Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202002314)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002314

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

27 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

1. The complaint concerns how the landlord:
   1. handled the resident’s reports of a water leak into the property,
   2. handled the resident’s complaint

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. Under the terms of the property’s lease the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the conduits in the building, which include the water tank.
4. The landlord has provided this Service with the repair history logs from its maintenance contractor at the time of the water leak into the property. These logs state that at 11:48 pm on 13 January 2019 the contractor was informed that a water tank in the roof space above the property was “pouring water” and that the fire service was in attendance. An emergency repair was raised and a plumber attended at 11:59pm. The repair is marked complete in the log.
5. The logs go on to say that the issue with the water tank reoccurred on 23 January 2019. A tenant reported the issue at 3:29pm; another emergency repair was raised, and a plumber attended at 19:37pm. The logs state that the repair was marked as complete and further work was scheduled for 24 and 25 January. The logs note that the ball valve in the water tank was replaced which resolved the issue.
6. On 30 July 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested compensation over the matter. The resident said that at around 7:30pm on 13 January 2019 she called the landlord to report heavy water ingress into the property but was informed that as a leaseholder it was her responsibility to resolve the issue. The resident then said that she called the landlord “about ten times” before calling the police, who advised her to contact the fire service. The fire service attended and isolated the water supply and a plumber then attended following a call from another resident.
7. The resident then described the damage to her personal belongings that she said was caused by the water ingress on 12 and 23 January 2019 and said that the landlord should consider compensating her.
8. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 16 August 2019. The landlord apologised for the poor service the resident had experienced from its out-of-hours call service and awarded the resident £50 compensation. It further informed the resident that the contract with its maintenance contractor at the time had now ended and that it had also employed more staff in its customer service centre.
9. The landlord informed the resident that if she remained dissatisfied with its response, she could write to it within 20 working days and request an escalation to stage two of its complaint process.
10. The resident replied to the landlord on 25 August 2019. She expressed her unhappiness with the amount of compensation offered. She noted that due to the damage caused to the property and the adverse effect on her health that the situation caused, she should receive £10,000 compensation.
11. The landlord’s records show that the next correspondence relating to the complaint took place on 27 January 2020, when it received a telephone call from the resident. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident requested an increase in the stage one compensation offer and informed it that due to water damage she had to move her medical bed out of the property.
12. The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 April 2020 and expressed her dissatisfaction that she had not received a response to her 27 January 20202 phone call. The resident described the outstanding issues she still experienced at the property and requested a response from the landlord within the next three weeks.
13. The landlord escalated the complaint on 28 April 2020 and on 2 June 2020 it sent a stage two complaint response to the resident. The landlord first apologised to the resident for the delay in providing the response and explained that this was due to a current backlog of stage two complaints. It then informed her that:
    1. it did not have access to the full records of the maintenance contractor at the time of the water leak,
    2. it apologised for the poor service she received from its out-of-hours service when reporting the leak and appreciated the stressful situation the resident was put in,
    3. as a leaseholder, the resident is required to make a claim on her own home contents insurance,
    4. it had reviewed the compensation offer made at stage one and had revised its offer to £200.
14. The landlord concluded its response by informing the resident that she had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised her on the steps to take to bring her case to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak into the property

15. In disputing the landlord’s stage one response, the resident stated the landlord should be held responsible for the damage caused in the property and requested compensation of £10,000. In its stage two response, the landlord informed the resident that she should make a claim on her own home contents insurance. This was an appropriate response from the landlord, in accordance with the provisions of its Repairs and Maintenance Handbook which says ‘We insure the structure of your home but not the contents. We strongly advise you to insure your contents such as…belongings… For example, in the event of a flood, while we will attend to the leak, we will not carry out internal decorations.’ Questions concerning quantifying damage and liability would be matters for an insurance provider and are not matters on which the Ombudsman would comment.
16. In its complaint responses the landlord apologised to the resident for the poor service she experienced when calling it on 13 January 2019 and awarded £200 compensation as a gesture of goodwill. It also informed her of the changes it had made to staffing and training since the incident occurred.
17. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology, compensation and changes made to staffing and training) in respect of its acknowledged failings in handling the resident’s complaint put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
18. The landlord acted fairly in apologising for the poor service the resident received and in offering a goodwill payment. The amount of the payment (£200) is within the range of amounts set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for compensation for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. The guidance says that the impact experienced by the resident could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.  
19. The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by setting out that it had made changes to staffing and training. These steps will help lower the risk of the same failings occurring again.
20. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 17 to 19 above the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was proportionate, and that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

 

21. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response on 25 August 2019 and expressed her dissatisfaction with the compensation that the landlord had offered her in its stage 1 response. The resident also telephoned the landlord on 27 January 2020 and wrote to the landlord 24 April 2020 again asking the landlord for more compensation. However, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 2 June 2020, some 200 working days after the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response and asked the landlord to increase the compensation offered, and 180 working days after the 20 working day response time set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
22. For the reasons set out the previous paragraph the landlord acted inappropriately in delaying issuing the stage 2 complaint response.
23. Determination (decision)

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak into the property

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak at the property.

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak into the property

 

24. The landlord recognised service failure when attempting to report the water leak on 13 January 2019. The landlord apologised, awarded compensation proportionate to the service failure identified and informed the resident of the changes it had made in its customer service centre. The landlord correctly informed the resident that she would be expected to make a claim on her home contents insurance in relation to the personal items damaged by the water ingress.

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

 

25. The landlord delayed in handling the complaint.

Orders

26. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delay in responding to the resident’s formal complaint.