Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202128358)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128358

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

16 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of a leak to the bathroom and the associated repairs.
2. The associated complaint.
3. The record keeping.

Background & Summary

The resident has a secure tenancy which commenced on 22 January 2007. The property is a ground floor, three-bedroom flat in a purpose built block. The landlord is a local authority.
There are no known vulnerabilities recorded on the landlord’s records but an entry in its repairs log noted that she is elderly (over 70).

Scope of investigation

The resident has an advocate who has been liaising with this Service and the landlord on her case. They are both referred to as the resident in this report.
The resident complained to this Service that her reports about the repairs in her property had been ongoing for three years. The Ombudsman has seen records of repairs reported by the resident dating back to 2019. It is noted from the information provided by the landlord that appointments or visits were made to investigate the resident’s concerns about various repairs including a leak, a burst pipe, issues with the toilet, damp and mould in the property. Amongst the repairs completed by the landlord was an installation of a new shower in April 2020.
The evidence further shows that the resident reported a leak from the back of the toilet pan on 26 October 2020. Its records noted that an appointment was scheduled for 26 October 2020, but it is unclear if this appointment was completed and if any works were carried out to contain the leak. There is no evidence of further reports about a leak until January 2021, when the resident reported what appeared to be another leak from the wash hand basin in the bathroom. The landlord’s repair records indicated that it booked an appointment for 2 February 2021, to investigate the matter but it has not sufficiently evidenced that the appointments were completed and if any remedial works were completed.
There is no evidence of further contact from the resident regarding the leak in the bathroom, but the information provided by the resident indicated that it agreed extensive works to the bathroom in September 2021. The events leading to this period and its decision to undertake these works are unclear from the information provided by the landlord.
Whilst it is noted that the resident did not raise a formal complaint with the landlord until 6 December 2021, this Service determines that it is fair and reasonable to consider the resident’s historic reports regarding the leak in the bathroom to provide some context to this investigation. This report therefore focusses on issues raised with the landlord from 26 October 2020, which were also addressed through the landlord’s complaints process.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s reference to the adverse effect that the landlord’s handling of this matter has had on her physical and mental health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord Obligations

Section 11(a) of the landlord and tenant act states that landlords have a duty to keep in repair the structure and exterior of its properties, including drains, gutters, and external pipes.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it would investigate complaints made within six months of the failure so that it can investigate it fully and fairly. It has two stage complaints handling process for dealing with corporate complaints. It agrees to acknowledge complaints within 48 hours and respond to:
1. Stage one complaints within 15 working days.
2. Stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that resident’s must report repairs as soon as they notice them. It further states that it aims to complete:
1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours (including major leaks and burst pipes).
2. Urgent repairs within five working days.
3. Routine repairs within 20 working days.
When deciding on remedies, redress, and compensation, it would deal with each case on its own merit and usually follow the guidance issued by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for addressing remedies. It did not provide a compensation policy.
Its housing allocation policy states that it may be necessary for a resident to move out of their existing home to allow major works to be carried out, or because their home is due to be demolished. In these circumstances, it will use its discretion to prioritise a move to a suitable alternative home by placing the resident in the relevant band for housing.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair records noted that the resident reported a leak from the back of the toilet pan on 26 October 2020. The landlord’s repairs records indicated that an appointment was scheduled to investigate the leak on 26 October 2020, but there are no records of its findings and evidence of works completed.
The resident reported a leak from under the wash hand basin to the landlord on 26 January 2021. Records indicated that it booked an appointment for 2 February 2021. It is unclear if this appointment went ahead as there is no further information in the evidence about its actions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 August 2021, and chased up repairs to her bathroom. She had previously reported a problem with her hot water tap on the wash hand basin in the bathroom in July 2021.
The landlord’s responsive repairs pre-inspection audit form dated 21 September 2021, sent to this Service by the resident, noted that the condition of the bathroom was poor and that the following works were required:
1. Renovation works to the bathroom.
2. Plastering works, mould wash (ceiling) to the bedroom.
3. Renew skirting board to bedrooms one and two and living room, mould wash (bedroom two).
4. Hallway – works to the skirting board, wall plaster.
5. Kitchen – Mould wash ceiling, boiler cover,
The landlord’s repairs log noted that, on 28 September 2021, a copy of the surveyor’s report and works order was sent to its contractors to appoint works.
