The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202227306)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227306

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

22 January 2024

 

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 reports of flooding and damage to the resident’s shed.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat. She lives in the property with her daughter. The resident has advised that her and her daughter have complex health conditions including asthma and autoimmune disease.
  2. On 14 October 2022 the resident was informed by her neighbour that there was flooding in her shed. The resident was advised by the neighbour that the landlord was aware of the flooding. The resident contacted the landlord regarding this on 18 October 2022.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 November 2022. It stated that it could not establish the cause of the leak, or who was liable for the damage. It stated that a surveyor would contact the resident within 7 days. It also directed the resident to insurance for damaged contents.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 22 November 2022. The resident advised that there was damage to the roof and that there was damp and mould in the shed. The resident said that someone had been and taken pictures, but no further action was taken. She also said that she had health conditions and felt at risk due to the damp and mould.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 February 2023. It apologised for the delay. It stated that it had problems establishing the cause of the leak. It also confirmed it had not inspected the neighbour’s property when it should have. The landlord offered £370 in goodwill payments.
  6. The landlord increased the goodwill payment to £450 on 12 June 2023. It further increased the offer to £550 on 28 July 2023, following contact with the resident.
  7. The resident remains unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. She has advised that the damage to the shed caused significant distress and inconvenience. She stated that she was unable to use her shed, and this resulted in her having to store belongings in the living room of her flat. The resident is also concerned that the leak is ongoing. She is concerned about how she would report further damage to the landlord, and which department would take ownership of repairs.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of flooding and damage to the resident’s shed.

