Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202012991)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012991

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

31 October 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 level of compensation which the landlord offered for its acknowledged service failure in its response to the resident’s report of repairs in the kitchen.
The complaint is about the complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is also the local authority. The tenancy commenced in August 2010.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations under the tenancy agreement states that it shall keep in repair and proper working order the structure, outside of the dwelling and installations in the dwelling (for the supply of water, sanitation and refuse disposal).
The landlord has not provided its repair, compensation, major work or complaint policy. Details have been taken from its available policies.
As per its repair and maintenance handbook, the landlord aims to deliver its repair and maintenance obligations through a range of approaches including planned programmes of replacement and reactive repairs. The landlord’s priority and targeted completion times are as follows: 24 hours for emergency work, 7 days for urgent repairs, 20 working days for routine repairs and 60 working days for planned repairs. The handbook states that the landlord will advise the resident of the expected completion. It also states that delays may occur due to factors such as waiting for a third party to carry out repairs (such as a utility company) and needing a specialist survey or specialist solutions.

Summary of events

The records show the resident’s reports and the landlord’s responses from 2011. The issue that the resident reported was a bad smell in the kitchen. Subsequently, she reported the intermittent occurrence of a back surge of dirty water coming up into the kitchen sink. This was subject to a formal complaint at the time; however, the landlord did not fully resolve the repair as this arose again in 2020.
The Ombudsman has limited the scope of its investigation to the landlord’s response to the period of 2020 until January 2021 (the end of the complaint procedure). This is because the Ombudsman investigates complaints which have been raised to it and the landlord within a reasonable timeframe. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. The Ombudsman has assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the repair, rather than the historic cause or the existence of the repair itself.
In January 2020 the resident said that she called the landlord to see if it could review the sink, establish why it was getting backed up and why there was a bad smell. The resident said that the operative that attended could not find the leak or acknowledge the smell. The landlord’s repair records show that the job was raised on 21 January 2020 and completed on 31 January 2020.
The landlord’s records show that there was a new report of the kitchen sink back surging dirty water in April 2020. The resident explained that on 24 April 2020 she called the landlord and it sent an operative the same morning who identified a repair. The resident said that she was told that the stack was not clear and a valve was needed to stop the water backing up. She called the repair team and asked for an emergency repair response following this visit; the landlord said that it would need to wait for the report from the operative but the resident explained that it was urgent and so the landlord booked the job for 24 hours.
On 25 April 2020 the resident said that someone from a third-party plumbing company came out and cleaned an external manhole. The manhole had fat and grease build up. This was cleared and the kitchen sink was cleaned.
On 4 May 2020 resident and landlord discussed the case. The landlord said that it would review the report to see if the job was done properly and that there should not be any further issues. The resident said that she was not confident of this; in her experience the problem recurred.
On 22 May 2020 the landlord’s record show a note about the repair. The next records show that the landlord left a message with the resident on 29 May 2020 about an appointment but this was “not confirmed”.
On 17 June 2020 the landlord’s operative sent the resident a text message to state that they were on their way and then another text message on the same day stating that the appointment was complete. It is unclear if this was in relation to the kitchen repair.
The resident wrote to her MP on 18 June 2020. The resident’s letter highlighted her health condition (asthma), her reports from 2011 onwards about the smell, the landlord’s various responses over the years including a complaint response and a proposal to remove items and inspect the kitchen (which she said had not happened). The resident explained that she sought for the landlord to remove the kitchen to find the source of the smell/repair.
The landlord noted the MP’s contact (2 July 2020). Its work summary for the kitchen works and the records show that:
1. On 29 July 2020 a list of repairs including renewing items in the kitchen was raised.
2. This was raised again on 2 September 2020.
3. On 9 September 2020 there was an inspection.
4. On 29 – 30 September 2020 the landlord was awaiting quotations and the resident was aware of this.
5. On 5 October 2020 the quote was approved, and work was to start on 15 October 2020.
6. The resident explained that on 15 October 2020 the landlord’s operative removed the kitchen sink and fittings, and she had no access to drinking water from the kitchen.
7. On 19 October 2020 there was a dispute about the units. The landlord’s operative said that the resident wanted a new kitchen as it used to be flooded and the old units smelled of damp and were rotten. The operative recommended sending a surveyor to decide.
8. On 30 October 2020 the records state that another quotation was being arranged.
9. Throughout November 2020 – 10 December 2020 the resident was supplied with drinking water. The resident said that she was only provided with the water a month after the kitchen was taken out (15 October 2020). The evidence shows that the earliest report raised about the drinking water was in early November 2020 (3, 4 and 5 November onwards). The resident was therefore without drinking water for approximately three weeks until the landlord arranged to provide this following her request.
10. On 13 November 2020 the resident called the landlord to chase the installation of the kitchen. There was a note on file stating that there needed to be another inspection.
11. Towards the end of November and early December (27 November – 3 December 2020) various repairs were undertaken. This included repairs to the extractor fan, light fitting, the positioning of sockets and rewiring. At one stage, more time was needed. The operative’s notes conveyed the feedback once he had reinstated the power and tested the repairs (‘all working’).
12. On 9 December 2020 the repair records state that the works were complete as per the quotation.

