Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202202336)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202336

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

5 July 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling which the Ombudsman has also considered as part of this investigation.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since January 2000. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette.
The resident had reported repairs that remained outstanding for over a year. The reported repairs were:
1. a leak into the bathroom and hallway.
2. a crack in the living room ceiling.
3. a kitchen unit was rotten.
The resident brought her complaint to the landlord on 7 December 2021. The resident expressed her frustration as she said the landlord did not communicate well by not keeping the resident informed, not giving notice of new appointments, and not passing information on to its contractors. The resident experienced missed or cancelled appointments. The resident asked for a single point of contact to deal with the repairs.
Records suggest that there was little progress made on the repairs until the landlord repaired the roof on 14 September 2022. The contractor advised of a need to wait 2 weeks while the property dried out before the internal works should start. The resident has reported that water ingress has continued and the bathroom wall has not dried out. The resident has stated that contractors have informed her that the leak may be coming from a damaged vent on the exterior wall of the bathroom. In November 2023 the landlord met with the resident and apologised for the service it provided to the resident which was below what the landlord hopes for. It offered the resident £2,450 compensation.
The landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 15 December 2023 to confirm it had completed the works, although a post inspection was outstanding. The landlord confirmed the resident had accepted compensation of £2,950.
The resident had brought her case to the Ombudsman to encourage the landlord to provide its final resolution letter. As the resident is still dissatisfied, she would like the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint and issue a determination. In March 2024, the resident reported that water ingress in the bathroom was continuing and damp and mould by the front door had not been addressed.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:

Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
put things right, and
learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of the investigation.

