Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202005977)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005977

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

30 March 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 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 resident complains about:
1. How the landlord handled repairs reported at the property and the level of compensation offered for delays in completing repairs between April 2019 and November 2020.
2. How the landlord handled repairs reported at the property from November 2020 onwards.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the complaint how the landlord handled repairs reported at the property from November 2020 onwards.
Under paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
In November 2020, the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord about outstanding repairs to the property. The complaint is currently with the landlord to respond under its complaints process, therefore this complaint has not yet completed the landlord’s complaints process and is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of a three-bedroom house (the property).
The landlord’s repair records evidence various reports and works orders in relation to the property which are relevant to the complaint. These include:
1. The resident reported a bedroom window on the top floor leaking when it rained on 23 April 2019. The landlord raised a repair for a roofer to inspect the gutter and down pipe.
2. On 13 August 2019, the resident reported that the back door was leaking rain.
3. On 16 September 2019, the resident reported that the kitchen units around the sink were rotten and broken.
4. On 24 October 2019, the resident raised a complaint about the windows in the property stating they were no longer effective.
5. On 30 October 2019, the resident reported a leak under the kitchen sink which had flooded the kitchen. The landlord raised an order to seal around the newly fitted kitchen unit. On 13 November 2019, the resident reported that water was leaking down into the new kitchen unit. This was reported again on 27 November 2019.
6. On 28 November 2019, the landlord raised an order to renew double glazed windows.
7. On 23 January 2020, the resident requested a repair or adjustment to windows.
8. On 31 January 2020 and 7 February 2020, the resident reported that the water in the shower was not draining. On 13 February 2020, the landlord raised a works order to fit a new shower pump.
9. On 5 March 2020, the resident reported that the shower pump was not working and the water was flooding the bathroom. The contractors were due to attend on 6 March 2020.
10. On 14 March 2020, the front door was reported as not closing. On 17 March 2020, the landlord raised an order to replace the front door noting that it had been made safe. The repair was raised again on 19 March 2020.
11. On 23 March 2020, the resident reported the shower pump not draining and blocked. The landlord’s records state that the fittings were tightened and tested but the resident re-raised this issue stating there was still an issue with the shower on 26 March 2020.
12. On 25 March 2020, the landlord raised a repair for a hole left in the wall following a shower pump repair. This was noted as non–emergency.
13. On 24 March 2020, the resident reported a light needed replacement in a cupboard and the landlord advised that he would need to call back in 28 days as it was only raising emergency works at that time. On 30 April 2020, the resident raised it again and was advised to call back once COVID 19 restrictions had relaxed. He reported it again on 13 May 2020.
14. On 28 May 2020, the resident reported that a skirting board was rotten allowing mice to enter. Pest control were attending the following day and the landlord advised the resident to wait for the report from pest control.
15. On 2 June 2020, the resident called to ask if repair service had resumed. The landlord advised him to call back in two weeks.
16. On 17 June 2020, the landlord raised a repair order to repair the cupboard light.
On 12 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to repair issues at the property. The resident reported that the landlord had fitted a walk-in shower as his wife was disabled and he was unhappy that it took three different visits before the landlord found a plumber able to complete the work. Further, a week after the shower was fitted, it broke and flooded the bathroom and damaged some of his possessions. He also said that the windows in the property were broken and while he had reported this issue more than once, they had not been repaired.
The surveyor attended the property on 8 June 2020 and raised works.
On 2 July 2020, the resident raised a complaint that:
1. Six people had attended to look at the sink but it still needed repairs. He had called multiple time but received no call backs.
2. Windows had still not been fixed. He had raised this in a previous complaint. His wife was disabled and the property was cold.
On 24 July 2020, the landlord provided a Stage one response to the complaint. The landlord listed outstanding repairs as:
1. Window repairs to repoint and reseal around window frames and adjustments to windows, opening mechanism and draught proofing.