The contractor responded to the landlord and advised that appointments had been provisionally booked in for:
1. An electrician to attend on 19 November 2021.
2. A plumber to attend on 3 November 2021 to measure or order the shower tray.
3. The actual fitting along with the toilet to be completed on 22 November 2021.
4. A carpenter to attend on 22 November 2021 to 24 November 2021.
5. A plasterer decorator to attend on 22 November 2021 to 26 November 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 October 2021, and advised that the shower tray was not draining water due to a fault with the pump.
The landlord noted on 21 October 2021, that the shower had been overhauled and that it was in good working order. It noted that there was power supply to the pump, but that it cut out halfway through showering. It concluded that a plumber would be needed.
On 22 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to clarify what repairs were to be carried out in the property. He expressed concerns about the progress of the works and told the landlord that the contractors were refusing to carry out some of the works. The landlord noted that it informed the resident of the works scheduled and that it sent an email to its contractors to contact the resident to discuss further.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 November 2021, and reported that the skirting in the living room was coming away from the wall. The landlord liaised with its contractor, and it was advised that the works order only specified skirting works in the bathroom, bedroom, and hallway. It said it would raise this as a separate repair. He also reported that some of the repairs were still outstanding even though he was told the works would be completed on 26 November 2021. The works order dated 21 September 2021 however indicated that the skirting board to the living room would be renewed.
The landlord’s repair records noted on 29 November 2021, that it renewed the bathroom and kitchen fan. The landlord also sent an email to its contractors that the resident had called to chase up the repairs. It said the resident’s main concern was that her toilet was out of use and that she expected the repairs to have been completed the previous week. It asked the contractors for a status update on the works, so it could understand what was going on and when the works would be completed. It also asked the contractor to call the resident to schedule the next appointment for the repairs. The landlord noted on its records that multiple trades operatives had attended, but there was not much progress being made.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord called the resident to offer an earlier appointment which had become available due to a cancellation. It noted that the call was not answered.
On 2 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the works. It informed the resident that the operatives would be returning on 7 December 2021.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 December 2021 regarding repairs. She said:
1. She had several outstanding repairs for a year and a half.
2. An appointment was booked for 22 November 2021 for the repairs to be completed by 26 November 2021.
3. The contractors started the works, but they left many repairs unresolved.
4. Her shower had not worked since the day they first attended.
5. She had been calling the repairs team who kept telling her they would contact the contractor.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 December 2021, and advised that it aimed to respond by 4 January 2022. It said it would contact the resident to advise if there would be a delay.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 December 2021, for an update about the shower or bathroom works. The landlord assured the resident that the plumber would attend and that the works were still on schedule. The landlord later sent an email to its contractors the same day informing them that the resident said a tiler and carpenter would be required to carry out the repairs in the bathroom. It asked the contractor to provide a schedule of works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 December 2021, and said that the shower pump had been replaced on 7 December 2021, but that it was not watertight and needed to be boxed in and tiled. The landlord liaised with its contractors that the resident was unable to use the shower as the electric wiring was exposed. It arranged for a carpenter to attend the same day.
On 9 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to chase up the outstanding works in the property. It noted the resident’s concerns that the property was left in a mess, that the boxing (in the bathroom) needed to be removed and rebuilt with an access panel and that the tiling and exposed wires needed to be made safe. It agreed an inspection with the resident.
On 10 December 2021, the resident called following the inspection and asked when works would commence and the order of works, as the majority of the works were incomplete. The landlord has not provided this Service a copy of the inspection report.
It communicated internally on 15 December 2021 about the repairs. It asked why the shower was not left working and why the works were not completed on 22 November 2021. Following its internal investigation of the matter, it concluded that the shower was reconnected and left in good working condition on 10 December 2021. It noted from the feedback received from its contractors that the shower was initially left not in working order as the electrical contractor did not return as requested. It noted that the electrician was not reliable and that it was actively trying to find an alternative.
