Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202207336)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207336

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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s:

a.     Response to the resident’s reports of water ingress to his bedroom ceiling from the property above.

b.     Response to the resident’s reports of defective flooring in his kitchen.

  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He occupies a one-bed ground floor flat.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy provides that emergency repairs should be carried out within two to 24 hours with urgent repairs undertaken within three to five working days. Routine repairs should be carried out within 20 working days.  Minor leaks are categorised as priority three cases with a target response time of three working days.
  3. At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a two stage complaints procedure whereby stage one complaints would be responded to within 15 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy provided that a resident may escalate their complaint to stage two within 20 working days of the stage one response. The policy states that it will usually follow the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when assessing compensation.

Summary of events

  1. The resident reported to his landlord in June 2021 that there was water coming through his bedroom ceiling from the flat above each time his neighbour used the shower. It is unclear from the records provided by parties what actions the landlord took in response to this report. A further report was made in November 2021.The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in December 2021. A copy of the complaint and response has not been provided to this Service, however, it appears the complaint was upheld and £100 was offered to the resident in compensation.
  2. An operative attended and no leak was located therefore a job was raised for a surveyor to attend to investigate further in December 2021. According to the landlord’s records, the inspection did not go ahead.
  3. In February 2022 a job was raised to repair the resident’s collapsed kitchen flooring. On 28 February 2022 the resident called to chase these repairs. An appointment was booked on 16 March 2022. The repairs logs record that “Operative states no work required to floor but tenant adamant the there is a hole in the floor which is destabilising the washing machine”.
  4. On 7 February 2022 the resident raised a second complaint with the landlord regarding the leak in his bedroom as this had caused water damage to his walls and ceiling. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 February 2022 with a response but a copy of this letter has not been provided to this Service. On 22 February 2022 the landlord raised a works order to repair the ceiling and repaint the affected areas.
  5. On 16 March 2022 the landlord’s contact logs record that it was agreed that the kitchen flooring and worktops would need to be repaired. An appointment was made for 4 April 2022 to measure up. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what the outcome of this appointment was.
  6. On 22 March 2022 contractors attended to repair the ceiling in the bedroom but they reported to the landlord that they were not able to gain access the property. The resident called the following day to say that he had been at home on 22 March 2022 but a card had been posted through his letterbox stating that the contractors could not gain access. The call operative made enquiries and informed the resident that contractors had proposed a new appointment for 11 April 2022.The landlord recorded that the resident then became irate and the call was terminated before the appointment could be confirmed.
  7. According to the repair logs, the water ingress issue was again inspected on 23 March 2022 which concluded that some cracks in the ceiling needed to be sealed and stain blocked.
  8. On 28 March 2022 the resident called the landlord to enquire about the plastering work. He was informed that there was an appointment scheduled for the 19 April 2022 in the morning. On 19 April the resident called the landlord again to report that the operative had attended to inspect but no works had been carried out. The works were rebooked for the 5 May 2022.
  9. On 5 May 2022 the operative attended the appointment however there was an incident which led to the job being abandoned. The events that day are in dispute. It is agreed that the operative informed the resident that he was there to paint the ceiling and not to plaster it. The resident stated that the operative was then rude to his partner so he asked him to leave. The landlord was informed by the contractors that the operative had alleged that the resident had assaulted him.
  10. On 5 May 2022 the landlord’s notes record that the works were put on hold while the contractor’s allegation was investigated.
  11. On 6 May 2022 the resident requested that his complaint be escalated. He said that he had to take time off work when appointments were booked which cost him money as he was self-employed. He said that there was a lack of communication between landlord and contractor about the works required which had led to a number of abandoned appointments.
  12. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 6 May 2022 and advised that he should expect a response by 27 May 2022.
  13. The landlord’s records indicate that there was an appointment on 9 May 2022 for works to be undertaken to the kitchen floor however the contractor attended and advised that he could not complete the job because the kitchen would need to be cleared and the resident’s pets kept somewhere else in the property. The landlord raised a request for the planner to contact the tenant and arrange an appointment to measure for the kitchen.
  14. On 12 May 2022 the resident called the landlord for an update regarding the works as he had been notified by text of an appointment date on 10 June 2022 but he had also been informed that both jobs had been put on hold. He was advised that someone would call him back that day.
  15. The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 May 2022 and queried why the works had been suspended. He was told that the contractor had complained about him and alleged that he had assaulted the operative. The resident denied this and said that he had called the housing office on a number of occasions but his messages had not been returned.
  16. The landlord’s records show that the investigation was followed up internally so it could be determined how works should proceed going forward. It was decided that the operative would be contacted for further details and that once this statement was available the matter would be investigated by the anti-social behaviour team.
  17. On 27 May 2022 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response in which it:

