Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202114211)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114211

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

23 June 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 leaseholder 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 about the landlord’s management and handling of:
1. reports of water ingress and the associated repairs to the property.
2. complaints and the level of compensation offered.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of information and record keeping practices.

Background

The non-residential leaseholder owns a ground floor flat within a two-story, semi-detached house, under the terms of a long lease granted by Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council.
The three-bedroom property includes a cellar and an internal coal chute within the demised premises.
Within the lease, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council is referred to as ‘the lessor.’ For the purposes of this report it is hereafter referred to as ‘the landlord.’
The leaseholder’s property was empty for two months between November 2020 and January 2021. During this time, the property cellar was regularly flooded and required regular drainage.”

Lease agreement

Under the terms of the long lease, the landlord agrees to observe and perform the obligations and regulations set out under the sixth schedule. This includes:
1. To repair and maintain the conduits in, under and upon the building, the boundary walls and the structure of the building, foundations, gutters, rainwater soil and waste pipes.
2. To keep the demised premises insured to its full reinstatement value…against loss…and…the usual comprehensive risks as are contained in a householders insurance policy. If the landlord has not insured against such a risk, it shall at its own expense and with all convenient speed rebuild, repair, or otherwise reinstate the insured parts.
Under the terms of the long lease, the lessee (hereafter referred to as the leaseholder) agrees to observe and perform the obligations and regulations set out under the fifth and ninth schedules. This includes:
1. To keep the demised premises in good and substantial repair and protect all parts of the building which adjoin or lie above or beneath the demised premises.
2. Not to do…or permit…any act…whatsoever whereby the risk or hazard of the demised premises or building being destroyed…may be increased…or which may make void any policy of insurance.
3. To tend…and maintain as a garden…and to use only as a garden and not to interfere with the surface of that part of the garden laid in concrete.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states:
1. “[the landlord] should strive to find sustainable solutions to the challenges faced by our leaseholder’s, through the provision of a high standard of customer care. Our approach should be driven by core values of openness, accountability, and honesty. We should also focus on the best outcome for the customer.”
2. “All feedback should be dealt with fair, confidential, consistent, effective and timely manner.”
3. Complaints should be acknowledged within 3 working days and a written reply sent within 15 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s repairs complaints compensation policy states:
1. “The policy covers [the council’s] approach to the award of financial compensation where a leaseholder has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs due to service failure. Examples include failure to meet agreed standards of service including missed appointments and delays in delivering services and poor complaint handling.”
The landlord’s compensation policy provides a compensation calculation scale. The scale states awards that are subject to;
1. Three levels of impact repairs failures have on a resident and failure.
2. Three levels of complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s repairs policy classifies repairs by referring a classification table that contains three different categories with differing response times.
1. Routine repairs are completed within 20 working days.
2. Urgent repairs are completed within 3, or 5 working days (subject to repair type)
3. Emergency repairs are completed within 2 hours or 24 hours (subject to seriousness).

