Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202103242)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103242

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

31 May 2022


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 replacement of the resident’s floor.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s records show it raised a work order in April 2021 to replace the resident’s bedroom flooring as there was asbestos present. The landlord completed work in September 2021.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint as she was dissatisfied with the length of time taken to complete the replacement. The landlord said the delays were due to it needing to source the specific floor covering that the resident wanted. It said it had not found any service failures on its behalf.
  4. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service she said she was seeking compensation. She said the landlord did not respond to her emails for four months, and that it damaged her goods whilst it moved her furniture around.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint to this Service she said the landlord damaged her belongings whilst moving her furniture. However, there is no evidence to show the resident raising this matter as part of her formal complaint which exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in November 2021. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we will not consider this matter. This is because the landlord needs an opportunity to investigate her concerns before the Ombudsman becomes involved.
  2. It is also important to note that claims for damages, including to belongings, may be more appropriately dealt with through an insurance claim or the courts. The Housing Ombudsman cannot establish liability where it is disputed. All residents are advised to arrange contents insurance to cover themselves against any damages to their belongings. If the resident’s insurer were to find the landlord was liable it could then pursue the landlord for the costs.

Handling of the floor replacement

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook states it will attend to routine repairs (minor leaks, leaking taps) within 20 working days, and planned repairs (plastering, replacing kitchen units) within 60. The landlord will advise residents what priority their repair is. The landlord’s website explains that residents should inform it if they suspect there is asbestos present in their home. It also explains that it is very unlikely that the asbestos will be harmful, unless it becomes damaged or worn. If the landlord finds asbestos, it will either remove it, seal it, or leave it.
  2. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that in March 2021 the resident advised the landlord that she believed there was asbestos in her bedroom flooring. The landlord raised a work order in April 2021 to remove the vinyl floor tiles. Then in July 2021 it raised a work order to remove the resident’s furniture in order to carry out the floor work. Its records show it was due to attend in August 2021, but it is unclear what actually happened. The work was completed on 23 September 2021.There was a delay completing the work in September 2021 whilst the landlord sourced the specific floor covering that the resident had requested.
  3. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it said the delay completing work was due to the resident declining its offers of floor coverings. The landlord made two offers, but the resident maintained that she wanted a specific colour. As such, the landlord had to source the correct one so that the work could be completed. It is understandable that there may have been slight delays whilst sourcing specific materials. As such, although the delay would have been frustrating for the resident, it would not necessarily be considered a service failure on the landlord’s behalf. This is because it was outside of the landlord’s control, and it had already provided alternative options which would have meant the work could be completed sooner.
  4. Regardless of this issue however, the landlord’s complaint responses failed to address the initial delays in the floor replacement. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show that the asbestos was damaged, or harmful to the resident at any point. However, the landlord raised the work order to replace the tiles in April 2021, and the evidence indicates that it did not attend until late August 2021. There was therefore a four month delay which the landlord failed to account for when responding to the resident’s complaint about delays. It exceeded its target timeframe for its lowest priority repairs (planned repairs within 60 working days), and failed to acknowledge its shortcomings. It was unreasonable to blame the resident for the delays in September 2021.
  5. Also, there is no evidence to show the landlord kept the resident regularly updated with the status of her repair. Landlords should keep residents informed on when it expects to carry out any work so as to manage their expectations. There may have been a reasonable excuse as to why the landlord waited months before commencing work. However, it failed to relay this information to the resident, which was unreasonable, and a failing of its communication. 
  6. The landlord’s records show there was a missed appointment on 22 September 2021. It is common practice where an appointment is not attended, and no prior warning is given, to provide compensation of some form. This will usually range between £10 – £25 per appointment. However, in this case the landlord did not even acknowledge this failing in either of its complaint responses, as it should have. Rather, it said there were no service failures on its behalf in terms of the floor replacement, which was not accurate.
  7. The landlord’s failure to identify and acknowledge the delays in its repairs service also meant it missed the opportunity to learn from the complaint, as expected in the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Therefore the failures in this case extend beyond offering appropriate redress to the resident and into the landlord’s ability to review and learn from its own performance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 within 4 weeks to acknowledge the inconvenience and delay experienced as a result of the failings identified in this report.