Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202010278)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010278

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

20 December 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs following a flood at the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant, in respect of the property, since 11 March 2019.
The property is a two-bedroom flat located on the fifth floor.

Scope

The Ombudsman has noted the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s delay in undertaking the necessary repairs impacted her health. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.
Moreover, the Ombudsman recognises that in March 2021, the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord. While this Service has not seen the complaint, the Ombudsman has identified, upon assessing the correspondence from this period, that the resident was displeased with:
1. The damage caused to her property by the landlord’s contractors, including damage caused to a ceramic hob, her fridge-freezer, and a Tefal pressure cooker.
2. The kitchen units installed and the quality of works. She reported an issue with the door for the dishwasher.
3. Further issues with a lack of water supply and complications with the pipework at her property which resulted in a leak at her neighbours property. In addressing the leak, her under sink kitchen units had been pulled out and pipes left exposed.
4. The delay in arranging tiles.
Although connected, as these were new issues, the Ombudsman has not considered the reasonableness of the landlord’s response to these matters within this investigation. The Ombudsman can see, nonetheless, that the landlord took the resident’s concerns forward under its complaints process and provided a response on 3 June 2021. It is unclear whether this matter was pursued to stage two, whether the resident exhausted the landlord’s process, or whether the resident was satisfied by the landlord’s response. The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to consider this complaint for investigation.
In line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are brought to this Service 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. Subsequently, should the resident wish to have this complaint investigated by this Service, she will need to first exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process before referring it to this Service.

Summary of events

On 5 August 2020 the resident registered a complaint with the landlord. She explained:
1. Since moving into her property, she had reported several repairs which had yet to be completed. The first set of contractors that attended to undertake works had failed to complete the bathroom and kitchen work and the bath and handbasin were frequently blocked. The drainage team assessed this however no follow up appointment had been made.
2. After continual contact, the drainage team unblocked the bath but not the sink. A further report had to be made and the landlord’s (new) contractor attended to address the bathroom and kitchen sink but again identified that the pipes needed to be cleared by the drainage team. This went on until the wash hand basin in the bathroom was flooded and the pipes became loose. She stated she awoke to a flooded bathroom, hallway and kitchen.
3. Her carpet, bathroom cupboards, and kitchen cupboards were now damaged. The kitchen cupboard doors under the sink had fallen off and the hinges of the door had broken.

She stated that this would not have happened if the repair was completed properly. She requested that the landlord undertake the necessary repairs and that it replace her carpet.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 August 2021.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord raised an order on 20 August 2020 to assess the kitchen cupboards and units, bathroom vanity cupboard, and damage to the carpet and to establish what works were required. Its records show that the kitchen cupboards and units required replacing.
On 7 September 2020 the landlord offered its stage one response. It stated:
1. It apologised for the resident’s experienced and advised that it was no longer using the same contractors.
2. It understood that the drainage problems had since been resolved. Its new contractors had attended on 20 August 2020 to identify the outstanding works, and these would be carried out on 8 October 2020. This date would be moved forward should there be availability. The landlord explained that due to the pandemic, there was a backlog of repairs.
3. The resident needed to make a claim via its insurance if she sought reimbursement for the carpet.

The landlord concluded that the resident had waited longer than normal for the repairs to be completed and apologised for this. An award of £100 compensation was made in recognition of the resident’s inconvenience.

