Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202005270)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005270

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

16 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 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s fence.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.

Summary of events

3. As per the landlord’s call records, the resident contacted it on 18 December 2019 to advise that the metal fence in her front garden was in need of repair as it was falling out towards the pavement. The resident advised that she thought that this was a health and safety issue and should be looked into as soon as possible.
4. The landlord recorded that it raised a request for an out of hours call out on 18 December 2019 and an operative attended the property on 19 December 2019. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2019 for an update and it was confirmed that a follow-up appointment would be raised for a metal specialist to visit and repair the fence. The landlord’s records showed on that date that the job was to be escalated to its subcontractor, who was to contact the resident after the Christmas period.
5. On 7 January 2020, the landlord noted that the resident telephoned it for an update. During this telephone call, the resident advised that the fence was cast iron and not metal. The landlord advised that it would investigate this matter and contact the resident with an update.
6. The landlord recorded that it contacted the resident on 13 January 2020 to advise that it was still chasing its subcontractor and that it could not confirm when they would contact her. On 14 January 2020, the landlord raised an escalation request for an assessment to be carried out and for photographs to be taken to determine if the fence was repairable or not.
7. Following a telephone call on 24 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to query:
   1. why was it taking this long to obtain quotes and commence the repair works
   2. what were the quotes for and who were these obtained from
   3. how many quotes were needed and why
   4. was it obliged to use certain contractors
   5. were the contractors given a specific time to respond by.
8. Additionally, the resident advised that she had previously been informed by the landlord that works were due to commence on 10 February 2020 and that she would be kept updated throughout the process, but that this did not happen. The resident also expressed her intent to escalate the matter further as it was a possible health and safety issue and was causing her distress. The resident requested that she be provided with a response to her questions within 10 to 15 working days.
9. The landlord replied on 27 February 2020 to advise that it had included its surveying team in the communication for them to provide answers to the resident’s above queries. The resident then emailed the landlord on 17 March 2020 to inform it that remedial works had seemingly been carried out on 7 March 2020. The resident advised that the fence was placed on a plank of wood and not joined “to its original piece” and that this would “not only raise the fence, but rot over time”. The resident underlined that the property was in a conservation area, that the repair works were carried out in her absence, and that she was not consulted on the matter either.
10. As per the landlord’s records, the matter was discussed further internally on 18 and 19 March 2020 and 7 and 8 April 2020. Additionally, a stage one formal complaint was logged on 8 April 2020.
11. On 29 April 2020, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response in which it addressed the following points:
    1. The landlord had to cancel the appointment booked in for 14 January 2020 as it was found that the fence was damaged by a vehicle, so the repairs needed to be carried out by a specialist. Although it apologised that it had failed to inform her of this when it should have.
    2. The landlord advised that the quote for the commencement date for the fence works of 10 February 2020 was not approved and therefore works could not be carried out, which it should also have updated the resident on. The landlord advised that there was a breakdown in communication between it and its contractor, which was the reason why a building contractor was sent to the property on 7 March 2020.
    3. The landlord explained that it stopped the building contractor’s works when it was made aware that these were taking place and it apologised to the resident for this and for the continued delay in her fence repairs.
    4. The landlord advised that it was reported that the fence was made safe and that it had arranged for a supervisor to assess and confirm this on 1 May 2020.
    5. The landlord advised the matter was with its insurance team and that it could not proceed with the works until they processed the quotes. The landlord confirmed that a quote was approved on 9 April 2020; however, it could not proceed with the works at that moment because the specialist company was closed due to the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic.
    6. The landlord decided to uphold the resident’s complaint, acknowledged and apologised for its service failures as she had not been reliably informed as to exactly what was going on with the repairs, and offered compensation of £75 for the inconvenience caused.
12. As per the information provided to this Service, it was noted by the landlord that, on 2 July 2020, the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to the second and final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. This was because she was unhappy with the lack of contact, the above offer of compensation, and because she had items stolen from the property reportedly as her fences were not secure. Moving forward, there was further landlord internal communication about this between 7 to 30 July 2020.
13. On 7 July 2020, the landlord requested confirmation that the inspection arranged for 1 May 2020 went ahead. This was confirmed and it was established that the fence was secured as it was put against the wall. Additionally, it was confirmed that the damaged section was taken away to be modified and that metal workers would be attending the property in the week commencing 13 July 2020.
14. On 10 July 2020, it was mentioned that the landlord contacted the resident via telephone to arrange for a surveyor to attend the property; however, it was later deemed that this was not necessary. It was also discussed that the fence railing that required repair was made of cast iron and not metal, and the resident requested a schedule of works because she wanted to be present when these were carried out.
15. On 27 July 2020, it was confirmed that the landlord’s contractors were experiencing delays, due to the backlog accumulated during the lockdown period, and that they could not keep to the date that they initially advised.
16. The landlord issued a final stage two complaint response on 30 July 2020 addressing the following:
    1. The landlord provided an explanation for the delays encountered, as outlined above, and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident by this.
    2. The landlord advised that it would have new contractors starting in August 2020 and that they would take over the outstanding repairs to her fence.
    3. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays caused and increased the compensation that it had previously offered the resident to £175.
17. Moving forward, the resident contacted this Service on 26 October 2020, via telephone, to advise that the repair works to the fence were yet to be completed. The resident advised that her last interaction with the landlord was in August 2020 when it visited the property unannounced to carry out the works. The resident advised that she was unhappy with this as she had previously requested a schedule of works.
18. The resident also stated that the landlord advised that it would look at replacing the entire fence; however, no further action was taken in the two following months. The landlord nevertheless provided this Service with records that indicated that it had completed repairs to the fence on 13 August 2020.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook

19. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook states that it will “aim to attend to repairs as quickly as possible”. However, it divides repairs into five categories based on priority:

1. priority one (emergency) repairs would be carried out within two hours of the report
2. priority two (emergency) repairs would be carried out within 24 hours of the report
3. priority three (urgent) repairs would be carried out within three to five working days
4. priority four (urgent) repairs would be carried out within five working days
5. priority five (routine) repairs would be carried out within 20 working days

20. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook also states that, in the case of defect repairs or planned works, the resident would “be given a job number and appointment or targeted completion date”, when the defect is reported.
21. Additionally, the repairs and maintenance handbook states that the landlord is responsible for insuring the structure of the property but not the contents, although the resident is “strongly advised” to take out contents insurance for their furniture, belongings and decorations.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s fence

22. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 December 2019 to report a defect with the front garden metal fence of her property. The resident advised that she thought that the defect was a health and safety hazard. Taking this into consideration, the landlord acted in line with the guidelines presented in the repairs and maintenance handbook and visited the property within 24 hours, on 19 December 2019.
23. During this visit, it was determined that a specialist was required to repair the fence and the landlord advised that it would forward this to its subcontractor who would contact the resident after the Christmas period. The resident then chased the landlord on 7 January 2020 because its subcontractor did not contact her. Moving forward, the landlord was reasonable and effective in dealing with this matter at the time as it chased its subcontractor, kept the resident informed and arranged for a further assessment to be carried to out try and determine if the fence could be repaired or if it had to be replaced on 13 and 14 January 2020.
24. It was noted that no repair works were carried out until 7 March 2020 when a plank of wood was placed under the faulty fence to attempt to make it safe. As the resident was unhappy with the recent work carried out and the amount of time that the landlord was taking to put things right, a stage one complaint was logged on 2 April 2020.
25. The landlord was effective in identifying and addressing this complaint as it issued a response on 29 April 2020, in which it apologised and offered a thorough explanation, acknowledging that the repair took longer than anticipated and explaining that this was due to a breakdown in the communication with its contractor. The landlord also offered the resident compensation of £75 for the inconvenience caused and arranged for a further inspection to be carried out on 1 May 2020, to ensure that the fence was safe and did not pose a health and safety risk and to put things right.
26. Subsequently, the landlord proceeded to visit the property on 1 May 2020 and placed the fence against a wall and then, on 7 July 2020, it was confirmed that the damaged fence had been taken away to be modified (the exact date of this was not confirmed to this Service). The landlord was initially advised by its subcontractor that the works would be completed in the week beginning the 13 July 2020. However, this did not happen due to delays caused by the backlog accumulated during the lockdown period.
27. At the same time as the above, the resident escalated her complaint to the final stage two on 2 July 2020 and the landlord issued a final complaint response on 30 July 2020. The landlord acknowledged its mistake and tried to put things right by increasing the compensation that it had offered the resident to £175 for the inconvenience caused by the delays and appointing a new contractor (who was due to start in August 2020) to complete the outstanding works. The resident then advised that the new contractor visited in August 2020, but they did so unannounced and she was not happy to let them proceed with the repairs due to this. Although the landlord recorded that they completed repairs to the fence on 13 August 2020.
28. Taking into account the information presented to this Service, it is evident that there were failings by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s fence. However, there is substantive evidence indicating that the landlord took appropriate steps towards putting the matter right by:
    1. acknowledging its failings and the delays caused
    2. acknowledging that there had been a breakdown in communication with its contractor
    3. offering reasonable compensation
    4. appointing a new contractor to complete the outstanding works.
29. It is noted that the landlord’s final offer of compensation was for £175 to acknowledge the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by its handling of fence repairs. Considering the gravity of the defect and the delay period, the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s guidance on good practice: remedies, the amount of £175 was reasonable compensation. This is because this amount was proportionate to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the above failings in line with the levels of compensation recommended by both Ombudsman.
30. Additionally, it is noted that the resident was unhappy with having items stolen from the property, due to the lack of a secure fence. With regard to this matter, the landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook states that it is the resident’s responsibility to insure the contents of the property. In this instance, the landlord would therefore not be expected by the above Ombudsman’s guidance to provide compensation for the stolen items and the handbook suggested that the resident should submit a claim with her insurer for these.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

32. The landlord offered reasonable redress because it put matters right by visiting the property, chasing its subcontractor on multiple occasions, apologising for the delays caused, offering compensation in line with the Housing Ombudsman and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and appointing a new contractor to complete the outstanding works. 

Recommendations

33. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the compensation of £175 that it previously offered to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by this matter, if it has not done so already.
    2. Carry out the works agreed to the defective fence, if it has not done so already.
    3. Set more specific defect repairs and planned works response timeframes to ensure that communication with its contractors about these is more effective.
34. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks of this determination to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
35. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.