The landlord’s records noted on 17 December 2021, that it had attended the property on 9 December 2021 and that works had already taken place. It noted that it completed an inspection and confirmed that it was satisfied with the works. It did not outline what this was in relation to.
The landlord’s records noted on 5 January 2022, that it queried why the repairs were abandoned on the 22 November 2021 and the property left in a mess. Its contractors responded that the works were not abandoned and that they were on site on 22 November 2021 and 23 November 2021, and completed the following works:
1. Re-run toilet soil pipe with too many bends.
2. Unblocked and cleared limescale in the pan and renewed pan connector.
3. Toilet pan resecured to floor.
4. New toilet seat had been ordered.
5. Removed tiled walk-in shower boxing.
6. Renewed pump and (lose the end of the text here).
7. Sourced and replaced two internal doors.
8. Removed skirting board around the property to prepare walls for decorators.
9. Shower left in working order.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 January 2022, 13 January 2022, and 15 January 2022 to chase up her stage one response which was due on 4 January 2022.
The landlord’s records noted that it contacted the resident on 14 January 2022 and noted that she said the repairs were still outstanding. It further noted that the shower had been completed but that there were several repairs outstanding including works to the kitchen and toilet. It asked its contractor to confirm what works had been completed.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 14 January 2022. The key points from the response are:
1. Following a surveyor inspection, extensive works were scheduled to commence on 22 November 2021 for around six days.
2. Its contractors apologised that she felt that the repairs were abandoned, as it was not their intention. It explained that there was a high level of sickness absence during this time, largely due to the pandemic, which meant they were unable to carry out the repairs according to the schedule and therefore had to arrange the repairs for a later date.
3. It apologised that the resident was not informed of this, as its contractors should have contacted her straight away to advise her of the delay.
4. Its surveyor advised that they had spoken with her and arranged for its contractors to re-attend on 31 January 2022, to carry out the outstanding repairs.
5. The surveyor requested two operatives to attend to ensure that the repairs were completed quickly and efficiently.
6. It was pleased to note that the shower had been repaired. It explained that the reason for the delay was also caused by staff absence.
7. It apologised for the length of time that the repairs had taken to be completed and for the inconvenience that this had caused.
8. It offered £150 as a gesture of goodwill for the delay and inconvenience caused.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 17 January 2022. She said:
1. She had contacted the landlord numerous times and a number of appointments were cancelled without notification.
2. The landlord had not considered that the extensive repairs required different sets of skilled operatives in its stage one response, where it advised that it had scheduled an appointment for two operatives to attend on 31 January 2022.
3. The landlord indicated in its response that the bathroom works had been completed but this was not the case. She said the bathroom works had not started which indicated miscommunication within its organisation.
4. She had not been able to use her bathroom since 22 November 2021 and they were left with no choice than to rely on friends and relatives to use their bathing facilities.
5. It had agreed to reroute the main pipe that supplies cold water to the entire building, as the pipe ran through her bathroom and adjacent the bedroom. The repair was abandoned without any notifications.
6. She expected to see a clear schedule of all outstanding repairs with the expected completion dates.
7. The long delays in resolving the repairs had adversely affected the health and wellbeing of her household.
8. Exposed radiator pipes had damaged her carpet. The damp had ruined household fabric which included mattresses, curtains, beddings, and other personal items. The resident referred to the surveyor’s photos, but these were not included in the evidence pack sent to this Service.
9. Its offer of £150 as a gesture of goodwill was not acceptable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 January 2022, 25 January 2022, and 26 January 2022 to discuss her stage two complaint and the expected timeframe for the response. Records indicated that the resident queried the response date on the acknowledgement letter that it was incorrect.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 11 February 2022. It apologised that the response would be delayed and that it aimed to respond by 21 February 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord about a potential health and safety hazard on 17 February 2022. The actual incident is unclear from the contents of the email, but it stated that electric wires from the shower were exposed in a pool of water in the bathroom. She said the situation had been reported to the landlord a number of times as it was hazardous to them and other residents of the block. She also mentioned that she had not been able to use the bathroom and the adjacent room since 22 November 2022.
