Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202104647)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104647

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

31 July 2023


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:
    1. repairs at the property.
    2. the associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat.
  2. At the time of the complaint, the landlord responded to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  3. In 2020, the resident made a disrepair claim for issues including damp at the property. The landlord and resident’s lawyers agreed that communication would be between themselves. The landlord and resident’s solicitors both arranged surveyor reports, and the landlord’s reportedly said there were no current leaks; condensation related mould growth was due to overcrowding (information provided refers to 7 occupants at the property); and some issues had not previously been reported. The landlord concluded from its report that there was no disrepair under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and it therefore did not accept the claim. It offered £300 and to complete some works identified in its own report in 90 days.
  4. In late November 2020, the resident’s solicitor disputed the amount offered but said that the resident was happy for the works to commence while damages were agreed. There were subsequently discussions to settle the matter outside of court and on 12 March 2021, the resident’s solicitor accepted an offer £1,500 made in December 2020. The landlord indicates that following this it was agreed for the works to be completed within 90 days (i.e. by 11 June 2021).
  5. The resident has reported a number of missed appointments for works, including 8 December 2020, 25 January 2021, 15 March 2021, and 25 March 2021, while on 8 January 2021 he says an operative who attended had not been told what needed to be done or brought correct tools. The landlord’s internal records refer to him contacting on a number of occasions from around February 2021, requesting updates about when works would be done and what works would be completed. The landlord’s records refer to these being forwarded to contractors and landlord staff, and also note that on 15 March 2021 the contractor said works would be completed between 5 and 7 May 2021 and were requested to contact the resident directly to arrange the works. On 21 April 2021, an internal email noted that the resident had chased for an update; been informed that works had been scheduled for 5 to 7 May 2021; and requested to be contacted about what works would be completed.
  6. On 5 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that contractors had not turned up, and that he had not been contacted about what works would be done. The landlord discussed this with the contractors, which said that the appointment had not been confirmed and said to tell the resident they would commence works on 6 May 2021.
  7. On 6 May 2021, the resident says an operative took photos, went outside to call their office and did not return, despite saying they would. The same day, the resident made a complaint that the landlord discussed with him on 11 May 2021, noting that he was unhappy with his treatment and wanted to know when works would place. On 14 May 2021, the resident’s solicitor reported that the resident remained in the property with no repairs completed. On 20 May 2021, the landlord’s legal department said they had been informed that “a contractor attended the property on 6 May 2021 but was denied access.” They said that attempts had since been made to contact the resident but had not received a response. They asked the resident’s solicitor to confirm a suitable date and time to attend.
  8. On 1 June 2021, the landlord internally noted that it had held a meeting with contractors; the operative no longer worked for the company; the feedback would be taken on board; and staff were going to book an appointment.
  9. On 2 June 2021, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It noted that the resident was told decorating would start on 3, 4 and 5 May 2021, however no operative attended as it was a bank holiday (this investigation notes that 3 May 2021 was a UK bank holiday). It noted that when an operative did attend, they took photos, went outside to phone their supervisor, and did not return. It noted that the resident said he felt victimised and neglected and wanted his repairs to be taken seriously. It said that it could see that the resident had raised a disrepair case for the outstanding works. It said any correspondence relating to these should be raised via his solicitor for its own legal team to then respond. It said it was sorry to hear of its operative’s behaviour and said it recognised how frustrating it must have been waiting for them to return. It said that this was not the level of service it expected, and said that the operative no longer worked for its contractor. It offered £25 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  10. The same day, the resident noted that the landlord said the operative had left, but he requested explanation about what happened on the day and why he was not called to be informed that the operative was not coming back.
  11. On 3 June 2021, the Ombudsman emailed the landlord after contact from the resident that day. We explained that he was not satisfied with its response to his complaint about its handling of and response to his requests to decorate his home. It was noted that the landlord had told him that it could not accept his complaint because he had lodged a disrepair claim. The Ombudsman explained that the pre-action protocol for disrepair required the landlord to consider the  complaint up until proceedings were issued at court. The landlord was asked to discuss the complaint with the resident and respond to the complaint in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code and by 17 June 2021.
