Hammersmith and Fulham Council (201909756)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909756

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

4 January 2021

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 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 refers to:
The Landlord’s handling of the Resident’s request for the windows in her property to be repaired.
The Landlord’s complaint handling of this matter.

Background

The Resident has shared ownership of the property which is within a block of flats; the Landlord is the freeholder of the building.

Summary of events

On 1 March 2019, the Resident sent an email to the Landlord and requested it to permit a ‘responsive repair’ to the windows in her property. She stated that she struggled to open and close the windows and was worried about opening them as it looked like the glass would fall out. She stated that it appeared the glass was not held securely in place and the windows had rotting wood in the frames. She requested that the Landlord take action to rectify this issue.
On 22 March 2019 the Resident emailed the Landlord with pictures of the scaffolding outside her neighbour’s windows. She asked whether the Landlord would be able to do the same for hers if necessary. She stated that she could have this done privately if the Landlord would reimburse her costs.
The Resident raised an initial complaint with the Landlord on 11 April 2019 in relation to the windows in her property. She stated that she had been informed in January 2018 that her windows were unsafe, and she was advised by the surveyor that she should contact the Landlord for these to be replaced. She stated that the Landlord had arranged for the windows to be inspected and a quote to be calculated for the replacement by its contractors. This had been arranged after some confusion and a quote had been raised; however, following this, the Resident received no further communication. She said she was then made aware that her windows would not be replaced, and an appointment would be arranged to repair the window sash instead. The Resident requested further information on this but received no response. The Resident expressed dissatisfaction that she had chased the Landlord on multiple occasions and had been told that her windows should have been replaced already. She asked the Landlord to replace her windows as previously agreed, as it had been 18 months since her windows had been described as “unsafe” and “dangerous” by its contractors.
The Landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the Resident on 29 April 2019 and stated the following:

Its contractor had attended the property in December 2018 and sent a quote to the Landlord advising that the windows were structurally sound, but a repair to the wooden sash was needed.
This quote was rejected, and a surveyor had investigated the matter further. They identified that the sash windows were not in perfect condition, but no repairs were needed, and they would not need to be replaced.
The Landlord upheld the Resident’s complaint on the basis that she had received conflicting information, and there had been missed appointments as well as unanswered calls. It apologised for the poor service she had received and would be taking her complaint on board to ensure this did not happen again.
It confirmed that the Resident’s windows would not be replaced in this instance as they had been classed as structurally sound, despite the Resident being told otherwise. It stated that a repair was not needed at this stage.
It confirmed that the windows in the property were to be evaluated, with the potential of being replaced during its planned maintenance between 2023 – 2024.
It advised that if the Resident remained dissatisfied with its response, she could escalate her complaint to stage two of the Landlord’s complaint procedure within 20 working days.

On 23 May 2019 the Resident emailed the Landlord and requested her complaint be raised to stage two of the Landlord’s process. She stated that the Landlord, as the freeholder of the property, was in breach of the Lease. She said that the Landlord’s contractors had noted that her windows were ‘dangerous’ in 2017 and had told her to contact the Landlord as these would need to be replaced. She believed that the Landlord had more than a reasonable amount of time to fix the issue and had agreed that it would need to be handled as a ‘responsive repair’. The process of the replacement had begun and then the member of staff dealing with the matter went on sick leave. The Resident stated that she had hired four separate window professionals who had all agreed that her windows were not fit for purpose and should be replaced.
On 17 June 2019 the Landlord emailed the Resident and apologised for the delay in acknowledging her complaint. It stated that it had arranged for a surveyor to attend the property and provide a second opinion in regard to the condition of the Resident’s windows. It stated that her stage two request had been recorded and she would receive a response by 12 July 2019; it noted that if there was likely to be a delay she would be informed.
On 2 September 2019 the Landlord emailed the Resident and apologised for the delay in repairing her window. It stated that it had arranged for the repair to be carried out the following week and asked the Resident to confirm a date which would be convenient.
On 12 September 2019 the Landlord emailed the Resident to advise that it had arranged an appointment to repair her window on 13 September 2019.
On 25 October 2019 the Resident emailed the Landlord and requested that her case be reopened as she had not received a response from the Landlord for months and the work to repair her windows had not begun.
On 12 November 2019 the Landlord emailed the Resident to confirm that its repair team had arranged an appointment. It asked the Resident to confirm that this appointment had been arranged.
On 17 December 2019 the Landlord’s repair team emailed the Resident and stated it had arranged an appointment for 14 January 2020 in order to repair her window. It confirmed that this appointment would be to renew the sash on the kitchen and bathroom windows, attend to the defective putty beads on the bedroom windows, and make good the window frames in the bedroom and living room. It confirmed that the windows were to be repaired and not replaced.
On 15 January 2020 the Landlord emailed the Resident and apologised that the previous appointment had been missed; it explained that this had been due to an IT system issue. It confirmed that the contractor would contact her via phone the same day to schedule a new appointment.
On 24 February 2020 the Landlord emailed the Resident and confirmed a work order had been raised in order for the windows in the Resident’s living room and bedroom to be replaced. It advised that its contractor would be in touch with her directly to arrange the work.
The Landlord issued a stage two complaint response to the Resident on 30 March 2020. It apologised for the significant delay in providing a response and stated the following:

