Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202005456)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005456

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

25 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress to her property.

Background and Summary of Events

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the Local Authority since 2013. She resides in a 2 bedroom, 4th floor flat.
The landlord has a repairs handbook in which it identifies varying response times for jobs that are designated different priorities. Jobs considered emergency repairs are responded to in 2 hours. Routine repairs are to be responded to within 20 working days. There is no reference in the handbook as to how long it will take the landlord to undertake inspections. There is also no mention in the handbook of damp proofing or other specialist works and what their priority would be.
The landlord also has a complaints policy. The policy states that when responding to a complaint, the landlord’s response should include:

– An explanation of what happened and why things went wrong and an apology for any service failures.

– Details of the corrective action to be taken, including the payment of compensation where appropriate and clear instructions about anything the complainant needs to do.

– The timescale within which the action will be taken.

– Where appropriate, details of the measures to be taken to prevent a recurrence of the problem.

By way of providing context to the complaint, it is noted that landlord repair records show that it first attended the resident’s property regarding water ingress issues in December 2013. It attended again in November 2014, carrying out an inspection and recommending follow on works and again in October 2015 when it noted a supervisor attended and re-raised works recommended in November 2014 as the resident reported these had not been done. The landlord noted ‘condensation throughout the property’. A further record for November 2015 referred to ‘severe condensation throughout the property’ and noted ‘the bathroom and kitchen are fine but rest of the house is severely affected’. It recommended a new ventilation system be installed but it is later noted that this order was subsequently cancelled by the landlord as it instead intended to undertake a ‘damp survey themselves’.
In February 2017 a damp survey and data logging exercise was carried out on behalf of the landlord. The survey found walls in some rooms were saturated and the ceiling in one bedroom held a ‘volume of water way above natural retention levels’ and was likely caused by a leak which may still have been ongoing. Further inspections were recommended to identify the source of the leak. Following this, the landlord did carry out work in the property which, at least initially, appeared to have resolved some of the water ingress problems.
What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Within the complaint, the resident has stated that she considers the water ingress to her property has exacerbated her and her daughter’s medical conditions. In accordance with Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme it is beyond the remit and expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between any disrepair issues and reported health conditions. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her family’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Summary of Events