Formal complaint

Following the landlord’s receipt of the MP’s communication about the repairs (late June/early July 2020), the landlord raised works to address the kitchen but it did not raise a formal complaint.
On 26 October 2020 the landlord’s records show that it logged a complaint from the resident. This stated that the work started in the kitchen in mid-October 2020 and the resident had no drinking water and could not prepare food. The same record stated that this was escalated because the landlord failed to address the issue (at stage two).
The resident said that she sent the landlord an email in early November 2020 with pictures. The landlord’s records show that she called the landlord on 3 November to confirm that it had received this but it said that it had not. On 5 November 2020 its record showed that it received an email with images and this was dated 2 November 2020 but this was too large to upload onto its casework system.
The landlord subsequently sent the resident a holding letter on 20 November 2020. The landlord explained the potential delay in responding to her formal complaint and offered the reason for this as well as its apology.
On 30 November 2020 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It understood the resident’s concerns were:
1. A surveyor attended the property four months ago and stated that the resident needed a new kitchen, but she had not heard anything since then.
2. The customer centre said it could not raise the work until it received the surveyor’s report.
3. The property had mildew and a fly infestation.
4. The resident was suffering from a long term illness, this was impacted by the stress caused by the whole ordeal.
The letter went on to state that:
1. The resident had contacted it on numerous occasions about the kitchen issues.
2. It could not review previous notes from previous survey inspections and it asked the surveyor team to explain the timeframe between when the inspection took place and raising the jobs.
3. After a visit of 2 October 2020, the surveyor advised of extensive works required and a work order was raised for these repairs.
4. The repair was not picked up with its contractor’s database which is the reason for the delay.
5. The landlord and contractor’s IT departments were investigating why this happened. The landlord said that it would amend its system following the outcome of the investigation.
6. It would monitor the repair to make sure that these were carried out and it apologised for the delay.
A note dated 1 December 2020 stated that compensation would be offered (as part of the stage one response) once the works were completed and post-inspected.
The resident called the landlord on 9 December 2020 to discuss her escalation (this had not been received by the landlord due to the size of the email as it was “too large to upload”). The resident said that she wanted to escalate her complaint.
The landlord issued its compensation offer on 19 December 2020. It offered £650 and said that this was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for delay and inconvenience at high impact. The landlord said it considered that the resident was unable to cook in the kitchen, she often had to buy take away food to provide a substantial meal, and she had no drinking water (but provided bottled water when requested).
The resident responded on 20 December 2020 and explained that she did not consider the level of compensation to be adequate. This is because she did not find that it covered the stress and inconvenience for the “whole period”, which she considered to be four years. She also said that she was told that she was entitled to £15 per day for food. She explained that she was unable to use the kitchen for 8 weeks.
On 4 January 2021 the landlord considered the resident’s escalation and its stage one investigation.
On 14 January 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response. It considered that the stage one response appropriately addressed the issues and that the offer of compensation was a fair one in relation to the duration of the delay and inconvenience to the resident. It said that this was calculated as a high impact level. The landlord also directed the resident to its insurance team and explained that it could not compensate her for the “neglect over the years” or for worry, lack of sleep and damages.
On 15 January 2021 the resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident explained that she did not consider that the level of compensation was adequate. The resident explained that she was unable to wash clothes, prepare food or wash dishes and it took over a month for the landlord to provide emergency bottled water which she had to request from the repair team every other day. She explained that she would use this for cooking noodles, making tea and drinking. The resident further explained that she lived on take away food for two months during the November lockdown and this was financially difficult.
After the complaint process was complete, the resident explained to the Ombudsman that there was a leak in the kitchen possibly connected to the operative’s work in placing the new pipes. The resident may report this to the landlord and if she remains dissatisfied, she may raise a new complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s records show that the operatives came out in response to the resident’s reports from early 2020. The responses ranged from looking for a leak, inspecting the stack pipe and cleaning the external manhole. It was reasonable for the landlord to send its operatives out to address the repairs each time that the resident reported a problem, although clearly these did not resolve the overall issue.
The landlord established in July 2020 that there were several repairs that it would need to undertake. These were initially raised in July. The repairs were raised again in September 2020 in addition to an inspection. The work then commenced in October 2020 but was paused due to the ambiguity over whether there was to be a replacement of the kitchen units. This resulted in a further delay from 19 October – 27 November 2020. Once the work began (27 November 2020) it was completed by 9 December 2020; this was reasonable as it was within 60 days (in line with the repair handbook for planned replacement work).
