Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202219285)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219285

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

8 May 2023

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 the outstanding repairs to the resident’s bathroom.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property has two toilets. One upstairs in the wet room and one downstairs.
The landlord started the resident’s bathroom renewal in December 2021 and, to date, there is no evidence that the conversion has been completed to a satisfactory standard. There were multiple visits by contractors between December 2021 and March 2022. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of the works completed during this time, or that these were completed to a satisfactory standard.
In April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to request an update on the progress of the bathroom repairs. She stated that she had no toilet in her bathroom and that her property smelt like ‘dirty drains’. In addition, she explained that a surveyor had attended the property and advised that the bath require re-fitting. No response was provided. The resident further contacted the landlord again in May 2022. The resident requested permission to have the outstanding work completed herself under her ‘Right to Repair’. She explained she would then seek reimbursement for the costs. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided a response to this email either.
The resident subsequently complained in June 2022. The resident stated that the bath, tiles and toilet were all fitted but had to be re-fitted due to the poor quality of work. In addition, she explained that when the flooring was completed in the bathroom it was not levelled correctly which caused the toilet to be slanted. As a result, the toilet was left unconnected and the piping was exposed causing a bad smell and flies to enter the property.
In its stage one response in July 2022, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and stated that the work should have been monitored to ensure completion was to a suitable standard. It confirmed that an appointment had been made for 7 September 2022 for the outstanding works to be completed. It further assured the resident that a post-work inspection would be completed. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation in light of the delays experienced in the full completion of the work.
The resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the timescales provided as she had recently been discharged from hospital and was now classified as being disabled. She stated that as per her tenancy agreement urgent repairs were required to be completed within a set time. The resident requested to have the work completed herself and then recharge the landlord as a resident.
In its stage two response in September 2022, the landlord stated that it upheld the resident’s complaint and agreed that the standard of work did not meet the expected standard, for which it apologised. It also acknowledged the resident’s mobility condition. However, it did not approve the resident’s request to complete the works herself and recharge this to the landlord, advising this did not qualify under her ‘Right to Repair’. The landlord explained that the work was considered a modernisation and not a repair. Also, the work was under guarantee meaning the contractors would need to return and complete the work to a satisfactory standard.
In relation to the toilet repairs, it stated that as there were two toilets in the property the resident had the ability to use the one downstairs as this was in working condition. It also acknowledged that its communication had been poor and that it had missed communication from the resident which expressed her concerns about the contractors reattending to complete the repairs. The landlord also apologised for this. As a resolution the landlord stated that it would arrange for the contractors to return and complete the outstanding work, whilst also escalating this matter to its senior management. In addition, it offered the resident £400 compensation in recognition of the delays to the repairs process and the inconvenience of this.
The landlord raised for repairs to be completed in October 2022 to investigate and rectify the incomplete works; however, this was not completed. In November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to request the works to be completed. The resident further followed up these works via numerous phone calls in November and December 2022; however, the landlord did not contact the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remains dissatisfied with the way the landlord handled her request to repair her bathroom. The resident provided a further update in February 2023, stating that no works had yet been completed by the landlord. This meant that the resident was continuing to use a commode and use the showering facilities at her local gym, for which she had to obtain a membership.
After the complaint process was exhausted, the landlord informed this Service on 3 March 2023 that it had been in contact with the resident to agree a schedule of works for the bathroom and the downstairs toilet.

