Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202207308)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207308

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

29 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports about repairs to his:
  1. balcony;
  2. front door;
2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property of the landlord since 2020. The landlord is a local authority.
The property is a fourth-floor flat with a balcony.
The lease agreement notes that the landlord is responsible for the external structure of the building. It is not disputed that this includes the balcony and the front door of the property.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. A stage one response will be provided within 10 working days, and a stage two response within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy notes that the landlord will aim to complete ‘routine’ (as opposed to ‘emergency’ or ‘urgent’ repairs) repairs within 20 working days. It notes that for all repairs, the resident will be provided with a job number and a target completion time.

Summary of events

In 2021, the resident reported that a leak coming from his balcony was causing damage to his walls. The landlord arranged repairs; however, in or around December 2021, the issues returned.
Following further reports from the resident, the landlord arranged an inspection in March and April 2022. The landlord’s roofing contractor reported that it had removed debris to unblock the drainage on the balcony, and had added a ‘hedgehog’ brush to prevent further buildup. They also noted that additional works to the paving to stop water buildup were necessary. It is not evident that any follow-up works were arranged.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 May 2022. He noted that he had been told by the landlord’s repairs team that works had been raised and subsequently escalated, but that no further contact had been made. He also reported that his front door was not fit for purpose and was causing condensation and damp in the property.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same date and advised that it would provide a response by 27 May 2022.
The landlord’s internal communications from this period show that it determined that the roofing contractor had provided a quote for the works, but this was yet to be approved. It also noted that an inspection of the door had been completed in June 2021. The door had a single-pane window, and the repair notes stated that the resident had reported this was broken. As the window was not broken, the repair had been closed.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 27 May 2022. It advised that it was awaiting approval for the balcony works and that the issue was also connected to a neighbour’s balcony, on which works would also be completed. It also explained that, as there was no damage to the door, it would be unable to replace it.
The resident replied and expressed his dissatisfaction that no timeframe for the balcony works had been given. Additionally, he noted he had never said there was a crack in the glass, but that single-pane window was causing condensation and was not fit for purpose. He therefore requested that his complaint be escalated.
The landlord’s internal communications show there was considerable confusion amongst the landlord’s teams about whether the balcony works had been raised or approved. The resident requested an update several times but did not receive a response until 19 August 2022. The landlord advised that, as the door was functional, it would not replace it but would consider it for replacement as part of its next programme of major works. It also advised that it was still waiting on approval for the balcony works.
The resident reiterated his concerns about the door, and on 22 August 2022, the landlord agreed to replace it. It advised that as the door would be custom built, it may take up to 16 weeks. The landlord’s door contractor carried out an inspection for the door in August 2022. Throughout August and September 2022, the landlord’s complaints and repairs teams continually chased approval from the finance team on the quote for the balcony works but did not receive any updates.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 12 September 2022. It apologised for the ongoing delay for the approval of the balcony works. It explained that this was ongoing and provided a single point of contact for future updates. It reiterated it had approved a new door, but it would take a further 12 weeks to be manufactured. It also provided a general explanation for delays being due to a shortage of labour and building materials. It offered £300 in compensation, being £200 for the delays and £100 for its poor service throughout the complaint.
The landlord chased the door contractor for an update in September 2022, and in October 2022, the door contractor provided its quote. It later retracted this quote due to an error and provided a new quote in November 2022. Manufacturing of the doors was completed in December 2022, and the door contractor arranged for installation of the doors. The parties discussed availability, and the door was installed in February 2023.
Between the landlord’s stage two response in September 2022 and January 2023, the landlord’s internal communications show its complaints and repairs teams continually chased updates on the approval of the works from its finance teams but did not receive any updates. On 19 January 2023, the resident noted that a contractor had informed him that the balcony works had been approved but that he was yet to be given a date for the works.
In June 2023, the landlord confirmed that the balcony works had now been completed. It noted that the majority of works required were to the neighbour’s property, but that it could not disclose all of these works due to its data protection obligations. It noted the resident had raised concerns about the cost of having to run a dehumidifier during the period of leaks, and it agreed to pay £49.50 in goodwill compensation towards the cost of the dehumidifier purchase and £450 towards the running costs. It also agreed to pay the £100 excess on his insurance claim for redecoration works. It also revised its offer of compensation to £200 for the resident’s time and trouble chasing repairs, £150 for delays to its formal responses, and £750 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Balcony