Overall, there was a delay from July to November which was not reasonable. In response to this, the landlord acknowledged a service failure, offered an explanation and compensation. It explained that this was partly due to an issue with the IT system. The landlord explained why it considered the £650 offer of compensation to be fair and appropriate and that it was for ‘high impact’ service failure. This was primarily due to the inconvenience caused by the delay. This was reasonable to an extent.
However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it recognised and put right the failure in its communication and handling of the kitchen repairs before the works commenced.
It is accepted that major works, such as a kitchen replacement, will encompass a degree of disruption of the everyday life of the resident. It is expected that the landlord discusses this before the works commence, so that the resident’s expectations are effectively managed. There is no evidence that this took place.
The landlord did not demonstrate an assessment of how it managed the repairs in conjunction with a relevant policy for major works. It did not evidence that it communicated effectively with the resident in relation to the impact of the repairs and any measures that it could take to mitigate this before the work commenced. As a result, the resident was left with a lack of understanding about the compensation she was entitled to and she was also left to request water herself, three weeks after the kitchen units were taken out. This was not reasonable.
The communication failure also resulted in a lack of clarity over the scope of the work once the operatives had removed the kitchen. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have set out its action plan with the resident beforehand, so that it could ensure that all parties were informed of the scope of the work and any discrepancies were resolved at the outset, so far as possible.
Therefore, there is a service failure in the level of compensation which the landlord offered. This is because of the further additional service failure identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of repairs to the kitchen.
In respect of the decision to point the resident towards its insurance provider, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. This is because the insurance company can assess items such as personal injury or damages.
In respect of the complaint handling, it would have been resolution focused for the landlord to log the resident’s complaint once it was aware of her ongoing concerns following the MP enquiry (in June/July 2020). This is because the resident was evidently dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the kitchen works and the resident highlighted that this had been ongoing for a while. The complaint process could have provided an early opportunity for the landlord to assess the issues and address any concerns. It could have also provided the opportunity for the landlord to set out its repair action plan, ahead of time.
Once it did log the complaint, in October, there was a delay in sending out the stage one response. This was issued in the second half of November. The landlord communicated with the resident about delay, which was reasonable. However, its record keeping in respect of the complaint which it logged in October has not been clear, and this has risked the landlord’s understanding of the resident’s concerns which it did not go on to specifically address in its subsequent complaint response.
Following the resident’s escalation of her complaint, the landlord did not address the resident’s query over whether she would be compensated for the limited use of the kitchen, except to say in general terms that it considered that the compensation was appropriate. It would have been resolution focused for the landlord to respond to the resident’s specific complaint points, to reflect that it understood and considered her concerns.
In the circumstances of this case, the landlord missed the opportunity to assess whether it followed its major work policy, it did not log the complaint as early as it could have done and it did not respond to the resident’s specific complaint points. Therefore, although it did manage the resident’s expectation at one point about the delay in its complaint response (which was resolution focused), its overall complaint handling was not reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its acknowledged service failure in the kitchen repair works.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not demonstrate that it applied its major work policy or good practice by discussing the repair and mitigating measures for the impact of the repair with the resident, before it commenced the repairs. As a result, the resident experienced distress and inconvenience in addition to that which the landlord already acknowledged due to the overall delay in addressing the repairs.
Some elements of the complaint handling were reasonable, such as its explanation of the delays and redress for the inconvenience. The landlord also communicated with the resident ahead of time about the delay in its complaint response in November 2020, which was reasonable.
However, the landlord did not log the resident’s formal complaint in July when it was aware of her dissatisfaction. Had the landlord logged the complaint in July, it could have used the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and also clarify the ambiguity over the kitchen repair and replacement work, which was only clarified once the work commenced following the resident’s intervention with the operative (19 October 2020).

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer the resident a total compensation of £825 comprised of:
1. £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its communication and management delays in respect of the kitchen repairs.
2. £50 for the time and trouble in respect of the complaint handling failure.
3. £650 – the landlord’s original offer.

(The compensation order is to be reduced by £650 if this has already been paid)

The landlord is ordered to confirm that it will revise any relevant complaint handling training so that resident concerns are logged as soon as the landlord becomes aware of ongoing dissatisfaction, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.