  12. On 4 June 2021, the landlord internally noted that the Ombudsman had asked it to review the case since the disrepair claim had not progressed past the letter of claim stage. On 8 June 2021, it was noted that the landlord was provided with a new contact number for the resident. On 23 June 2021, it internally noted that it had agreed appointments with the resident to carry out electrical, carpentry, glazing and decorations works on 16, 24, 26 and 28 June 2021. However, on 24 June 2021 it was noted that the resident was unwell and requested for works to be suspended until he called back.
  13. On 9 July 2021, the landlord internally noted that after a visit that day, it had scheduled a decorator to attend from 12 July 2021 for 1 week. It noted that there was also an inspection on 13 July 2021 for a proposed conversion of a wet room to a bathroom. On 14 July 2021, it was noted that a specification for bathroom works were discussed and agreed with the resident, and workings including these were scheduled for the week of 30 August 2021.
  14. On 3 September 2021, the resident requested escalation of the complaint. He said was unhappy with the explanation provided; unhappy that he was not told the operative was not coming back; and unhappy with the compensation offered. By this time, the information provided reports that the majority of works were completed apart from painting of some doors.
  15. On 30 September 2021, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It apologised for a delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation on 3 September 2021. It noted that the response related to certain works orders and another works order was a separate disrepair case. It noted that the resident complained about being given wrong dates for works to start, and about an operative that went out for a phone call and never returned. It apologised that incorrect dates were provided for decorating works, and noted that the previous response had acknowledged service was below the standard expected. It said it had taken the resident’s feedback on board and was striving to improve service. It noted that the resident was previously offered £25 and it said this was believed to be appropriate for the inconvenience he experienced. The resident subsequently provided his bank details to the landlord for the £25 to be paid.
  16. In May 2022, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord had not addressed missed appointments for repairs throughout January, March and May 2021. He said there had been a lack of communication about the issues throughout the complaint. In July 2023, the resident confirmed to this Service that the works were completed but he has since moved from the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property

  1. The resident made a disrepair claim to the landlord which he settled in March 2021 for £1,500 after seeking £8,000. In terms of the substantive complaint about disrepair at the property, the landlord seems to have responded reasonably. It considered reports from the resident’s independent surveyor and its own surveyor; set out its position; offered compensation; and offered to complete works it identified in 90 days. This investigation does not consider the settlement offer further in greater detail. The evidence about the level of issues at the property suggests this was not unreasonable. The resident accepted this as a settlement and had the option to take the matter to court if he and his solicitors disputed the amount. However, the handling of the agreed works are considered.
  2. The landlord and resident’s solicitors initially agreed for communication to be between them. The resident’s solicitor then said in November 2020 that he was happy for the works to commence while damages were agreed. In March 2021, after the settlement, the resident’s solicitor asked the landlord to engage with him. It is not clear what approach was taken on the suggestion to commence works from November 2020, and whether it was agreed that works would progress before or after the settlement. The eventual scheduling of works to June 2021 is in line with works being completed within 90 days of the March 2021 settlement, but it is not clear this was effectively communicated to the resident, as he seems under the impression that works would commence earlier.
  3. The landlord’s records say that a works order for disrepair work was raised on 18 November 2020 and the resident says he experienced missed appointments in December 2020, January 2021, March 2021 and May 2021. The missed appointments before May 2021 are not evident from the records provided, however it is evident that the resident contacted from at least February 2021 requesting updates about dates for the works and what works would be completed. There is no evidence that multiple requests were effectively responded to. This is not satisfactory, as even if communication was being handled in a certain way, there should have been clear clarification between the landlord and resident’s solicitors about how the repairs were being approached. This is particularly the case from 15 March 2021 when a settlement had been reached and the resident’s solicitor asked the landlord to engage with the resident. The landlord should be able to demonstrate from this point that it was effectively coordinating the repairs to complete them within 90 days.
