Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202107022)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107022

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

28 April 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the repairs to resolve an ongoing leak from the resident’s property into property below
2. the repairs required to the bathroom and kitchen.
3. the resident’s subject access request.

Jurisdiction

When a complaint is bought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request.
Under Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in its opinion falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body. Complaints regarding the handling of a subject access request fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint will not be considered under this investigation.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant; according to the tenancy agreement the tenancy began on 27 October 2008. The property is described as a two-bedroom flat on the first floor in a block.
The resident provided this Service with a medical letter dated 16 February 2022 advising of a health appointment.
The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep the structure of the building in repair and that it will carry out repairs it is responsible for within a reasonable time period. The tenancy agreement requires the resident to give access for the landlord to inspect the state of the repair and to carry out works.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance handbook provide a repair picture finder which assists the resident to identify the repair required to their property and it defines emergency repairs as those required to make the property safe or to remove immediate danger. It has five repair categories and that those categorised as priority one is completed within two hours, priority two within 24 hours, priority three within three working days, priority four within five working days and priority five within 20 working days.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy aims to provide a fair and consistent process for resolving complaints. It aims for early resolution of complaints and states that it will only accept ‘complaints made within 12 months of the incident or circumstances that lead to the complaint’ unless there are exceptional circumstances. It operates a two-stage complaint process with a complaint response sent within 15 working days at the first stage and within 20 working days at the second stage of the complaint procedure.

Scope of investigation

The resident advised that the water penetration from her property into the property below had been known to the landlord for some time. She provided a letter from the landlord’s contractors dated August 2013 requesting access to trace a leak from her property into the property below. The landlord in its final complaint response explained that it would not consider historic repair reports and that its complaint investigation had reviewed the repair records going back to the previous 12 months before the date of her complaint. The Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period, usually within six months of the matter arising. Therefore, the focus of this investigation will commence from 29 September 2019 as this was 12 months prior to the formal complaint and was considered as part of the landlord’s complaint process.
The resident has advised this Service that the current condition of the property has had an impact on her health and provided a medical letter dated 16 February informing us of a health appointment. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair records show that it:
1. raised an order to remedy a defective light switch in the hallway in December 2019. It was noted that a bulb had broken in the fitting. The repair was completed on 16 January 2020
2. raised an order to repair the lighting to the kitchen and bathroom on 24 July 2020. The repairs were completed on 26 July 2020 and a similar report was raised on 23 August 2020 to overhaul the kitchen strip light and the bathroom light. The repair was completed on the 17 September 2020
3. raised an order regarding a loud noise coming from the pipes in the kitchen on 29 July 2020. It is noted that the resident requested that the repair be treated as an emergency repair however, the landlord advised that the reported repair did not qualify as an emergency repair and a manager would contact her. The resident contacted the landlord the following day and was advised that there was no one available to speak with her. The conversation concluded with the resident advising that she would call back the following day. The repair is showing as completed on 31 July 2020
4. raised an order to unblock the bath, kitchen and bathroom sink on 5 August 2020. This was completed on 13 August 2020
5. raised an order on 5 August 2020 as the mixer taps to the shower was making a loud noise when turned on and when switched to the shower setting was not working. This was completed on 28 August 2020
6. received a report from its out of hours service that there was a back surge to the sink on 7 August 2020. The record does not indicate if the repair was completed
7. raised an order to trace and remedy a leak from the resident’s property into the property below on 10 August 2020. It is noted that the visit was completed on 12 August 2020
8. raised an order as the bath was draining slowly and back surging on 10 August 2020. It is noted that the job description was changed to resolve a blockage without any further information explaining the change of description of the repair.
The resident called the landlord to complain on 9 September 2020. She expressed that she had experienced problems whilst living at the tenancy and that she felt unsupported by the housing officers as calls she had made were not returned and her concerns regarding the repairs to the property remained unresolved.
The landlord’s internal records show that it contacted the resident on 17 September 2020 after it was notified of water penetration from the resident’s property into the property below as it needed access to inspect the resident’s property to identify if there was a leak from her address. It is noted that the resident advised that she was unwilling to provide access for the inspection to take place as the reports of a water leak originating from her property had been occurring for years, consequently she did not believe that the source of the leak originated from her property but from a communal pipe. In addition, she expressed that she was upset as the reports of water penetration from her property had not been resolved and requested for a transfer to an alternative property.
Following the response from the resident, the landlord’s internal records show that on the same day (17 September 2020) it considered the possibility that the water ingress into the property below arose from a communal pipe or from the roof to the block. It undertook checks to the roof and the communal pipes. It received a report from the roofers that the location of the water penetration into the property below was unlikely to arise from the roof and that the block did not have a communal area apart from the front balcony which it considered could not be responsible for the reported water ingress into the property below.
The landlord’s records show that the resident’s advocate contacted the landlord on 29 September 2020 advising she was representing the resident.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 29 September 2020. It concluded that:
1. a senior member of staff had agreed to work with the resident to agree a resolution to her repair concerns
2. its review of her contact had revealed that it had failed to respond to her in July 2020 and apologised for this
3. it recognised that the reports of water ingress from her property into the property below had affected the relationship with her neighbour and requested details of the incidents so that it could take action under its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy
4. it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect her property to ascertain whether there were any other outstanding repair issues other than the electrical, plumbing and carpentry reports outlined in the repair reports
5. it would liaise with her advocate on a weekly basis to offer support regarding the outstanding issues.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 2 October 2020. She requested that the landlord undertake a review of her repair records going back to August 2013 as the disrepair within the property had been ongoing for over 10 years and during this time, she had maintained her rent payments. She advised that her preferred outcome was to move to a suitable property and requested compensation for the upset she had experienced from her neighbour.
It is noted that on 2 October 2020, new repairs to the main bedroom, hallway, toilet, kitchen and the bathroom are recorded that were not reflected in the landlord’s’ repair records. The works were to remedy damp behind the radiator in the main bedroom and on the ceiling by the box cavity. Replaster behind the wardrobe in the main bedroom, removal of the disabled toilet, remedy defects to the boiler and cracking in the kitchen wall. In addition, remedy the defective radiator in the bathroom, the dried leak by the shower and replace the temporary pipe with a permanent pipe in the bathroom.
The landlord’s records show that on the same day (2 October 2020) a surveyor’s appointment was arranged for 8 October 2020 to inspect the resident’s home to check whether there were any other electrical, carpentry or plumbing repairs required and to check for any leaks that could cause the water penetration into the property below.
The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaint procedure on 14 October 2020. It apologised as the resident remained dissatisfied with the response to her complaint and confirmed that it had considered the repair records related to the past twelve months. It concluded that:
1. repairs were carried out in the resident’s property but it did not consider that the property was in disrepair
2. the surveyor’s appointment had been rearranged by the resident from 8 October 2020 to 27 October 2020 to carry out an inspection in her property regarding the repair reports
3. it had arranged for the resident to be contacted to discuss her housing options
4. it did not have an open ASB case relating to the resident and her neighbor therefore an award of compensation was not appropriate. It reiterated that if the resident had any concerns relating to a neighbour dispute, it would investigate once it received the information.
After the complaint process, the landlord advised that its surveyor inspected the resident’s home on 27 October 2020 and that during that inspection, it did not identify any visible leaks from her property. A further inspection took place on 23 November 2020 which identified that repairs to the bath, wall tiles to the side of the bath and the wash hand basin were required to resolve the water penetration to the property below. This was following a series of tests that it had carried out in the resident’s bathroom to the bath and to the wall tiles. It is noted that the resident refused to permit the landlord access to carry out the repairs to remedy the water penetration as she did not want the repairs carried out while she remained in occupation due to the pandemic, that she was home schooling her daughter who was taking her GCSE examinations. Further communication took place between the landlord and the resident regarding the outstanding repair works involving the resident’s Member of Parliament.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service on 24 June 2021. She advised that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her subject access request and that the reports of water ingress from her property into the property below had been ongoing for over 10 years without resolution. She expressed that she had previously cooperated with the landlord’s investigations to identify the cause of the water leak from her property and was frustrated that the landlord had informed her that it required access to her property and would take action under the tenancy agreement if it was not provided.