2. Insulation of the loft.
3. Repairs and renewals of the kitchen worktops and base units and re-tiling.
4. Renew the bathroom flooring and re-tiling.
5. Repair showed pump/attend to sluggish drain from shower.
6. Cleaning and flushing out of radiators.
7. Attend to the leak from the kitchen sink which had damaged the unit and skirting.
8. Renew rotten skirting boards (access point for mice).
9. Replace front door and realign back door.
10. Replace lights in cupboard.
11. External repairs, repointing the brickwork and realigning the guttering.
The landlord said that having reviewed its repair records, it acknowledged that the resident had contacted it many times in relation to most of the repairs, many of which dated back to the start of the current contract in April 2019 and there had been repeated surveyor inspections to the property. It acknowledged that there were avoidable delays in completing repairs, it was continuing to investigate this and had raised the case with its contracts manager.
The landlord said it had re-raised all the repair jobs following a recent inspection, but as it had new contractors from the start of August 2020, most of the works would need to carry over to the new contract in August. It had arranged for the current contractors to attend on 29 July 2020 to fit a new front door since it was a security risk. It was also trying to arrange appointment dates for July for the sink and shower pump. The landlord said it would ensure that all jobs were progressed as a priority and it would stay in touch with the resident regularly.
In conclusion, the landlord upheld the complaint acknowledging that the delay and current state of the property had caused distress and inconvenience. It apologised for this. The landlord said that it was continuing to investigate what caused the errors so it could give an explanation. It also acknowledged the frustration caused given the resident had reported the repairs well before lockdown and then had to live with the repairs during lockdown. The landlord said it would determine a suitable compensation offer once the repairs were complete.
The front door was replaced on 30 July 2020. Also, on 30 July 2020, the resident reported the shower pump had failed and flooded the bathroom.
On 5 August 2020, the resident escalated the complaint stating, in summary;
1. The landlord was not responding to messages or calls.
2. There was no working shower since the previous Thursday.
3. Bathroom and kitchen repairs were outstanding including a hole in the bathroom which was mouldy, and a leak and rats in the kitchen.
4. The bedroom window still needed repairing.
5. The issues had causing him stress and he had made complaints before. He requested an explanation as to why works had not been done.
The landlord acknowledged the Stage two complaint and said it aimed to respond by 4 September 2020.
On 10 August 2020, the resident reported that the shower was still not working. He said an operative was due to attend that morning but no one attended. The landlord made an appointment for the following day and raised various other works including: two windows to be replaced; replacement of kitchen base units; blocking up holes to prevent mice entering; replacement flooring in bathroom and replacement of wall tiles in bathrooms.
On 12 August 2020, the contractor updated the landlord that a shower pump had been fitted and an electrician had tried to connect the pump but the connections did not work. The contractor said that an electrician would attend the following day. On 13 August 2020, the landlord made enquiries with the contractor. The contractor advised the landlord that there had been a problem with the wiring that day but its sub–contractor would attend the following day. It said it had spoken to the resident and agreed to keep him updated.
The contractor spoke to the resident on 17 August 2020 and agreed to speak with him the following day to discuss dates for the repairs. The landlord’s correspondence refers to the shower pump being completed by 18 August 2020.
Various works were scheduled for between 19 and 27 August 2020 including: a repair to the back kitchen door; replacing wall tiles and flooring in the bathroom; and removing rotten base units, filling holes and fitting new units in the kitchen. On 25 August 2020, the landlord was aware of concerns about the consistency of the works. An appointment was booked for 25 August 2020 in relation to the shower drain as it had been identified that the drain was the wrong size and this was the reason for the repeated shower pump breakdowns.
On 27 August 2020, the landlord provided a single point of contact for the resident in relation to any queries about the works.
On 18 September 2020, the landlord provided a programme of works over the next three weeks and said it would visit to discuss any queries the resident had. These works included window repairs, the installation of loft installation, kitchen sink and unit replacement and converting the bathroom from disabled shower to a standard bathroom.
On 8 October 2020, the landlord provided a Stage two response to the complaint. The landlord said the resident had been provided a full timetable of works to be completed up to 15 October 2020. The landlord acknowledged significant service failures due to avoidable delays and apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused. The landlord said that it would take forward the lessons arising from the complaint, including the need for better communication and liaison with contractors. The landlord acknowledged that the change of contractors had added to the delay and that that there were further repairs that remained outstanding, although the repairs were progressively being managed and he was being informed of these repairs. The landlord offered £1500 compensation taking into account the delays and stress and inconvenience caused and the outstanding repairs, which was inclusive of £300 contribution to replace the flooring in the lounge. It said that as works were ongoing, it would not be able to consider a revised figure at a later stage.