The landlord’s repairs policy notes different types of repair categories, including emergency, urgent, and routine. There is no evidence to suggest the issues with the balcony amounted to an emergency or urgent repair, and so the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to address the repair as a routine repair. This would mean the landlord should have aimed to complete the repair within 20 working days and provided the resident with a target date for completion.
Following the landlord’s inspection in March and April 2022, its roofing contractor identified further works to resolve the problem. Given that the works would potentially require roofing specialists and that works also needed to be done to the neighbour’s property, the Ombudsman understands that it may be reasonable to complete these works outside of the 20 working day timeframe. In such circumstances, however, the landlord should notify the resident why additional time is needed. The landlord’s own policy also required it to provide a target completion time. The landlord did not, however, provide any further updates or correspondence despite multiple requests from the resident.
When chasing updates, the resident was told on the telephone by the reception team that works had been raised and escalated; however, based on the landlord’s repair logs, it is not evident any works had been raised or approved, and so it is unclear why this information would have been provided. Issues with the landlord’s record keeping and access to information by members of the landlord’s staff have been a persistent problem throughout this case.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s internal communications show that there was some difficulty in the complaints team being able to find all the relevant information. There did not appear to be any easily accessible records as to what had happened with the repairs or what remained outstanding. This poor internal communication caused several days of delays in the landlord’s complaint investigation.
The landlord’s internal communications also show that a quote for the balcony works was received from its roofing contractor on 9 May 2022. It later reported in its stage one response that it was waiting for this quote to be approved. It is not evident what this approval process involved. The Ombudsman understands that there is often a financial approval process for significant expenditures and that this can cause some level of reasonable delay to works. Similarly, for leasehold properties such as this, there can be statutory approval processes that take time. It is also the case that the neighbour’s property required simultaneous work, and there could potentially be delays as a result of finding suitable times and access. However, no explanation of any kind about the process, why there may be delays, or what sort of indicative timeframe the approval process would be completed within was ever provided to the resident.
Not only was the resident left unclear about the process, but based on the communications provided to this service, the landlord’s complaints and repairs team appeared equally as unclear as to how long the approval would take. Certain members of the landlord’s staff clearly chased updates on a number of occasions but were told they were still pending without being provided any timeframes or reasons for the delay. No correspondence from the team in charge of approvals has been provided to this service.
The works were finally approved in January 2023, some eight months after the quote was received. Throughout this time, no reasonable explanation for the delay was provided, despite many requests for updates from the resident. In its stage two response, the landlord did explain that issues with labour and material shortages were impacting works; however, that was not the case here, as the contractor was ready to go pending approval. This explanation would therefore have only added to the resident’s frustration.
Following approval of the works, it was the landlord’s contractor who verbally informed the resident. The landlord did not provide any written confirmation, nor did it provide any timeframe for the works. The works did not occur until around five months later, without reasonable explanation. Throughout the period of the delay, the resident requested several updates without a response.
The resident has reported that the works have so far proven to be successful.
In its stage two response, the landlord offered some compensation in relation to the delays. Given, however, that the issues continued for an extended period of time after this response, it was appropriate for the landlord to return to the issue of compensation and make a further offer once the works were complete. This further offer has been considered as part of this investigation.
The Ombudsman notes that to address the condensation and damp caused by the water ingress from the balcony, he purchased and operated a dehumidifier. It is not evident that this was discussed with the landlord prior to the resident taking this action. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord used its discretion to contribute £49.50 to the cost of the dehumidifier (this being 50% of the purchase price). It also requested evidence of the running cost, and on receipt of the resident’s energy bills, it offered £450 in compensation, being £2.50 per day for 6 months. While this investigation considers the period of delay to have been closer to 13 months (May 2022-June 2023), the issue of rainwater entering the property would not have been a daily issue, and so this offer is reasonable in the circumstances. Given that the resident is responsible for internal decorations and that he was making a claim through his insurer for these costs, it was also appropriate for the landlord to offer to pay his £100 excess as its delays had contributed to the damage.
The remaining compensation relevant to this part of the complaint was an offer of £200 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing repairs, and £750 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It is not clear, however, how this is divided between this issue and the repairs to the door, discussed below. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this offer of compensation is not sufficient to reflect the failings identified above and their impact on the resident. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. An order for £1,950 in compensation has been made, being £650 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repairs (£50 per month for a period of 13 months) and £1,300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident (£100 per month for a period of 13 months). This amount is also reflective of the landlord’s poor communication and record-keeping. An order relating to these issues has been made below.

