Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202109799)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109799

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

23 August 2022

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:
   1. The resident’s reports of subsidence at the property.
   2. Associated repair issues believed to be caused by the subsidence.

Background

2. The resident is the tenant of a four bedroomed house which is subject to subsidence. This was first identified in late 2016/early 2017. In mid-June 2019 the resident contacted the landlord as she considered the property was deteriorating.
3. On 14 April 2021 a structural assessment was carried out and a report produced dated 4 June 2021. This concluded that there were signs of foundation settlement to the front corner of the property, probably caused by a mature tree situated nearby. The landlord concluded it would need to underpin the property if it was to avoid removing the tree – which was anticipated to be an unpopular move with the local community. The report also identified that blocked and/or defective guttering might be contributing to the situation and that remedial works needed to be undertaken to ensure there was an uninterrupted flow of rainwater down the drainpipes.
4. On 15 April 2021, the day after the inspection, the resident complained to the landlord about the delay in action being taken. She stated that whilst she had had visits to the property from surveyors, engineers, and contractors over a three to four year period, no remedial works had been undertaken. A repeat visit had taken place the previous day with the same investigations being conducted as previously and she feared the matter would stagnate with no action being taken. By way of resolution, she wanted the property to be made safe and she wanted financial compensation.
5. In response, the landlord confirmed the situation was being dealt with by its “complex repair team” and a schedule of works was being formulated. It acknowledged there had been delays and that “this is not the level of customer service we want to provide for our residents”. The landlord anticipated contractors would be on site in mid-August 2021. It offered compensation of £300.
6. The resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome. She has explained to this Service that she seeks greater recognition of the damage the subsistence has caused internally and externally over several years, and for this damage to be repaired / the property made safe.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of subsidence at the property

7. There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for the structure of this building. A possible structural defect was first brought to its attention in late 2016/early 2017. The outcome of the investigations at that time is not evidenced but it is reasonable to conclude that a monitoring course of action was decided upon as neither party took any action until two years later when the resident expressed further concern.
8. On 7 August 2019 an inspection took place, the outcome of which was that a full structural report was required. The landlord’s records then show that on 29 August 2019 the resident contacted the landlord again to report the cracks around the window had expanded “causing it to feel unsafe”, and on 29 January 2020 she chased it for an update as she had heard nothing further. Given the nature of these reports and the situation generally, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to take some action but there is no evidence that it did so.
9. Indeed, according to the landlord’s records it was not until February 2021 that it again noted it needed to inspect “possible structural issues” at the property and a visit was scheduled for 10 February 2021. Once again, the outcome was that the landlord was to commission a full structural survey to investigate the cause of cracking to the building. This did not then take place until 14 April 2021 and a report was not available for another seven weeks after that and which identified remedial works were required.
10. The delay in producing this report meant that it was not until this point that the landlord was able to formally confirm the need for works, despite having identified issues via its investigation two years prior, and despite having an awareness of a potential issue dating back to 2016/17.
11. The landlord has acknowledged to the resident that its actions did amount to a delay, for which it apologised. It was appropriate that it made this admission – the chronology speaks for itself. However, it is noted that it has offered no explanation for why the delay occurred – neither to the resident nor to this Service. This was a significant amount of time and therefore warranted a reasonable explanation.
12. It has been noted that in one of the landlord’s internal emails (on 22 April 2021) a staff member recognised that “...the tenant has waited some considerable time and has likely seen many Surveyors (many of which have seen and left without preparing reports to pass on)... In the Ombudsman’s view, this in itself was a clear acknowledgement that the resident had been let down, and as such, the landlord should have taken reasonable steps to put matters right and to demonstrate that it had learned from the previous outcomes, in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles.
13. It was reasonable that the landlord made an award of compensation subsequently, and that it attempted to manage the resident’s expectation / concern by advising that once it was in receipt of the outstanding inspection reports, it would put together a scope of works for its contractors which would likely commence in mid-August 2021. Despite this proposal, however, it is clear that this did not happen.
14. In response to this Service’s investigation into this complaint, the landlord later provided an action plan which concluded that “completion and handover” would take place on “30/11/21”. In early August 2022, however, the landlord advised this Service that the matter was still ongoing, setting out that tenders and costs had been dealt with in May 2022, a possible party wall agreement considered in June 2022, and confirming that trial pits were commenced in the week beginning 28 July 2022. Still, it offered no indication of when the works as a whole would be completed.
15. These works are not a simple repair. The landlord has produced its “Repairs and Maintenance Handbook” which sets out its service standards, but it does not deal with situations such as this. The Ombudsman accepts that such works are complex and time consuming.
16. However, it is clear to this Service that a further significant delay has taken place after the landlord’s final response to the complaint (in June 2021) despite its previous failures in service and the resident’s previous longstanding dissatisfaction with the situation. Once again, the landlord has offered no explanation for why there appears to have been little progress despite another 14 months passing. In the meantime, the resident reasonably reports a sense of unease at living in the property in this condition.
17. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s delay and lack of explanation represent maladministration in this case. By way of compensation, it is reasonable to conclude that the continual delays have caused the resident distress and inconvenience and has resulted in time expended and trouble in pursuing her complaint. This Service’s Remedies Guidance sets out that awards of compensation in the region of £250 – £700 are appropriate where there is considerable service failure or maladministration which has taken place over a prolonged period – as is the case here. The landlord has offered an award of £300 but this Service takes the view that a payment towards the upper end of the scale, at £500, would be more appropriate. The resident has had to live without confidence in the safety of her home for a much longer period than might reasonably have been expected/necessary had the delays been avoided. 

