Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202117487)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117487

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 response to the resident’s reports about a repair to the bedroom ceiling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She occupies a one bedroom flat in a high rise block.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and the outside of the dwelling in repair.
The landlord operates a priority response time scale for repairs:
1. Emergency and priority repairs need to be undertaken within two to 24 hours, depending upon the seriousness of the problem. An initial repair may be undertaken to make the property safe and, where necessary, a follow-on appointment will be offered to carry out a permanent repair.
2. Urgent repairs are to be undertaken within three to five working days.
3. Routine repairs are to be undertaken within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaint procedure. Stage one complaints should be responded to within 15 working days. Stage two complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. If it is necessary to extend the timescales set out in the policy, the landlord will inform the resident as to why the timescales cannot be met and also when they can expect to receive a response. The policy provides that notification should be sent to the complainant at the first possible opportunity.

Summary of events

At the end of May 2021, part of the resident’s bedroom ceiling collapsed. She reported this to the landlord and an asbestos check was undertaken. A job was raised to repair the ceiling on 28 June 2021.
On 4 June 2021 the resident reported that more of her bedroom ceiling had collapsed. This time some of the debris had fallen on her two year old daughter’s head. Her daughter was not injured but the resident reported that her daughter was very distressed following the incident. On this occasion, an emergency repair was undertaken to make safe the ceiling pending the appointment on 28 June 2021.
On 10 June 2021 the landlord responded to an out-of-hours contact made by the resident. The resident was unhappy that the call centre operative was not familiar with the history of the repair and she challenged them about this. The resident was dissatisfied with the operative’s response so she then ended the call.
On 28 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report that no-one had attended to complete the repair that was scheduled to be carried out that day. The resident was informed that the repair had been cancelled. The resident enquired as to who had cancelled the appointment but the information was not shared with her at this time.
The resident called back the next day and she was informed by the landlord that there was no availability for a follow-up appointment until August 2021.
The resident made a formal complaint via the landlord’s website on 2 July 2021. In her complaint she stated that she believed that the call centre operative she had spoken to on 10 June 2021 had cancelled the appointment on the 28 June 2021 without good reason because the resident had challenged them during the telephone call.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day by email advising the resident that she should expect the receive a written response by 23 July 2021, but it would inform her if it anticipated that the response would be delayed beyond this date.
On 26 July 2021 the resident called the landlord to chase up the complaint response. On 27 July 2021 the landlord returned the resident’s call and provided an update regarding its investigations. It informed the resident that the call centre operative would not have been aware of the history of the repair in discussion with her as they had been responding to an out-of-hours call. The operative had liaised with the contractor who had advised them that the works on the 28 June 2021 could not go ahead and on the basis of this information the operative cancelled the appointment. The landlord informed the resident that the contractor should have rearranged the appointment directly with her once it became aware that the appointment on the 28 June 2021 needed to be cancelled. This had not happened for which the landlord apologised. The call centre operative should also have called the resident back when the resident terminated the call. The landlord advised that this and outstanding repairs issues would be addressed in their complaint response.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 3 August 2021. In the response it apologised for the poor customer service the resident received. It accepted that communication should have been clearer. The landlord advised that the appointment had been rebooked for 26 August 2021. It confirmed that the resident’s feedback would be used to improve service delivery.
On 16 August 2021 the resident asked that her complaint be escalated to stage two as she was dissatisfied with the explanation provided by the landlord and as works remained outstanding. The landlord acknowledged the request on 18 August 2021 and informed the resident that she should receive a response by 14 September 2021.
The ceiling works did not go ahead on 26 August 2021 because the contractor had not received the works order as it was raised on the incorrect priority. An appointment was offered for 26 October 2021.
On 22 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to chase up her complaint response and she said that the appointment had been cancelled on two occasions now. She said that her daughter was very frightened that the ceiling would fall in on her again. She asked for a copy of the landlord’s compensation policy. On 30 September 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord to report that she had not received her stage two complaint response and to express her dissatisfaction with the service.
On 1 October 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident to apologise for what had happened and for the delays. The resident reported that she could not be at home for the appointment on 26 October 2021 as it was booked for a full day and she had an appointment in the afternoon.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 October 2021 to inform her that they aimed to provide her with a stage two response by 26 November 2021.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 29 October 2021 to check the progress of repairs. The resident responded by email to say that she was unhappy with the time it had taken to respond to her. The landlord had a telephone conversation with the resident later that day in which the resident confirmed that the repairs were outstanding, and she wanted disciplinary action taken against the call centre operative.
The resident contacted this Service to ask that her complaint be investigated. Contact was made with the landlord by this Service to request that the resident be sent its stage two complaint response.
On 2 November 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response.
1. It confirmed that the contractor should have contacted the resident directly to let her know that the appointment on 28 June 2021 was not going ahead.
2. It confirmed it had reviewed the call recording and had concluded that the call centre operative had not cancelled the appointment out of malice but in response to the information provided by the contractor. However their communication with the resident could have been clearer, and further attempts should have been made to contact the resident, after she had ended the call, to clarify what would happen next.
3. The landlord apologised to the resident for not acknowledging in its stage one response the impact that the ceiling debris falling on her daughter would have had on the resident.
4. The appointment on 26 October 2021 was not convenient for the resident so a further appointment would be offered and the progress of the repair would be monitored.
5. £200 was offered to compensate the resident for the inconvenience of poor customer service and significant delays.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 November 2021 as she was unhappy with the outcome and wanted her complaint to be investigated.