a.     Advised that the works order for the 6 May 2022 was for an operative to attend the property, inspect the area and provide a report with measurements so that the job could be raised. The landlord said that the operative attended for this purpose and therefore it could see no service failure, although it conceded that its communication with the resident was deficient;

b.     Stated that the work orders had been put on hold because of the allegations the operative had made against the resident. The landlord was waiting for a report from the operative so that this could be investigated further;

c.      Confirmed that a further appointment had been scheduled for 10 June 2022. The landlord had asked the contractor if a different operative could attend and offered for two of the landlord’s officers to be in attendance while the repairs were carried out;

d.     Advised that the landlord was investigating what had happened to the last compensation award of £100 that had been ordered in December 2021 as the resident had reported that he had yet to receive payment. The landlord confirmed that the resident would be contacted with the outcome of the investigation shortly. 

  1. On 27 May 2022 the resident sent two emails to the landlord in which he denied that he had assaulted the contractor. He expressed his dissatisfaction that contractors had attended five times to date with a surveyor attending on one occasion and works had yet to be undertaken. The resident reported that the ceiling was still leaking when the tenant upstairs had a shower. He queried why a job would be raised to plaster and redecorate when the cause of the leak had not been addressed. On 28 May 2022 the resident asked that his complaint be escalated. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 30 May 2022 and informed the him that he should expect a response by 29 June 2022.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the appointment on 10 June 2022 was cancelled. This was because the contractors were refusing to attend because of the resident’s alleged behaviour and they had asked that housing officers attend with them.
  3. On 16 June 2022 the landlord’s internal correspondence shows that the anti-social behaviour team had begun investigating the matter. On 27 June 2022 the anti-social behaviour team confirmed that they would be closing the investigation as the operative had not raised a formal complaint against the resident.
  4. The resident contacted this Service on 6 August 2022 as he had not had a response to his stage two complaint. Neither the leak nor the kitchen flooring issue had been resolved. This Service contacted the landlord to request that it provided a response to the resident’s stage two complaint by the 24 August 2022.
  5. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 23 August 2022 advising him that there would be an inspection of the upstairs property on 30 August 2022 to trace the leak. Once the investigations had concluded, appointments would be made to undertake repairs to his property.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 24 August 2022 in which it stated that:

a.     There had been clear delays in resolving the repairs which were first reported in June 2021 and there were further delays in being able to fully resolve and respond to his complaint;

b.     The investigation into the allegation against the resident by the anti-social behaviour team had resulted in a delay to the works;

c.      The resident had previously submitted a complaint on the same matter in December 2021. An inspection was arranged for 22 December 2021 to inspect the plumbing and the roof guttering;

d.     In May 2022 the resident reported that the works had not been carried out and there was water ingress through his bedroom ceiling when the neighbour upstairs used the shower; 

e.     There was an appointment arranged for 30 August 2022 to investigate and trace the leak. Once this had been completed there would be further appointments arranged to address the internal remedial repairs to the resident’s property; 

f.        The landlord offered to pay £400 in compensation for the service failures. This comprised of £300 for delays to repairs and £100 that had been awarded to him following his initial complaint in December 2021 the payment of which remained outstanding. The compensation would be reviewed again once the works had been carried out;

g.     The landlord advised that as lessons learned, they would be reviewing how repairs can be processed where allegations are made so that delays could be minimised going forward.