The Ombudsman acknowledges it issued a previous determination regarding the resident’s leak. At the time the determination was issued the repairs were still outstanding and it awarded the resident £350 for the landlord’s failings. This report will acknowledge but will not reconsider the information or findings from that determination. The investigation will focus on matters from 7 December 2021 onwards.
The Ombudsman would normally not consider the period after the final resolution letter as the landlord should have the opportunity to respond. As the landlord has provided an update to the Ombudsman, we will include this in the investigation to provide completeness for both the resident and landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and installations of the property in good repair. This is reiterated in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook provide its response times for different repairs:
1. Emergency – 4 hours. For example, a burst pipe. The landlord will make the property safe to prevent further damage or remove the immediate danger
2. Emergency – 24 hours. For example, total loss of power, no toilet, heating, or hot water. The landlord will make the property safe to prevent further damage or remove the immediate danger
3. Routine – 20 working days. For example, a minor leak, dripping tap. If the landlord cannot resolve immediately it will put in place a temporary repair until a permanent one can be carried out
4. Planned – 60 working days. For example, plastering walls, replacing individual windows. This is for more complex repairs which may require multiple visits
This report is considering matters arising from 7 December 2021. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident initially reported a leak from her bathroom in January 2020 which affected the crack in the living room ceiling. In correspondence the landlord refers to water damaged kitchen units in October 2021.
Following the landlord’s survey dated 6 January 2022, it identified other necessary repairs, such as replacing the kitchen worktop and flooring, and replastering the bedroom.
The landlord should rectify repairs within the timeframes of its repairs handbook. The landlord would have classified the works as complex repairs so should have been completed within 60 working days from the report being raised. Given the resident raised the complaint on 7 December 2021, and allowing for the fact the landlord had previous knowledge of these repairs, the landlord should have completed the repairs by 4 March 2022.
The landlord repaired the flat roof leak on 14 September 2022. Following this, the contractor advised the landlord it needed to allow 2 weeks for the property to dry out, then it could start the internal works. However, the repair did not stop the water ingress and the bathroom wall never dried out. The resident has reported that this issue remains unresolved in March 2024.
The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman which illustrates confusion over who was carrying out the internal repairs. The landlord believed the contractor was, and the contractor believed the landlord was. Following this the evidence shows the landlord trying to establish from internal teams whether it had completed the works. This lack of overall understanding of the repairs and poor internal cooperation is indicative of the problem the landlord has, and the resident’s experience reflects this.
The landlord did not adhere to the timeframes as stated in its repairs handbook. The landlord took 93 weeks to complete the majority of repairs. However, in March 2024, the resident confirmed continuing water ingress in the bathroom and damp and mould by the front door had not been addressed.
During this period, the resident experienced additional frustration as the landlord did not keep her informed, she had to chase the repairs, and experienced cancelled appointments where the contractors did not turn up or attended without the correct equipment or information. The resident reported 5 appointments with contractors who just took photographs, without completing any repairs, and a contractor who turned up at the end of the time slot and then said they did not have enough time to complete the job.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence the resident emailed the landlord on 4 October 2022 to see when it would complete the internal works. The landlord internally chased for a response on this on 10 January 2023. The landlord has not disputed the resident experienced poor service and it has made a compensation award for unkept appointments, poor communication, and the delays.
The resident rejected the compensation amount made in its final resolution letter. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord has revisited this offer, which the resident has accepted. This manner of offering compensation has been addressed in the complaint handling section below.
The Ombudsman recognises the landlord’s final offer of compensation was substantial.However, it did not fully reflect the resident’s compromised use and enjoyment of multiple rooms for a significant period of time and the substantial impact of this. The landlord did not provide the calculations used to work out the compensation for the delays. The Ombudsman has applied the landlord’s own compensation policy and awarded the resident 15% of the approximated weekly rent for the loss of use and enjoyment for the 93 weeks the landlord took to rectify the issues.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days. In complex cases the landlord can have an extension of 10 working days. If this is needed it will agree this with the resident prior to the response date and confirm in writing. The complaints policy commits the landlord to stage 2 responses within 20 working days, the policy does not give a right to extend this.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will usually only make compensation offers once it has satisfactorily completed the repairs. The landlord can make a payment for room loss allowance, as a percentage of the weekly rent to be worked out for each unusable or partially unusable room.
The landlord advised the resident she should receive a response to her stage 1 complaint by 5 January 2022, which was 18 working days later. This did not adhere to the landlord’s policy.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response 26 working days later on 17 January 2022. In its response the landlord said it had conducted a survey and had scheduled 3 appointments. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 14 February 2022 as the appointments were completed but there was still no plan for progressing the works. The resident also asked for the structural survey which she said the landlord had previously promised. The Ombudsman notes the landlord did not apologise for the delay.
The landlord provided an escalation letter to confirm the resident would receive its final resolution letter by 14 March 2022. The resident came to the Ombudsman as she had not received the final resolution letter. The landlord provided this on 24 August 2022, which was the deadline given by the Ombudsman. This was 132 working days after the escalation request.
In its final resolution letter, the landlord apologised for delays in the complaint response. The landlord had left the complaint open while it monitored the repairs progress. The landlord stated it tries to have the issue resolved or a clear action plan by the time it issues the final resolution letter, it was not able to do this in this instance. Though the complaints policy confirms a response will say when the landlord rectifies things by, it was unreasonable for the landlord to delay for such a length of time and without involving the resident in this decision. It is unclear what the landlord was waiting for that it was able to establish after 132 working days or how it was progressing this.
The landlord continued to say it would not deal with the structural survey as the resident had not raised it in the initial complaint. The resident has stated that they did raise this point early in the complaint, but the landlord ignored the request and failed to record it. Whether it was raised at that time or not, the landlord should have recognised that the resident had previously requested this and, though the landlord conducted a survey a few years ago, this was not a structural survey. The resident reported seeing large cracks at the rear of the property and the landlord has carried out several repairs at the property. The resident has lost confidence in the landlord. To help rebuild trust, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord completes additional inspections and investigations of ongoing issues in the property, including a structural survey. This should help to satisfy the resident’s concerns and improve the landlord and tenant relationship.
The landlord gave the resident a single point of contact regarding the repairs. The landlord apologised for the further delay. It identified failings and acknowledged the resident had experienced poor communication and service. The landlord arranged for a specialist contractor to be in touch with the resident. Once the scaffolding is in place the roof work will be competed and then it will conduct an inspection to fully scope the internal works. It offered the resident £600 in compensation.
In both complaint responses the landlord stated the resident had not experienced the levels of service it wants to give residents. The fact the landlord had not learnt from the previous Ombudsman determination and from the stage 1 response is why the resident has experienced a loss of confidence in her landlord. The landlord’s next steps will be integral to rebuilding this relationship.
After exhausting the internal complaints procedure and while the complaint was with the Ombudsman the landlord revised its compensation offer twice. It increased its offer from £600 to £2,450 to £2,950. The resident accepted the £2,950 offer.
The Ombudsman accepts the landlord had outstanding repairs and it wanted to make a compensation offer once it had completed them and this had been communicated to the resident and is in line with its compensation policy. These are the reasons the Ombudsman has not found severe maladministration in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs reports.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord to issue a written apology to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £3,732. This is inclusive of the £2,950 payment made by the landlord to the resident. This comprises of:
1. £2,232 to reflect the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property for the period considered in this report that the repairs were outstanding.
2. £650 for the landlord’s poor communication and unkept appointments.
3. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
4. £250 for the landlord’s failure to handle the complaint appropriately.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is to:
1. Conduct a structural survey inspection of the property.
2. Contact the resident to arrange a damp and mould inspection at the property. As part of its inspection, the landlord should consider if any areas require a mould wash and/or anti-mould paintwork.
3. Contact the resident to arrange an appointment to investigate the continuing leak in the bathroom. As part of its investigation, the landlord should consider the possibility that the leak is coming from the damaged vent on the exterior wall of the bathroom and/or the flat roof.
4. Arrange a face-to-face meeting after the investigations/inspections are completed and agree an action plan with realistic timeframes to complete any remedial works.