Summary of events

The leaseholder reported repairs to the landlord on 15 January 2020. The landlord subsequently raised four separate works orders to inspect and respond to blocked guttering from leaves, split guttering, and damaged pointing in two separate areas. The works order noted “the leasehold property is claiming it affects them internally.” Two duplicate works orders were subsequently cancelled on 14 April 2020 and 15 April 2020.
On 13 July 2020, the leaseholder reported a leak into their hallway from the loft area and a damp patch on the ceiling.
The leaseholder reported the water ingress to the landlord again on 3 October 2020 and emailed the landlord on 7 October 2020 reporting multiple points of water ingress into the property. The leaseholder requested a surveyor’s inspection appointment.
The landlord raised a works order on 22 October 2020 stating, “Downpipe coming from roof is blocked and causing water to cascade down the front of property – tenant would like to be contacted before appt”.
The leaseholder emailed a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 23 October 2020. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 October 2020 and stated a response would be provided by 13 November 2020. The leaseholder’s complaint stated:
1. they had not received a response to their report of a roof leak and a damp patch made in July 2020,
2. no repair works were completed at the property,
3. they received a limited response to an email sent to the repairs team,
4. the customer service advisor said there were no updates on the outstanding repairs.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 9 November 2020 to again request a property inspection because they had not received a response to their previous inspection request dated 7 October 2020. The landlord phoned the leaseholder on 12 November 2020 and confirmed an appointment was booked for 20 November 2020.
The landlord phoned the leaseholder about their stage 1 complaint on 14 November 2020. The landlord did not discuss the additional reports of water ingress the leaseholder made to it since their complaint was sent.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 17 November 2020 stating a contractor attended the property the day before in response to its works order of 22 October 2021. The landlord “was shown a video of water flowing on the outside of the downpipe.” The leaseholder stated the contractor cleared some foliage from the garden but did not clear visible foliage from gutters or nearby pipes. The leaseholder said they were not satisfied with the service received because not all the visible foliage was cleared. The leaseholder attached photographs of damp ingress on the outside walls of the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the leaseholder three working days overdue on 18 November 2020. The landlord’s response:
1. apologised for the repair delays,
2. explained that the current contractor’s database did not interface with the landlord’s database,
3. stated some email attachments sent to the repairs team were too large to open and this was considered “an error” by the landlord.
4. confirmed gutter clearance work was raised on 2 November 2020 and follow-on work was booked for 16 November 2020,
5. requested further comments from the customer services manager in relation to the previous limited response to the leaseholder emails,
6. asked the client team to provide the name of the attending surveyor,
7. stated it will continue to monitor the outstanding repairs.
The landlord completed a site survey of the property on 20 November 2020 and the leaseholder stated in emails sent to the landlord on 23 and 24 November 2020 that they required a copy of the survey report prior to the leaseholder instructing their own contractor to complete some [undisclosed] repairs the following week. The landlord emailed the report to the leaseholder on 25 November 2020 and stated it would arrange an inspection of the front and back gardens, a housing officer to contact the first-floor tenant [about access] and verify whether a section 20 process was required to respond to “additional items mentioned in the report”.
The leaseholder requested that their complaint be escalated to stage 2 in an email on 30 November 2020. This request stated:
1. the stage 1 resolution was based on general customer service and repair handling, and not specific action related to the outstanding repair matters raised,
2. the landlord has struggled to connect all the tasks associated with the leasehold property, and its maintenance in the past,
3. appropriate pay-outs to leaseholders, where neglect of freehold duties have occurred, was required.
4. The leaseholder requested information about how to make an insurance claim and direct legal action towards the landlord.
5. The leaseholder requested a meeting with a “decision making authority” and stated, “the end-to-end process for handling maintenance matters has been poor.”
6. [the landlord] needs to get proper service from their outsourced contracts and an internal review is required.
7. A response from the customer services manager has not been received and “an urgent action plan is required, not merely the monitoring of outstanding repairs”.
The landlord undertook works to unblock the leaseholder’s gutter on 1 December 2020.
The landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s escalation request on 7 December 2020, 2 working days overdue. The landlord stated a response would be provided by 31 December 2020.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 10 December 2020 to confirm works orders were raised for a CCTV survey of the rainwater pipes and drains, clearance of gutters and pipes, remedial tree works in the front garden.
The landlord sent internal emails between 7 and 11 December 2020 to arrange an internal meeting to understand the progress of the repairs and items listed in its surveyors report. The landlord held the joint meeting on 11 December 2020 and minutes of the meeting noted:
1. the leak is coming into the leaseholder’s cellar,
2. the complex team are dealing with the repairs,
3. the leaseholder is waiting to hear from the complex team.
4. A CCTV survey will be carried out and cleaning will take place.
5. The leaseholder will have to claim for internal damage through insurance.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 15 December 2020 stating maintenance requirements listed in the report were not progressed in a timely and coordinated manner. Further, that the landlord did not reply to phone calls they had made to the surveyor and repairs staff. The leaseholder referred to the recommendations contained in the landlords surveyor report and asked if job numbers, or contractors had been arranged for the items listed as:
1. External rear
  1. The rainwater pipes and gullies require a CCTV survey to create a remedial repairs schedule.
  2. The garden requires tidying and the foliage removed.
  3. Repoint areas of brickwork where required along all facades.
2. External front
  1. The tree in the front garden requires an arboriculturist to inspect and issue recommended remedial action.
  2. The front gutter and downpipes require clearance.
The leaseholder phoned the landlord to chase their stage 2 complaint response on 15 and 17 December 2020. In an email the leaseholder sent to the landlord on 17 December 2020, they stated, “I appreciate you have a difficult job to consolidate all the facts on this case”. The landlord’s officer replied to the leaseholder’s email on 17 December 2020 stating they were leaving the organisation and a new case handler would take up the case.
On 4 January 2021, the leaseholder emailed the landlord stating that they had not received the expected stage 2 response. The leaseholder stated they completed some repairs works themselves, “without the freehold prevention work taking place which was the more desirable process to follow.” It is not clear to this Service what works were completed by the leaseholder. The leaseholder asked the landlord to confirm where they should seek to reclaim expenses they incurred, given “the source problems still remain.”
The leaseholder phoned the landlord again on 8 January 2021 to chase up the stage 2 response. On 12 January 2021 they chased the complaint response again and reported ongoing water ingress into the property. The leaseholder phoned the landlord again on 13 January 2021 to chase the stage 2 complaint and stated they were frustrated that the landlord did not return their calls. The leaseholder also asked how the matter could be escalated, reported the ongoing leak again and advised that they had contacted their councillor about the complaint. The leaseholder contacted the landlord again to chase the complaint on 18 and 25 January 2021, as the complaint was 25 days overdue.
The landlord requested a copy of its commissioned CCTV survey and information about when this was completed in an internal email it sent on 27 January 2021.
The leaseholder phoned the landlord again on 5 February 2021 to find out when a CCTV survey appointment would be arranged so that water ingress matters could be addressed. The leaseholder copied the landlord into an email they sent to their councillor on 17 February 2021, stating the council was not responding to the leaseholder’s requests for information despite repeated contact attempts. The leaseholder contacted the landlord again on 22 February 2021 to report ongoing flooding due to drainage problems and to chase up the outstanding repairs, and a response to their request for information about planned works.
The landlord sent four internal emails on 10 March 2021 requesting an urgent update about the leaseholder’s overdue complaint and the presence of flooding in the property from poor drainage. The emails were titled *High Profile Complaint and stated the complaint response was two months overdue. The landlord resent an internal email on 19 March 2021 about the leaseholder’s overdue complaint and the presence of flooding in the property from poor drainage.
On 26 March 2021, the landlord raised works orders for a roofing team to clear guttering two floors up and “external water tap outside bathroom appears to be leaking and causing water ingress into areas flat below / pls inspect and repair or report back”. The landlord made appointments for 6 and 7 April 2021.
On 30 March 2021, the leaseholder’s insurance claim was declined because “The Surveyor details that many of the issues are pre-existing and a result of inadequate maintenance of the exterior of the home”. The insurer’s response stated:
1. ‘The rainwater pipes are in a poor state of disrepair and there is evidence of leakage.
