Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202121487)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121487

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

16 May 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:

a. Bathroom repairs.

b. Concerns about the conduct of its contractors.

c. Request for reimbursement of personal belongings damaged by contractors.

The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The landlord’s records say that the resident is elderly and has vulnerabilities.
On 6 August 2019, workmen attended the resident’s property to carry out works to her bathroom. The works included refurbishing the dividing wall between the bathroom and the water tank, the removal of the old water tank which had asbestos insulation, the fitting of a new water tank, the fitting of a new shower and the fitting of a cupboard underneath the wash basin.
On 7 August 2019, the landlord paid for the resident to move to a hotel temporarily while the works continued.
On 22 August 2019, the asbestos surrounding the water tank was removed.
On 3 September 2019, the resident moved back into her flat. However, the work was not completed. The shower was installed incorrectly in the bath, shower piping was left in the middle of the bath, and electrical cables were left unconnected.
Electricians returned to connect the power supply on 13 September 2019. The resident said that workmen caused damage to her clothes, bags and shoes, which she had left covered up, in another room. The resident said that the workmen stepped on her belongings covering them in asbestos dust and water.
On 17 November 2019, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She said that:

a. A landlord’s staff member had listened to the recording she had made of the contractors on 13 September 2019.

b. It had been over 8 weeks since the landlord attended her property to inspect the damage done to her belongings.

c. She had incurred expenses paying for meals during the four weeks the landlord had put her into a hotel. She had not been reimbursed for this as yet.

d. There was still work outstanding to the bathroom.

e. She had been physically assaulted by one of the workmen and the landlord had asked her not to report this to the police.

f. She had been suffering from stress and depression because of these issues.

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 31 January 2020. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It said that the workmen had caused damage but had offered to clean it up, however it said that the resident had refused this. It said that the conduct of the workman had been dealt with internally. The landlord offered the resident a goodwill payment of £50 as an apology.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 19 February 2020. She rejected the offer of a goodwill payment and said that she was seeking reimbursement for the money she spent on meals during her time at the hotel, the fitting of the shower back into its correct position and payment for her belongings that were damaged by the landlord’s contractors. On the same day, the resident emailed her local councillor to raise her concern that dust on her belongings was asbestos dust.
On 20 February 2020, the resident reported that workmen booked to attend the property had not arrived and multiple repairs remained outstanding.
The landlord responded to the local councillor on 16 March 2020, that the dust on the resident’s belongings was not asbestos dust, but dust generated by electrical works being completed. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service that all the asbestos surrounding the water tank had been removed by specially qualified contractors on 22 August 2019.
The resident submitted a liability insurance claim to the landlord for the damage done to her belongings. This was received by the landlord’s insurance department on 19 March 2021. The landlord’s insurance department wrote to the resident on 27 April 2021, and said it would carry out an investigation within 40 business days.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord’s insurance department wrote to the resident accepting liability for the damage done to her belongings. It said it had received the evidence she had sent and asked that she provide receipts for any items she had had dry-cleaned. It asked that she confirm whether she had had to dispose of any items that could not be dry cleaned.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 September 2020, and said that it had received the receipts the resident had provided and asked about the other items of clothing she was claiming for. The resident said that the items she was able to have dry-cleaned were at the dry cleaners. She said that she wasn’t sure whether her bags and accessories could be dry cleaned. She said she had listed the items she was not able to have dry cleaned along with their prices.
On 14 October 2020, the landlord said it had received the dry-cleaning receipts totalling £85, but that the resident had said that the rest of the items had been placed into bin bags and she had not had the opportunity to have these dry-cleaned. The landlord said it needed evidence to support the resident’s losses, either in the form of receipts or photographs. Without these it would be difficult for the landlord to compensate her.
On 23 November 2020, the resident told the landlord that she had included all the photos of the damage when she submitted her claim in March 2020. Since then, she had also provided an itemised list of belongings that were damaged and a video recording from the day the damage happened.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2020, offering £500 in full and final settlement of the resident’s insurance claim. The resident rejected the landlord’s offer on 14 December 2020. She said that she had purchased many of the damaged items when she worked at Jaeger and Karen Millen, using her staff discount. To replace the items, she would now need to pay full price. She said she was awaiting payment from the landlord of £85 to be able to collect her items that were at the dry cleaners. She said there were still some items that were to be sent to the dry cleaners, but she was waiting for reimbursement for the receipts she had provided so far before doing this. The resident asked the landlord to come and view the items she was claiming for, so that a more accurate offer could be made. The resident asked why it had taken so long to process her claim. She had had to follow up on multiple occasions.
The landlord responded on 11 January 2021. It said that the offer it had made was reasonable. To justify an increased offer, it would need further evidence of losses. The landlord said it could not come and view the items at the resident’s home, particularly in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord apologised for delays in its communication.
On the 31 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that she had already provided photos. She said that all the items were new as she did not keep old items. She said she was sending the landlord a video of similar undamaged items in her wardrobe with their attached price tags. The resident said she had not taken all of her items to the dry cleaners, as she had anticipated a delay in receiving reimbursement.
The landlord responded on 22 February 2021. It said it had considered the photographs the resident had provided and had watched the video she had sent. The landlord said it would accept a dry-cleaning quote from the resident for the items she had yet to take to the dry cleaners.
On 5 March 2021, the landlord sent its stage two complaint response. It acknowledged it was unacceptable that it had taken 19 months to complete the bathroom repairs and apologised for this. It offered the resident £624.91 in compensation. It admitted liability for the damage to the resident’s belongings and offered the resident £500 in settlement of her insurance claim. It offered to reimburse the resident £560, to cover the costs of her meals during the time she had been moved into a hotel.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 May 2021. She said that her rent arrears had come about as a result of being rehoused because of racial abuse she had received from a neighbour at the last property she lived at.
On 28 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that as it had responded to the resident’s complaint in full, it could not progress the matter any further. The landlord said that due to the resident having rent arrears, any compensation due would go towards the arrears. The landlord said that if the resident felt she had been treated differently or unfairly, she could raise this matter as a separate discrimination complaint.
The resident complained to the Ombudsman as she didn’t believe she had been reimbursed fully for the damage to her belongings. She also felt discriminated against, as another resident had received full reimbursement for belongings which were damaged by the landlord’s contractors.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