On 9 September 2020 the resident explained that she was happy to accept the compensation. She questioned, however, whether this would mean that she would not be eligible for compensation for her carpet. The resident chased a response on 27 September 2020, having heard nothing back from the landlord.
On 28 September 2020 the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process as despite providing her payment details, she had not heard back from the landlord. She had also not received a response to her query. The resident also expressed concern that her new kitchen cupboards were scheduled for fitting in early October 2020 however she had not been contacted regarding the measurements.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s home on 8 October 2020 and undertook the required measurements for the resident’s fitting. It noted in an internal email that it had agreed with the resident that works would begin on 16 November 2020 (although the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this agreement).
The Ombudsman can see that the resident chased the landlord on 14 and 21 October 2020. She noted that she still had not heard from the repairs team or been issued the compensation.
On 23 October 2020 the resident advised the landlord that she had no functioning kitchen and now rejected the compensation offer. She stated that the situation was having a detrimental impact on her family’s health. She had heard nothing back regarding when the works would take place.
The resident chased this again on 28 October 2020 and 3 November 2020 explaining that she had still heard nothing from the repairs team.
The landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident on 3 November 2020 who sought reassurance that the works would take place on 16 November 2020.
On 5 November 2020 the landlord provided its stage two response. It stated:
1. The level of service offered had fallen below what it expected to deliver. It noted that the resident and her family had been inconvenienced and that there had been a delay in resolving the matter. The landlord noted that the matter had been distressing for the resident, in what was already a difficult time.
2. Following the inspection on 8 October 2020, it was agreed with the resident on 20 October 2020 that works would be undertaken to the units on 16 November 2020. While the resident had sought assurance that this would not be pushed back, due to the unforeseen circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, and changes in government advice, this assurance could not be provided.
3. The compensation offered at stage one had been processed on 29 September 2020. It noted that the resident had completed the Housing Liability Claim Form to claim for her personal belongings but had not heard anything back. The landlord apologised for this and signposted the contact details for the insurance team to enable the resident to chase this up.

The landlord explained that in acknowledgement of the poor service, delay, and inconvenience, it would make an additional award of £150.