2. Furthermore, the brickwork around the entire home requires repointing indicating that the appropriate maintenance measures have not been undertaken for some time.
3. The damp patches also support that the damp issues have been prevalent for months if not years prior to the survey.
4. The damage to the cellar also appears to be a result of a poorly maintained pipe.
5. We would also consider that the insured has breached the policy condition which states.
  1. You must take all reasonable steps to minimise loss or damage loss or damage to all insured property including keeping buildings in a good condition and state of repair.
  2. Failure to meet this condition may invalidate your insurance and our ability to handle any claim submitted to us.’
The leaseholder emailed a housing disrepair claim form to the landlord on 2 April 2021 stating it was in breach of its repairing obligations. The leaseholder requested proposals for compensation and cited the repair costs at £24,676. The leaseholder stated, “Once this claim has been registered, please reply with case number as currently there is an ongoing customer complaint and many outstanding actions against water ingress matters relating to the [property] survey [the council] completed in November 2020”.
The landlord attended the property above the leaseholders on 7 April 2021, but could not gain access. An additional appointment was booked for later the same day to completed undisclosed repairs. The landlord sent an internal email on 8 April 2021 which stated it checked the CCTV survey report and understood follow on works were required. The landlord subsequently made internal enquiries to confirm if the downpipes and gutters were cleared. The landlord made case notes on 9 and 16 April 2021 that confirmed it was waiting for an update from the repairs service. On 18 April 2021, the landlord resent their previous internal email asking if works to downpipes and gutters were complete. The landlord also referred to water ingress into the property and enquired if works identified in the CCTV report was complete.
The landlord phoned the leaseholder on 12 May 2021 to discuss the outstanding repairs. The landlord subsequently raised a works order which it described as “repointing along all facades where required. Descaling works, unblock hopper, remove, and refit downpipe to clear blockage, patch repair”. The landlord booked an appointment for 26 May 2021 and emailed the details of the works order to the leaseholder on 13 May 2021.
The landlord held an internal meeting on 14 May 2021 and discussed its stage 2 complaint cases including the leaseholder’s complaint. The landlord subsequently sent an internal email requesting information about the stage 2 complaint.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 17 May 2021, requesting an update on all jobs that were commissioned from the councils surveys. The leaseholder stated communication between all parties involved created delays, confusion, and poor project controls. The leaseholder provided a timeline and a repairs matrix for the landlord to complete to record all actions taken.
The landlord attended the property on 26 May 2021, but on 27 May 2021 sent an internal email stating “a number of works orders were raised on individual addresses but have now been raised on the block so that repointing, roofing, and descaling works can be carried out”. The landlord confirmed that these repair works would be completed on 4 June 2021.This Service has not seen any evidence that confirms the repairs were completed on the 4 June 2021 as stated.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 4 June 2021 requesting the escalation of their stage 1 complaint to stage 2. The leaseholder complained about the handling of repairs, communication, and the monitoring of the repairs in a timely manner. The leaseholder stated, “the neglect of maintenance at [their property] required specific action from those responsible and pay-outs to the leaseholders where neglect of freehold duties have occurred.” The leaseholder restated this was the third time they made a stage 2 complaint about the same matter.
The landlord sent an internal email on 11 June 2021 enquiring what repairs were completed on 4 June 2021. The email also recommended a compensation award of £460 should be paid to the leaseholder for delay and inconvenience. The landlord calculated the award from the date leaseholder reported the leak to the date it considered the repairs were completed in June 2021.The landlord stated this total was calculated using Housing Ombudsman guidance. The landlord authorised the compensation award and advised the complaint handler to make the compensation award to the leaseholder.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint on 17 June 2021. The complaint:
1. apologised for the delay acknowledging the stage 2 escalation (dated 1 December 2020) and for the delayed stage 2 complaint response,
2. apologised for the leaseholder’s continued dissatisfaction in how the leak to a loft area and the associated complaint was handled,
3. explained it reviewed information from the leaseholder’s complaints, their member’s enquiry and the repairs service, head of contacts and capital works engagement manager staff,
4. stated, “numerous repairs have been raised at your property to carry out repairs following water ingress, and also a request to carry out a repair to inspect the roof,”