The resident said in her complaint that she received an unacceptable response from her local councillor. This Service can only look at complaints about local authorities which directly relate to their role as social landlords. The Ombudsman cannot consider their other activities, such as the activities carried out by councillors. This is more suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) which can investigate complaints about councillors. The resident may be able to refer her concerns about the councillor to the LGSCO if she has complained to the local authority about this and is dissatisfied with its response to her concerns.
The resident has mentioned in her complaint that her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. It is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. However, this Service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
In the correspondence received by this Service, there is a report from the resident that she slipped on temporary flooring installed by the landlord when it was doing further works to her property in June 2022. The Ombudsman is not able to consider this incident in this investigation as it did not form part of the original complaint brought to the landlord. The resident is encouraged to raise a complaint about this incident directly with the landlord should she wish to pursue this matter. She may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her concerns about the flooring incident.
The resident has said that the landlord discriminated against her as another resident was fully reimbursed for items damaged by the landlord’s contractors, but the resident was not given the full amount for her damaged items.
The landlord was correct to advise the resident that she could raise a separate complaint in relation to discrimination if she felt she had been treated differently or unfairly. The landlord acted reasonably in advising this, as the resident had not raised the issue of discrimination until after the landlord’s stage two complaint response. As explained above, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore, this Service cannot comment further on the resident’s concerns about discrimination until the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to this through its complaints process.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaint process has two stages. At stage one, a response will be provided within 15 working days. If an extension of time is needed at stage one, the procedure states that the landlord will notify the resident advising them when it will respond. At stage two, a response will be provided within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook states that non-urgent repairs will be completed within 20 working days. It does not give timescales in which planned works should be completed.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling and states that: “A complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident”.

Assessment

The Ombudsman’s expectation is that landlords in resolving complaints:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. Put things right.

c. Learn from outcomes.

Where there have been errors by the landlord, we will assess whether the landlord has done enough or if it needs to do more to put things right for the resident and learn from the outcome of their complaint.

Bathroom repairs

The landlord has acted appropriately by acknowledging that bathroom repair works that should have taken a week, took 19 months. This was clearly an unacceptably long delay which would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord apologised for this and explained that this was in part due to the Covid-19 pandemic and a change in repair contractors but agreed that the service it provided was unacceptable.
In view of the resident’s age and vulnerabilities, the landlord should have considered moving the resident into a hotel before the works had commenced rather than after the works had started. It should have been reasonably apparent at this stage that the resident could not remain in the property while the works were carried out. The resident mentioned in her complaint that there were missed appointments in relation to the repairs prior to the work starting and throughout the period that it took for the works to be completed. The resident repeatedly had to chase the landlord for updates in relation to the repairs, which would have added to her inconvenience.
The resident told the landlord that the delays to the repair of the bathroom and the damage to her belongings had affected her health. The landlord should have responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, looking at whether it could take any steps to support the resident and/or refer her to other agencies who may be able to provide support. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to advise her that she could pursue a personal injury claim with its liability insurer should she wish to do so. These errors have been considered when looking at compensation.
The landlord offered the resident £624.91 compensation for its errors in the handling of the bathroom repairs. This offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that in cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 should be offered. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what the Ombudsman would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is appropriate redress for the landlord’s errors in this case.
The landlord also acted reasonably by offering to reimburse the resident for the money she spent on meals during the time she was staying at the hotel.