Assessment and findings

The repairs to resolve an ongoing leak from your property into the property below

The resident’s disappointment with the landlord’s approach to resolving the water penetration from her property into the property below has been noted. It is accepted that the resident experienced disruption as the landlord required access to inspect her property to determine the cause of the water penetration. It is understandable that dealing with such situations can be stressful.
The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem and whether the landlord has dealt with the resident’s repair reports appropriately and reasonably considering all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repair records suggests that there were intermittent reports of water penetration from the resident’s home into the property below. However, the landlord had a responsibility to remedy the water penetration in accordance with its repairing obligations.
The landlord visited the resident’s home on three occasions in August 2020 to remedy blockages to her kitchen and bathroom sink. There is limited information regarding the outcome of the repair visits, however from the information available the operative when carrying out the repair did not report a defect from the wash hand basin or bath in the resident’s home that could be attributable to the water penetration into the property below.
The landlord’s repair records do not indicate who made the report regarding the water penetration in August 2020. There are no notes available advising what was found or what action was taken during the visit to the resident’s property. In addition, there is a lack of information regarding the cause of the water penetration from the resident’s home into the property below. This failure to keep proper records and take the appropriate steps to identify the cause of the leak resulted in the situation continuing longer than necessary. This was inappropriate especially as the landlord had inspected the resident’s home for that particular reason and it was aware that there was likely to be a defect arising from the property.
After that inspection, there is no evidence that the landlord undertook any further attempts to monitor the situation or to establish the probable cause of the water penetration. This was not appropriate as this would have enabled it to understand what further investigations were required if any, update the resident on its findings and agree the further action necessary to remedy the cause of the water leak from the property.
The landlord contacted the resident in September 2020 when it received a report that the neighbour below was experiencing water penetration into her property. It acted appropriately when it contacted the resident to advise that it wanted to undertake an emergency inspection and it gave reasons for the urgency of the request which were in accordance with its repair’s obligations.
The landlord appropriately listened and considered the resident’s representation that she did not believe that the leak stemmed from her property and undertook checks and appropriate investigations to the roof and to the communal pipes in September 2020 to ensure that it had considered all possible reasons for the water penetration into the property below. In addition, it accepted the professional advice it received from the roofers that the source of the leak could not originate from the roof as the property below was situated on the ground floor and that the design of the building made it unlikely that the leak was from the communal balcony. It appropriately concluded that the source of the leak was from the resident’s home.
As a resolution to the complaint, the landlord agreed for a surveyor to visit to inspect the resident’s home and as part of the inspection it would check whether the source of the leak was from the resident’s home. This was appropriate action to take as it had identified that the cause of the leak was likely to be attributable to the resident’s property and by agreeing a convenient appointment time it could minimise the disruption to the resident.
The landlord took at least four months from August 2020 to November 2020 to identify the case of the leak. This was inappropriate as it had a responsibility to diagnose the cause of the leak and identify an appropriate resolution within a reasonable timeframe as the ongoing water penetration was causing damage to the property below.
The resident gave reasons for her reluctance to having the work carried out as she was home schooling her daughter due to the pandemic who was undertaking the exams. It is appreciated that having the repairs take place to her bathroom would have caused disruption and inconvenience to the resident and her family. However, the landlord does need to carry out the repairs to resolve the water ingress to the property below in accordance with its repairing obligations including taking the appropriate legal action. In addition, the resident is obliged to provide access in accordance with her tenancy agreement.
In its complaint response, the landlord recognised that there were difficulties with the relationship between the resident and her neighbour occupying the property below. It confirmed that it did not have any reports of ASB and that it would investigate the resident’s concerns under its ASB policy once they were provided which was a reasonable approach to take.

