment of £500 was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident has stated her dissatisfaction with the quality of the finished repair. From the evidence provided, it is not clear that a post-work inspection was undertaken and if the resident was informed of the results of this. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection to check the quality of the repair and what further repairs (if any) may be required It is recommended that, if it has not done so already, the landlord should write to the resident and inform her of the results of any inspections taken of the bathroom window and whether it is satisfied with the quality of the completed work. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a repair has been completed to a reasonable standard and therefore we cannot comment on this further without seeing evidence from an appropriately qualified contractor to confirm the standard of workmanship.
In bringing the case to this Service, the resident also highlighted issues with other outstanding repairs in the building, concerns that Covid-19 rules were not observed by the landlord’s operatives, and delays caused by a missing surveyors report. These issues were not a part of the original complaint raised by the resident, nor were they referred to when the resident requested an escalation of the complaint through the landlord’s complaints process.
Before these issues can be considered by this Service, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding these issues. This is in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaint procedure.
The resident also explained that the ongoing window repair issue has affected her existing medical conditions and this has not been considered by the landlord. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but it is outside the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim through the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). A personal injury claim is a legal process and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this further.
This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation caused to the resident and how the landlord responded to her concerns about her health. This has been taken into account when assessing whether the landlord’s compensation offer is reasonable.

The associated formal complaint

The landlord did not follow its complaint policy correctly at either stage of the process. The stage one complaint response was not provided within its agreed 15 working day timescale and the resident was not informed that the response would be delayed. The resident first requested an escalation of the complaint in December 2020 but did not receive a stage two response until August 2021: eight months later.
Throughout this period, both the resident and this Service contacted the landlord and requested that it provide a full complaint response at stage two of the landlord’s internal process. While the landlord did provide regular updates on the status of the repair, no formal complaint response was provided. From the internal correspondence supplied by the landlord as part of its evidence to the Ombudsman, discussions were held which suggested that the landlord had made the decision not to provide a stage two response until the repair to the bathroom window had been completed. However, the landlord did not inform this Service of that decision during our correspondence and no evidence has been provided which showed that it informed the resident, who continued to chase the landlord for updates on the status of the complaint.
It is the established view of this Service that landlords should respond to complaints in a timely manner, and it is not necessary to wait for repairs to be completed before responding to a complaint. A complaint response can be issued whilst repairs are outstanding and compensation can be awarded for any delays which have taken place and which are expected, based on the proposed completion date for any outstanding repairs. If there are further delays after the landlord has issued its final complaint response, the landlord can issue a follow-on response and consider whether to offer additional compensation for the further delays. This allows residents to progress their complaints to the Ombudsman for independent consideration without unnecessary delay if they are dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 19 July 2021 which described the delay in providing a stage two response as “totally unacceptable”; however, the landlord did not refer to the delay in its stage two response, and there is no evidence to confirm it took the delay into account when it calculated its overall compensation offer for the complaint.
Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and in order to fully resolve the complaint, further compensation is warranted in reignition of this failure. As previously stated, the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration. Further examples for when this level of payment should be considered include:
1. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving complaint
2. Significant failures to follow complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the complainant
In order to fully resolve the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay an additional £250 compensation in recognition of the eight-month delay in providing a stage two complaint response, and the inconvenience that this caused the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled repairs to the bathroom window of the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by in the significant length of time it took to repair the bathroom window, and the distress that this had caused to her. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the effect of these failures on the resident.
The landlord did not properly follow its complaint policy at stage one, and it took eight months from when the resident requested an escalation before a stage two complaint response was sent. The stage two response did not address the delays in the complaint process nor take them into account when calculating the compensation offer. Therefore, further compensation is warranted to fully resolve the complaint.

Orders

For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £250.
This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.
This compensation award is in addition to the £500 compensation already offered by the landlord during its complaint process, which should be re-offered to the resident if it has not already been paid.

Recommendations

It is recommended that, if it has not done so already, the landlord should write to the resident and inform her of the results of any inspections taken of the bathroom window and whether they are satisfied with the quality of the completed work.