It advised that its position had not changed in relation to the replacement or repair of the Resident’s windows. It had reviewed its contractors’ records and found that a quote had been sent advising that the windows were structurally sound, but a repair to the wooden sash was needed, but this quote had been rejected.
A surveyor had reviewed the evidence and whilst it was identified that the sash windows were not in perfect condition, no repairs were required, and they would not need to be replaced. The Landlord advised that it could not find any service failings in its actions and apologised that this may not be the information the Resident wanted.
The Landlord apologised that the stage two complaint was not investigated within the Landlord’s timescale of 20 working days and its response was significantly outside of its policy. It offered £25 compensation in recognition of this service failure.
The Landlord acknowledged that missed appointments, incorrect and conflicting information and unanswered calls and emails were a poor level of customer service and offered the Resident £125 compensation in recognition of this, totaling an amount of £150 compensation.
It confirmed that the windows in the Resident’s property would not be replaced or repaired in this instance as they had been classified as structurally sound despite the Resident being told otherwise. It stated that the review had confirmed that no repair was needed and apologised again that the Resident had been misinformed.

The Landlord emailed the Resident on 19 May 2020 and stated that the repair had not been forgotten. Following the Covid-19 pandemic all non-emergency repair work had been put on hold. It confirmed that any non-emergency repair works would be addressed after the lockdown restrictions were lifted.
The repairs to the windows agreed by the Landlord have not been completed as of November 2020, when the Ombudsman received the most recent update concerning this complaint.

Assessment and findings

The Resident’s request for the windows in her property to be repaired.

The Lease states that the Landlord would be responsible for structural repairs to the property and any repairs concerning the windows, frames and glass. The Landlord’s Repair Policy states that non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days and the Resident should be made aware of the expected completion date.
This Service has identified that the Landlord’s final complaint response contradicts what happened, it stated that no repairs or replacements would take place, although multiple repair appointments were raised prior to this stage two response which indicates that the windows in the Resident’s property were in need of repair. This would have contributed to confusion caused by poor communication by the Landlord throughout the complaint.
There seems to be no dispute that the windows in the Resident’s property are defective and need repairing and possible replacement despite the contradictory information given by the Landlord in its stage two complaint response. The defective windows were again reported to the Landlord on 23 May 2019, following its refusal to complete any repair work, yet the repair works have not been completed despite numerous appointments being arranged. The Landlord had stated that these repair works were considered non-urgent repairs in more recent emails. The Landlord’s repair policy states that non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days. There is no record to suggest that the Resident had been given a target completion date for these works, and the Landlord has stated that the repair works had not begun as of 27 November 2020. The Landlord has not adhered to the 20-day repair timescales as set out in its Repair Policy which is unreasonable as the Resident has waited at least 17 months for the repair works to start.
It is unclear as to why repair appointments scheduled for June 2019, 13 September 2019, 12 November 2019, and February 2020 were not completed, although the Landlord had acknowledged that one appointment had been missed due to a system error and has confirmed that there would be further delay to the repair works due to Covid-19 in May 2020. There is also no evidence to suggest that follow-up appointments were made within a reasonable timeframe once it became clear these appointments had not gone ahead. It is clear from the evidence provided that the Resident has received a large amount of miscommunication regarding the repair/replacement works. Some delays were understandable in view of the Covid-19 restrictions, but this does not account for delays prior to the national lockdown in March 2020 or more recently when restrictions were eased.
This Service acknowledges that the length of time it has taken the Landlord to resolve the issue is not reasonable and does warrant financial compensation for the considerable delays, which has caused the Resident significant distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, there has been extensive miscommunication regarding appointments and whether the windows would be repaired or not, which is likely to have caused the Resident uncertainty. The Landlord has acknowledged that the Resident received poor customer service in relation to missed appointments, conflicting information and unanswered emails and calls. In recognition of this it offered £125 compensation in its stage two complaint response. Whilst this amount may have been reasonable to acknowledge its service failure at stage one of the complaint, the amount is not sufficient to recognise the inconvenience and distress caused by further delays, missed appointments and miscommunication. The Landlord should award further compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by its continued service failure leading up to and following its stage two complaint response.
Despite the Landlord’s complaint responses stating otherwise, it appears that repair work is due to go ahead to the Resident’s windows. In view of the number of appointments raised and the time taken to begin the repair work, the Landlord should, firstly, confirm exactly what works are required to the windows, whether that be repair or replacement. Secondly, the Landlord then needs to provide the Resident with a reasonable timeframe in which these repairs will be completed, arranging appointments with the Resident accordingly. The Ombudsman understands that there may be unavoidable delays due to the current pandemic and if so, the Landlord should keep the resident informed as appropriate. Lastly, due to the significant delays, the poor communication, the time and trouble chasing a response from the Landlord, and the distress and inconvenience caused, the Landlord should offer additional compensation to the Resident as explained further below.