  1. The resident responded on the same day expressing his dissatisfaction with the response and that he had not received an apology regarding the allegation made against him. He also said that he felt that the compensation award was inadequate.  He referred his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Events following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

  1. On 31 August 2022 the landlord contacted this Service to advise that a surveyor had agreed works to address the leak, including repairs to the guttering and the downpipe. The contractors had been due to attend the previous day and an update on the visit would be provided.
  2. On 9 September 2022 the resident contacted this Service to report that the leak had not been resolved and the flooring in the kitchen remained unsafe. He was dissatisfied with the progress of the matter with the landlord.
  3. On 14 September 2022 the landlord contacted the resident who said that the contractors had attended and said that his kitchen cupboards needed to be removed in order to lay the flooring. The roofers also attended but said that they could not proceed with the job as scaffolding needed to be erected in order for works to start. That day the landlord sent an email to the resident advising that they would contact him by the middle of the following week with an update.
  4. On 26 September 2022 the resident sent an email to the landlord chasing an update as the problems with the property were ongoing.
  5. On 27 October 2022 the landlord’s records indicate that the resident had been in contact with them again by telephone to report that he had not had contact from the contractor since September 2022. The landlord agreed to follow this up.
  6. On 25 January 2023, the landlord’s records show that an appointment to assess the works was arranged. On 31 January 2023 a works order was raised for a surveyor and contractor to attend to inspect the damaged floor in the kitchen, repair to worktop, replacement of flooring, repair to wall in the hallway and redecorate and replace skirting. It is unclear from the records provided whether this appointment went ahead.
  7. On 7 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident following a visit to his home on 6 March 2023. The email confirmed that a surveyor would be attending his home on 9 March 2023 in the afternoon and the repairs would be arranged going forward. The resident was asked to move some of his items from the kitchen and an amount of £395 was offered to him so that secure storage could be purchased to allow for his kitchen items to be temporarily relocated while the works were undertaken.
  8. The letter also stated that a revised amount of compensation would be paid to him which comprised of:

a.     £175 for delayed stage one and two complaint responses;

b.     £950 for delays to works.

£400 that had been offered to him previously would be deducted from this amount if it had been previously paid into his account. 

  1. The landlord has since confirmed that a payment of £1220 has been paid to the resident, which was £1520 less £300 that had previously been paid to him. The landlord also informed this Service that the repairs were completed and post inspected by its surveyor on 19 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress to his bedroom ceiling from the property above.

  1. The resident first raised an issue with the leak from the upstairs flat in June 2021. In response to the resident’s formal complaint in December 2021, the landlord offered £100 in compensation and arranged for a surveyor to attend the property that month. This appointment did not go ahead and the matter was closed. While the complaint of December 2021 is not the subject of this investigation, it is of concern to this Service that the proposed steps in the landlord’s complaint response were not followed through to completion.
  2. This Service cannot investigate the alleged incident of anti-social behaviour on 5 May 2022 and can only consider the landlord’s response to the event in relation to its repair obligations and whether its actions were reasonable. An allegation of assault was made against the resident by a contractor. All works at the property were put on hold pending an investigation. It was reasonable for the landlord to take steps to investigate the allegation given that it involved the safety of operatives and assessment of whether measures would need to be put in place going forward to manage any risk.
  3. The investigation was concluded on 27 June 2022 and the matter closed with no further action taken against the resident. It is not clear from the evidence provided by the landlord why the investigation took seven weeks to complete.  Given the issue under investigation, this seemed disproportionate and the resident was further disadvantaged by this delay.