5. stated all work was completed on 4 June 2021,
6. acknowledged it was “poor service whilst the issues were resolved, and complaints investigated,”
7. offered £460 compensation due to delay, inconvenience and poor service,
8. stated “if you have been through all stages of our complaints procedure and are still unhappy, you can ask the Housing Ombudsman to review your complaint. The Ombudsman investigates complaints in a fair and independent way – it does not take sides. It is a free service,”
The landlord’s housing database recorded the stage 2 complaint as upheld, however this was not confirmed in the stage 2 response it sent to the leaseholder.
The leaseholder responded to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in an email sent on 25 June 2021. The leaseholder sent details of the leaseholder’s liability claim sent on 2 April 2021 and a timeline document with the email. The email stated:
1. communication between departments is poor,
2. their complaint was raised on 27 October 2020, not 1 December 2020,
3. works are still outstanding from the council’s survey,
4. the loft area leak relates to [a neighbouring] property and this is concerning as it indicates building maintenance records are factually incorrect,
5. an update about the survey and the liability claim submitted was outstanding,
6. the £460 offer of compensation was insulting and derisory.
The landlord forwarded the leaseholder’s email internally on 28 June 2021 stating it should review the response and compensation award to prevent further escalation of the matter. The landlord subsequently discussed the matter at a meeting held on 30 June 2021 and sent an email afterwards requesting updated information about the matter.
The landlord held internal email conversations on 5, 6, and 8 July 2021 with different departments. The matter was described as “a reopened stage 2 that cannot be closed until a response is received to the complainants comments in an attempt to prevent further escalation (Cllr and Ombudsman)”. It was also referred to as “complex so seeking further advice/escalation.”
An internal email exchange took place on 9 July 2021 during which a head of service suggested holding a meeting “to discuss the works that appear to be outstanding”. They stated:
1. a regular face to face meeting is required, rather than email exchanges,
2. the leaseholder should be notified that action is being taken to address the outstanding issues,
3. why did the contractor report repair works were complete when they were not?
4. when will the repairs be booked.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 12 July 2021, stating action was being taken to address the outstanding issues as a priority. Further contact would be made when more details are known.
The landlord held a meeting on 13 July 2021, to discuss and agree actions. The landlord’s case notes stated, “awaiting more details from repairs before a final complaint response can be sent.” The landlord sent a further chase for information on 20 July 2021 and on 21 July 2021 the landlord sent internal emails about the complaint handling compensation authorisations. The complaints handler advised the leaseholder’s stage 2 complaint was reopened for an increased offer of compensation to be awarded.
The landlord emailed a further complaint response to the leaseholder on 30 July 2021. The landlord stated the additional response was issued following recognition of the leaseholder’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s previous stage 2 complaint response. The landlord stated, “external works have been completed” and it was “working to ensure the brickwork repair is moving along”. The landlord increased the compensation offer to £560 as “our final offer…in line with the Ombudsman’s guidelines”.
The leaseholder emailed to the landlord on 23 August 2021 stating:
1. The torrent of water when taps are activated has stopped,
2. they will not “accept the final offer as the findings of the review did not capture all the matters raised in the survey report” in the following ways.
3. external works have not all been completed:
  1. a waterflow repair into the cellar was partly fixed,
  2. water ingress from poor drainage at the rear of the property remained,
  3. repointing and brickwork was outstanding,
  4. a tree in the front garden required arboriculturist attention,
  5. the rear garden required tidying and foliage removed.
4. they have not received an update from the landlord on:
  1. the liability claim and landlord inspection report which referenced:
  2. compensation related to:
  3. the rear bathroom/hall areas and rear basement due to leaks
  4. water ingress and “cosmetic damage to the walls ceiling and timberwork” areas.
  5. “ground leakage in several areas possibly from poor external maintenance”
  6. “historic service pipe leaks and one live one on a stop cock”.
On 9 September 2021, the leaseholder resent the email they previously sent to the landlord on 23 August 2021.The leaseholder did not receive a response and subsequently phoned the landlord to discuss their recent emails on 22 September 2021. The leaseholder was told the stage 2 complaint was closed and they should contact the Housing Ombudsman.
The complaint was accepted as duly made to this Service on 26 January 2022.