Door

It is evident that the resident raised concerns about his door in 2021. The landlord investigated these, but there was a misunderstanding as to what the issue was. The landlord’s operative believed the resident had reported that the glass panel in the door was broken. This wasn’t the case, and the issue was that the single pane of glass was causing condensation.
While it may be reasonable that a miscommunication may have led to the wrong investigation, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to report to the resident the outcome of its investigation. It is not evident that the landlord did this. Had it done so, the resident would have been able to identify the misunderstanding and raise the correct issue. Instead, the issue was not identified until the landlord’s stage one response around one year later (although the Ombudsman notes that the resident did not pursue any updates or further clarification over this period).
Once the resident re-raised his concerns as part of his formal complaint, the landlord merely advised the outcome of its inspection a year prior. Given the time that had passed, it should have considered whether a further inspection was necessary. Additionally, the resident had clearly articulated that the issue was condensation and damp occurring. Whether the glass was cracked or not, this merited a further investigation from the landlord, which it did not undertake.
As part of his escalation request, the resident rearticulated the issue. After several months, the landlord concluded that, as the door was functional, it would not be replaced. The Ombudsman understands that there is a difference between a repair and an improvement, and where an item is functional, it is reasonable not to replace it. However, regardless of whether the door was functional as a door, there was still an issue with condensation and damp, which, once again, the landlord took no steps to investigate. This would have caused considerable frustration for the resident and caused him to expend time and trouble chasing the issue further.
The landlord subsequently appropriately used its discretion to replace the door. It is once again not evident that the concerns about condensation or whether the new door would solve this issue were ever considered; however, the resident has reported that the new door has solved this issue.
The landlord also appropriately measured the resident’s expectations about the length of time it would take to manufacture the door. It is evident, however, that it led him to believe the manufacturing was underway as of its stage two response, whereas it actually hadn’t received or approved the quote at this point. The period of time between it initially approving the door and the door being installed greatly exceeded 16 weeks. This was in part due to the contractor issuing the wrong quote and needing to issue a revised quote. While this may have been beyond the landlord’s control, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep the resident updated about this delay; however, it did not do so, despite requests for updates from the resident.
In summary, while the landlord appropriately used its discretion to offer a new door and some elements of the delays were beyond its control, there were periods where the landlord failed to keep the resident reasonably updated, contributing to his distress and inconvenience. While it was appropriate that it recognised the impact of these delays and offered some compensation, as noted above, the total amount offered across both issues is not sufficient to reflect the impact caused to the resident.
Given the above failings, there was maladministration in this case. The resident’s time and trouble in chasing repairs had been accounted for above; however, a further £250 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication has been ordered.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s stage one response was appropriately issued in line with the timeframe noted in its complaint acknowledgement.
However, following the resident’s request for an escalation on 27 May 2022, the landlord did not provide its stage two response until 12 September 2022. This was significantly in excess of the 20 working days noted in its complaints policy. While some complaint investigations can take an extended time, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to provide an update and a new indicative timeframe where there are delays. However, the landlord did not do this.
While the landlord offered £150 in compensation in its offer made in June 2023, unlike the issues with repairs, there was no reason why the issue of the delayed stage two response couldn’t have been addressed in the stage two response itself. The Ombudsman notes that the subsequent offer only came after the resident had referred the complaint to this service, and a significant amount of time after the stage two response was issued. The landlord’s offer relating to the delayed stage two response has therefore not been considered.
Given the delay, a finding of service failure has been made. While the landlord’s offer was made unreasonably late, the amount is in line with what the Ombudsman would order for this level of impact. An order has therefore been made that the landlord pay its offer of £150 compensation if it is yet to be accepted.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports about repairs to his:
1. balcony;
2. front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Balcony

Despite having been provided with a quote for works to the resident’s balcony in May 2022, there was an unreasonable delay in the approval of these works, which eventually occurred in January 2023, and a further unreasonable delay to the works themselves. Throughout this period, the landlord’s internal communications demonstrate that its record-keeping and approval processes are insufficient. The landlord also failed to provide updates despite multiple requests from the resident.

Door

While the landlord appropriately used its discretion to replace the door, it failed to carry out a reasonable inspection of the condensation issues reported by the resident and failed to keep him updated about the delays to the installation of the new door.

Complaints handling

The length of time between the delayed stage two response and the landlord’s offer of compensation relating to this delay was unreasonably long, and so has not been considered. Given the delay to the stage two response, a finding of service failure has been made.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £2,200, comprising:
1. £1,950 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays and poor communication in relation to the balcony works;
2. £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication in relation to the door works.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £950. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
In relation to its complaints handling, the landlord is ordered to pay the £150 in compensation it previously offered, if this is yet to have been accepted.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. review its repairs record keeping to ensure they are accessible to complaints handling staff and ensure that those staff are adequately trained in relation to accessing those records;
2. review its repair quote approval process to ensure that both its staff and residents are kept aware of the process and an indicative timeframe for approval.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to reiterate its offer of £499.50 in relation to the cost of the purchase and running of the dehumidifier, if this is yet to be accepted.