The Landlord’s complaint handling of this matter.

The Landlord’s Complaint Policy states that it has a two-stage complaint process. At stage one, a complaint should be acknowledged within three working days and a written response should be sent within 15 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the response, they can escalate their complaint to stage two, which should be acknowledged within three working days and a written response should be sent within 20 working days.
In this case, the Resident raised her stage one complaint on 11 April 2019 which was responded to on 29 April 2019 which was within the 15 working days set out in the landlord’s Complaint Policy. The Resident escalated her complaint on 23 May 2019 and did not receive a response from the Landlord until 30 March 2020. This response was significantly outside of the Landlord’s Complaint Policy timescales. The Landlord has acknowledged this delay and offered £25 compensation in recognition of the time taken to provide a final response. However, this offer of compensation is not proportionate to the length of time taken for the Resident to receive a response and the inconvenience caused by the Resident’s need to chase the matter. The Landlord issued its final response 198 working days outside of its timescale of 20 working days. The Landlord’s offer of £25 compensation in recognition of this delay is not proportionate to the length of time taken for the Landlord to provide a final response and the inconvenience this would have caused the Resident.
Furthermore, the Landlord’s stage two complaint response in March 2020 was likely to cause significant uncertainty for the Resident, as it stated that the repair/replacement work would not be completed. Multiple repair appointments had been made between the Landlord’s stage one and stage two complaint responses suggesting that the work was due to go ahead. A further email from the Landlord’s repair team was sent in May 2020 confirming that the work was due to go ahead but there had been delays due to the lockdown response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Resident’s complaint was not handled effectively or appropriately at this stage as the Landlord, again, provided contradicting information and had not taken into account the repair appointments that had been made. The Landlord should offer a further award of compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its delayed response and for the distress and uncertainty caused by its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s request to have her windows repaired or replaced.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its complaint handling of this matter.

Reasons

The Resident’s request for her windows to be replaced or repaired.

There have been large amounts of miscommunication regarding whether the windows would or would not be repaired or replaced. This spans a significant length of time where the Landlord has not provided any further clarity and the work has not taken place despite a number of appointments being raised. The Landlord has not acted within its 20-day timescale when attending the repair works and whilst it has apologised and offered £125 compensation for the initial missed appointments, miscommunication and lack of response, it has not taken into account its further miscommunication and delay to repair work.

Complaint handling

The Landlord’s stage two complaint response suggests that the Landlord had not reviewed its records in regard to appointments which had been made and had not considered more recent aspects of the Resident’s case. By failing to address that numerous appointments had been made to carry out repair works and stating that it would not repair or replace her windows, the Resident was caused significant uncertainty as a result of this miscommunication. Furthermore, there was a significant delay in issuing a stage two complaint response to the Resident and the Landlord’s offer of £25 was not proportionate to the delay of 198 working days in issuing a response.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions be carried out within four weeks:
- The Landlord is to pay the Resident £375 compensation comprised of:
  - The previous offer of £125 in relation to missed appointments and miscommunication/unanswered calls.
  - £100 in recognition of the uncertainty and inconvenience caused due to the additional miscommunication and delay in completing repair work.
  - £150 for the significant delay in providing a complaint response.
- The Landlord is to confirm the exact work which is required, in view of to the contradictory advice given so far, and then arrange for the repair works to take place within four weeks. (subject to any relevant restrictions in place at the time in view of the Covid-19 pandemic).

Recommendations

The Landlord should take steps to improve its record keeping so that a resident’s full case file is available to the staff involved in reviewing complaints.
The Landlord should consider developing a Compensation Policy in order to ensure consistency and oversight of compensation payments, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance regarding compensation as published on our website.