Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202115349)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115349

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

29 June 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 handling of the resident’s reports about a leak into the property.
The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident, who is a leaseholder, first reported the issue of a leak coming from a stack pipe towards the end of March/beginning of April 2021. The leak was coming from the flat above. She advised that it had caused plasterboard to crumble, the presence of mould underneath cupboards in the kitchen, and that the smell of damp was at times ‘unbearable’. She also noted that damp flies were present in the property. The landlord sent several contractors who each raised a report for a repair, but the resident received no further updates. The resident submitted her formal complaint on 22 May 2021. The landlord’s formal response (2 July 2021) explained that a temporary fix was in place, and that a permanent fix was being arranged.
The leak was confirmed by the landlord to have been fixed, and correspondence suggests that this was on 13 July 2021. However, the resident was not made aware of the repair. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates, as in order to make an insurance claim for the damages to the property, she needed to inform the insurer that the issue had been resolved. On 3 October 2021, the resident contacted this Service and advised of the ongoing issue, including that she had not received a final response from the landlord.
Following correspondence from this service, the landlord’s final response was issued on 18 January 2022. It apologised for the delay, and the poor service that the resident had received. It also offered a total of £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused, and confirmed that a surveyor would be attending to ensure that the leak was no longer affecting her home. The resident was dissatisfied with the response as she did not think the compensation was suitably representative of the inconvenience she had faced. The resident was also unhappy with the lack of explanation regarding the delay. Following the surveyor’s visit, it was confirmed that repairs had been made in July 2021, and the resident was made aware of this on 11 February 2022.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

The landlord’s Repairs & Maintenance Handbook states that minor leaks and dripping pipes are to be classed as ‘Priority 3’ repairs. These types of repairs are to be responded to within three working days.
The landlord’s Repairs & Maintenance Handbook also states that, ‘[The landlord aims] to complete urgent repairs within three to five working days. If the repair cannot be resolved immediately, a temporary solution will be put in place until such time as a permanent repair can be carried out’.
Section 4.2 of the landlord’s Complaints Policy states that for a stage two response, ‘a full written reply [will be] sent within twenty working days’.
Part E, section 1(b), of the tenancy agreement states that [The landlord] will keep all fixtures and fittings in [the resident’s] home… in proper working order… for example, water and gas pipes’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a leak into the property

