Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202118208)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118208

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

11 October 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:
    1. response to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments and poor contractor behaviour;
    2. response to the resident’s request for a new radiator;
    3. complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) 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.

  1. While the resident has expressed concerns regarding missed appointments and poor contractor behaviour, it is not evident this concern has been raised as a formal complaint which has subsequently completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments and poor contractor behaviour is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. If the resident makes a formal complaint, progresses it through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, she will not be prevented from then bringing the complaint to this service.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident has restricted mobility. The resident appointed a representative to liaise with the landlord on her behalf during this complaint investigation. For ease of reference, both the resident and her representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report.
  3. In January 2020, the resident had her home adapted for her wheelchair needs which included the removal of a radiator in her hallway. A radiator was then meant to be installed in her living room, however, after two heat loss surveys in January 2020 and September 2020, the radiator had still not been installed.
  4. The landlord offered appointments for the installation of the radiator in February 2021, April 2021, May 2021, and August 2021. The resident declined these appointments and cancelled scheduled appointments due to fear of catching COVID-19 as she was unable to leave the property whilst the works were completed. The radiator installation was subsequently completed in September 2021.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint as despite two heat loss surveys being completed, she had heard nothing from the landlord regarding the installation of the new radiator for an extended period of time, despite requesting updates.
  6. The landlord apologised for the delays in having the works completed and acknowledged the impact, disruption, and difficulty this had on the resident. The landlord noted that some of the delays were due to the resident having to make arrangements to leave the property, but also acknowledged avoidable delays on its side. The landlord apologised for its poor customer service, and subsequently offered £100 in recognition of the inadequate heating in the property.
  7. The resident referred this matter to this service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s communication regarding the works. As a resolution the resident wants an increased offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has noted the resident’s assertion that the complaint process and repairs process has impacted her mental health, and the lack of heating has had a detrimental effect on her due to her limited mobility. 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 should be sought. The Ombudsman can, however, consider the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response should be provided within 15 working days, and a stage two response should be provided within 20 working days.

Radiator installation

  1. As noted above, the landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. However, the landlord completed the installation of the radiator in September 2021, some 19 months outside of the landlord’s repairs policy.
  2. Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The Landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of any repairs so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps when handling a repair. In this case, it is unclear why the landlord did not install the new radiator between January 2020 to December 2020. This is due to the lack of repair records provided to this service by the landlord, which has impacted this service’s investigation. Furthermore, the landlord did not inform the resident of the reason for its delays between January 2020 to December 2020.
  3. When delays to repairs occur, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to communicate this to a resident and provide updated timeframes where possible. If a repair is expected to take an extended period of time, the landlord should provide frequent updates. This also assures a resident that the landlord understands the impact that delayed repairs can have. In this case, there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the landlord communicated with the resident about the delays between January 2020 to December 2020. Instead the resident had to frequently chase this repair with the landlord. This led to the resident having an unnecessary level of involvement in the repairs procedure and caused her to expend time and trouble as a result of the landlord’s poor communication.
  4. Furthermore, where a repair is expected to take an extended period of time, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to consider temporary measures, or otherwise advise why temporary measures were not appropriate. In instances of heating, this would likely include providing the resident with temporary heaters over the winter period. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident did not suffer a total loss of heating, she did have inadequate heating due to the adaptation that had occurred in January 2020, supported by the heat loss surveys. The landlord should have assessed the risk to the resident of inadequate heating given her vulnerability due to reduced mobility. There has been no evidence provided that the landlord considered temporary heaters or took any other steps to mitigate the reduced level of heating, despite the resident contacting it in September 2020 and December 2020 to chase the repairs.
  5. While it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately in response to a repair request, this will often necessitate an assessment of how the resident’s own actions may have contributed to the situation. Rather than demonstrating bias in favour of the landlord, this is an example of our independent and impartial role in practice, as we consider the conduct of both parties equally.
  6. In the evidence provided this service, it has been established that the resident declined the landlord’s repair appointments between 11 February 2021 to 29 April 2021 due to concerns about COVID-19. While this service does not question the resident’s reasons for not allowing access, any delays which occurred as a result of the resident declining appointments are beyond the control of the landlord.
  7. Furthermore, the resident declined an appointment for 19 July 2022, and subsequently cancelled an appointment on 2 August 2022. Again, while this service understands her concerns about COVID-19, these delays were also beyond the control of the landlord.
  8. In summary, while there were a period of delays that were beyond the control of the landlord, there was also a significant period in which the resident was able to accommodate the repairs, but that the landlord failed to arrange them, without explanation. It also failed to arrange temporary measures such as temporary heaters, despite the delays occurring in the winter period. The landlord also had multiple opportunities to provide updates following the resident’s requests, but failed to do so. In the circumstances, this amounted to maladministration for which compensation is appropriate.
  9. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that following an initial period of delay, the landlord did make multiple attempts to arrange works, which were declined by the resident, and that it ultimately completed the works in September 2021. It also recognised the initial delay had an impact on the resident and offered some compensation. While it was appropriate to recognise the impact and seek to offer a remedy, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this offer did not reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over the initial period of delay. An order has therefore been made for £450 compensation in recognition of the delayed repairs and its poor communication, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This amount also takes into account the landlord’s poor records keeping for the period of the delay.

Complaints handling

  1. In consideration of the full complaint procedure, it is evident that the landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint and did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised. The landlord did not address some of the concerns the resident was raising such as how a heat loss survey went ‘missing’ and why the delay had occurred. The incomplete responses from the landlord would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In addition, the landlord’s incomplete responses would not have assured the resident that the landlord understood her concerns, which can be detrimental to the landlord/tenant relationship.
  2. There appears to be confusion surrounding the resident’s escalation request. The landlord stated that the complaint was escalated on 22 March 2021; however, this service has not been provided any evidence of an escalation request on this date, but instead has been provided with two escalation requests on 12 February 2021 and 3 June 2021. The landlord’s record keeping in regard to the complaint has been poor and, in turn, has affected this service’s investigation as it is unclear when the escalation was requested. Therefore, this service has relied upon the available evidence to determine the delay in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within its policy timeframes. At stage one, the landlord delayed its complaint response by an additional 16 working days. At stage two of the complaint procedure, the landlord delayed its response by an additional 110 working days, based on the evidence that the resident’s initial request for escalation occurred via email on 12 February 2021. Therefore, the landlord has not acted in compliance with its complaint handling policy.
  4. In addition, at the time of the complaint, the landlord’s repairs policy is not in-line with this service’s Complaint Handling Code (which can be found here The Housing ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)). The landlord’s policy states that at stage one a response will be provided within 15 working days, which is in direct contrast to the Complaint Handling Code, which states that a response should be provided within 10 working days at stage one. A recommendation has therefore been made that the landlord reviews its complaint handling policy, and make any necessary amendments.
  5. In summary, based on the significant delay to the landlord’s stage two response, and its failure to address all the points raised, there was maladministration by the landlord. An order for £150 compensation has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaints handling and the impact the delays had on the repair.

Determination

  1. As noted above, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments and poor contractor behaviour is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s request for a new radiator.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord for its complaints handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation comprised of:
    1. £450 in recognition of the delays in installing the new radiator and the poor communication regarding the installation.
    2. £150 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its complaints policy, and bring this in-line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code. Specifically, the landlord should review the complaint response timeframes.