The landlord responded on 18 February 2022, that it would look into the matter urgently and provide an update.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 February 2022 about her stage two complaint and said that it was unable to meet its previously agreed timescale. It said it continued to liaise with its contractors and awaited information in order to fully respond to the complaint. It did not say when it was likely to respond.
On 23 February 2022, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord, regarding the delays to her complaint response. She said the property was in the same condition that it was left in November 2021. She said:
1. There was still no working bathroom.
2. No bedroom.
3. There were electric wires exposed to water.
4. It had ample time to liaise with its contractors regarding the outstanding repairs and she was surprised it needed to further liaise with them.
5. She would like the contact details for the Ombudsman so that an independent party could mediate.
It is noted from the landlord’s internal communication on 2 March 2022, that it asked its contractors to ensure that the pipe works planned for 4 March 2022 was attended. It asked them to provide feedback about the appointment.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 March 2022, and it apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint. It explained that it was waiting for some bathroom materials and that whilst some works had been completed, others had not. It advised that there was an appointment for works to take place on 5 April 2022, and a further appointment for the kitchen worktops booked for 28 April 2022. It apologised that it was still waiting for the details of the outstanding work.
On 6 April 2022, the landlord’s internal records indicated that its enquired internally or with its contractors about the full details of planned works, works completed and any follow-on works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 April 2022 and apologised for the delay in responding to the stage two complaint.
The resident chased the response to her stage two complaint on 29 March 2022. She also informed the landlord that they still did not have a working shower.
The resident informed this Service on 3 May 2022 that the landlord had disconnected her bath and she had not been able to shower since November 2021. The landlord’s records also noted that the resident contacted it and said that she not been able to use her shower since the shower tray was removed. It noted that the resident was offered a date for 7 July 2022 but that she was not happy as she had young children in the property.
It sent a further apology to the resident on 5 May 2022 about the delayed stage two response.
The landlord’s complaints team chased its previous request for planned works, on 11 May 2022 about the outstanding works.
The landlord’s records noted on 17 May 2022 that its complaints team queried what works were planned for the appointment scheduled for 7 July 2022. It reiterated its previous request for details of works.
On 20 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. It noted that she was not happy about her appointment date and time and stressed that her children had been without washing facilities for more than five months.
The landlord’s complaints team wrote to the resident on 24 May 2022 and stated that it appreciated the delay would be frustrating, but it did not yet have the details of the works booked for 7 July 2022 in order to fully respond to her complaint.
The resident contacted this Service on 15 June 2022 and stated that the repairs had still not been completed.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 15 June 2022, advising it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two and to carry out the repairs to the bathroom in a timely manner. It was asked to contact the resident by 13 July 2022 and to provide a copy of the correspondence issued to the resident.
The landlord received a schedule of works from its contractor on 16 June 2022. Its complaints team noted that the information provided was not sufficient to respond to the complaint. It reiterated its request for details of all the works carried out. It also contacted the resident to make her aware of the current status of the complaint investigation. The works listed in the schedule were:
1. 7 July 2022 x 1 Plumber + x1 Multi (replace pipework under shower tray, some tile replacement required).
2. 8 July 2022 x1 Plumber + x1 Multi (Cont’d).
The landlord’s records indicated that it received further information about the outstanding works from its contractors on 28 June 2022. It noted that:
1. Over the course of two days, they would remove the shower tray.
2. Amend pipework and dry the area out with a dehumidifier overnight.
3. It would re-instate the shower tray the next day.
4. Make good the shower walls and replace tiles where required.
5. Decorate the affected areas.
6. Works carried out so far was an investigation to find the source of water ingress.
7. It also considered making a higher offer of £1170 to reflect the seven months of delay and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 1 July 2022. The key points in the response are summarised below:
1. It apologised for the delay in escalating and responding to the complaint.
2. Its contractors had investigated the source of the water ingress and they had provided a schedule of works for 7 July 2022 and 8 July 2022.
3. It said whilst it would have liked the works to be carried out sooner, it was unable to do so as this was the earliest date it could arrange.
