Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202000590)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000590

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

20 January 2021

Our approach

1. 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.
2. 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

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs required at the property; in particular, delay to inspection/repair of an airbrick in the bedroom and associated damp and mould inspection and treatment.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

4. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 12 February 1996.
5. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to carry out routine repairs within 20 working days.
6. The landlord has adopted a two-stage formal complaints procedure, with the landlord aiming to provide a response to a complaint within 15 working days at stage one and where a complainant is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requests escalation of the complaint, a response at stage two within 20 working days.

Summary of events

7. On an unspecified date, a mould wash was carried out in one of the bedrooms at the property. This was in response to mould and damp which was found and suspected to be caused by an issue with an airbrick.  The landlord scheduled a further appointment thereafter for 27 February 2020 (although it is not specified in the documentation for what), which was rescheduled to 5 March 2020.
8. On 2 March 2020 the landlord sent its stage one response to a formal complaint that the resident had made about delay in addressing the issue with the airbrick in the property, which had caused damp and mould issues and then latterly, damage to wallpaper as a result of the mould wash.  The resident was also dissatisfied about the landlord rescheduling the appointment of 27 February to 5 March 2020. 
9. In its response, the landlord upheld the complaint, acknowledging delay.  It explained that this had been caused by an asbestos survey being required as well as “delays in the repair being received”.  The landlord apologised for the delay, frustration and inconvenience caused and it accepted that although it had explained to the resident that the mould wash would damage the wallpaper, the issue was caused by poor ventilation in the first place.
10. In recognition of the delay, frustration and inconvenience and the poor level of customer service received, the landlord offered the resident £25 compensation.
11. On 5 March 2020 the landlord attended to carry out the inspection of an airbrick. Photographs were taken and a further inspection was booked for 13 March 2020. At the inspection of 5 March 2020, the landlord also determined that an additional extractor fan was required in the kitchen window and that the bathroom extractor fan was damaged and needed repair/replacement and that these works required an electrician.
12. On 13 March 2020, the resident took the day off work and waited for the landlord to visit but has said to the landlord and to this Service that no such visit took place.  Having telephoned the landlord, the resident has said she was advised that someone had come to look at the kitchen window (presumably from the outside only) then left, although there is conflicting information provided to this investigation as to whether this actually took place. The documentation provided to this Service refers to an electrician attending on this date to determine what extractor fans were required.
13. In any case, on the same date the resident contacted the landlord complaining about the missed appointment and delay to carrying out the repairs and poor communication and requested that her complaint be escalated.
14. The resident emailed the landlord again on 17 March 2020, expressing her frustration at having taken time off work and waiting in for a glazier inspection and a visit by a supervisor, which never materialized; the glazier attended and measured the window however, the supervisor did not attend and so the issue with the airbrick and damp and mould had again not been inspected.
15. On 20 March 2020 the landlord telephoned the resident to explain that all non-essential repair works were currently on hold due to the pandemic and would need to be rescheduled.
16. On 8 April 2020 the landlord sent its response to the complaint under stage two of its complaints procedure. The complaint was again upheld, with the landlord finding that there were delays, a poor level of service and inconvenience, for which it apologised and reiterated its offer of £25 compensation. In particular, the landlord noted that there was poor communication between its contractor and repairs service, missed appointments and an appointment where a supervisor was due to attend and did not.
17. The landlord explained that an inspection of the airbrick would take place once the Covid-19 restrictions had lessened.  It noted that two further jobs were due to take place; an extractor fan is to be fitted in the bathroom and that “ventilation is to be cut in the kitchen window”. 
18. On the same date the resident emailed the landlord expressing her continued dissatisfaction with its response, feeling that the offer of £25 compensation was “disappointing and insulting”, not being proportionate to the issues she had experienced, including the time she had needlessly taken off work and the additional time she would need to take off work in the future, to get the issue resolved.

Post complaint

19. Four months later, on 14 August 2020 the landlord attended the property without the extractor fan that it was due to fit in the kitchen; there were confused messages around whether the landlord had given the contractor the correct information as to the job.  The job was rescheduled for 1 September 2020.
20. On 18 August 2020, the resident advised this Service that an additional mould wash had now been completed and the issue with the bathroom extractor fan had been resolved but that the re-inspection of the airbrick had not yet gone ahead, nor the kitchen ventilation works.
21. On or around 2 September 2020 the outstanding works to the kitchen window ventilation system were resolved.  
22. On 27 October 2020 the airbrick was inspected and following this, a works order was raised for the roof to be inspected.
23. During October 2020, the landlord decided to increase its compensation offer to the resident, from £25 to £250; this was the amount she had felt proportionate and had requested. It is not clear to this investigation whether this amount was paid to the resident at the time or not. 
24. On 29 November 2020 the resident contacted this Service to advise that “severe mould growth and damp” were present and issues with the roof had still not been resolved, which was causing further internal damage and had meant that she had had to purchase a dehumidifier.  She added that there was a plug socket “hanging off the wall” due to the condition of the plaster which the landlord was aware of but had still not resolved.
25. In around early December 2020, the roof inspection took place, as well as an inspection of the damp and mould. It was found that gully and rainwater pipe clearance and repair was required, which would resolve the issue and that this should resolve the issue, with internal follow-on works being required thereafter.

