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

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202230877)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230877

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

20 May 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 resident’s boiler.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The resident is over 70 years old and has health conditions which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 6 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that he had no heating or hot water. The landlord’s contractor called the resident the same day and said it needed to order new parts. The heating was repaired the next day. However, the day after, the resident again had no heating or hot water. The landlord’s repair records show that it offered the resident temporary heaters on 8 December 2022, but that he declined these.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 December 2022. He said he still had no heating or hot water. He said he suffered from lung problems and could not remain in the property without heating or hot water. He had asked the landlord’s heating contractors to let him know what time they would be attending the property or to call an hour before they arrived, but they said they could not do so.
  4. On 3 January 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him it needed more time to investigate his complaint. It said it was aware its contractors had missed an appointment, and it was awaiting further information from them. It said it would respond to the resident’s complaint by 17 January 2023 and would offer him £25 for the delay in it responding to him.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 January 2023. It said there had been delays to the repair of the resident’s boiler due to its contractor ordering the wrong parts. It had offered the resident an appointment on 12 December 2022, however the resident was staying with his son. An engineer attended on 14 December 2022 and said a new part was needed. On 16 December 2022 the boiler was repaired. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £150.
  6. On 26 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that his heating and hot water had failed again. On 2 February 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  7. The landlord repaired the resident’s boiler on 8 February 2023.
  8. On 10 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised that the resident had had to wait so long for his heating and hot water to be restored. It said that it had carried out 16 inspections and repairs since the resident had first reported the issue. It said it should have repaired the boiler within 60 working days. It acknowledged that the resident had had to stay with family and friends during the time he had no heating and hot water. It was due to come and repaint the area round the boiler on 13 February 2023. It said it offered the resident a further £418 compensation, broken down as follows: £250 for the delays in repairing the boiler and for having to temporarily live elsewhere, and £168 for the lack of heating and hot water, bringing the total compensation offered to £568.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 April 2023. He said the landlord had repainted only the area around the boiler and he requested that it repaint the whole kitchen. He said the landlord had not offered him alternative accommodation for the period his boiler was not working. He wanted the landlord to reimburse him £20 per day for food for the time he had not been able to stay in his property and £35 per day for accommodation for the time he had had to stay with family and friends, a total of £3850.
  10. On 15 May 2023, the resident confirmed to the landlord that his kitchen had been repainted.
  11. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 12 June 2023. He said he had been without heating and hot water for 3 months due to the problems with his boiler. He said that the compensation offered by the landlord thus far was inadequate.
  12. On 16 June 2023, the landlord offered the resident a further £3850 compensation.

Assessment

Policies and procedures

  1. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the installations for providing heating and hot water.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and will carry-out routine repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. Its policy states that at stage 1, it will respond to residents within 10 working days and at stage 2, within 20 working days. If the landlord needs more time to respond to a stage 1 complaint, it will request an extension of a further 10 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating or hot water

  1. The resident reported to the landlord on 6 December 2022 that he had no heating or hot water. The landlord’s heating contractor acted in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, set out above, in attending his property to inspect the boiler within 24 hours of receiving his report. This is because not having heating or hot water is considered an emergency especially during the winter months.
  2. After inspecting the resident’s boiler and concluding that new parts were needed in order to repair it, it was appropriate that the landlord’s contractors offered the resident temporary heaters. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for declining the heaters, but the fact that the resident declined these, was outside of the landlord’s control.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Heating, Hot Water and Energy, states that landlords should be particularly aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond accordingly. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered the resident temporary alternative accommodation, particularly given that his boiler had broken down during the winter months and it was aware of his health issues and his age.
  4. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation as it was not able to respond to his stage 1 complaint within its 10-working day timescale. It was not obliged to do so as its complaints policy allows it to seek an extension of time to respond to complaints if needed and it contacted the resident to let him know that it needed more time to respond to him. However, it took a practical approach in making this offer which showed that it recognised that waiting longer for a response to his complaint will have caused the resident some inconvenience. The level of compensation was appropriate taking into account the length of the delay.
  5. The resident told the landlord that he was no longer living at the property due to the lack of heating and hot water and asked the landlord’s heating contractors to contact him an hour prior to them arriving at the property, so he could arrange to come back to the property and allow them access. The landlord’s heating contractors advised the resident that this was not possible. It is accepted that it may not always be possible for contractors to call residents an hour in advance of arriving at a property. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether it was possible for it to ask its contractors to make an exception in this case, as it was aware the resident was not living at the property, it was winter and there was no heating at the property and the resident had health conditions. Alternatively, the landlord could have looked at whether it could give the resident a specific time slot in advance for an appointment rather than saying its contractor could arrive at any time during the day. This would enable the resident to attend at a specific time without the contractor needing to call an hour ahead of the appointment.
  6. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be carried out within 20 working days. The landlord’s records show that there were a number of delays in this case including an incorrect diagnosis of what repair was needed, the wrong part being ordered, and a builder being needed to remove the boiler cupboard to allow the landlord’s contractors access to the boiler. The landlord has acknowledged that 16 inspections and repair visits took place before it decided to replace the boiler and has acted appropriately in apologising to the resident for the delays and errors in this case.
  7. At stage 1 of its complaints process, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for the delays in the repairs to his boiler. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident a further £418 compensation. It was appropriate that it did so, however the compensation offered at stage 1 and stage 2 did not take into account the costs incurred by the resident living elsewhere whilst there was no heating or hot water at the property. This was unreasonable.
  8. The additional compensation of £3850 offered by the landlord since its stage 2 complaint response, is reasonable and proportionately recognises the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident. Whilst the landlord ultimately offered reasonable compensation, this offer was not made until after the landlord had exhausted its own complaints policy. The Ombudsman’s investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the complaint within its complaints process and any offers of redress made during the complaints process. Therefore, there is a finding of service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repairs as it did not offer reasonable redress during the complaints process, it only offered this after the end of the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has paid the resident the £25 it offered him in relation to its delay in responding to his complaint, the £568 it offered through its complaints process for the delays in the repairs to the boiler and the additional £3850 it offered in compensation for the time he was not living at the property, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, unless it has done so already.