Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202337655)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337655

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

30 September 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of multiple outstanding repairs to the property.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of a 3-bedroom house, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her teenage child.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 29 September 2023, stating that she had issues with a blocked drain. While it had cleared the blockage, it continued to block. The surveyor had told her that a camera was needed to view the problem, but nothing had been done. She also reported that her window and door needed replacing, she had waited patiently, but no one had been to complete the work.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 24 October 2023. It apologised for its complaint handling, the inconvenience for the delays in replacing a window and door, and for resolving the drainage issues. It set out its proposal to resolve the matters and offered £250 compensation. This comprised £100 for the delay in completing repairs, £100 for inconvenience, and £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 14 November 2023, stating that the repairs had not been completed. The window repair was outstanding, and the toilet was leaking. She said that workmen had damaged her sofa, carpet and bed, and she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 12 December 2023. It acknowledged that some work was outstanding and outlined its proposal to complete repairs. It provided its insurance details should the resident wish to pursue a claim for her damaged belongings. It apologised for the further delays and poor service. It increased its compensation offer to £750. This comprised £250 offered in its stage 1 response, £350 for distress and inconvenience, and £150 for the ongoing delays in resolving the repairs. It set out its learning from the complaint and identified improvements.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She wanted it to complete the repairs and stated that she was unhappy with the level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of Investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence to this Service, she stated that the delay in completing the repairs had impacted her health. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.
  2. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Should the resident wish to pursue matters of health further, she can consider this via the courts.
  3. The resident also raised concerns, to this Service, about a mixer tap in the bathroom. However, this did not form part of the complaint responded to by the landlord in September and December 2023. We have therefore, not included this in our investigation. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.a. which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a members complaints procedure.