Events following the referral to this Service

The landlord contacted the resident on 25 November 2021 to offer an appointment for the 10 December 2021 to redecorate the ceiling. The landlord’s notes state that the bedroom ceiling had already been replastered although it is unclear from the records when these works were undertaken. The appointment on the 10 December 2021 did not go ahead as the resident and her daughter were unwell with covid symptoms and they had not been tested for COVID-19.
Following a request for mediation from this Service, the landlord offered a revised amount of £350 to the resident in compensation on 10 December 2021. This was rejected by the resident on 22 December 2021 who asked that the matter progress to investigation.
On 4 February 2023 a member of the landlord’s management team met with the resident and apologised for the delays to resolving the repair issues and for the impacts upon the resident and her daughter. It was agreed that the works would start on 6 February 2023 and continue until 9 February 2023.
This meeting was followed up by an email to the resident dated 6 February 2023 in which the landlord agreed that the issues they had discussed on 4th February 2023 would be fed back to senior management who would look to improve service delivery going forward. A revised offer of £1450 in compensation was made which comprised of:
1. £100 for delays in responding to the resident’s stage two complaint;
2. £750 for delays to the works;
3. £500 to reflect the negative impact the service failures had upon the resident and her daughter;
4. £100 in contribution towards redecoration costs in her lounge.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord contacted this Service to report that all the works to the property had now been completed and post inspected and the resident had confirmed that she was satisfied with the works undertaken.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has said that she would like compensation from the landlord because debris from the ceiling fell on her daughter. It is not within the remit of this Service to consider matters such as liability, causation and damages. This would be a matter for the courts and should the resident wish to pursue this aspect of this complaint, she should seek independent legal advice about pursuing a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a repair to her bedroom ceiling.

(i) The resident’s concerns about staff conduct

The Ombudsman’s role is not to investigate the resident’s allegation about the call centre operative’s conduct during the telephone call of 10 June 2021 and make a finding. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaint were appropriate and proportionate taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
In its stage two complaint response, the landlord advised that it had considered the call recording of the discussion between the resident and operative on the 10 June 2021. It concluded that while the operative had responded based on the information available to them at the time, and cancelled the appointment on the instruction of the contractor, this could have been better communicated to the resident. Further, when the contractor advised that the appointment could not go ahead, it should have rescheduled the appointment directly with the resident. The landlord apologised for these service failings and advised the resident that this would be followed up so that improvements could be made to service delivery.
The landlord could not share the outcome of any investigation in terms of any disciplinary matters with the resident. This is because this would relate to employment matters which would be confidential and beyond the remit of this Service’s investigation. The landlord did demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s allegations and it commented on the actions it had taken in response to her concerns, highlighting any service delivery failings and apologising for these.
It is the Ombudman’s view that the landlord undertook appropriate enquiries to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It identified service failures and confirmed that steps would be taken going forward to improve service delivery in customer care.