4. It acknowledged that despite operatives’ attendance to the resident’s property, to address the repairs, the visits did not meet its expectations and the repairs remained outstanding.
5. It appreciated the length of time taken and that the resident was not kept up to date frequently as she regularly had to chase the progress of the repairs which she should not have had to. It acknowledged that this was a failure in its service.
6. It was aware of the impact that delays cause on residents, and it was working closely with the contractors and its inter-departmental teams to better communicate and provide a more coordinated approach to resident’s feedback on repairs and appointments. It further said that it was working more collaboratively to prevent a repeat of this experience and improve the service.
7. It apologised for the delays, inconvenience, and poor customer service. It acknowledged that the service received was not to the level it wished to provide its residents and leaseholders and it appreciated the frustrations caused to the resident regarding the ongoing repair issues.
8. It was clear the communication and overall service the resident received was not to the level it would expect.
9. The issues were being managed at a senior level within its organisation, to ensure that the subsequent works were carried out to the required standard.
10. It increased the amount of compensation awarded at stage from £150 to £1170. It said this was for the delay, inconvenience, and the negative impact the whole process had had on the resident.

Post Complaint Actions

The resident contacted this Service on 4 July 2022, and said that she had been reporting the repairs to the landlord for nearly 3 years. She said the landlord agreed to send a surveyor on 21 September 2021 to inspect the property and they identified all the works that were needed.
She further said that:
1. Despite the landlord’s assurances in its stage two response, the works had not started as of 11 July 2022.
2. The landlord’s contractor attended on 15 July 2022 and removed all toilet facilities including the sink and the radiator.
3. She expressed concerns about the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property to this Service on 3 October 2022 and the risks of exposure to her family.
4. She informed this Service that the bathroom had still not been completed as of 3 October 2022.
5. The resident informed this Service on 24 November 2022 that most of the works identified had still not been completed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 March 2023. It advised that following its joint inspection with its surveyor at the resident’s home the previous week, it concluded that there were two items from the original works that were still outstanding. It said these were the kitchen door and fanlight glass. It apologised that the service received by the resident was not to the level it wished to deliver to its residents and that it was working hard to improve this. It said as part of the redress due to the delays in resolving the issues they had discussed some further works:
1. Decoration of the lounge and two bedrooms.
2. Works to two storage cupboards in the hallway.
3. Ex-gratia payment towards the cost of damage to goods and belongings to be included in the revised offer of compensation.
4. It revised its previous offer of compensation from £1170 to £3175.
The landlord also provided a copy of its email sent to the resident on 3 May 2023. It informed the resident that it had reviewed its offer of compensation and increased it to £4425 broken down as:
1. Failure to respond to both stage one and stage two complaints within published timescales – £175.
2. Not being able to use or having full usage of her bathroom facilities for an extended period of time – £1700.
3. Delays to works and negative impacts upon the resident – £2050.
4. Ex gratia payment towards cost of damaged belongings – £500

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair.
Put things right.
Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
It is evident from the repairs log provided by the landlord that the resident had reported various repairs in the property especially in her bathroom since 2019. Whilst the evidence corroborates the resident’s reports of these historic repairs, it also suggests that there was some attempt on the landlord’s part to either investigate or remedy these issues. What remains unclear from the information seen by this Service is evidence confirming visits or inspections raised were completed, the findings or reports from these inspections and works completed to resolve the repairs.
From the evidence provided, this Service cannot conclude that repairs were undertaken as set out in its policy position and tenancy obligations. It agrees under the tenancy agreement with the resident to repair and maintain the structure of the property, but its actions at this stage are unclear and do not provide certainty that it complied with the agreement.
The resident highlighted in her complaint to this Service, that the landlord had been aware of the outstanding repairs in the property for three years and that it agreed to send a surveyor on 21 September 2021. The resident further provided this Service a copy of a pre-inspection report dated, 21 September 2021, listing the description of works but the landlord has not provided a copy of its survey or inspection report. It has therefore not been possible to determine the events predating the agreement of these works, including the condition of the property and what triggered this inspection. The work description however suggests that extensive works were required to the bathroom, hallway, bedroom, and kitchen.