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 the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a leaseholder and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s management and handling of reports of water ingress and the associated repairs to the property.

The leaseholder reported a roof leak and damp on the ceiling in July 2020. Given the need to trace the leak the report should have prompted an early inspection by the landlord. The leaseholder further requested repairs and a surveyor’s inspection twice on 3 and 7 October and raised the landlord’s lack of response in a stage 1 complaint dated 23 October 2020. This Service has seen no evidence that a surveyor’s inspection was conducted until 20 November 2020 some 4 months later. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the leaseholder to wait and was well outside the landlord’s repairs policy timeline of 20 working days. This Service has not seen any evidence of actions taken by the landlord during this time, for example more timely action or interim measures to ameliorate the impact on the leaseholder. This was a failure.
The landlord attended the property on 16 November 2020 but did not remove all visible foliage from the property grounds when, according to the leaseholder, it could have done. Consequently, the leaseholder was disappointed with the landlord’s handling of this repair. It is common practise for many repairs contractors to only complete the repairs covered within the scope of works on the issued works orders, and this is an example of that practice. However, this Service has seen some good practise from landlord’s and repairs contractors that identify where longer-term repair issues can be addressed sooner, such as by seeking authorisation to complete the repair when on site or raising follow on works orders or variation orders. This Service does not find a failing here but sees an opportunity for improvement.
The leaseholder was required to regularly use buckets to drain water from the property between November 2020 and January 2021. The time and trouble this required of the leaseholder could have been avoided if the landlord completed inspections and expedited repairs at a pace commensurate with the scale of impact reported by the resident. It is evident from the ongoing nature of this dispute that the exact cause of the water ingress was not accurately diagnosed until after landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response (which is addressed later in this report). This Service recognises that some repairs require multiple visits and/or repair attempts before they are resolved, but in this case the landlord failed to take decisive actions to address the reported repairs in a lasting way and this was a significant failing.
It is further evident that the leaseholder emailed the landlord on 5 February 2021 to find out when the CCTV survey would be completed. It is reasonable for this Service to conclude the landlord did not inform the leaseholder in advance of the date its commissioned CCTV survey would be completed, nor did the landlord share the survey results with the leaseholder after it was completed. The landlord was expected to provide clear information about the progress of its repair handling at all stages and it did not.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the leaseholder’s repairs again until it raised works order on 26 March 2021. This was despite the landlord listing the repairs with others it identified in its site survey report and the leaseholder making contact with the landlord about its outstanding stage 2 complaint, and the presence of ongoing water ingress issues on a total of 12 instances between December 2020 and February 2021. This was a significant failing which again exacerbated the leaseholder’s distress and inconvenience. Further it is likely to have created a lack of confidence in the landlords’ ability to effectively deliver on its repairing obligations.
The leaseholder submitted the landlords site survey from 20 November 2020 to their own insurance company with a claim for loss. It is not clear when the leaseholder submitted their claim, but the insurance company responded to the leaseholder on 30 March 2021.
The insurer did not uphold the leaseholders claim as many of the issues were “pre-existing and a result of inadequate maintenance of the exterior of the home.” The insurance company stated that the landlord “must take all reasonable steps to minimise loss or damage loss or damage to all insured property including keeping buildings in a good condition and state of repair.” Further, that “failure to meet this condition may invalidate your insurance” The insurers advice, which was based upon the statements contained within the landlord’s site survey, are understood by this Service as wholly directed towards the landlord’s inadequate asset management practices.
In the absence of any redress through the insurance claim the leaseholder then submitted a housing disrepair claim to the landlord, based upon the position indicated by the insurer. It is understandable that the leaseholder directed escalated action towards the landlord using alternative channels available on the basis the landlord had not responded to the residents stage 2 complaint and the leaseholder had obtained no redress for the repair costs they incurred.
The leaseholder sent a complaint escalation email to the landlord dated 25 June 2021, stating “this complaint is the subject of a liability claim against [the council] to which again I am still awaiting a response”. This reflected the fact that the landlord had still not responded to the leaseholder’s disrepair claim that was submitted on 2 April 2020 nearly 3 months previously.
This Service has seen evidence that the leaseholder attempted to take ownership of the matters themselves, such as by sending detailed emails with clear questions and by providing timelines and action matrices to help the landlord understand the particular repairs required. However, this service has not seen any evidence to confirm that the repairs were adequately, or effectively addressed. The landlord was expected to understand the nature and requirement of the repairs within its repairing obligations as a landlord. Further, the landlord should have ensured it kept the leaseholder up to date about the status and handling of the repairs. It should not have fallen to the leaseholder to try to find ways to focus the landlords’ mind on the matters it was responsible for.
The leaseholder was subjected to significant adverse impacts by the landlords delays in repairing water ingress (and repairs identified in the landlords site survey) because they were constrained under the terms of their lease from commissioning and effecting the required repairs themselves. The leaseholder was left reliant on the actions of the landlord for repairs to be satisfactorily concluded. The residents reports and repeated chasing up efforts were not considered or responded to with a proportionate level of oversight or responsiveness by the landlord. The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to affect an enduring repair and failed to keep the leaseholder adequately updated. Taking into account the repeated failures by the landlord, this Service finds severe maladministration in the landlords handling of reports of water ingress and the associated repairs to the property.