  1. It is the resident’s understanding that the landlord knew about the flooding, prior to the date she contacted them. The landlord should have taken action to inspect the shed and establish the cause of the flooding as soon as it became aware of it. The Ombudsman has seen several internal emails which show that there was a clear misunderstanding as to who was responsible for the works. This caused a significant delay in the shed being inspected.
  2. The resident told the landlord that she felt at risk due to her and her daughter’s complex health conditions. When the landlord was informed of potential risk, it should have considered this and whether any further action was needed. The Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the impact of mould on her health.
  3. The resident requested an alternative shed while the repairs were outstanding. The landlord should have considered this request and responded to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this or contacted the resident with a decision on her request.
  4. A surveyor attended the shed on 5 December 2022. The landlord accepted liability for the shed damage on 7 December 2022. It stated that damage to personal belongings was a matter for insurance. The landlord correctly directed the resident to insurance for the damage to belongings. However, on accepting liability for the damage to the shed it should have made a plan as to how and when the repairs would be completed. It also should have informed the resident of this plan. There is no evidence the landlord took this action. This resulted in the resident being unaware of how the situation would be resolved. It also resulted in the landlord not taking any proactive action to repair the shed.
  5. The Ombudsman has seen internal emails within the landlord between 7 January 2023 and 3 February 2023. These emails were attempts to chase appointments and establish the cause of the leak. However, there was no clear ownership and no evidence that the landlord inspected the shed or the leak at this time. There was a lack of urgency from the landlord to resolve the issue and identify the cause.
  6. The landlord conducted a visit to a neighbouring flat on 15 February 2023. The report stated that this flat was not the source of the leak. An internal email on 23 February 2023 stated that the resident’s shed needed to be inspected and the resident should be contacted to arrange access. The landlord raised an appointment for the shed to be inspected on 27 February 2023. The Service has not seen any records that the landlord completed this appointment, or what the outcome was.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on 6 March 2023, 13 March 2023 and 10 April 2023. The landlord responded on 20 April 2023 stating that as the complaint had been closed and referred to the Housing Ombudsman, the complaints officer was no longer responsible for responding. Regardless of a complaints process, the landlord should have ensured there was ownership for the outstanding repair. The landlord stopped engaging in the repair, despite an on-going leak and damage to the shed. This caused a further unnecessary delay and increased frustration to the resident.
  8. There is a lack of records from the landlord in relation to the further action it took in finding the source of the leak. The leak was noted as repaired on 2 May 2023. A mould wash was requested on this day. On 15 May 2023 the landlord confirmed that it would remove the lino from the shed. It confirmed that the shed needed time to dry out and confirmed that it would spray the shed to neutralise damp and mould. The landlord took appropriate action to repair the shed.
  9. The landlord contacted the Housing Ombudsman on 17 January 2024. It advised that it had carried out a further inspection of the works and that there were no further leaks affecting the shed. However, in a telephone call on 18 January 2024 the resident advised the Ombudsman that she believes there are repairs outstanding.
  10. The landlord offered compensation for the delays to the repairs of the shed. However, it provided conflicting breakdowns of 3 different compensation offers. In its compensation policy the landlord advises that for repairs it would offer between £250 and £700 for delays that have a moderate impact. This includes where the landlord has failed to take ownership, the repair has required the resident to chase the landlord on several occasions, or a failure by the landlord to act in a reasonable amount of time. The landlord originally offered £250 for the delays to the shed. It later reduced this amount to £170 but acknowledged the delays in communications and offered £100 for this failing. It is the opinion of the Ombudsman that the landlord should not have reduced the offer of £250 for the delays. It considers that a total payment of £350 is appropriate for the delays to the shed and the poor communication in relation to this.
  11. In its final offer of compensation, the landlord offered £230 for the impact on the resident’s wellbeing. The landlord’s compensation policy does not cover this aspect of compensation. It is assumed this offer was made at the discretion of the complaint handler. It is positive that the landlord recognised the impact on the resident’s wellbeing. It is difficult to quantify compensation for impact on wellbeing, however the Housing Ombudsman considers £230 to be an appropriate gesture in relation to this.
  12. The landlord responded poorly to the resident’s reports of flooding and damage to the shed. It did not have sufficient processes in place to ensure that internal departments understood who was responsible for the repair. It took too long to investigate the cause of the leak. The landlord did not proactively communicate with the resident, resulting in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates. However, the landlord did eventually complete the repair to the shed and put right the damage. It awarded compensation, although the Service considers that there should be an increase in the amount of compensation for delays to the shed from £500 to £580. The Ombudsman finds service failure in response to the landlord’s handling of reports of flooding and damage to the resident’s shed.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 1 responses should be issued within 10 working days. The landlord can extend this by 10 working days if it provides an explanation. The landlord contacted the resident twice to extend the response deadline. It stated that it needed more information before it could respond to the complaint. The total response time was 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days. The landlord took 55 working days to issue its response. There was one email dated 17 January 2022, in which the landlord apologised for the delay and gave a further target of 27 January 2022 for the response to be issued. The resident chased the landlord on a number of occasions. The resident contacted the Ombudsman for support in getting the stage 2 response. On being contacted by the Ombudsman, the landlord issued its response within 2 days. It was unreasonable that the resident had to approach the Ombudsman to get a stage 2 response.
  3. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that there had been poor communication, and that records had not been kept up to date. It advised the resident that it carried out further training with staff on the importance of regular updates and the importance of keeping records updated. This was a positive action by the landlord to ensure these issues did not happen again. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the response was issued on 10 February 2023 and as written above, the resident continued to experience issues with communication and poor record keeping.
  4. The landlord’s delay at stage 2 was not reasonable in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. However, the landlord did offer £100 for complaint handling failures. This is the maximum payment under its compensation policy. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of flooding and damage to the resident’s shed.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £580 in compensation. This comprises the £230 previously offered for the impact on wellbeing, £100 offered for poor communications, and the higher offer of £250 for delays to repairs to the shed.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £100 that it previously offered for complaint handling if it has not already been paid.
  2. The landlord should provide information to the resident on how to report a repair in the future. The landlord is to give the resident assurance on how these repairs will be handled and the communication the resident should expect.
  3. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any concerns relating to leaks in the shed.