Based on the evidence provided, it remains unclear if the landlord’s decision to inspect the property in September 2021 was linked to the resident’s earlier reports of a leak in the bathroom in the previous year. The landlord however, committed to completing the works agreed in the report and it passed it to its contractors to execute. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractors scheduled works to take place between 19 November and 22 November 2021. The landlord’s actions at this stage in conducting a survey, identifying works and in instructing its contractors to commence repairs were appropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2021 and reported that the schedule of works were not adhered to. She expressed concerns about the lack of coordination, poor organisation of the repairs and slow progress on the works being carried out. She reported that the repair was abandoned shortly after it had started and that she was left without a working shower. The evidence so far shows that the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates on the works from 22 November 2021 till 6 December 2021, when she decided to raise the matter as a formal complaint. This is not appropriate as it indicates that the landlord did not proactively manage the resident’s repairs in effectively communicating with her and appeared to only act on feedback from the resident.
The landlord also seemed to rely solely on its contractors to feedback on the progress of works and provide updates in response to the resident’s concerns. Often, it did not have any substantive updates for the resident which would have caused her frustration and distress and at other times the feedback was conflicting. This is evidenced in its email to her on 18 March 2022, where it advised that it was unable to provide the details of the outstanding works as it was waiting for an update from its contractors. The landlord’s case notes dated 15 December 2021 also noted that the resident’s shower was left working which was based on feedback obtained from its contractors.
While it may be the case that the landlord outsourced the repair works to an external organisation, this Service would expect it to take ownership when it became apparent that the works were not being effectively managed to minimise any disruption or further inconvenience to its resident’s. It would have been appropriate for it to have planned visits or inspections to monitor the progress of works being undertaken by the contractor rather than rely on feedback from its contractors and the resident. It has therefore not met its contractual obligations to the resident to facilitate and manage the outstanding repairs. It is not appropriate for the landlord to place any onus on the resident to feedback regular updates to it on the works.
The resident stated in her complaint to the landlord on 6 December 2021, that the repairs to her shower was not completed and that her shower had not worked since the repairs were first attempted. Whilst there is evidence of appointments being offered or agreed and the landlord continually chasing its contractors for updates, there seemed to be no clarity from the evidence on what was being done and the progress being made. The landlord also admitted this in its case notes dated 29 November 2021, that whilst there was evidence of several visits being made by operatives, there was not much progress being made. In its stage one response to the resident on 14 January 2022 the landlord stated that the repairs to the bathroom had been completed, but the resident contested this in her stage two complaint. The resident stated that this indicated poor communication between its organisation, which the landlord later acknowledged in its stage two response and in also stating that it would return at a later date to complete the bathroom repairs. This shows poor communication which would have caused confusion, frustration and distress to the resident also eroding her confidence in the landlord’s commitment to completing the outstanding works.
From the evidence provided, the resident was left without a working shower from November 2021 to at least 1 July 2022, when the landlord responded to the stage two complaint. Pending the time it responded to the complaint, the resident chased the landlord for an update on the bathroom repairs on 23 February 2022, 29 March 2022. The landlord noted that the resident also contacted it on 3 May 2022 that she had children in the property and that they had not been able to access bathing facilities in the property for five months. It is unclear from the evidence if the landlord was previously aware of the resident’s household composition as it did not provide the resident’s signed tenancy agreement.
It noted that it offered her an appointment for 7 July 2022, but that the resident was not happy with the date. While the landlord’s allocations policy states that it may decant a resident if their property requires major works, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess the need to decant the family, pending the time the works were completed especially given the occasions when the resident highlighted safety concerns about the bathroom. It’s repairs log noted in an entry dated 21 October 2020, that the resident was covid vulnerable as she was over 70. It is concerning as there is no evidence to show that the landlord took the resident’s vulnerability, as an elderly resident, into consideration throughout the management of the repairs. Nor has it shown that it applied the provisions set out in its allocations policy for decanting resident’s.