An appointment as made for 1 December 2020 for outstanding works to take place. This work included some repairs to windows such as filling a gap to the window frame, repair to window hinges, easing the rear door and sealing the kitchen floor.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy terms and landlord policies

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s repair obligations include that it is responsible for:
1. keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
2. keeping in repair and property working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation and refuse disposal, and for space heating and water heating belonging to the landlord.
Under the terms of the tenancy, the landlord will carry out repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs.
The Handbook states that it aims to carry out emergency repairs within two to 24 hours depending on the seriousness of the problem. It aims to complete urgent repairs within three to five working days. It aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.

Assessment – how the landlord handled repairs reported at the property and the level of compensation offered for delays in completing repairs

Given the number of repairs reported by the resident and the evidence available, it is difficult to confirm precisely the time taken to complete every repair the resident complained of. However, the Ombudsman has considered the evidence available in relation to the main repairs reported and considered them in turn below.
In relation to the windows, there is evidence that a leak to one of the windows was reported on 23 April 2019 and the landlord responded appropriately by raising a repair to address this. On 24 October 2019, the resident reported that the windows were no longer effective. On 28 November 2019, the landlord raised an order to renew double glazed windows. When responding to the complaint on 24 July 2020, the landlord agreed to repoint and reseal around window frames and carry out adjustments to windows, opening mechanisms and draught proofing. An appointment was made for 11 August 2020 including replacement of two windows. Further appointments were made for 19 and 21 August 2020 to adjust windows and other window repairs. In September 2020, the resident said that painting was still required to the windows. Further appointments were arranged for window repairs the week of 21 September 2020 and for 1 December 2020.
While it is evident that the landlord has made attempts to address the repairs required to the windows on multiple occasions, the length of time over which this repair has been reported and the number of appointments made evidences that there were shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of this issue. Overall, the time taken to repair/replace the windows (totalling over one year) was unreasonable and outside of the timescales set out in the Tenants’ handbook. This caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident and his household.
In relation to the shower, the resident reported the shower flooding the bathroom on 5 March 2020. The landlord made attempts to complete repairs but further reports in relation to the shower were received including from a surveyor. There is evidence that the landlord attended and attempted a repair but as at 26 March 2020, the resident reported there was still an issue with the shower. The landlord was also aware of a hole left following the installation of the shower pump at this time. On 3 August 2020, the resident reported that he had not had a usable shower since the previous Thursday and they were having to wash in the sink. He continued to raise this issue until a repair was completed on or around 18 August 2020.
It is evident that there were multiple attempts to repair the shower between March and August 2020 and that it took until the end of August 2020 for the landlord to identify that there was an issue with the size of the shower drain. There were also delays in the landlord completing the repair in August 2020, which lead to the resident not having access to a shower for approximately 19 days. The landlord did not complete this repair in accordance with the timescales in its handbook. The delay in August in particular caused considerable inconvenience to the resident and his household.
The repairs to the tiling and flooring in the bathroom were identified in July 2020 and scheduled for September and October 2020, therefore there was also a delay in these repairs being completed although not as extensive as some of the other repairs.
On 14 March 2020, the front door was reported as not closing. The front door was replaced on 30 July 2020. On 24 March 2020, the resident reported a light needing replacing in a cupboard. On 17 June 2020, the landlord raised a repair order to repair the cupboard light. On 28 May 2020, the resident reported a skirting board was rotten allowing mice to enter. The landlord raised a repair for this in response to the complaint in July 2020.
While the repairs to the door, cupboard lights and skirting boards were not completed within the timescales set out in the landlord’s handbook, it is acknowledged that there were times when the landlord was prevented from doing repairs other than emergency repairs due to the restrictions imposed due to the COVID 19 pandemic. The Government guidance for landlords as at 28 March 2020 was that while landlord’s repairing obligations “have not changed”, “access to a property is only proposed for serious and urgent issues”. On 1 June 2020, this guidance was amended to say that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice”.