Conduct of the landlord’s contractors

The landlord has confirmed that its contractors carried out an internal investigation into the conduct of the workmen who attended the property. This Service would not expect the landlord to share detailed information about this investigation due to confidentiality. Furthermore, this Service cannot comment on any disciplinary action taken against staff, as it is outside its remit to comment on employment matters. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an investigation in response to the concerns raised by the resident.
In her initial complaint, the resident said that a staff member of the landlord had listened to the recording she made of the contractors whilst they were in her property and that she could provide a copy of this recording to the landlord. The landlord had an obligation to address the voice recording in its complaint responses, or if it was unable to consider this evidence, explain the reasons for this.
The landlord should have advised the resident to report the assault to the police and to co-operate with a police investigation. Assault is a criminal offence which the police are best placed to investigate as they have different powers to the landlord and can take appropriate action to investigate and resolve reports of criminal activity. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm to the resident it would not send the same person to the resident’s property again in response to her concerns about their conduct and that it would take appropriate action following the police investigation, conducting an internal investigation if appropriate.
Furthermore, none of the landlord’s complaint responses state what measures it has put in place going forward in relation to the behaviour of contractors, to prevent incidents such as this in the future. This was a failing by the landlord to show learning from this complaint and provide reassurance to the resident going forward.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation. However, given that the resident is elderly and has vulnerabilities, and taking into account the serious nature of the alleged behaviour, it is likely that the conduct of the landlord’s contractors would have caused her considerable distress, and in this Service’s opinion, additional compensation is due in view of this. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that between £100-£600 compensation should be offered where there was maladministration that has adversely affected the resident. In the view of this Service, an additional £250 should be offered to the resident in compensation for the contractor’s behaviour.

Request for reimbursement of belongings damaged by contractors

The resident has provided photographs, voice, and video recordings in support of her complaint. This Service has viewed the photographs and recordings which appear to show the resident’s belongings covered in dust. However, we cannot assess the extent of the damage to the resident’s items, the value of the items or the cost of cleaning or replacing them from the photographs provided.
As the landlord has an internal insurance department, the Ombudsman can look at how this department, responded to the resident’s claim. The landlord acted reasonably in requesting that the resident provide receipts or photographs of the items she was claiming for. It acted reasonably in asking the resident to provide receipts or a quote for any dry cleaning of items. The landlord is entitled to ask for evidence of the costs the resident incurred so it can ensure it pays her the correct amount in compensation.
The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident that it would not reimburse her on a new for old basis. The landlord is expected to put the resident back in the position she would have been in if the damage had not occurred. The resident had the use of the items for a period of time before they became damaged. Therefore, if they were replaced with new items, the resident would be in a better position than she was in before the damage happened, and she is not entitled to be in a better position. The resident has argued that some of the items had only been used once but they still likely would have depreciated in value so this would not mean the landlord’s offer was unfair.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident refers to being able to provide bank account statements showing the purchases of some of the items, however this Service has not seen evidence that she provided these to the landlord. In any event, the landlord would only have been able to consider these, if the statements detailed the specific items the resident was claiming for, rather than just the amount she spent in a particular shop.
The resident sent multiple emails to the landlord’s insurance department asking for an update to her claim. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in its responses relating to the resident’s claim. It apologised for this but did not offer redress or compensation for the delay. The delay will have caused time, trouble, and inconvenience for the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been service failure, £50-£100 should be offered in compensation. In this Service’s view £100 compensation should be offered for the delays in processing the resident’s insurance claim.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It took over two months to respond to the resident’s stage one complaint and over 11 months to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint. This well exceeded the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy. The resident had to chase the landlord for updates and was delayed in progressing her complaint to the next stage. This will have caused her time, trouble, and inconvenience.
In accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, it is important that landlords do not wait for an issue to be fully resolved before responding to a resident’s complaint. The landlord should have responded to the resident within the timescales set out in its complaint policy, giving the resident a timeframe within which the outstanding works would be completed. The landlord could then have issued a revised complaint response, if appropriate, after the repairs were completed.
The Ombudsman remedies guidance states that £100-£600 is appropriate where there is evidence of maladministration. In the view of this Service compensation of £300 is due for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the bathroom repairs, satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way in which it handled the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way in which it responded to the resident’s request for reimbursement of personal belongings damaged by its contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way in which it handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:

a. £250 in compensation for the conduct of its contractors in addition to the £50 already offered through its complaint procedure.

b. £100 for its handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement for her personal belongings damaged by its contractors.

c. £300 for its complaint handling failure.

The landlord is ordered to make the above payments within four weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that this Service is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its relationship with its contractor and ensures that the contractor has appropriate procedures in place to comply with the landlord’s expectations when dealing with residents.
If it has not done so already, pay the resident:

a. The £624.90 compensation offered in redress for its handling of the works to her bathroom.

b. The £500 offered in settlement of the resident’s insurance claim for her damaged belongings.

c. The £560 in reimbursement for the money she spent on meals at the hotel.