Its internal communication recorded on 5 January 2022, noted that it had not been able to reach an agreement about the works and the need for the resident to be decanted. Despite our request for evidence, it has not provided its reasons or arguments for or against the idea of providing the family alternative accommodation whilst the works were being completed. There is no evidence that it revisited its earlier consideration about decanting the family after the resident made it aware that she had children in the property. This is not appropriate as it indicates that despite it being made aware of the inconvenience she had been subjected to for many months, the resident’s concerns, and the impact of the long delays in resolving the repairs were not its primary focus. The landlord has not provided evidence that it took the resident’s concerns seriously or that it assessed the impact and the detriment caused to her and her family. This is a significant failing.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage two response to the resident on 1 July 2022, that it had poorly handled her repairs and that it had not effectively communicated with her. It apologised to her and said that it had been able to find the source of the leak in the property and it assured her that it would reinstate the shower and complete other remedial works in the bathroom on 7 and 8 July 2022. The landlord appeared to have learnt from its mistakes in stating that it would improve communication between its departments, and its contractors, to improve residents’ experience and in confirming the dates for the repairs. What must be noted however is that there was no positive change or progress in terms of the repairs, as the appointment stated in the response had previously been offered since 3 May 2022. She decided to pursue the landlord’s complaints process as the most viable option in progressing her repairs and in getting answers, but this turned out to be ineffective.
That said, it explained that her case was being managed at a senior level to ensure that the works were carried out to the required standards. It increased the amount of compensation to the resident from £150 previously offered at the end of its stage one process to £1170. It said this was in recognition of the delay, inconvenience, and the negative impact on the resident. The landlord’s actions at this later stage in the management of this case was appropriate. It accepted that it had failed to meet its expected standards in how it responded to the resident’s repairs.
It apologised and said it would make improvements within its organisation to prevent a reoccurrence. It also acknowledged the impact the delays would have caused to the resident, in adjusting its previous offer of compensation to a higher amount. The landlord has not provided a breakdown of how it reached the sum offered and it has not provided its compensation policy. It is however the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount offered was not proportionate to the level of service experienced by the resident, the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble to her in pursuing the matter.
The resident informed this Service in a number of emails after the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process that the landlord did not keep to its promises and that her bathroom had not been re-instated as of 24 November 2022. This means that the resident and her family were left without a functioning bathroom for 11 months. This is not appropriate and does not demonstrate that the landlord closely managed the repairs as it had said it would in its final complaint response.
Based on the above, there is evidence of significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. Whilst it has been difficult to determine if any further reports were made by the resident about a leak after her initial reports in October 2020 and January 2021 due to the lack of evidence, and why the landlord decided to conduct a survey in September 2021, what is apparent is that it agreed to complete extensive remedial works within a given timeframe and failed to adhere to it.
Its schedule of works noted that it would complete the repairs over a week, but it exceeded the agreed period without any reasonable explanation for the delays. It also fell far outside the 20 working days stated in its repair policy for resolving routine repairs, without due consideration of the inconvenience, distress, or detriment to the elderly resident over an extended period of at least 11 months. The landlord’s previous offer of redress is therefore not considered to be adequate, as it does not fully reflect the detriment to the resident in light of these further delays.
The new evidence provided by the landlord shows that it has made a further offer of redress following completion of its internal complaints process. It offered the resident a total of £3750 for the delays, distress, and inconvenience to the resident, associated with the repairs in the property. The information also indicated that the outstanding repairs to the resident’s bathroom had been completed, but the exact date that the works were completed remain unknown. This would have likely been after 24 November 2022 based on reports from the resident that the works were still outstanding on this date.
Whilst the landlord has taken steps in recent months to remedy this matter, it took several months after the date it previously agreed with the resident to complete the works in the stage two response. It failed to demonstrate that it has learnt from its failings at stage one and two and it did not keep its promise to monitor the case, leaving the resident with no other choice than to contact this Service for assistance in moving things forward.
