Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202012724)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012724

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

15 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. reports of boiler repairs prior to September 2020.
   2. reports of boiler repairs in September 2020.
   3. complaint that the landlord’s contractor damaged her flooring.
   4. subsequent formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.

The resident’s reports of boiler repairs prior to September 2020.

3. In accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
4. The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of historical reports of issues with her boiler, going back two years. In line with the Scheme and in view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to September 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in September 2020.

Background and summary of events

5. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, living in a flat.
6. On 11 September 2020 the landlord raised repairs for the boiler in the resident’s property. It noted on its system that the resident had no heating or hot water, that the boiler pressure was continuously down, and the resident said she was told the boiler needed changing.
7. A further repair was raised on 13 September 2020 because the resident had no heating or hot water. The landlord attended on the same day but was not able to investigate fully due to a leak inside the boiler. It noted on its system that it made the boiler safe by shutting it down;
8. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 14 September 2020. She was unhappy that she was not told when the boiler would fixed, and explained that she had recently taken time off work for a family bereavement and could not take more time off to attend repairs appointments.
9. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 September 2020 and said it would respond by 5 October 2020.
10. On 16 September 2020 the resident called the landlord to pursue an update and asked for a manager to call her back. The landlord made notes from a call with the resident on 17 September 2020 that her heating was turned off six weeks beforehand and the resident’s children and an elderly family member were staying the property. The landlord noted that the resident did not have an electric shower nor any hot water, and had not been provided temporary heating.
11. On 17 September 2020 the landlord raised a survey of the boiler. The landlord’s internal records advised that an asbestos surveyor would attend on 18 September 2020, alongside a gas inspector, to assess the situation and it would instruct work, if there were no signs of asbestos. It confirmed it had provided an update to the resident.
12. On 18 September 2020 the landlord’s records advised that it was on site and no asbestos was found. It confirmed it agreed to change the radiators in the bathroom and the lounge at the resident’s request.
13. Works to replace the resident’s boiler started on 21 September 2020 and, on 23 September 2020, the landlord’s notes advised that the resident now had hot water and heating and it was awaiting a new radiator to complete the works. The new radiators were installed on 29 September 2020 and the landlord attended later that day to post-inspect the works.
14. On 30 September 2020, the landlord said that it spoke with the resident, who said it had not been back to the property following the installation of the radiators. It asked for somebody to attend and “discuss the issue with…the radiators that have not been changed within the bedrooms that are not heating up as much as the new ones”.
15. On 1 October 2020 the landlord’s contractor advised that the radiators in the bedrooms had not been changed because they were fit for purpose. It confirmed the resident had highlighted a scratch on her flooring but it could not confirm if the scratch was present prior to the works being completed or during the repair works. The contractor confirmed it discussed the scratch with the resident and “she just wanted it recorded and no further action”. It provided photos of the flooring.
16. In the landlord’s stage one response to the complaint, dated 7 October 2020, it confirmed that its repairs records showed previous issues with the boiler and the resident reported that the boiler was not working again in September 2020. The landlord apologised that it did not offer more support and information at this time, and said part of the delay in the replacement of the boiler was due to an asbestos test being required before works could begin.
17. The landlord confirmed it needed to ensure it offered temporary heaters if residents did not have the full use of their boiler and engineers would carry heaters as part of their stock. It confirmed its contractor had also employed someone to take full ownership of the co-ordination of boiler installation to ensure it requested an asbestos report at the time of booking the survey and follow the full process through to post-inspection. The co-ordinator would also ensure that the landlord communicated with its residents so they were fully aware of the process and when the new boiler would be installed.
18. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 17 November 2020 because:
    1. She was without heating for around ten days and the landlord did not communicate with her during this time. She disputed that the delay was due to the landlord needing an asbestos report. 
    2. Due a family bereavement, her mother was staying with her. Because of the delay in the boiler repairs, her disabled mother had to stay at another family member’s property which was up three flights of stairs. The resident said the landlord had not considered this.
    3. She requested compensation for the way she was treated, loss of earnings to stay at home for repair appointments, and damage to her flooring.
19. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and confirmed it would respond by 16 December 2020.
20. A further repair was raised for the boiler on 23 November 2021, noting that the resident had no heating or hot water.
21. The landlord updated the resident on 18 December 2020 that there was a backlog affecting its response times and it would respond by 13 January 2021.
22. Further repairs were raised for the resident not having heating or hot water on 29 December 2020 and 13 January 2021. 
23. In the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 15 January 2021 the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced and her not having heating and hot water for two weeks. It offered the resident £41.50 for the two weeks she was without heating and hot water and directed her to contact this Service if she remained unhappy.
24. Following the exhaustion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, the landlord raised several further repairs for the boiler, noting that the resident had no heating or hot water on each occasion.  In March 2021 the resident explained that it was found that when the radiator in the living room was changed, the pipes were not connected properly and were leaking.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

25. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the space and water heating installations in the property.
26. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy prioritises repairs as follows:
    1. Priority 1: Within two hours.
    2. Priority 2: Within 24 hours (loss of heating in the winter time is given as an example) to make the property safe. A follow-on appointment may be required to resolve the issue identified.
    3. Priority 3: Within three (loss of heating in the summer time is given as an example) to five working days. If the repair cannot be resolved immediately, a temporary solution will be put in place until such time as a permanent repair can be carried out.
    4. Priority 4: Within five working days.
    5. Priority 5: Within 20 working days.
27. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days, and stage two complaints within 20 working days.

