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

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202229120)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229120

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

8 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 repairs to the wet room.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 1 bedroom flat. He is disabled and uses a wheelchair. This requires adaptations in his home.
  2. The landlord was aware of a leak to the flat below the resident’s property. On 31 October 2022, it noted this was due to cracked tiles in the resident’s wet room. On 23 November 2022, a further inspection by the landlord confirmed there were multiple cracked tiles and a supervisor needed to inspect the works.
  3. Social services made a complaint on behalf of the resident on the 8 December 2022. They stated there were 24 cracked tiles and that the shower chair was rotten. They stated that the repairs had been outstanding for more than a year. They also stated that the resident was afraid to use the wet room due to the hazards.
  4. The landlord responded to the stage 1 response on 29 December 2022. It apologised that no further action had been taken since the resident’s property was inspected on 23 November 2022. It confirmed a new appointment had been made for 4 January 2023. It offered £150 in compensation.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 12 January 2023 as he had been given a timescale of 30 to 60 days for completion of the works. The landlord responded to the stage 2 on 19 January 2023. It apologised for the delays and stated there were shortages in the labour and material market. It advised it would continue to chase the works by holding weekly meetings with the contractor. It also advised it would provide regular updates to the resident moving forward. It re-issued its offer of £150 compensation.
  6. The resident initially accepted the compensation. However, on 21 February 2023, the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman as the works remained outstanding. The resident advised the Housing Ombudsman that he wanted the repairs to be completed and he requested compensation for the delay.
  7. An inspection on 10 May 2023 confirmed all works were completed satisfactorily. The landlord revisited the compensation offer on 13 September 2023. It increased the compensation offer to £1,500.

Assessment and findings

  1. When the landlord was made aware of damage to the wet room tiles, it should have considered the repair urgent. According to its policy, the repair should have been conducted within 7 days. The landlord did not attend the repair until 23 days after it first noted it. At this appointment, no works were completed. A risk assessment was also not conducted. The landlord failed to ensure that the repairs were not a risk to the resident.
  2. The resident had been informed that a supervisor needed to inspect the works. The landlord should have been proactive in getting this appointment scheduled. The resident chased this appointment 4 times between 28 November 2022 and 6 December 2022. The landlord was chasing the contractor during this period, however there is no evidence that the landlord was proactively updating the resident. This resulted in the resident raising a stage 1 complaint.
  3. The landlord contacted the contractor on 15 December 2022 to get an update on the repair. It also asked why the contractor had not contacted the resident as promised. Whilst it is positive the landlord was chasing the contractor, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to update the resident directly. This did not happen, resulting in the resident having to chase the landlord again on 20 December 2022.
  4. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that an appointment to inspect the works was scheduled for 4 January 2023. There is no evidence this appointment was attended. Repair notes dated 11 January 2023 confirmed that a number of repairs were needed. There is no evidence the landlord was keeping the resident updated during this period.
  5. The resident escalated the case to stage 2 as he was unhappy with how long the works were taking. The stage 2 response acknowledged that there were lessons to be learned from the case. It acknowledged that there was a lack of regular communication and that improvements were needed. It also confirmed that it would review the delays to the repairs, in order to minimise impact in the future. The landlord advised it was implementing process changes, providing staff training, and that it would continue to monitor cases through its quality assurance programme. It was positive that the landlord recognised areas of improvement and identified how this would be monitored moving forward.
  6. The stage 2 confirmed that the wet room needed to be redecorated. The resident had also raised concerns about the half shower door which was installed. He stated that when showering, water went over the door on to the floor. This resulted in the floor being wet and unsafe. The landlord acknowledged the risk. It was concerned that social services may have installed the shower door and stated that they may need to resolve the issue if the landlord’s contractors were unable to do so. It was positive that the landlord recognised risk and managed the resident’s expectations.
  7. The stage 2 response advised that a supervisor would attend to inspect the wet room on 23 January 2023. There were 2 calls from the resident on this day indicating that the appointment was not attended. The landlord contacted the contractor on 24 January 2023 to ask them to rebook the appointment. There are no notes which confirm the exact date the contractor attended the appointment. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 1 February 2023 and indicated that a supervisor had already attended the property. The landlord should have been clear with the contractor and the resident when the inspection would be completed. It should have ensured it added notes with the outcome of this inspection. As a result of not doing this, there was miscommunication, which resulted in further confusion for the resident.
  8. The resident was advised that the works would commence on the 13 February 2023. This appointment was not attended, and the resident became upset. The landlord did chase the contractor on that day but failed to follow up this request and secure a date. This resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord again on 15 February 2023. There were internal emails from the landlord on the 17 February 2023 requesting that the resident be called back. The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 February 2023 to advise he had no update. The landlord had promised in its stage 2 to learn lessons from the complaint, and keep the resident updated moving forward. It failed to keep this promise.
  9. On 23 February 2023, a manager took over the case. The manager escalated to the contractor stating that the case was high risk and requested a same day response. The manager also requested an urgent welfare visit. A temporary repair was put in place on 24 February 2023. This was to ensure the tiles were safe. The manager took positive and urgent action to address the risks to the resident while the repairs remained outstanding.
  10. The contractor attended the property on 2 March 2023. The contractor completed most of the repairs, however, they were unable to fit shower doors. The resident had requested full doors be installed instead of half doors, due to safety concerns. The contractor agreed to this, however advised the doors needed to be ordered. The landlord stated that this might not be completed until 8 March 2023. There are no records which confirm if the repairs were completed then. However, an inspection completed on 10 May 2023, confirmed all works were now complete. It was not unreasonable that there would be a small delay while the shower door was ordered. However, the Service cannot comment on whether the total delay in getting the shower doors installed was reasonable, due to poor record keeping.
  11. The landlord missed several opportunities to keep the resident updated on the works. The resident became increasingly frustrated and anxious as the works were delayed. The landlord was aware that the resident would only use his shower once a week due to fear of being injured. The landlord also noted that the resident had injured himself on a broken tile. The correct actions were taken once a manager took over the case, however this was more than 3 months after the landlord was aware of possible risk. During these months, the resident was left without appropriate washing facilities and at risk of injury. No risk assessments were conducted, and the landlord did not take reasonable actions to make the repairs safe. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room.
  12. The landlord revisited the complaint on the 13 September 2023. This was to review the compensation and a revised offer was made. The new offer was £1,200 for delays to the bathroom. This was £75 per month for 16 months. £250 was offered for time and trouble and a further £50 for complaint handling. This totalled £1,500. The revised offer is inline with what the Ombudsman would recommend for compensation. However, the landlord did not take this action until several months after the repairs were completed and after the resident had approached the Housing Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman will not order further compensation, however the finding of maladministration will remain, as the revised offer was after the completion of the internal complaints procedure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room.


Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to reoffer the compensation of £1,500. It should provide evidence to the Housing Ombudsman that this payment has been made, within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider training for all staff on when a case should be escalated, particularly in cases where there is vulnerability or risk.
  2. The landlord should review the record keeping on this case and consider if it needs to take further action to ensure records are accurate and complete.