Assessment and findings

26. Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs it was responsible for, within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law.  The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time this; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.  In this case the landlord has accepted that it did not carry out the repairs in a timely mater, that there was delay.  It attributed the delay to both the requirement for an asbestos survey and a delay in communications between it and its contractor.
27. Whilst this Service has not been provided within information as to how long the delay was in its entirety, it is clear that the landlord took too long to resolve the matter, operating significantly outside of the timescales set out in its repairs handbook and that the delay caused the issue with damp and mould to exacerbate.  Additionally, the delay and missed appointments caused ongoing and avoidable distress and inconvenience.
28. Sometimes repairs do take longer than a tenant, or indeed landlord, would like; this is often where the issues are complex and require further investigations or specialist contractors, or where extensive works are needed, for example. This was not the case here, however, as the issue with the leak and the airbrick was eventually determined to be due to the roof gully and both this and the requirement to install and/or repair extractor fans/window ventilation systems are considered routine works; the landlord took too long to arrange and carry these out and did not communicate effectively as to when the works would be done.
29. The pandemic and implementation of restrictions around contact meant that landlords were required to put anything other than emergency works on hold until such a time that measures were relaxed. Consequently, the landlord cannot be held responsible for delays from 23 March 2020 until measures were relaxed from late Spring. The landlord accepted in its stage one complaint response of 2 March 2020 that there had been delay, however, which pre-dated the Covid-19 restrictions and the issues were not resolved until a significantly lengthy period after restrictions were eased in May 2020 and indeed, it is unclear if all issues, including internal works to make good, are entirely resolved at the time of writing. The landlord did not provide certainty over when it would take works forward, which left the resident with uncertainty for a protracted period of time. 
30. In terms of appointments, whilst frustrating, the landlord is entitled to reschedule and cancel appointments where circumstances render this necessary and is also not obliged to give precise timings within a particular day for inspection/repair; this is ordinarily not possible, due to the nature of inspection and repairs work.  Cancellations and rescheduled appointments should be effectively communicated and done so in good time, however and not missed or unattended as happened in this case. The landlord has appropriately apologised for this but it has not demonstrated what actions it has taken in its learning from the complaint and steps it has or will implement to improve its communication channels and customer service to help prevent a recurrence.
31. Turning to the landlord’s complaints handling, it responded to the complaint within good time, in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and its recognition that things had gone wrong, its explanation for some of the delay and its apology for what had happened were appropriate, demonstrating that it had heard and understood these aspects of the complaint and took responsibility for failings it identified in its handling of the situation.  The compensation offer did not go far enough, however, in satisfactorily addressing the complaint; £25 is not proportionate to the accepted delay and communication issues and subsequent distress and inconvenience suffered. 
32. The landlord has not explained how it reached the figure of £25 and has not provided its compensation policy to this Service.  In arriving at and offering a compensation figure, it is important the landlord uses its framework, or that of the Ombudsman, to ascertain what level is appropriate and provide an explanation as to what the compensation is in recognition of, breaking it down, where there are multiple elements. That is not to say that compensation in circumstances such as those described in this case is an automatic right, because it is not. 
33. Often an apology, an explanation of what went wrong and why and learning identified from the complaint is equally if not more important as any offer of compensation, as well as ensuring that works are carried out in a timely and communicative manner. Where compensation is offered, however, it is important for this to be thoroughly considered in arrival at a figure and explained, which the landlord did not do in this case.
34. During October 2020 – post-dating the complaint procedure – the landlord decided to increase its offer of compensation from £25 to £250, which although is indicative of it recognising that its original offer was insufficient and demonstrated a wish on the part of the landlord to resolve the complaint, the increased offer did not do this because the landlord missed the fundamental issue of the repairs remaining unresolved and outstanding at the time.
35. The Ombudsman’s published ‘Guidance on Remedies’ provides a guidance tool for compensation awards by the Ombudsman and this has been used in assessing compensation in this case; findings of service failure indicate a compensation offer of between the region of £50-£250 and it is the upper end of this amount that the Ombudsman determines is appropriate in this case.
36. The landlord is not obliged to refund lost earnings or to pay for previous wallpaper that has been ruined by previous mould washes and damp, however, the landlord did agree to make good internal works given the wallpaper was ruined and a recommendation has therefore been made to honour this, if not already done so.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

38. There was service failure on the part of the landlord insofar as there was delay to resolving the issues, in particular, the airbrick/leak, which was causing secondary problems with damp and mould. 
39. The landlord in its recognition of this through its complaints procedure, did not satisfactorily resolve the complaint by way of carrying out the repairs in good time and/or communicating when it intended on doing so, nor did the compensation offer proportionately reflect the delay and inconvenience experienced.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. The landlord, if not already done so, to pay the resident £250 compensation, comprised of:

–          £150 for the delay to carrying out the inspections/repairs;

–          £100 for distress and inconvenience caused.

41. The landlord, if not already done so, to carry out all outstanding repair works as referred to in this complaint.
42. The landlord to identify learning from the complaint in respect of its communications – including its communications between its repairs team and contractor, as well as with the resident – and to set out steps it has or will take to help prevent a recurrence. The landlord to confirm these steps to this Service.
43. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders by 17 February 2021.

Recommendations

44. The landlord, if not already done so, to carry out the internal works to make good the area/decorations that were damaged.
45. The landlord, if not already done so, to carry out an inspection/repairs in respect of the issue the resident referred to regarding the plug socket and plastering, which post-dated the formal complaint.