Reports of multiple outstanding repairs to the property

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good order.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for keeping in a good state of repair the building and its components. This includes the roof, walls, doors, windows, gutters and drains. It aims to complete urgent emergency repairs within 4 hours, emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 20 working days, and planned work within 60 working days.
  3. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs. In its stage 1 response it apologised for the delay in replacing the window and door, for the delay in resolving the drainage issues, and offered compensation. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the further delays, acknowledged the impact this had on the resident, and increased its offer of compensation.
  4. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. The evidence provided, by the resident, shows that she raised a previous complaint to the landlord on 4 May 2023. She said that 2 years prior she had people repairing her windows. She asked for an inspection to check the quality, stated the builders had caused damage to her belongings, and she wanted compensation for the damages.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 24 May 2023. Its response included as follows:
    1. It attended to complete repairs to 3 wooden bedroom windows on 25 September 2020, however, she had refused to allow its contractor to carry out the repairs. She had asked for the installation of double-glazed units.
    2. Its surveyor attended on 5 November 2020 and raised an order to overhaul 6 sliding sash windows. It received an email on 17 February 2021 requesting UPVC windows. As its surveyor had already inspected, it could only offer repairs.
    3. It received an allegation of housing disrepair on 30 March 2021. A disrepair surveyor attended, orders were raised, and all works were completed.
    4. On 11 November 2021 she stated that she was unhappy with the work and asked for a surveyor to attend. Following a further visit, a new work order was raised which included works to overhaul the windows. Again, its contractor reported that she had refused to allow them to complete the work.
    5. She had not reported any damage being caused when the work was carried out. It was, therefore, unable to grant compensation for damages.
    6. It responded to her report of a leak on 15 May 2023 and raised an emergency repair. The bath was found to be leaking causing damage to the kitchen ceiling below. It repaired the defective seal to the bath and raised an order to replace the tiles for 2 June 2023. Further orders were raised to make safe the kitchen ceiling and replace a rotten joist.
  7. There was no evidence provided to suggest that the complaint was progressed further through the landlord’s complaints process.
  8. The resident raised a new complaint to the landlord in September 2023, relating to a blocked drain and repairs to a window and door.
  9. The landlord’s repairs records show the following:
    1. The resident reported the drains on 8 occasions between April 2023 and January 2024. The reports included:
      1. The blocking of the drain in the back garden. The blocked pipes were small and continuously blocking, which was an ongoing issue which required inspection.
      2. In June 2023 a repairs record referred to the drain requiring a camera to assess the underground drains.
      3. On 9 October 2023 records referred to its contractor finding “lots of fat and grease” in the pipes. This was the same cause as found in June 2023.
      4. On each occasion the records demonstrate that the landlord attended to clear the drain blockages within its repair policy timescales, generally as an emergency within 24 hours.
    2. An order was raised on 6 June 2023 for multiple repairs including a new UPVC bathroom window and front door.
  10. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the delays in resolving the drainage issues and repairs to the window and door. Its response also includes as follows:
    1. Following a visit from its contractor, it had found cooking oil in the drains. It said that it was important that its residents were not disposing of cooking oil in the sink or down the drain as it could lead to blockages. It had made an appointment for its contractor to attend on 26 October 2023, with the intention of remedying the continual drainage issues.
    2. Following a survey of the window and door by its sub-contractor, it required an additional inspection prior to ordering the items. It would follow this up to ensure she was contacted.
    3. It offered £200 compensation for the delays in completing repairs and for the inconvenience caused.
  11. The landlord’s response was appropriate in acknowledging the delays, apologising, and offering compensation. It set out its proposal to complete the work and gave appropriate advice in relation to the disposal of cooking oil. Its compensation offer was reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration in the range of £100 to £600.
  12. In escalating her complaint, the resident raised a new matter relating to a toilet leak. The leak to the bathroom did not form part of the resident’s original complaint in September 2023. However, the landlord responded to this in its stage 2 response.
  13. The landlord’s repairs records reflect its comments made in the previous stage 1 complaint response from May 2023. It received a report of a leak on 15 May 2023 and raised orders to resolve the leak, make safe the kitchen ceiling, and replace a rotten joist. It raised further orders in June 2023 which included renewal of the bathroom, repairs to the wooden floor, renewal and repainting of the kitchen ceiling and the further drain inspection. This demonstrates that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and attended to the repairs.
  14. The landlord’s records show that the resident had chased for the repair of the joist and a further order was raised.
  15. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the inconvenience she had experienced due to the delay in completing the repairs. It also included as follows:
    1. It arranged an appointment for 15 November 2023 to inspect the pending works. Its contractor had advised that the resident had made contact to cancel the appointment but would be in touch to reschedule. It asked her to arrange a suitable date for access.
    2. It provided its insurance department details should the resident wish to pursue a claim for her damaged belongings.
    3. It increased its compensation offer which comprised £200 offered in its stage 1 response, £350 for distress and inconvenience, and £150 for the ongoing delays. It had learnt from the complaint and implemented regular meetings with its contractors to monitor outstanding work.
  16. The landlord’s response was appropriate in acknowledging the further delays and increasing its compensation offer. It also demonstrated learning from the complaint and implemented regular meetings with its contractor to review outstanding work. Its response also appropriately provided its insurance department details.
  17. The evidence demonstrated that the resident cancelled the inspection appointment for 15 December 2023.The landlord’s records demonstrate that by January 2024 it had received no contact. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have pursued the resident for suitable dates, rather than waiting for her to make contact.
  18. We appreciate that the blocking of drains would have been distressing for the resident, however, the landlord demonstrated that it had attended following each report and cleared the blockage. The outcome of the further drain inspection is not known, however, there was a further report of a blocked drain in January 2024.While the landlord appropriately attended to each report, it should consider whether any additional work is required, given that it made reference to continual blockages and the pipes being small in its records.
  19. It is evident that a new window and door were required, and orders were raised in June 2023 and March 2024. Further correspondence of May 2024 shows that the resident requested £2,000 for the damage to her belongings. The landlord responded, explaining that the compensation offered in its complaint responses related to identified service failures. A claim for damage to her belongings would need to be made to its insurance department. Its records for May and July 2024 noted that the resident was refusing all repairs until she received £2,000 compensation.
  20. This resulted in delays to install the new window and door and complete the outstanding repairs. The landlord completed the installation of the new window in July 2024 and the door in August 2024. While the delays were considerable, almost a year from when the resident raised her complaint, it is evident that there were delays caused by both parties.
  21. While we appreciate that the delays would have been distressing for the resident, the landlord appropriately apologised for its delays, increased its compensation offer and completed the works. Its increased compensation offer was in excess of Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration in the range of £100 to £600. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord had made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the window and door.

Associated formal complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Any extension to the timescale to respond will not exceed 10 working days.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 29 September 2023, acknowledged by the landlord the following day. It stated that it would respond by 10 October 2023, however, requested an extension of 10 working days as it required more information from its contractor. This was appropriate and in line with this Service’s complaint handling code and the landlord’s complaints policy timescales. It responded at stage 1 on 24 October 2023, 21 working days from when it received the resident’s complaint.
  3. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 14 November 2023, acknowledged by the landlord 2 working days later. It provided its stage 2 response on 12 December 2023, 20 working days later in line with its complaint policy timescales.
  4. The landlord included a new issue in its stage 2 response, raised by the resident during her escalation request. This related to a leaking WC. While we appreciate that the landlord wanted to provide a full response to the resident on the new matter, this was not in line with this Service’s complaint handling code which states:
    1. Paragraph 5.7, where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant, and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
  5. That said, there were no significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. It apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of multiple outstanding repairs to the property.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £750 offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord should ensure that where new matters are raised during a complaint, following issuing its stage 1 response, that it considers opening a new complaint to address the matter.
  3. The landlord should consider whether any further works are required to the drains.