Given this, it was reasonable that the landlord delayed in completing some of the routine repairs between March and June 2020. However, the landlord said the door was a security risk therefore this should have been addressed as an emergency repair and there was a significant delay in the landlord completing the door replacement, which was unreasonable.
There is evidence that issues with the kitchen units were first reported by the resident on 16 September 2019 and the resident chased up a repair to a leak affecting the cupboards in November 2019. When responding to the resident’s complaint in July 2020, the landlord also identified that various other works were required to the kitchen. While some works were scheduled for August 2020, it took until October 2020 for a significant number of repairs to be scheduled, including the kitchen works. There was therefore a delay in the landlord completing repairs to the kitchen and it did not do so in accordance with the timescales in its handbook.
The landlord noted that the loft insulation had not been addressed as at November 2020 and the resident has informed the Ombudsman that this is still outstanding. Therefore there was also a delay in the landlord addressing this issue, which was first identified by the landlord on 24 July 2020. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that this and some other repairs are still outstanding to date. While it is understood that these issues are being addressed under a new complaint, the Ombudsman has made a Recommendation to ensure that this issue is satisfactorily addressed by the landlord.
It is also acknowledged that there were times when the landlord was taking reasonable steps to address the repairs and communicating regularly with the contractors to ensure the repairs were progressed, particularly in August 2020. The landlord chased up the contractors appropriately and it also provided a single point of contact for the resident to raise queries about the works, which was appropriate to manage any further issues.
The Ombudsman’s own Remedies guidance states that the Ombudsman’s own compensation calculations take into account various factors, including the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience and the seriousness of any other unfair impact. The suggested ranges of compensation for distress and inconvenience are:
1. Awards of £50 to £250 – Where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. For example, repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls.
2. Awards of £250 to £700 – Where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. For example, failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy such as to address repairs.
3. Awards of £700 and above – In recognition of maladministration / severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. For example, long stay in temporary accommodation due to mishandling of repairs.
Taking into account the length of time the resident was affected, the number of repairs which were delayed, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the household’s vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable and proportionate. The offer was also in accordance with Ombudsman’s compensation guidance as it was reasonable based on the circumstances of the case and within the suggested range of the Ombudsman’s guidance.
It is acknowledged that the events had a significant detrimental impact on the resident. He experienced significant inconvenience of the delays to the works, missed appointments, chasing up the works and incomplete repairs, the details of which are set out above. However, overall, while the compensation was less than the resident hoped for, it was proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise for the shortcomings and offered appropriate compensation. The landlord also indicated what it had learned from the complaint referring to the need for better communication and liaison with contractors. In doing so, the landlord has offered appropriate redress to resolve the complaint and acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
It is noted that the resident complained to the landlord that some of his belongings had been damaged by the shower leak and there is no evidence of the landlord responding to this aspect of the complaint. The landlord should have advised the resident how he could make a claim to its insurers in relation to any damaged items and therefore the Ombudsman has made a Recommendation in relation to this particular issue.
Finally, it is noted that the resident has also complained to the Ombudsman about lost earnings. However, this was not raised as part of the complaint to the landlord and therefore the landlord has not had an opportunity to address this issue. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s offer of compensation was a reasonable response to address the issues complained of.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

There were significant delays by the landlord in completing repairs to the property including repairs and replacement of windows, repairs to the shower, the kitchen and the front door. The delays caused significant inconvenience to the resident over a substantial period and he also had to chase up the repairs. However, when responding to the complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its shortcomings, apologised and offered proportionate compensation to address the complaint. In doing so, it provided reasonable redress in respect of the complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord to pay the resident the compensation it previously offered of £1500 if it has not already done so.
The landlord to respond to the resident’s claim that some of his belongings were damaged by the flood from the shower including advising him as to whether and how he can make a claim to the landlord’s insurers in relation to this.
If this issue is not being addressed in the most recent formal complaint, the landlord to respond to the resident’s allegations that some of the repairs addressed in this complaint are outstanding to date. The landlord should consider if additional compensation is appropriate if it is identified that there have been further delays.