The landlord’s management and handling of complaints and the level of compensation offered.

In identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its’ complaint and compensation policy and procedures. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy clearly sets out the expectations for handling complaints at stage one and stage two. The policy also states complaints should be acknowledged within three working days and responded to within 15 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two. The timescales for issuing complaint responses did not align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘The Code’) at the time when this complaint was made and responded to.
The landlord failed to issue its stage one response within its complaints policy timescale.. The landlords response was issued three working days overdue and did not clearly state if the complaint was upheld or not. This resulted in a lack of clarity about outcome of the complaint and represents a failure.
The landlords stage one response was of limited value as it did not fully address all of the matters the leaseholder had raised in their complaint. The response;
1. referred to activity the landlord had undertaken prior to writing the complaint response, yet failed to provide up-to-date information from those activities,
2. committed to obtain information from other staff members in order to respond more fully to the complaint, rather than obtain and incorporate the advice into the complaint response so as to provide a more definitive outcome,
3. agreed to monitor the outstanding repairs to ensure they are carried out without explaining how or when this would happen.
The landlord was expected to provide a complaint response that aligned with the quality standards of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and in doing so failed to ensure that the leaseholder’s complaint was fully responded to with an appropriate level of care, timeliness, and empathy. This Service recognises the frustration the stage one response caused to the leaseholder which was expressed in the comments they made in their escalation request. Specifically, that the stage one resolution was based on general comments about customer service and repair handling, and not specific action related to the substantive issues, (the outstanding repairs). This was a failure.
The landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s stage two complaint three working days overdue which was a failure. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was issued 115 days later than the expected response date. This is an exceptional lengthy period of delay. The landlord did not issue holding responses to the leaseholder, nor provide any other type of explanation or updates for this delay. This failure inconvenienced the leaseholder by causing them avoidable time and trouble in as they were required to repeatedly pursue responses and actions from the landlord.
The stage two complaint was of low quality and did not fully address all of the matters the leaseholder raised in their complaint. The landlord was expected to review the previous complaint response and obtain an up-to-date position on the matters so that it could fully resolve the complaint or set out actions it would take to remedy the complaint. Instead, the response:
1. was repetitive and did not demonstrate empathy for the impact the failures had on the leaseholder, such as by recognising the failure to reply to the leaseholder’s repeated contact and call back requests,
2. did not offer an acceptable explanation for the cause of the delays the leaseholder experienced in respect of the landlord’s repairs and complaint handling,
3. related to the damp patch to the ceiling, the leak to the loft area and the landlord’s communication only without responding to the additional repairs contained in the survey report, and/or the related disrepair claim that the leaseholder submitted,
4. did not advise if the complaint was upheld, despite making a record on the housing database subsequently that indicated it was upheld. The provision of this information was expected,
5. did not offer the correct Housing Ombudsman referral advice when it provided the local government and social care ombudsman email address, further it suggested “if you have been through all stages of our complaint procedure” when it was in a position to assess whether the leaseholder had completed all stages of the complaint procedure.
The landlord issued an additional complaint response to the leaseholder dated 30 July 2021, to increase the level of compensation it awarded. The brief response did not explain if it was intended to replace a previous final complaint response, and this was confusing and led to the leaseholder raising an additional escalation request. Further, the response did not fully address all aspects of the leaseholder’s complaint, such as the ongoing water ingress defects the leaseholder reported. The complaint recognised there were ongoing outstanding repairs, yet indicated the compensation offer was its final offer. This was somewhat contradictory.
This Service recognises the landlord’s decision to retrospectively review its handling of the leaseholder’s complaint and offer an increased compensation award. This represents a positive approach towards complaint resolution. However, this was outside its policy framework and the letter did not explain clearly how the final compensation award had been calculated, nor take into account that there were outstanding repairs and therefore a possibility of further delays and dissatisfaction that may attract further award(s).
The landlord’s compensation policy allowed it to assess a compensation award, taking into consideration the time taken for the repairs to be completed, the impact of complaint handling failures and the adverse impact on the leaseholder. The leaseholder assessed its handling as causing “moderate disruption” therefore attracting financial awards of between £250 and £700.
The landlord’s compensation offer did not provide the leaseholder with a specific breakdown for how it was calculated. However, the landlord calculated the amount of time the water ingress impacted the leaseholder from the date it was reported until it the date the repairs were considered complete and applied the financial measure to determine a total award. The landlord stated it referred to the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance when suggesting an award of £460 was authorised, which it increased to £560 in its second stage two response.
Taking this approach was reasonable. However, it is apparent that the full range of required repairs were not completed until 4 June 2021. In addition, redress for the internal aspects of repair was not provided to the resident due to the insurance claim invalidated by its asset management shortcomings and that the residents disrepair claim submitted three months previously and remained unanswered. Therefore the landlord was not in a position to consider the continuing impacts of its service failings. Therefore it was premature for the landlord to offer to compensate the leaseholder for its service failings as a “full and final offer.”
It is this Service’s view that effective complaint procedures and operational complaint handling practices provide opportunities to remedy instances where dissatisfaction arises between a landlord and its residents. In this case such opportunities for early remedy were not exercised or utilised and the extended delays involved are unacceptable and feature multiple missed opportunities.
This Service considers that the compensation award the landlord offered for delay and inconvenience was unreasonably low. This Service would expect the landlord to consider and offer additional compensation in proportion with the detrimental impacts its failings had created for example the time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience to the leaseholder. Further, its lacked adequate recognition and recompense for its unsuccessful complaint handling and how that had impacted the progress and resolution of the leaseholder’s dissatisfaction.
When all the factors in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, assessment of compensation, subsequent offer, and communications are considered, the landlord’s actions in respect of its complaint handling constitute maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of information and record keeping practices.