In late 2019, the resident reported further concerns regarding ‘damp and mould’ in the property. Landlord repair logs show it had subsequent contact with the resident and orders were raised for a new inspection:
1. 28 November 2019: ‘tenant has stopped paying rent due to mould growth – technical officer to attend (to) diagnose, recommend works and prevention advice to tenant’.
2. 13 December 2019: an order is raised for an inspection with an accompanying note stating ‘damp survey – evidence rising damp’. However, the repair record appears to show the order as being cancelled.
3. 17 December 2019: the landlord noted ‘(resident) very distressed – emailed Repairs Client to chase report – damp effecting health’.
4. 6 February 2020: a further order is raised with the note ‘damp survey – evidence rising damp’, although this is again marked as cancelled.
5. 6 February 2020: a final order is raised with the note ‘DAMP SURVEY REQUIRED – (staff member) has emailed (external damp company) again today asking her to make contact with the resident to book an appt. Tenant confirmed her mobile no.’.
On 17 February 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. In her complaint she outlined she had experienced problems with water ingress issues in her property since 2013. The resident stated they began experiencing asthma attacks around Christmas 2018 and she believed these may have been caused by the return of mould in the property. The resident advised she had most recently spoken to the landlord on 10 January 2020 to explain the current situation and requested advice on how she might move to a different property. The resident stated the landlord advised her it would need to send a surveyor to carry out another report at the property and that someone would contact her between 10 and 13 January 2020 to book an appointment. However, she was not contacted. Since then, the resident advised that she had chased the landlord regarding this but there had been no further attendance. The resident also raised issues regarding her daughter’s health conditions and claimed these had been affected to the extent that she had had to give up her bedroom.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 response in early March 2020. It is unclear precisely when the response was sent as within the information submitted to the Ombudsman by the landlord, some copies of the letter are undated while another is dated 17 March 2020, after the resident had already requested an escalation. However, it is not disputed that the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, stating that one of its surveyors had called the resident on 10 and 13 January 2020 but was unable to get through on the phone. The landlord advised it had called on two further occasions, 21 January and 9 February 2020 but had no response. The landlord advised the resident to either ‘respond to the email or contact us by any of the methods below to arrange an appointment’.
Landlord records show the resident requested her complaint be escalated on 12 March 2020 and this was acknowledged the following day. In her escalation request the resident stated she had gone through her telephone logs for the dates the landlord stated it had tried to contact her. The resident disputed that the landlord had tried to contact her on those dates and later provided screen shots to support her complaint which, on the dates referred to by the landlord (10, 13, 21 January and 9 February 2020), appeared to show only missed calls from a private company with an out of London area code. The resident also stated she had not actually formally received the Stage 1 response; she had only been advised via an email sent on 4 March 2020 that it had been sent to her.
On 24 March 2020, landlord records detail internal correspondence regarding the complaint escalation request which noted that in fact a specialist damp contractor had tried to contact the resident on behalf of the landlord. Reference was made to the fact the contractor tried to contact the resident but their calls ‘did not go through so not a surprise to not see it on her list’. The correspondence shows that the landlord considered that it could ‘now arrange a damp specialist…to attend, book this in and agree appointment with complainant’.
Withing this internal correspondence further information was provided, for inclusion in the landlord’s Stage 2 response, which advised that the damp specialist was the same private company that did actually appear in the resident’s call logs. The landlord noted the company had been recently taken on by the landlord as it recognized that ‘there are damp issues in the Borough which need to be thoroughly investigated’. The email noted that the company ‘will contact the tenant directly for an appointment.
On 3 April 2020, the landlord issued its Stage 2 response. In response to the resident’s claim that she was not contacted by the landlord’s surveyor, it stated that in investigating the matter, it had been advised by a contractor that its ‘calls did not go through so we would not expect these calls to have appeared on your call list’. The landlord apologized for any inconvenience caused. The landlord went on to advise that ‘we have arranged our damp specialist contact you’ (sic) and provided contact details of a named Complaints Officer who would oversee the process but not the contact details of the contractor. Regarding why the resident had not received the initial Stage 1 response the landlord noted, ‘I’m also sorry if your response was not received as specified’. The landlord’s Stage 2 response further stated that ‘you have experienced delay whilst we investigated resolving the issue. We should have been more proactive in our efforts to resolve the matter sooner, and better communicated with you following the delay’. The landlord made a further apology for ‘inconvenience’ caused to the resident.
On 9 September 2020, the resident contacted this Service and advised she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. The resident stated that the landlord had yet to follow through on actions outlined in its Stage 2 response.
After clarifying that the resident has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, this Service contacted the landlord again on 23 November 2020 to request information regarding work that had been carried out and any work that was outstanding. While the landlord supplied partial information on 24 December 2020, some information regarding repairs was still outstanding. A further request for this to be provided was made on 2 February 2021. While this request was acknowledged by the landlord, to date no further information has been submitted.
In correspondence submitted to this Service by the resident, she confirmed that a surveyor from the landlord did subsequently attend on 29 December 2020. Following the visit, the surveyor raised the following orders:
1. Inspect the roof and any external pipework.
2. Installation of a temporary dehumidifier to remove atmospheric moisture and begin the drying process to the wall in the resident’s lounge/bedroom.
3. Inspection of the flat above for any leaks.
4. To address the internal plaster damage and reinspect the condensation issue.
5. To, if required, install a Positive Input Ventilation system.
In further correspondence submitted to this Service by the resident, it is noted that the landlord responded to the resident’s MP regarding the same issue on 9 February 2021. This was in response to a separate enquiry and the MP was not acting as a Designated Person relating to this investigation. In the response to the MP, the landlord acknowledges that the resident had ‘reported her concerns regarding mould growth in her home in November 2019’ but that since then ‘little progress has been made to eradicate the problem’. The landlord advised that an inspection had been carried out initially around November 2019 but that they were no longer able to access the report. It further advised that repairs to overhaul extractor fans in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom had been carried out on 25 January 2021 and that further external works to the roof were due to be completed by 3 February 2021. It is noted that the resident disputes this version of events. In correspondence with this Service, she advised the extractor vents were already in working order and she had been unaware of any work orders relating to the roof until it was referenced in the landlord’s response to her MP.

Assessment and Findings

In reaching a decision 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 of the case. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.
It is not in dispute that the resident contacted the landlord in November 2019 and made it aware that issues of mould growth and water ingress in the property had recurred. However, following that initial report, the actions the landlord undertook to investigate and resolve those issues are at times unclear. While it appears a surveyor for the landlord did initially attend the property, the landlord’s repairs logs are unclear and it has not provided this Service with any detail regarding the outcome of this inspection or any findings, recommendations or works orders raised as a result. It is further noted that the only confirmation offered by the landlord that an inspection took place was provided in its response to the resident’s MP when it acknowledged that it is no longer able to access the report carried out at that time. This indicates poor record keeping.
In its Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint responses the landlord stated, following an initial inspection, a further surveyor or contractor visit had not been possible as it had not been able to contact the resident. However, it is noted that the landlord’s information within its responses is not consistent and its Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses provide differing accounts regarding who it was who attempted to contact the resident, initially advising it was a surveyor from the landlord and later that it was a specialist contractor. The landlord additionally advised the contractor was unable to ‘get through’ so it would not expect calls to have appeared in the resident’s call logs, whereas in fact the resident’s call logs did show the same company had tried to contact her on those dates, she had just been unaware they were ringing on behalf of the landlord, which indicates the calls had in fact connected. In the absence of clearer repair logs being provided to this investigation, it is not possible to ascertain exactly what occurred and whether the landlord’s response was reasonable. While there are concerns over the accuracy of the landlord’s record keeping and its investigation of the complaint, it is however reasonable to conclude that the specialist did attempt to make contact with the resident and the landlord did initially respond to the her report.
In relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, it is also noted that in both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses the resident’s request to move to a new property and her concerns regarding her and her daughter’s health are acknowledged as being part of her complaint but are not responded to. This was not appropriate. It is also noted that, while the landlord apologized for the resident not receiving her Stage 1 response, no further information explanation is given for this, which is contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord also apologized for ‘inconvenience caused’ but it is noted that, following the Stage 2 response, the landlord appeared to take no further action in relation to organizing the required follow-up specialist inspection. This was also not appropriate and not in keeping with the landlord’s complaints policy. It is also not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Resolution principles:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