The date that the resident notified the landlord of the pipe leak is unclear, however, it is not disputed that it was towards the end of March or beginning of April 2021. Following this, a combination of surveyors and contractors attended the property on 6 April, 14 April and 7 May 2021. The landlord’s Repairs & Maintenance Handbook states that minor leaks and dripping pipes are to be classed as ‘Priority 3’ repairs. These types of repairs are categorised as urgent repairs, as stated in the handbook. The landlord’s Repairs & Maintenance Handbook also states that, ‘[The landlord aims] to complete urgent repairs within three to five working days. If the repair cannot be resolved immediately, a temporary solution will be put in place until such time as a permanent repair can be carried out’.
With this in mind, at minimum, a temporary repair should have been implemented in the days following the contractor’s visit on 6 April 2021. However, the temporary repair was completed three months later, around 22 June 2021. In its stage one response (2 July 2021), the landlord acknowledged that contractors had attended on multiple occasions, but had been unable to locate the source of the leak. Additionally, the resident had tried to chase the repair on multiple occasions, often without response.
It is important for the landlord to maintain good communication with the resident, especially whilst in the process of addressing a repair that was directly affecting the resident’s property. Good communication with the resident would have shown that the landlord was taking the issues at hand seriously, and would have shown the resident that it was putting customer care at the forefront of its priorities. Failure to maintain good communication with the resident can understandably make the resident feel frustrated and unsure of how the issues are being handled.
This is particularly important in cases that involve leaks, as they can be difficulty to locate or diagnose. Therefore it may not be possible to complete repairs within policy timescales. If this is the case then the landlord must be proactive in keeping the resident up to date with any explanation about its actions and investigation or repair.
Additionally, the resident made the landlord aware of her concerns regarding the effects that she had experienced due to the leak being left untreated. The resident noted that plasterboard in the kitchen was crumbling, there was mould, and that there was a significant presence of damp flies in the property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address these issues in detail. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to making an insurance claim for the damage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer advice on preventative measures that could be taken until the source of the leak was identified.
It is understandable that sometimes it can prove difficult to locate leaks, especially regarding pipes that run through multiple properties, however, the delay of three months was not reasonable. The landlord’s failure to implement a temporary fix was a failure to act in line with its policies.Following a failure to act in accordance with policies, the landlord would be expected to address this with a reasonable remedy in respect of the service failure. The landlord recognised that the length of time taken to address the leak was ‘not the level of customer service [it wanted] to provide’. It apologised for the delay it had caused, and offered the resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
Whilst it is encouraging that the landlord recognised its failing and offered compensation in recognition of this, it is the opinion of this Service that the compensation offered was not reasonable when the delay and lack of communication is considered. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that instances in which there was a ‘failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs’, would warrant a minimum payment of £250. Given that not only was there a delay in addressing the repair, but that there was also poor communication, and a failure to assess and offer advice regarding the effects from the leak, the minimum sum of £250 would be a reasonable offer, and more in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
As already mentioned, the landlord confirmed in its stage one response that it had implemented a temporary fix. This was the first correspondence between the landlord and resident that confirmed any repair had taken place. This was almost two weeks after the repair had been made. This is further evidence of poor communication on behalf of the landlord. Additionally, the landlord advised that it was arranging for a permanent resolution to the leak that would require a ‘block shutdown’, the date of which would be communicated ‘shortly’.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have given an estimate of when it aimed to have this work carried out, even if only referencing timeframes set out in its Repairs & Maintenance Handbook.
Managing expectations is a significant aspect of a landlord’s repairs service as it gives the landlord an opportunity to show that it is taking a proactive approach to completing the repair. Following an initial delay of having a repair completed, it can make the resident feel more at ease in knowing that the landlord had specific timeframes in mind to get the repair completed.
Although the landlord said that the permanent repair required the block shutdown, the actual repair of the pipe was carried out during a contractor’s visit on 13 July 2021. Following this, the pipe replacement that required the block shut down was a preventative measure to stop it happening again in the future. This meant that the leak had been fixed but the resident had not been made aware. As the resident had not been made aware, she was still under the impression that the block shut down was required to install more than the temporary fix that had been implemented in June. It is unclear why the landlord failed to notify the resident that the pipe had been fixed. Although the repair was not carried out in the resident’s property, the repair was related to her complaint, and the leak that had been causing damage to her property. Therefore, the landlord should have kept the resident informed.
It is important for the landlord to keep the resident informed with all updates relating to repairs. This is because, as well as keeping the resident generally informed, which would help to maintain a good landlord/tenant relationship, the resident may also require certain updates in order to make progress in having repairs made.
It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident hat she should claim through its insurer, as the pipe ran from outside of the property. Part E, section 1(b), of the tenancy agreement states that [The landlord] will keep all fixtures and fittings in [the resident’s] home… in proper working order… for example, water and gas pipes’. However the presence of a repair does not mean that the landlord has failed in its obligations or is liable for any damages. This is why residents are also advised to arrange their own contents insurance.
Not only did the landlord fail to notify the resident of the repair in the first instance, but correspondence shows that the resident made multiple attempts to ask what had been done in regards to repairs, and made clear to the landlord that she needed the information in order to make the insurance claim. This resulted in a significant delay in notifying the resident that the repair had been completed. She was eventually notified on 11 February 2022.
Additionally, due to the fact that the resident was notified after the landlord’s final response (18 January 2022), the compensation offered in the final response was not representative of the issues caused. The landlord offered a further £150 compensation in recognition of further delays and inconvenience which took the total offer of compensation to £250. The final response advised that the landlord would send a surveyor to confirm whether the leak had been resolved, but this should have been done following the repair in July. When the initial delay of addressing the leak, the failed appointment on 22 December 2021 and the communication failures that led to the resident being unable to make her insurance claim for a significant period of time are considered, the total offer of £250 was not appropriate in the opinion of this Service.
The collective failures amounted to maladministration by the landlord in the way that it responded to the resident’s reports of the leak. As such, as stated in this Service’s remedies guidance, payments of £250 – £700 are reasonable for instances in which there was evidence of a resident ‘repeatedly having to chase responses… necessitating [an] unreasonable level of involvement’, and where, as stated in the above report, there was ‘failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs’.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Following the landlord’s stage one response, the resident requested escalation of her complaint on 2 July 2021. The landlord acknowledged this escalation on 8 July 2021. Section 4.2 of the landlord’s Complaints Policy states that for a stage two response, ‘a full written reply [will be] sent within twenty working days’. Additionally, as part of the landlord’s confirmation of the escalation, the landlord said that it would ‘aim to respond by 30 July 2021. If any delay is likely to occur, [the resident] will be informed as soon as possible’.
This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the designated timeframe. This is usually to be expected when complaints are complex and further investigation is required. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident, explain in detail the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe.
However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with any update, and the resident first chased the landlord for a response on 3 August 2021. Following this, the resident again attempted multiple times to chase the landlord for a response. The landlord also overlooked the resident’s request for the contact details of the Chief Executive Officer. Only following correspondence from this Service did the landlord give its final response (18 January 2022). This was following two chaser letters from this Service, the first requesting the landlord to respond by 24 November 2021, and the second deadline being 18 January 2022. The landlord’s stage two complaint response also failed to address the missed appointment on 22 December 2021 and the inconvenience this caused the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about a leak into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £700 to the resident within 28 days of this investigation. This can be broken down to:

£300 (including the £100 already offered in the stage 1 response) for the delay in addressing the leak and installing a temporary fix.
£250 (including the £150 already offered in the stage 2 response) for the landlord’s communication failures including the failure to notify the resident of the repaired pipe.
£150 for the landlord’s complaint handling.