  4.  Even once the investigation concluded that no further action would be taken, there was an additional delay of nine weeks until the next repairs appointment on 30 August 2022. While appointments were made and repair jobs raised by the landlord between August 2022 and March 2023, no works were undertaken until April 2023 when the works were completed.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy provides that repairs of this nature should be undertaken within five working days and all repairs within 20 working days. This meant that the repairs took 21 months longer than the resident could have anticipated.
  6. The landlord’s internal communications were poor. A landlord is required to manage and co-ordinate its inter-departmental relationships appropriately, in order to provide an effective service to its residents. In this instance, a lack of co-ordination resulted in contractors undertaking repeat inspections relating to the same repair without any works progressing. Four appointments were arranged by the landlord between December 2021 and May 2022 which either did not go ahead or the contractor attended to inspect and did not proceed with any works.
  7. Works were also raised to replaster and repair the ceiling before the source of the leak had been identified and fixed, which was counter-productive as the problem would inevitably have recurred. There was no single point of contact for the resident for the duration of the complaint and the landlord failed to take ownership of the repair. Given that the issue had been ongoing for some time by the time the resident raised his stage one complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to oversee the repair and monitor the progress of works to completion. This did not happen and works were not followed up leading to further delays.
  8. Further, the landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the period under investigation was inadequate. The resident had to chase for repairs on numerous occasions and raised two successive separate complaints on the same issue, which remained unresolved at the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The resident had to take time off from work to allow access to his home for repair appointments that were missed or abandoned without notice. This would have had financial implications for him given his self-employed status. If the landlord had foreseen that there may be delays in carrying out repairs, be this due to availability of materials or otherwise, it should have provided an explanation to the resident for the delays and considered what actions it could take in the meantime to minimise the disruption to the resident.
  9. When information was provided to the resident by the landlord, it was provided at a late stage and was sometimes contradictory. For example, the resident was only informed on 23 May 2022 that works had been suspended because of the alleged incident on 5 May 2022, despite the resident having chased for an update on a number of occasions in the intervening weeks. Yet despite the decision being made on the 5 May 2022 to suspend appointments, a repairs appointment did go ahead on the 9 May 2022. The landlord’s failure to communicate effectively with the resident would have further damaged his trust and confidence in the service.
  10. It was positive that the landlord reviewed and increased its compensation award in its complaints review of March 2023. It is not clear, however, 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 stage, and it is of concern that the landlord did not use its complaints procedure to address these matters.
  11. Further, the landlord has not provided an adequate explanation of why the compensation award was increased so significantly in March 2023, some seven months after the conclusion of its internal complaints procedure. 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.
  12. Following careful consideration, a finding of maladministration has been made, as there were unnecessary and lengthy delays coupled with the landlord’s poor communication with the resident. Further, it is unclear how the revised award of compensation for service failures has been apportioned between repairs. For the purpose of this report, however, it is assumed that the award of £950 is divided equally, with £475 in respect of the leak and £475 for the flooring and kitchen works.  Given the length of delays and the detriment to the resident, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the compensation offered by the landlord does not go far enough and this Service has therefore included an order for an additional amount in compensation in order to satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the complaint. Had the landlord not undertaken the works and awarded a revised award of compensation, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of severe maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective kitchen floor