The landlord initially raised four works orders in January 2020 to respond to the leaseholder’s reports of guttering and pointing repairs. Two of the works orders were later cancelled as duplicates in April 2020. This Service has seen no evidence to confirm whether the landlord completed the guttering and pointing repairs, or if it tracked and pursued completion of the repairs. It is evident that ongoing water ingress and repointing work was subsequently reported to the landlord and that these works were not sufficiently thorough, nor did they deliver an enduring remedy. It is unclear why duplicate works orders were raised but, the landlord was expected to review existing works orders before raising new ones to avoid duplication. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlords stage one response explained that the leaseholders’ emails were too large for the council to review, and some were left unanswered. The landlord was expected to seek ways to receive and understand information it was provided by the leaseholder, such as by contacting the leaseholder to discuss the matters or using alternative IT systems. As a consequence it was unable to respond to the leaseholders concerns which exacerbated their frustrations. This was a further information handling failure.
The landlord’s stage one response explained that the repairs the leaseholder reported on 13 July 2020 did not interface with the current contractors database. It is not clear in what way this effected the repair, but the landlord was expected to be able to respond to repairs reported to it, maintaining oversight and communication with contractors as necessary, in order to comply with its landlord repairing obligations.
The Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 spotlight report on knowledge and information refers specifically to this type of incidence. It is this Service’s view that the landlord was expected to complete due diligence checks with the interface of its IT systems and associated databases when entering a new relationship with a repairs contractor. Such fundamental system integration requirements are a basic yet key requirement to ensure the landlords effective delivery of its repairing obligations and it is unclear why contractual arrangement might be put into operation in their absence.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 10 December 2020 advising that it had commissioned a CCTV survey of significant pipework, guttering and drains at the property. This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm when the CCTV survey was completed. However, the landlord requested a copy of the CCTV survey (with advice about the date it was completed) in an internal email it sent on 27 January 2021. It is reasonable for this Service to conclude the survey was completed prior to that date. However, it is unclear why the landlord had to request the date and outcomes of the survey it had itself commissioned. Further, it is evidence that the landlord did not manage the CCTV contractor, or at least keep accurate records of the activities it undertook. This was evidence of a failure in its oversight, management, usage and sharing of information and knowledge.
Throughout the course of the repairs handling on this case it is evident that the council relied heavily on the exchange of emails across teams. However, the email exchanges created a barrier to action and ownership and achieved little or no evident progress for either the landlord or the resident. Given this and the lack of oversight and leadership that may have facilitated a resolution the landlord’s communication processes prevented the repairs being completed in a reasonable timeframe. This represents an information management failure.
There is evidence that on 12 July 2021, after the landlord issued its first stage two response, a head of service identified the use of email as a concern. They proposed a regular face to face meeting be established to track progress and stated the leaseholder should be regularly updated. This was evidence within the landlord of emerging oversight in this case. However, this emerged over a year after the leaseholder first reported repairs and the inadequacies of earlier methodologies employed had already caused avoidable detriment to the resident.
By failing to manage, share, and use information effectively and retain accurate, contemporaneous records of activity undertaken, the landlord was unable to progress the repairs or provide effective communication to the leaseholder in a timely manner. The impact of its information handling practices caused detriment, in the form of time, trouble, and distress to the leaseholder and resulted directly from a lack of ownership and clarity amongst the landlords staff. Despite repair delays that were exacerbated by the practical difficulties of locating and remedying the various causes of water ingress, this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of information and record keeping practices.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

a. reports of water ingress and the associated repairs to the property.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

b. complaints and the level of compensation it offered.

c. information and record keeping practices.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide an effective repairs handling service and as a result did not complete repairs it was responsible for. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the leaseholder and appeared to disregard the comments, timelines, and requests for information the leaseholder made. The landlord was expected to uphold its day-to-day repairing obligations, yet it did not. Further it failed to ensure its planned maintenance and asset management practises were sufficiently robust to ensure its housing stock was repaired so as to meet its insurance conditions.
The landlord failed to respond to the leaseholder within the guidelines of its complaint policy and this Services complaint handling code and this resulted in substandard responses being issued outside of the required timescales. The leaseholder was left without clear information about the causes of delays, or any significant recognition of the impact the landlord’s handling of its communication and complaint handling in the compensation offer it made.
The landlord failed to use, share, and manage information and records in an effective way so as to provide assurance to the leaseholder that the repairs and the associated matters were or would be addressed in a structured way. The landlord did not integrate its own IT systems with that of its contractor nor ensure it had robust systems in place so as to ensure information that was sent to it could be considered by its staff and responded to within a reasonable time.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the leaseholder for its failings in managing the various repairs and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided within 28 days of its receipt of this report.
Within 28 days of its receipt of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the leaseholder:
1. £550 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
2. £960 for distress and inconvenience associated with the impact of water ingress into different parts of the leaseholders property. This award includes but increases the landlord’s previous compensation award of £560 stated in its’ letter dated 20 July 2021.
3. £500 for time and trouble its failings required the leaseholder to spend in the pursuit of a remedy in this matter.
The landlord is ordered to review the learning from this case in respect of the coordination of repairs across its teams and contractors. In particular, to review, identify, and deliver enhancements to its software framework to achieve an acceptable level of integration of its own systems and those of its contractors. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions in respect of this recommendation within two months of receipt of this report and bring identified changes into its day-to-day operations within 4 months of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to consider the learning from this case and advise this Service of its intentions and planned actions, including timescales, to ensure that its quality assurance module related to complaint handling practices is implemented and fully aligns with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this recommendation within 28 days of receipt of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of knowledge and information. It is recommended that the landlord reviews and incorporates the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information into the provision of housing services.