The Ombudsman can see that the resident accepted the landlord’s findings and offer of compensation on 9 November 2020. She requested confirmation still, that the repairs would go ahead as promised.
On the same day, the landlord noted internally that the rent account would be credited and had been sent to the appropriate team for processing.
On 12 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to establish whether she needed to do anything to prepare the kitchen for works (e.g., empty cupboards). She also questioned whether the cupboards would be fitted during this appointment or whether the contractor would attend to measure only. It does not appear that she received a response.
On 16 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord explaining that its contractors had advised that works could not commence. She requested that the landlord’s repair manager contact her.
On 24 November 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that works had commenced earlier in the day, however the contractor had attempted to install the wrong unit – this should have been for her dishwasher. The resident advised that the contractor became very angry upon raising this and subsequently left the property leaving her with no water or heating as the supply had been turned off. She requested urgent contact.
The resident reported on the following day that materials had been left in the communal area over night, no drinking water was available in the kitchen, and she had no access to her cooking facilities. It appears that the landlord attended the property later in the day to reinstate the supply.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s notes that the resident required an emergency repair on 2 December 2020 following a leak. The landlord noted that within her call, she also reported that several repairs remained outstanding. She explained that:
1. She was still awaiting one kitchen unit (for the dishwasher) and one cupboard for the kitchen renewal to be completed.
2. She had not had sight of any samples for the flooring nor the tiles
3. No appointment had been scheduled for the painting and decorating to take place.
The landlord confirmed within its internal emails on 3 December 2020 that the rubbish had since been collected and the leak repaired. It noted that the resident had also refused to have standard tiles and flooring installed as she had purchased her own.
The resident reported on 7 December 2020 that in addressing the leak at her property, the plumber had turned the water supply off and not reinstated this. She again had no heating or hot water and was experiencing an issue with the cooker switch in the kitchen. She advised that she would be contacting her solicitor.
On the same day, she reported that the flooring in the kitchen and the wall tiles had been ripped out.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s notes that its contractors attended the resident’s property on 8 December 2020. The cooker switch was repaired and the electrics in the kitchen were assessed and found to be in working order. The water was also reinstated.
On 9 December 2020 the resident reported that she was waiting for the landlord’s carpenter to return to make safe her cupboard door and unit for the dishwasher. The landlord noted internally that upon sending two supervisors to the resident’s property to undertake an inspection, its contractors reported that the tiles and flooring had not been ripped out, but that the resident was unhappy with what had been fitted. It confirmed for the landlord that there were no further works to be completed at the property. Its records show that the resident disputed this, however.
The landlord noted within its call records that upon speaking to the resident, it had advised her that a carpenter was not required as works had been completed.
On 15 December 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that she was still having issues with the water pressure, that her cooker had not been installed properly, and that her flooring had been ripped.
On 18 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident on reviewing its previous position. It stated:
1. The kitchen units had now been fitted, the painting completed, and arrangements had been made for someone to install the cooker as the resident had not been made aware that she needed to do this herself. It was noted that the resident wished to arrange the tiling and flooring for herself as she did not want the options available.
2. It apologised for the further stress and inconvenience caused by the delay, and advised that as a goodwill gesture, a further £750 would be awarded.
The landlord noted internally on the same day that the resident had now requested that it source and replace the tiles for her.
On 4 January 2021 the landlord raised a repair order as the resident reported that there were holes in the kitchen and hallway walls caused by the previous operatives.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident attempted to chase her outstanding repair in January 2021. It appears that some works took place on early February 2021 however it is unclear what.
On 25 February 2021 the resident advised the landlord that her kitchen cupboard was falling off.
The resident made further contact with the landlord on 8 March 2021 where she explained:
1. The water pressure was still low, and the washing machine / dishwasher had not been plumbed in.
2. Works to the kitchen unit were unsatisfactory and the dividers put in place were warping. Parts were also still required to complete works to the units.
3. The integrated door for the dishwasher had come off.
4. No works had been done to paint the plaster.
On 15 March 2021 in the landlord’s internal emails, it noted that its decorator and surveyor had been to the resident’s property to clarify the remaining works required and would schedule to complete this over the following days.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s records that the decorations were completed on 17 March 2021 and a new base unit was installed on the following day for the dishwasher. The landlord also adapted the pipework behind the dishwasher and washing machine on the same day.
It appears that further complications were found with the pipework at the resident’s property in late March 2021, however a temporary fix was undertaken whilst arrangements were made to rectify the issue. The Ombudsman notes that there were also belongings which were damaged, and which the resident advised she would seek to claim for.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord’s contractor again confirmed for the landlord that works had been completed at the resident’s property. The resident advised however that the kitchen units had been pulled out along with the stacking pipes, and that she was still waiting for the dishwasher “carcass” to be put in.
The landlord’s contractor noted internally on 21 April 2021 that on 20 April 2021 it spoke with the resident advising that works would be undertaken on 22 April 2021 to address the outstanding kitchen repairs. It noted that the resident was holding off on re-tiling her bathroom due to the desired tiles not being a standard size. It appears that works to the kitchen were completed on or around this time.