outstanding repairs in your property

The landlord is responsible for investigating the repair reports it receives and carrying out the repairs to the property. Looking at the repair reports received from September 2019 to October 2020 these related to electrical, carpentry and plumbing works to the kitchen, bathroom and hallway. Generally, the reported repairs were completed within a reasonable period in accordance with the landlord’s repair standards.
There were from two reports in August 2020 regarding a back surge to the kitchen sink and to the bath. The information provided to this Service shows that these repairs remain uncompleted. Landlords are expected to keep accurate and up to date records of the works that it carried out so that it is aware of the repairs carried out to its properties and it can monitor adherence in accordance with its published repairs procedure.
In its complaint response the landlord accepted that its communication with the resident could be improved and agreed to assign a senior manager to work with her and to provide weekly updates to her advocate. This was appropriate as it showed that it was resolution focused to understand her concerns and was willing to work with her to resolve them.
The resident reported that there was defective pipework in the kitchen in July 2020 and wanted the repair recorded as an emergency. The landlord considered the request and advised that the repair did not meet that category. This was in accordance with its repair standards which advises that emergency repairs are those that need a resolution within 24 hours. However, in its complaint response, the landlord accepted that it missed an opportunity to discuss the repair with the resident and understand her concern which was a shortcoming especially as the resident had to chase this with the landlord and she did not have an opportunity to speak with the landlord about this
The landlord concluded that the reported repairs did not amount to a finding of disrepair and appropriately agreed for an inspection to take place to assess the condition of the property. This was being solution focused as this was an opportunity to assess whether there were any other repairs that were required to the resident’s property and if there were any other underlying issues to be addressed.
The landlord agreed in its final complaint response of 14 October 2020 that a surveyor should inspect the resident’s home. A convenient appointment time was arranged for its surveyor to assess the repairs on 27 October 2020 that were required to the main bedroom, kitchen and the bathroom. This was appropriate action as the landlord was aware of various repairs required to the property regarding dampness and replastering which fell within the landlord’s repairing obligations. The resident has not provided her availability for these works to be carried out and after the complaint process has communicated further with the landlord regarding these works.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to resolve an ongoing leak from the resident’s property into property below.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of the outstanding repairs required to the bathroom and kitchen.

Reasons

The landlord missed an opportunity to diagnose the cause of the water penetration from the resident’s home into the property below.
In its complaint responses, the landlord reviewed the repair reports for the resident’s home, considered the information provided by the resident regarding the repairs necessary in her home and arranged for a surveyor to attend to assess this.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the service failure identified in this report.
The landlord pay compensation of £250.00 in recognition of the inconvenience that the resident experienced due to the delay in the landlord diagnosing the cause of the water ingress from her home into the property below.
If it has not already done so, the landlord and the resident to work together to agree a convenient appointment time to carry out the scheduled repairs to remedy the water penetration from the resident’s home as outlined in its inspection on 23 November 2020.
The landlord should review its processes to ensure that it records the outcome of its repair appointments, especially when it has organised appointments to a resident’s home for a specific reason.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord and the resident to work together to agree a convenient appointment to carry out a further surveyor appointment to assess the outstanding repairs required to her home and to carry out the repairs.
The landlord to reconsider whether a decant is possible for a short time period to carry out the identified works required to the resident’s home following the surveyors visit.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.