  1. A repair was raised regarding the floor in February 2022. There appears have initially been some disagreement between operatives as to whether the repair was required however it was agreed in March 2022 that works would need to go ahead. There were further delays and in May 2022 operatives came out to take pictures and said that they could not undertake works until the kitchen had been cleared. The records provided suggest that the resident was not able to clear his kitchen, which prevented works from progressing to completion. However, no information has been provided to this Service to establish that the resident had been asked to move items from his kitchen in advance of the appointment or that he had been given a reasonable period of time to make arrangements to clear the room. As detailed above while there was a seven week suspension of works between 6 May and 24 June 2022 while the anti-social behaviour allegation was investigated, the next appointment was not scheduled until September 2022.
  2. There appears to have been little progress between September 2022 when contractors advised that the resident’s kitchen cupboards would need to be removed and 31 January 2023 when a further inspection of the flooring was arranged. As part of the landlord’s complaint review a storage solution was proposed for the resident’s kitchen items pending the completion of the works. It was positive that the landlord took this solution-focused approach, however there was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have taken this action earlier in the complaints process.
  3. Save for the period when the anti-social behaviour allegation was investigated, it is unclear from the landlord’s records why these works were delayed from February 2022 to March 2023. This was, again, an unreasonable delay for which the landlord has not provided an adequate explanation. Further, the landlord’s communication with the resident during this time was unsatisfactory with conflicting information provided about appointments and with the resident having to repeatedly chase repairs, causing him further inconvenience.
  4. The communication between the landlord and contractor was also lacking. The landlord did not monitor repairs to ensure that they were completed within a reasonable timescale which led to repeat inspection visits being booked and contractors given incorrect instructions for works. This would have added to the resident’s frustration and distress, having to take time off work to allow access only for the works to not go ahead.
  5. Further, as outlined above, while it is positive that the landlord reviewed the complaint and offered additional compensation in March 2023, there was a missed opportunity to offer an appropriate resolution and redress through the complaints procedure and it is apparent that this review would not have taken place had the resident not referred his complaint to this Service.
  6. The landlord had apologised for delays to repairs and, as noted above, it had confirmed that lessons would be learned going forward with a review of processes about undertaking works when allegations were made by a contractor against a resident. However, the landlord did not address in its response at either stage its failures in communication. For this reason and for the reasons outlined above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration. Further, in recognition of the detriment to the resident caused by delays, poor communication and abandoned appointments this Service has included an order for an additional amount in compensation.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. 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.
  2. There were unreasonable delays at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. It is also noted that the resident had first raised a complaint in relation to this matter in December 2021, which had been upheld with an award of £100 in compensation, but subsequently closed down.
  3. The resident made a second complaint regarding this issue on 7 February 2022and the landlord responded on 12 February 2022 attaching a response however a copy of the complaint response has not been provided to this Service. On 6 May 2022, the resident asked that his complaint be escalated. The landlord responded with a stage one response on 27 May 2022.  Although the landlord’s decision to treat this as a new complaint was in accordance with its complaints policy, which states that escalation requests must be made within 20 working days, its decision not to exercise discretion in this case was unhelpful as it led to the resident submitting a third complaint about the same issue in six months. This unnecessarily prolonged the process. The resident’s stage two complaint response was delayed by 55 days. This was a further avoidable delay for which the resident was put to considerable time and effort in having to chase for a response. Complaint procedures should be accessible, transparent and applied consistently so that residents can be confident that their complaints will be dealt with fairly and in a timely way.
  4. While the landlord’s stage one response did not uphold the resident’s complaint, its stage two response rightly acknowledged and apologised for service failures.  Assurances were given that the repairs would be monitored and followed up to completion with weekly updates provided. There was no evidence that this happened, however, until the complaint was reviewed in March 2023, almost seven months after the landlord’s stage two complaint response. This would have unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations that the matter would be have been addressed and resolved promptly.
  5. In the landlord’s complaints review in March 2023, a revised compensation offer of £175 was made for delays to complaint responses. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered the compensation award, there was a missed opportunity to address this at an earlier stage during the complaints process. The landlord had apologised for the delays in its stage two response. However, it is not evident that the landlord has sought to learn from these service failings nor has it explained how it would avoid its complaints process repeating these failings in the future. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord had therefore not offered adequate redress and its award of compensation was insufficient. A further award of £150 has therefore been made in recognition of the detriment to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. 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 water ingress to his bedroom ceiling from the property above;
  2. 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 defective flooring in the kitchen.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. Works to repair a leak from the upstairs flat resulting in water ingress into the resident’s bedroom were first reported in June 2021 but despite three separate complaints these works were not undertaken until March 2023, seven months after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure. While the landlord has offered additional compensation as part of a complaint review in March 2023, this Service has made a finding of maladministration as the review appears to have been prompted by the intervention of this Service and not of the landlord’s own initiative. Further, service failings have been identified that had not been considered by the landlord in its response and consequently an increased award of compensation has been ordered.
  2. The resident’s defective flooring in the kitchen was first reported to the landlord in February 2022. Despite a number of inspections undertaken, these works were not completed until April 2023. The resident was inconvenienced by these delays, having to take time off work to allow access to contractors. While it is positive that the landlord took a pro-active approach to assist with storage solutions so that the works could proceed and offered additional compensation, this action was taken seven months after its stage two complaint response and only following the intervention of this Service. Once again, the resident was inconvenienced by these lengthy delays and as a consequence this Service considers that the redress offered does not reflect the detriment to the resident and therefore an additional award of compensation has been ordered.
  3. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy given the significant delays in the landlord’s complaints response at stage two and as no explanation was provided by the landlord for these delays. The landlord failed to identify learning outcomes in relation to complaints handling. The resident was, again, put to time and trouble in having to chase up responses and ultimately having to refer the matter to this Service for intervention.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service that an additional amount in compensation of £550 is paid to the resident which is comprised of the following:

a. £250 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in resolving the leak in his bedroom from the flat above and its poor communication with the resident.

b. £150 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in repairing the resident’s kitchen flooring and its poor communication with the resident.

c. £150 in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

  1. Within 8 weeks the landlord is to provide confirmation that it has reviewed its repair policies and procedures to address how necessary repairs are undertaken with appropriate risk assessments and safeguards in place, in instances where an allegation is made against a resident by a contractor.