  4. Following repeated calls from the resident, the landlord’s contact centre obtained dates between 5 and 7 May 2021 for the works, which the landlord addressed in its complaint response. The resident and the landlord’s internal records refer to the works being scheduled for 5 to 7 May 2021, however the complaint response said that the works were scheduled for 3 to 5 May 2021, a timeframe it is not evident the resident was informed of, which is not satisfactory. The landlord rightly apologised for the missed appointment the resident reported on 5 May 2021, but explained this was due to a bank holiday. The bank holiday was on 3 May 2021, not 5 May 2021 when the resident’s reported missed appointment was, which again is not satisfactory. The landlord’s complaint response upheld the resident’s complaint that an operative had attended on 6 May 2021 and left without his being informed they would not return. However, in separate correspondence the landlord’s legal department informed the resident’s solicitor that a contractor had attended on 6 May 2022 and been denied access, contradicting the position in the complaint response. These inaccuracies and contradictions are further indicative of poor communication and coordination for the repairs.
  5. Overall, the evidence shows that the resident and his repairs were lost sight of in the course of the disrepair settlement, and there was a lack of effective communication, coordination and accuracy in respect to the repairs which the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge. This led to the repairs potentially taking longer than they could have, and some unnecessary time and trouble and distress and inconvenience for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained on 6 May 2021 and the landlord did not provide a stage 1 response until 2 June 2021. This exceeded the landlord’s timeframes for stage 1, which it did not acknowledge.
  2. On 3 June 2021, the Ombudsman then contacted the landlord to confirm that the resident was dissatisfied with his response. We explained that the pre-action protocol for disrepair required the landlord to consider the complaint up until proceedings were issued at court, and asked it to discuss the complaint with the resident and respond by 17 June 2021.
  3. On 4 June 2021, the landlord internally noted that it had asked been asked to review the case since the disrepair claim had not progressed past the letter of claim stage, and it went on to arrange for the repairs to commence within 2 weeks. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint until 3 September 2021, when the resident contacted it again, and did not respond until 30 September 2021, over 3 months later. This was a delay which the landlord has not acknowledged.
  4. The landlord was unreasonable to restrict its investigation to the May 2021 appointment alone. As indicated above, the Ombudsman’s view is a matter does not become ‘legal’ until details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, are filed at court. The courts encourage parties to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution when the pre-action protocol is being pursued, which a landlord’s complaints procedure and the Ombudsman are seen as part of. The landlord following its formal complaints procedure can be beneficial to disputes between parties as this can offer a structure for how matters are handled and a channel for effective communication.
  5. The resident complained about being given incorrect dates and his treatment in respect to the repairs, and as noted in the substantive complaint, these were not effectively handled. The resident’s disrepair claim should not have prevented the landlord from investigating the service for the repairs that had been agreed. This meant that the landlord inappropriately limited its focus; disregarded the resident’s poor customer experience; and did not give itself the opportunity to review the handling of matters, identify service issues and consider any relevant service improvements. This was inappropriate given the findings for the substantive issue and the frustration the resident will have been caused, and was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs at the property.
    2. the associated formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not acknowledge issues with communication and coordination in respect to the repairs agreed following the resident’s disrepair claim.
  2. The landlord did not acknowledge its delayed responses, and it unreasonably limited its investigation of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £400 compensation. This comprises:
    1. £200 for the issues identified with its handling of the repairs.
    2. £200 for the issues identified with its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord to, within 4 weeks, review its communication processes for repairs agreed under the disrepair procedure, to ensure residents are clearly communicated in writing about:
    1. what works are intended to be carried out.
    2. when they are intended to be done.
    3. who residents should liaise with to arrange the works.
  3. The landlord to, within 4 weeks, review the Ombudsman’s guidance on legal claims and its procedural and staff training needs, to ensure complaints are handled appropriately where a claim is yet to be filed at court.