Assessment and findings

It is important to first establish the category for which the works have been handled under. The landlord referred to the resident not having a ‘Right to Repair’ due to the works being an improvement rather than a repair. However, as the improvement work was marked as completed in March 2022, this indicates that the landlord believed the improvements to be completed.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours, urgent repairs should be attended to within three to five working days and routine repairs should be attended to within twenty working days. However, the repairs policy is ambiguous in what repairs would be classified as urgent and those classified as routine. As such, this Service will be using the landlord’s repairs policy to classify the repairs.
As the resident did have alternative toilet facilities downstairs, this Service is satisfied that the repairs to the upstairs toilet should have been completed as an urgent repair and completed within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord has yet to complete the repairs meaning that the resident has been left without suitable toilet facilities for at least 14 months. Therefore, the landlord did not act in accordance with its policy obligation to attend and repair within 20 working days.
While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. The landlord’s failure to take into consideration the resident’s new needs (becoming registered disabled) which became apparent during the complaints process left the resident feeling unheard and unsupported. The Ombudsman recognises that some of residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability.
Therefore, whilst the landlord was reasonable in stating that there were toilet facilities in the downstairs bathroom, it failed to account for the resident’s new needs as being registered disabled. The landlord did not seek to obtain any further information in relation to this such as, if the resident’s mobility was affected that stopped her from being able to use the downstairs toilet facilities. Therefore, whilst the landlord’s approach may have been reasonable in other circumstances, in this case the resident’s circumstances put her in a vulnerable position.
It is acknowledged that the resident was using a commode during this period. Whilst this was a reasonable, temporary solution, it was not reasonable to leave the resident with this for such an extended period of time. This would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience at the minimum, whilst also having an emotional and mental impact on the resident. As such, the lack of adherence to the repairs policy timeframes and consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities were unreasonable and not in accordance with its policy obligations.
Furthermore, the fitting of the bath was amongst the other outstanding repairs in the bathroom. The landlord had acknowledged that the resident was without suitable bathing facilities for at least 12 months. Evidence suggests that the fitting of the bath was attempted on three separate occasions, although it is unclear when this was. Nevertheless, the length of time the landlord had delayed this work without an explanation was unreasonable. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, this repair would have been classified as an urgent repair with a 20-working day timescale to complete. But the landlord left the resident without any bathing facilities, and to date, no evidence has been provided to suggest a bath has been fitted for the resident. Moreover, not only has the landlord failed to adhere to its own repairs policy timeframes, but it also failed to meet its obligations under ‘The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985’ which states that property owners should “keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwellings for…and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences”. In short, the landlord must provide its residents with a working toilet and a shower or bathroom. This is a service failure.
In addition, the landlord’s record keeping was of a poor standard and often did not provide details of what work was carried out on each visit from its contractors. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The landlord stated that the repairs were completed in March 2022; however, there was no records of the works completed or if any work was outstanding. Therefore, any reviews of these records would have been unhelpful as they lacked detail. It is evident that this poor record keeping has an impact on the landlord’s own ability to complete the repairs as established above. As such, this only further provides evidence that the landlord has acted in a way that was not reasonable.
In addition, the resident contacted the landlord to state that she did not feel comfortable with the same contractors attending the property to complete the repairs. This went unacknowledged by the landlord and led to the resident refusing access. Whilst residents need to take responsibility in assisting the landlord to complete work in their properties, the landlord must also acknowledge its role and ensure that it is addressing and responding to any concerns from the resident and, equally, ensuring its contractors are capable and professional in the work they conduct. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in its stage two complaint response and stated that a member of its management team would be in touch with the resident regarding her concerns around the contractors. There is no evidence to suggest this was done until March 2023, again resulting in a significant delay for the resident.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
In this case, it is acknowledged that the landlord apologised to the resident and awarded £400 compensation. However, this is an insufficient amount to remedy the level of distress and inconvenience the resident has been subject to as a result of the failings identified. There was also an absence of learning from the landlord as whilst it identified the errors in its service, it continued to fail in its service to the resident which is evidenced by the repairs remain uncompleted.
To remedy this the landlord should pay the resident £750 compensation in recognition of the impact its failings had. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts between £600 to £1,000 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, causing a significant impact including both physical and emotional impacts.
In addition, this Service will be ordering the landlord to attend the resident’s property to identify any outstanding work to be completed in the bathroom and to have these works completed within eight weeks of this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the outstanding repairs to the resident’s bathroom after its renewal.

Orders

The landlord is to write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord is to pay the resident £750 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the delays in completing the works and the poor communication. This is inclusive of the £400 previously offered by the landlord and should be paid within four weeks of this report.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is to arrange a mutually convenient appointment with the resident to agree the schedule of works and action plan for the outstanding repairs to be completed within the next eight weeks. The schedule of works and action plan is to be shared with this Service.
The landlord to assess whether a further award of compensation is payable to the resident for the delay in completing the repairs from the date of this report to the actual date that the repairs are completed.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its repairs policy as the timeframes for completion of repairs is unclear and could lead to resident’s being confused about how long repairs should take.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.