(ii) The landlord’s response to the collapsed ceiling

In accordance with the landlord’s policy the repair to the ceiling should have been considered initially as an emergency repair when this was first reported in May 2021, with works undertaken within 24 hours to make the ceiling safe. This did not happen consequently on 4 June 2021 more of the ceiling collapsed with debris falling on the resident’s daughter’s head. It was fortunate that the resident’s daughter was not injured, however the resident reported that she and her daughter felt shaken following the incident and that her daughter was frightened to go into the bedroom thereafter. It is unclear why this repair was not initially given the correct priority. As a result of this oversight, the resident and her daughter were left at risk of injury given that the ceiling had not been made safe.
The landlord’s records state that at some point between June and December 2021 the ceiling was replastered, however the records do not evidence when these works took place. The contractor cancelled appointments on 28 June 2021 and 31 August 2021 with appointments cancelled by the resident on 26 October 2021 and 10 December 2021. Despite the landlord informing the resident that the progress of repairs would be monitored following the stage two complaint response, no records have been provided to this Service between November 2021 and 4 February 2023. The landlord has since advised that works took place between the 6 February 2023 and 9 February 2023 with the works recorded as completed post-inspection.
While it is evident that some of the scheduled appointments had been cancelled by the resident, once the ceiling had been made safe the repairs should have been completed within 20 working days of the resident’s initial report, by the end of May 2021.The landlord confirmed that the works were completed 19 months later. This was an unreasonable delay for which the landlord has not provided an explanation. The resident was inconvenienced by these delays and was put to time and trouble in following the works up.
The records provided to this Service by the landlord were incomplete and did not include adequately record repairs and calls. The Ombudsman bases its decisions on the documentary evidence provided to it by the parties and there is an expectation that the landlord should be in a position to provide adequate evidence of its actions. The gaps in the information have been highlighted throughout this report. The landlord should therefore take steps to ensure that its record-keeping practices are adequate and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations. A recommendation has been included below to reflect this.
One final point relates to the landlord’s communication both internally between staff and contractors and externally with the resident. In correspondence with the landlord dated 22 and 30 September 2021, the resident expressed frustration and disappointment with its service delivery as she had not received updates and had to chase to rearrange appointments that had been cancelled. The landlord contacted the resident to enquire whether repair appointments had gone ahead and it was recorded that there was some problem with obtaining this information from the contractor. Repairs records should be up to date and easily accessible to staff. Landlords should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, visits, inspections and investigations. This will allow appointments to be rescheduled without delay and ensure that residents are satisfied that repairs are in hand when they make enquiries.
£200 in compensation was offered to the resident initially for both delays to repairs and poor customer service. This was increased to £350 following involvement by this Service as part of our mediation process. Mediation was rejected by the resident and she requested that the matter proceed to investigation. Following further contact from this Service, the landlord reviewed the complaint and in February 2023 met with the resident to discuss her concerns and arranged for works to be completed that week. The compensation award in respect of repair delays was increased to £1250.
Whilst it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and increased the offer of compensation, it is not clear why the landlord did not offer this amount when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure, but appears to have been prompted to reconsider its position following the complaint being referred to the Ombudsman. This was a missed opportunity to potentially resolve the complaint at an earlier point and it is of concern that the landlord did not use its complaints procedure to address these matters.
The landlord has not provided an adequate explanation of why the compensation award was increased so significantly. This leads this Service to conclude that, had the complaint not been referred to this Service, the revised offer of compensation may not have been awarded. This Service’s outcomes guidance provides that it is not in the spirit of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles or the Complaint Handling Code for a landlord to make a substantial offer of redress late in a protracted process with the effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further. Therefore while the landlord has met with the resident, offered a revised increased offer of compensation, apologised and made assurances that there will be improvements to service delivery, as this happened only at a late stage once the resident had referred her complaint to this Service, a finding of maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s complaints handling

Member landlords are required to comply with the Ombudsman’s ‘Complaint Handling Code’ which was published in July 2020. The Code provides that stage one complaints should be responded to within 10 working days of receipt, with stage two complaints within 20 working days. The timescales for response in the landlord’s Complaint Policy in force at the time of the resident’s complaint were not compliant with the Code. This Service notes, however, that the landlord has since updated its Corporate Complaints Policy to reflect the timescales in the Code.
The landlord’s stage one response should have been made available to the resident on 23 July 2021. The resident received a response on 3 August 2021 which was seven days outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaint policy. This delay would not have caused significant detriment to the resident however it would have been appropriate, and in accordance with its policy, for the landlord to have informed the resident in advance that the response would be delayed with an explanation for the delay.
The landlord’s stage two response was delayed by 35 days and the resident was further inconvenienced by having to follow this up and ultimately referring the matter to this Service for intervention.
The landlord’s stage two response appropriately acknowledged the impact the collapsed ceiling had on the resident and her child. It also accepted that there were service failings in its customer care when the resident telephoned the call centre on 10 June 2021. The response includes an apology for its poor customer service as well as significant delays and inconvenience. The response states that works would be monitored to completion.
The landlord had apologised for delays in its complaints handling and the resident was offered an increased offer of compensation of £100 in February 2023 for delays to the landlord’s response at stage two of the complaint. Once again, it is regrettable that this amount was not offered to the resident at an earlier stage in the landlord’s complaint process and appears to have been prompted by a referral to this Service. While the response at stage two of the resident’s complaints process was considerably delayed the landlord has not outlined any learning outcomes regarding complaint handling delays. This Service therefore considers that the redress offered in relation to this aspect of the complaint did not go far enough and an award for further compensation has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a collapsed ceiling in her bedroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Service failures have been identified both in delays to repairs and communication with the resident. While the complaint was reviewed in February 2023 with a higher award of compensation awarded, as this happened at a late stage following the involvement of this Service, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, a finding of maladministration is warranted.
There were delays in the landlord responding at stage one and stage two of its complaints procedure. The resident was not contacted about an extension to the deadline for response before the initial deadline expired and she had to spend time in following this up. While compensation was awarded to reflect this, the landlord had not identified any learning outcomes in this area and, in the Ombudsman’s view, the compensation offered did not reflect the detriment to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays the resident, in addition to the £1450 they have already offered:
1. An amount of £100 because of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
2. The landlord is to make the payment within four weeks of the date of this report.
3. The landlord is to then provide confirmation to this Service that payment of the full amount of £1550 has been made to the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping procedures in line with the Ombudsman’s report ‘Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management’ dated May 2023.