Assessment and findings

Upon reviewing the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord accepted that its service had been below the expected standard and that there had been a delay in completing the reported repairs at the resident’s property. This was not disputed. It therefore made an offer of redress which was reasonable and which the resident initially accepted.
Confirming that the drainage issue had since been resolved, the landlord set out how it intended to address the outstanding matters within its stage one response. It also advised the resident of the procedure to enable her to claim for her damaged belongings. This was an appropriate complaint response.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord failed to maintain communication with the resident following its response, however, and failed to advise the resident when / how the compensation amount would be processed. As the payment was being made to her rent account, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have advised her of this. This ultimately resulted in the resident escalating her complaint to stage two of its complaints process. Given that the landlord was still in the process of putting things right, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have been more attentive to the needs of the resident at this time.
Still, the Ombudsman is satisfied that at stage two, the landlord offered a further reasonable complaint response. While the landlord failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations by clearly setting out its plan of action for its visit on 8 October 2020 and failed to provide reasonable updates for the resident despite continuous contact from her, it recognised this within its response.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been further inconvenience and delay and took into account the distress that this would have caused for the resident during an already difficult time. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord was unable to provide the resident with assurance that works would not be cancelled on 16 November 2020, given the unpredictability of the COVID-19 pandemic, government guidelines, and its impact on staff / business as usual. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord explained this to the resident.
What’s more, it was reasonable that on reviewing the resident’s experience and in reflection of its poor service, the landlord took the decision to increase the compensation previously offered (by an additional £150). As the resident’s insurance claim was a matter for consideration by the Insurance Team, and therefore dealt with outside of the landlord’s complaints procedure, it was appropriate that the landlord signposted the contact details for this team to enable her to chase matters up. This was a proportionate and fair response, and the Ombudsman can see that the resident accepted this in resolution of her complaint.
In putting things right, however, the Ombudsman expects landlord’s to honour and fulfil any promises made in resolution of a complaint. As per the Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code, the Ombudsman would expect that any resolution offered is followed through to completion and within a reasonable amount of time. The Ombudsman recognises that what is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the scale of the work, but also notes that for routine repairs, this will usually be within 20 working days.
Having proposed to restore the kitchen cupboards, and to begin works on 16 November 2020 (providing that this was not disrupted by COVID-19) the Ombudsman therefore would have expected this to have commenced on the agreed date and to have been completed within a reasonable time.
The Ombudsman can see, however, that works failed to commence on this day despite the resident’s frequent calls and despite recognising that the resident was particularly concerned about potential delays. It is unclear why, as the landlord’s contractor advised, a second surveyor was required to inspect the property, or why this was not done prior to the agreed date for works. The Ombudsman can see, nonetheless, that the resident subsequently had to reschedule the date for works to commence, further delaying its completion.
The Ombudsman appreciates that works did commence soon after on 24 November 2020. It appears, however, that due an incorrect unit being identified, works were paused, and further complications arose which included a temporary loss of heating, water, and electrical appliances and which took a number of days before being rectified.
It was reasonable that in light of this, and upon receiving confirmation from its contractor that no further works were required (on 9 December 2020), the landlord took the opportunity to review the resident’s experience and its previous award of compensation. In its consideration of this, the landlord acknowledged that a greater award was required to reflect the circumstances of the complaint / repair and made an offer of £750. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the level of redress offered surpassed what this Service would have considered to have been reasonable and was satisfactory in resolving the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the resident disputed that the works had been completed at this time.
It is unclear from the evidence provided what works remained. Records do demonstrate, however, that there were further adjustments required in order to put things right and that a new base unit was not installed until 17 March 2021. What’s more, decorative works were also required to put right damage caused to the resident’s property by the landlord’s contractors.
Adding to this, and with kitchen units being removed due to further complications with the resident’s pipework, the works to restore the kitchen cupboards and units remained outstanding. As per the landlord’s records, the outstanding kitchen repairs were not fully addressed until on or around April 2021.
The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that while the landlord’s initial responses were fair, it also would have been appropriate for it to have reviewed the additional time taken to satisfactorily complete the works agreed. This would have enabled it to consider the time in which the resident was unable to fully enjoy her kitchen. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s failure to recognise this further inconvenience was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs following a flood at the resident’s property.

Reasons

While the landlord took appropriate steps to recognise the resident’s experience within its complaints procedure and later upon undertaking a compensation review, it failed to reflect on the additional length of time taken to finalise works to the resident’s kitchen. The Ombudsman notes that the resident would have been unable to fully enjoy use of her kitchen for several months after its response in December 2020 and can see that there was a significant level of distress and inconvenience over this period. This was contrary to both good repair and complaint handling practice.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In considering an appropriate remedy, this Service does take into account the steps already taken by the landlord to put things right. In doing so, the Ombudsman has considered the level of redress already awarded (£1,000) and has concluded that it would be unfair and disproportionate, given the amount, to order the landlord to make a further award. The Ombudsman has therefore made no further order of compensation. Instead, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to write to the resident to offer an apology for the handling of her repairs. This should be done within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination.

Recommendations

In future cases, where works are agreed as part of the landlord’s resolution, it should ensure that this is given priority so that any outstanding matters can be resolved and within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord should review its position and the resident’s experience upon completion of works (as it did in December 2020, but not in April 2021) to be sure that its customers have been treated fairly and that it has acted appropriately.