Associated repair issues believed to be caused by the subsidence.

18. The landlord’s structural report identified that the guttering at the property needed to be overhauled. It also identified there were cracks to the interior and exterior of the building. In addition, after receiving the landlord’s stage one complaint response, the resident reported that the roof had dipped and there was water ingress to the property such that herself and her family had experienced getting “wet” indoors. The resident had taken to sleeping in the living room, and reported she was caring for her mother who was unwell and therefore vulnerable.
19. It is noted that no issue with associated repairs had been included in the original complaint. However, the landlord was aware of the issues which were going to require attention as part of the remedial works (the guttering and the cracks) and it accepted the roof issue as part of the complaint for the purposes of its stage two complaint response. The landlord could have opted to treat this latter issue as a repairs report or as a new complaint, but it did not do so.
20. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to set out for the resident when and how it was going to deal with these associated issues. The focus of its responses centred on scheduling the underpinning. However, it is reasonable to conclude that much of the resident’s concerns and perception that the property may be unsafe were formed by the sight of the cracks in the fabric of the property and the water ingress from the roof. In the Ombudsman’s view it was inappropriate for the landlord to remain silent on these aspects of the works. The resident was left uninformed as to how and when significant parts of the repairs to her property were going to be addressed.
21. Further, the guttering had been identified as a possible cause for some of the major problems at the property and the landlord might reasonably have been expected to address whether it could improve that aspect of the property whilst waiting for the major works to take place. It might have also considered whether there were any temporary measures it could take to deal with the roof in the meantime. There is no evidence of the landlord considering these possibilities or addressing them with the resident.
22. The landlord’s response did not address all the aspects of the complaint and left the resident uninformed. This was inappropriate and represented maladministration on the landlord’s part.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence at the property.
24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated repair issues at the property believed to be caused by the subsidence.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

25. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a timetable setting out when the structural works at her property will commence and likely be completed, and also when and how any associated repairs will be addressed. The landlord should also provide the resident with an explanation of why it had previously failed to take action, over a significant period of time. The landlord should ensure that it does this within four weeks of receiving this determination.
26. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident of £700 (minus any sum already paid). This has been calculated as:
    1. £500 to reflect the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence at the property.
    2. £200 to reflect the landlord’s handling of the associated repair issues at the property believed to be caused by the subsidence.
27. The landlord should ensure that it complies with the above orders, and provides this Service with evidence of this, within four weeks of receiving this determination.