Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202112293)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112293

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

14 September 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 resident’s kitchen replacement following a major leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident resides in a ground floor flat as an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident first reported a leak from the above flat in June 2019, which resulted in damage to her bathroom and kitchen.
  3. Whilst the bathroom was restored, repairs for the kitchen remained outstanding, including unit and worktop replacements, an application of mould wash, and the replacement of wall/flooring tiles. The resident made a number of phone calls to chase up the repairs and frequent appointments were missed by the contractors.
  4. The resident made a stage one complaint on 18 September 2020, however no response was received. This was therefore escalated to stage two on 1 October 2020 and after several chasers, a further request for a response was made on 4 June 2021.
  5. The landlord responded on 5 August 2021 with its stage two outcome, whereby it acknowledged its poor standard of service, delayed repairs, missed appointments, and the inconvenience suffered. It stated that due to the pandemic and change of contractors in August 2020, there was a delay and miscommunication which it took responsibility for. In its attempt to put things right, it subsequently made an offer of £1,700 compensation alongside a schedule of works which it would carry out from 24 August 2021. In addition to this the landlord approved water bottles to be provided and funds for the resident’s meals whilst the work was being carried out.
  6. The resident has since contacted this service and advised that she remains dissatisfied. She has explained that the works to the kitchen remain incomplete (preventing her from moving her belongings back into the kitchen) and she is unsure that the level of compensation offered by the landlord proportionately reflects the extent of her experience.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen replacement following a major leak.

  1. Within the landlords’ repairs policy, at page 52, it outlines that the landlord aims to undertake routine repairs within 20 working days. For issues such as a repair to a mechanical extractor fan or the replacement of a damaged worktop, this timeframe is shorter. Despite this, however, this Service notes that 18 months had passed within which time, the repairs to the resident’s kitchen still remained outstanding. The Ombudsman appreciates that as there were several areas of the kitchen which required attention, the landlord would have had to coordinate works which may have caused some delay. It is not disputed, however, that the length of time that passed was unreasonable.
  2. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it consequently acknowledged its failure to proactively resolve this issue for the resident. In recognition of this, the landlord set out when the remaining works would be completed and made an award of compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this award proportionately reflected the extent of the landlord’s errors and the adverse impact that this had on the resident. It was reasonable that in putting things right, the landlord not only recognised this impact but also sought to ensure that the works were completed, once and for all. Its final response set out that works would commence on 24 August 2021 and it was suggested that if works could not be completed by the following Friday, this would be finished on the same weekend.
  3. This Service has noted, from the landlord’s repair logs and correspondence with the resident, however, that repairs to address the resident’s kitchen remained ongoing. Despite the landlord’s proposal within its stage two response to put things right, the kitchen remained unresolved and the resident was still unable to fully utilise this – also having to continue to store kitchen items in her front room. It is unclear whether this has been the result of the landlord not identifying this work at an earlier time or whether there was simply a lack of proactivity. It is also unclear whether the repairs remain outstanding.
  4. In any case, where a landlord proposes to take actions in resolution of a complaint, this Service would expect it to honour the proposal. A failure to do so would not only mean that the matter remains ongoing, but would also constitute a continued failure by the landlord and can be detrimental to mending the landlord / tenant relationship.
  5. It is clear that in this case, there was a continued failure which meant that the resident was again let down by the landlord. Despite recognising that the resident had already waited a significant length of time for the kitchen to be completed, there was no ownership or oversight of the matter to ensure that the works were finally done in August 2021.
  6. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident made several calls to chase up the repair after this time, and that a number of inspections later took place. As well as being further inconvenienced, the resident subsequently had to expend more time pursuing and accommodating the landlord in resolving this.
  7. It has therefore been concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen replacement works. The landlord may have been able to make amends, had it recognised its additional failures in service, made a revised offer of compensation and proposed a new date in which all works would be completed. In this way, it could have accounted for its failure to complete the work when it said it would, the further distress, and inconvenience. This Service cannot see that the landlord did this, however.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. Within the landlords’ complaint handling procedure, it sets out that the landlord will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days, unless agreed otherwise, and 20 working days at stage two.
  2. In this case, however, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord failed to comply with both the process and the timeframes set out within the procedure. Not only did the landlord fail to offer an initial stage one response, upon requesting that it escalate matters to stage two, the landlord also failed to issue this until 10 months later. There is evidence from the landlord’s notes on 1 October 2020 and 12 November 2020 which suggest it had been working on a stage one response, however the Ombudsman cannot see that this was provided.
  3. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords are expected to provide residents with – at minimum – a two-stage complaints process (unless it is inappropriate to do so). In providing a one–stage complaints process, complainants are not provided with the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s initial response, and there is no scope for the landlord itself to consider any errors / oversights that it may have initially made. Two stages enables landlords to ensure that the fairest outcome has been arrived at. In this case, however, the landlord did not afford the resident the benefit of a two-stage process.
  4. This Service can see that the landlord advised the resident that it had not responded as it was waiting for its investigation to conclude. While it is appreciated that sometimes investigations may take longer than the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy, the Ombudsman expects landlord’s to appropriately manage a resident’s expectations by proposing a new date for response. This also provides no justification for the absence of a two-stage process.
  5. Had the landlord considered the resident’s complaint at stage one, it might have recognised the extent of its failures and taken earlier and more proactive steps to rectify this. This also would have given the landlord an opportunity to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking her matter seriously. Instead, the resident was forced to make several calls to chase an outcome.
  6. In recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling, it would have been appropriate for it to have commented on this within its complaint response and to have made an award of compensation to specifically recognise this. Although it apologised for its “inconvenience and poor customer service”, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this failed to demonstrate a particular understanding of where it went wrong. This Service can see that the resident asked the landlord for a breakdown of its compensation award, which would have enabled both her and this Service to consider how it calculated this amount and what it sought to recognise. This might have demonstrated whether the complaint handling failures were taken into account, but was not provided.
  7. The Ombudsman has therefore considered the landlord’s award of compensation in light of both its repair and complaint handling failings, and has concluded that this fell short in proportionately reflecting its standard of service and the subsequent impact. Had there not been a large offer of compensation, this Service might have made a more severe finding.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen replacement following a major leak.
    2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should arrange an inspection of the property to establish what works remain outstanding. It should then write to the resident with a schedule of work, including when it this might likely be completed.
  2. In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen replacement, along with the £1,700 already awarded, the landlord should award an addition £300. This is to account for:
    1. The continued outstanding works to the kitchen / partial loss of living room space;
    2. The ongoing distress, inconvenience, and time expended pursuing the matter; and
    3. The landlord’s failure to achieve resolution for the resident.
  3. The landlord should also award the resident an additional £250 to account for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  4. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence that it has made the above payment (£2,250) and written to the resident, within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to complaints handling. In doing so, it may wish to revisit the Code which can be found here.