Hammersmith and Fulham Council (201904615)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201904615

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

17 February 2021

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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property.
2. The landlord’s decision not to investigate this complaint at stage two.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building.
The landlord’s repair records state that on 8 May 2019 it received a report from the resident that there was a leak into the property from the property above which was leaking onto his appliances. The landlord prioritised the leak as an emergency and the records note that an operative attended on 9 and 10 May 2019.
On 28 May 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked it to confirm that work was being undertaken in the property above to resolve the leak. He also informed the landlord that there had been further water ingress over the last couple of days.
The landlord replied to the resident on 28 May 2019 and informed him that it had spoken to the resident of the property above his and could confirm that work was being carried out and to “please bear with her”.
On 29 May 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord to state his unhappiness with how the situation was being handled. He noted that he spoke with his housing officer on 10 May 2019, who informed him that he had spoken with the resident of the property above, who is a leaseholder, and that the landlord hoped that work would start that day to resolve the matter.
The resident then noted that the contents of the email sent by the landlord had “proved” that work to resolve the leak had not started until 28 May 2019. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the length of time the leak was taking to be resolved and felt he was being discriminated as a tenant, as the landlord was putting the needs of a leaseholder above his own by giving them a such long period of time to resolve the matter. The resident also described the ongoing water ingress he had experienced and suggested that the landlord should look to forfeit the leasehold agreement of the resident in the property above.
The landlord opened a formal complaint into the matter on 30 May 2019 and sent a stage one complaint response on 18 June 2019.
The landlord informed the resident that as a leaseholder, it was the responsibility of the resident of the property above his to arrange work to resolve the leak. It further noted that the housing officer had contacted his neighbour and “made an urgent request” for them to arrange repairs of the leak.
The landlord further noted that the housing officer remained in contact with both the resident and his neighbour to keep him updated on the progress of the work and that the leak had now been resolved.
The landlord then informed the resident that if he was dissatisfied with its response to the complaint, he could write to it within 20 working days of the receiving the response and request an escalation of the complaint to stage two.
On 9 July 2019 the resident wrote to this Service and provided a copy of the stage one response. The resident stated that this was the stage two response which had been mistakenly titled as a stage one response and requested that this Service investigate the matter.
Following further correspondence, the landlord wrote to this Service on 26 September 2019 and confirmed that the response sent on 18 June 2019 was a stage one response. It further noted that it had not received a request from the resident to escalate the complaint and it had therefore been closed. On 3 October 2019 the landlord agreed to reopen the complaint.
On 15 November 2019 the resident and landlord corresponded via email regarding the status of his various open complaints. At the resident’s request, the landlord reviewed all seven open complaints, informed him at what stage in its internal complaint process the complaints were currently in, and provided a brief description of the complaints.
In regard to the complaint concerning the leak, the landlord informed him that it was currently open at stage two, that it aimed to provide a response by 16 December 2019 and that the complaint details were that that the resident had stated that there was clear evidence of negligence by the landlord in not enforcing action against the leaseholder for not carrying out work to repair the leak from 10 May 2019 until 28 May 2019.
On 12 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. It confirmed that the complaint had been reopened, but that “it was not clear” what elements of the complaint response the resident was dissatisfied with. The landlord provided the original complaint and its stage one response as reference and then requested that the resident state the grounds on which he wanted to escalate the complaint. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day and advised it to refer to the email he had sent on 15 November 2019.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 17 January 2020. It confirmed that, as had been discussed during their 15 November 2019 correspondence, the complaint had been re-opened at stage two. It requested that he confirm in writing what he was dissatisfied with in order for it to undertake a complaint investigation at stage two and provide a response.
On 22 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him that as it had received no response from him regarding its requests, it was unable to progress the matter any further and had closed the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 January 2020 and disputed the landlord’s position that he had not previously described the grounds on which he wished to escalate the complaint having sent emails to the landlord on 15 November 2019 and 12 December 2019.
Following further correspondence, the Landlord wrote to this Service on 6 April 2020 and confirmed that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaint procedure.