The resident’s reports of boiler repairs in September 2020.

28. When the resident reported a fault with her boiler on 11 September 2020 resulting in her having no hot water or heating, the landlord should have attended within three working days, in line with its repairs policy. Although the policy does not explain what it considers to be ‘winter time’, the Right to Repair Scheme gives a response time of one working day for repairs where heating or hot water is not working between 31 October and 1 May, and three working days where heating or hot water is not working between 1 May and 31 October. If, when the landlord attended, it was not able to resolve the issue, it should have provided a temporary measure, such as temporary heaters, until a permanent repair could be carried out.
29. In this case, the landlord did attend within three working days on 13 September 2020 and made safe the boiler by shutting it down. However, the resident had no hot water or heating, and the evidence does not indicate that the resident was provided any temporary heaters, for example, despite the resident informing the landlord that her vulnerable family member was staying with her. There was a further opportunity for the landlord to provide temporary heaters when it completed an asbestos test on 18 September 2020, but the evidence does not demonstrate that it did so. The works to replace the boiler were completed on 23 September 2020 and new radiators installed on 29 September 2020. Therefore, the evidence suggests that the resident was without hot water or heating for around 12 days.
30. The landlord has offered partial redress by acknowledging that there were failings, namely that it did not provide temporary heaters or sufficiently update the resident about the repairs and explaining how it would learn from the resident’s complaint. It has also offered to pay the resident £41.50 compensation for the two weeks she was without heating and hot water.
31. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing her of the lessons it had learned from her complaint. It recognised and accepted that its service had been poor, and the actions it took to remedy that were, with one exception, reasonable and appropriate. The exception being the level of compensation it offered to the resident. The landlord has not explained how it calculated this figure and does not appear to have offered any financial redress for the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of the service failure. Accordingly, while the landlord’s handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint was reasonable overall, the omission of a fair and reasonable consideration of compensation was a service failure in complaint handling. The landlord should pay the resident further compensation, as set out below in order to fully resolve this aspect of the complaint.

The resident’s complaint that the landlord’s contractor damaged her flooring.

32. Despite there being evidence of the resident raising concerns that her flooring was damaged by the landlord’s contractor, and the resident raising this as part of her stage two complaint, the landlord has not considered this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its final response.  In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and good practice, landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.  The landlord’s omission to include this aspect of the complaint in it’s stage two response was therefore unreasonable and it should pay compensation as set out below for the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident. The landlord should also write to the resident to respond to her concerns about its contractor’s conduct. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to this matter, she should be given the opportunity to appeal through the landlord’s complaints procedure. If she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to this, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman as a new complaint.

Complaint handling

33. The resident expressed to this Service that she remains unhappy with the time taken by the landlord to progress her complaint.  The landlord took 18 working days to respond at stage one of its complaints procedure, and 40 working days to respond at stage two. The stage one response was just outside of the 15 working day timescales in its complaints policy, however there was a 20-day delay in its stage two response.

34. On occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the designated timeframe. This is usually to be expected when complaints are complex and further investigation is required. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident, explain in detail the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. Whilst the delay was understandably inconvenient for the resident, the landlord had acted reasonably in updating the resident that there was a backlog affecting its response times and provided a new date that it would respond by. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:

1. The resident’s reports of boiler repairs in September 2020.
2. The resident’s complaint that the landlord’s contractor damaged her flooring.

36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the subsequent formal complaint.

Reasons

37. The landlord has offered partial redress by acknowledging that there were failings in its handling of the boiler repairs, namely that it did not provide temporary heaters or sufficiently update the resident and explaining how it would learn from the resident’s complaint. However, its offer to pay the resident £41.50 for the two weeks she was without heating and hot water was not a sufficient or proportionate compensation payment. The landlord should offer additional compensation as set out below, in view of this.

38. Additionally, the landlord failed to address the aspect of the resident’s complaint concerning damage to her flooring. The landlord should address this issue now as well as offering compensation as set out below for any distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of response.

39. The landlord did also delay in responding to the complaint at stage two of its internal process but took reasonable steps to update the resident on any delays. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this issue.

Orders

40. In light of the findings of this investigation, the landlord is ordered to (within four weeks of the date of this decision):

a. Pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs.

b. Pay the resident £50 for it’s failure to respond to her complaint concerning damage to her flooring.

3. The landlord should respond to the resident’s concerns about the damage to her flooring and explain its position regarding this. The landlord should provide a copy of this response to the Ombudsman.