There is insufficient evidence that the landlord sought to put things right for the resident by proactively arranging a further inspection.

It is acknowledged that the landlord initially carried out an inspection following the resident’s reports in November 2019 and a damp contractor did attempt to follow up in January and February 2020, but there is insufficient evidence the landlord took further reasonable action until surveyor attended to conduct a new inspection on 29 December 2020, over a year later. This was a considerable delay and was not appropriate. In its Stage 1 response the resident is advised to reply to an unspecified email to arrange a follow up appointment. While this was not unreasonable given that the landlord appears to have attempted to contact the resident a number of times, considering that the landlord was aware that there had been previous similar problems at the property and its records indicate the resident was ‘distressed’ by the situation and had claimed her and her daughter’s health being impacted, the landlord should have been more proactive in arranging a follow-up appointment with the damp specialist.
It is also noted that within its internal correspondence the landlord considered arranging an appointment for the resident as part of its Stage 2 response. However, when issuing the response, the landlord did not do so and instead stated again that its contractor would contact the resident. From the information provided to this service by the landlord, there is no indication that the resident received any further contact. This was unreasonable.
While the period of time covered by the resident’s complaint is from the time of her initial repair report in November 2019 until the date the landlord issued its final response at Stage 2 in April 2020, it is of concern that, at the time this Service contacted the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint, there had still been no further inspection or works carried out by the landlord. This Service has asked the landlord for further information regarding repair works carried out or ordered, in particular between 2018 and 2020, but information has been provided incomplete or not at all. In its response to this Service on 24 December 2020, the landlord advised that:
1. There were no recorded reports or notes provided by any officers or operatives who had attended the property.
2. There was no confirmation of any recorded works carried out, this information had been requested from the landlord’s client team.
3. There was no confirmation of any outstanding works records, this information had also been requested from the client team.
4. The client team had also been contacted to confirm if there was any action plan or schedule which may be in place to resolve the issue.
5. Further information had been requested from the client team regarding any reports or notes from surveys or inspections carried out at the property.
Despite the landlord acknowledging a further request from this Service on 2 February 2021 for the above outstanding information, nothing further has been submitted. This is despite, in submissions made to the resident’s MP, the landlord confirming that a further inspection had been carried out and works orders raised. This is a further concern regarding the landlord’s record keeping and indicates a failure to demonstrate work or inspections that the landlord may have carried out. This is not appropriate as this Service cannot conclude the landlord took reasonable action in accordance with its repairs policy and obligations to the resident. The landlord has a responsibility to maintain accurate records of repair issues reported and actions taken in response. This is both to effectively manage its own repairs team and to have an audit trail in the event of a dispute or complaint. The landlord is then obligated to provide such evidence to this Service.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of water ingress in the property.

Reasons

The resident made her initial report regarding a recurrence of water ingress in her property in November 2019. After initially carrying out an inspection, the findings of which are no longer available, the landlord did not carry out any further inspection or actions until December 2020, over a year later. This was a significant delay. While it is acknowledged that a contractor did try and contact the resident in January and February 2020, the landlord should have been more proactive in arranging a further survey and identifying a schedule of works to resolve the problem, particularly as the landlord was aware of the complaint on the case and the reports of an impact on the health of household members.
The information provided to the resident during the landlord’s complaint responses was inconsistent and the landlord did not seek to put right the detriment caused to the resident within its responses.
There are significant concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping. Its repair logs regarding its recent responses to the water ingress issues are unclear and it is therefore not possible to fully assess whether actions have been taken. The landlord has acknowledged that in one instance, it is no longer able to access a report and findings related to a relevant inspection in December 2019. It is also noted that the landlord has not been able to provide this Service with all the information requested. Accurate and contemporaneous records are an essential aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping failures have contributed to its overall service failures and have therefore exacerbated the overall detriment experienced by the resident.

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in appropriately responding to her reports of water ingress in the property within 4 weeks of the date of this letter.
The landlord is to write to the resident with confirmation of the progression of works identified in its December 2020 survey and provide timescales for any outstanding repairs within 4 weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its processes regarding record keeping relating to repairs and ensure it maintains accurate and easily accessible records regarding its inspections and subsequent follow-up recommendations and actions.