Assessment and findings

Leak Repair

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook describes the five categories it has for repairs and the response times for each. These are:
1. Emergency repair priority 1 (respond within two hours)
2. Emergency repair priority 2 (respond within 24 hours)
3. Urgent repair priority 3 (respond within three to five working days)
4. Urgent repair priority 4 (respond within five working days)
5. Routine repair priority 5 (respond within 20 working days)
The handbook goes on to describe what type of repairs are categorised under which priority. It states that “major leaks and burst pipes” are given priority 1, “unsafe power socket or electrical fitting” are given priority 2, and “minor leak, dripping pipe” are given priority 3.
The landlord repair logs state that, when first reported, the repair was logged as priority 2 as the resident had reported that the leak was dripping onto electrical appliances. This is line with the landlord’s repair policy.
The source of the leak was from the flat above, whose resident is a leaseholder. In regard to repair responsibilities, the landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that leaseholders are responsible for “all fixtures and fittings” and “plumbing and electrics servicing [the leaseholder’s] flat only”.
It was therefore appropriate for the landlord, having attended the resident’s property, to inform the leaseholder that repairs to resolve the leak would be their responsibility. This was done on 10 May 2019. However, the resident stated his unhappiness in his 28 May 2019 email that the repairs had not been completed and that this was “proof” that the work did not commence until the 28 May. The resident also informed the landlord that there was still some water ingress into his property and provided a photograph.
The landlord’s repair records do not show any further reports of leaks made by the resident after 10 May 2019 until his complaint. It is not disputed that work was in progress on 28 May 2019 which resolved the leak. The landlord had also not received any reports from the resident between 10 May 2019 and 28 May 2019 which suggested that the leak into his property had not been addressed.
Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in responding to the leak. When it first received a report from the resident, it raised a priority 2 repair and attended the property within 24 hours. Upon determining the source of the leak was from the property above, the landlord correctly informed the leaseholder that it was their responsibly to resolve the matter. The landlord then remained in contact with both the leaseholder and the resident until the repair was completed.
The resident has disputed that any work was carried out in the leaseholder’s property between 10 May 2019 and 28 May 2019. However, this Service has not been provided with any evidence which shows that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s concerns during this time period.

Complaint-Handling

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy describes its two-stage complaint process. Paragraph 4.5 of the policy relates to escalating a complaint from stage one to stage two and states as follows:

“4.5 Right to escalation

The full response to the complainant at all stages should include information on the right to escalate the complaint. The complainant should be advised that if they remain unsatisfied they will have to:

(a) submit a written response to the [landlord] providing details of why they remain dissatisfied; and

(b) submit the response within 20 working days from the date of the full response letter.

If a complainant continues to express their dissatisfaction, but does not provide specific reasons as to why they are not satisfied by the Council’s response, in some circumstances the complaint will not be escalated to the next stage, but instead be responded to as an ongoing matter. This process is used to ensure that complaints are only escalated when necessary and not just because a complainant continues to express their dissatisfaction”

Following receipt of the stage one response, the resident contacted this Service on 9 July 2019 and requested that we consider the case. The landlord then informed this Service that it had closed the complaint at stage one as it had not received an escalation request from the resident.
The landlord agreed to reopen the complaint and then sent two emails on 12 December 2019 and 17 January 2020 to the resident requesting he state on what grounds he wished to escalate the complaint. The landlord then closed the complaint on 22 January 2020 as it had received no information from the resident.
The resident disputed the landlord’s position and stated that he had contacted it on 15 November 2019 and 12 December 2019. In its email sent to this Service on 6 April 2020, the landlord stated that the correspondence it had received from the resident related to other complaints he was progressing through its complaint process and not the complaint concerning the leak.
This Service has been provided with the correspondence between the landlord and resident that occurred on 15 November 2019, which related to the current status of all open complaints the resident had with the landlord.
The correspondence as it relates to this complaint confirmed that it had been reopened at stage two, that the landlord aimed to provide a response by 16 December 2019 and the landlord also gave a brief description of the elements of the complaint. The correspondence did not include a discussion of the outstanding issues of the complaint and the grounds on which the resident wished to escalate it.
On 12 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and enquired on what grounds he wished to escalate the complaint. The resident replied to this email on the same day and noted that he had already provided the requested information on 15 November 2019. The email highlighted by the resident (sent at 14:44pm on 15 November 2019 by the landlord) confirmed that the complaint had been reopened at stage two. However, none of the emails provided to this Service which were sent on 15 November 2019 state what outstanding issues the resident had following the stage one response.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 17 January 2019 and requested the information. This email was not replied to and the complaint was closed on 22 January 2020.
As stated in paragraph 4.5 of the complaint policy, the landlord requires a complainant to state their reasons why they remain dissatisfied before it will consider an escalation of the complaint. The landlord requested this information from the resident on 12 November 2019 and again on 17 January 2020. It also explained why it needed this information before it could start an investigation.
It was therefore in line with its policy for the landlord to close the case after giving the resident two further opportunities to describe his dissatisfaction with the stage one response after agreeing to reopen the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property.
2. Its decision not to investigate this complaint at stage two.

Reasons

The landlord correctly followed it policies and procedures in how it responded to the resident’s reports of a leak and in informing the leaseholder in the property above that it was their responsibility to resolve the issue.
The landlord followed its policies and procedures in closing the complaint at stage two without providing a full response.