The poor handling of the repairs, inadequate and poor communication continued through the life of this case and the landlord failed to assess any detriment to the resident and her household throughout its complaints process. It has not evidenced any discussions had around decant, suggesting that it did not actively listen to the resident to take her concerns seriously. In light of the evidence, there is evidence of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

The complaint handling.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint within the stated timescales in its complaints policy. It advised the resident that it would respond to the complaint within 15 working days which is in line with its complaints policy, but it failed to respond by 4 January 2022. There is no evidence confirming that the landlord notified the resident of any delays, and she was left with no other choice than to chase up the progress on the response. The landlord responded to the stage one complaint on 14 January 2022, which was 10 days outside the timescales stated in its complaints policy. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not notify the resident of any delays as this evidently caused the resident some time and trouble. This is also not in line with this Service’s complaint handling code which states that landlords should ensure that complaints are resolved at the earliest possible opportunity.
The landlord did not however provide a full response to the resident’s complaint. The resident complained that she had several repairs outstanding for 18 months at the time of the complaint, but the landlord did not specifically address this in its response. It is also unclear if it contacted the resident to discuss what repairs she was referring to in order to gain a full understanding of the scope of the complaint and repairs. It apologised for the delay and said that the contractors should have advised her of any delays. It is however the landlord’s responsibility to monitor the works and ensure that the resident is kept informed. It also advised the resident that an appointment had been rescheduled, but it did not outline what this appointment was for. The poor communication led to frustration and left the resident with no clear plan of the next steps and timescales for works to be undertaken.
There were also significant delays in its response to the resident’s stage two complaint. The resident submitted the complaint on 17 January 2022, so it should have issued its response by 14 February 2022. It is noted that it contacted the resident on 11 February 2022 and informed her that the response would be delayed and that it aimed to respond by 21 February 2022. It did not however respond to the resident’s complaint until 1 July 2022, nearly six months after the complaint was received.
Whilst there is evidence of monthly updates from the landlord about its delay, the length of time taken to respond to the complaint was unreasonable. This would have caused her time and trouble, distress and frustration considering the lack of progress on the repairs in the property. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its response and apologised to the resident. It also sought to put things right by offering £175 in its follow up response to the resident on 3 May 2023 (10 months after its final complaint response) for failing to respond to both complaints within its published timescales. Its offer of redress was not adequate and falls short of the inconvenience caused to the resident in the many months she had to wait for the response.
The landlord’s stage two response did not adequately address the issues raised by the resident as was identified with the stage one response. The resident pointed out that her bathroom had not been resolved as stated in the stage one response, but the landlord did not specifically address this.
It did not provide a background of the case or outline the repairs that had been agreed, or what it had been able to complete so far, but simply said that it had been able to find the source of the water ingress in the property. It offered no explanation to the source of the leak even though the resident had specifically asked about works to reroute a pipe in the property. It would have been appropriate to provide a detailed summary of works completed in addition to the schedule of outstanding works provided in the response.
The resident’s complaint about the damage to her personal items was also not addressed in the response. Whilst it is noted that this was not initially raised in the resident’s stage one complaint, the landlord should have either addressed this or advised her to raise a separate complaint about the damage as stated in this Service’s complaint handling code. The landlord sought to put things right months after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints process by offering redress to the resident on 3 May 2023. It offered her £500 for the damages as a gesture of goodwill.
In light of the above, there is evidence of several failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord has sought redress by offering an apology to the resident, and in offering compensation in the amount of £175 for the delays, but this Service finds this does not fully reflect the impact that the delays would have had on the resident or compensate for the time and trouble spent in pursuing this matter with this Service.
The landlord failed to actively listen and provide full responses to the resident on all the issues that it had raised. It provided a vague response to the repairs work, offering no clarity around why the delays occurred, what works were completed and what was still yet to be arranged and when. It failed to use its complaints process to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity and it took intervention from this Service to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint.
Whilst it acknowledged its poor service delivery and communication, if failed to learn from this and put things right. These are significant failings, that left the resident in a complaints process, with no clear outcomes agreed, no clear timescale for works to be completed and being left unable to access this Service, as the process was not yet exhausted. This led to the resident being left without basic amenities within her home, causing significant distress and inconvenience. In light of this, there is evidence of maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

The record keeping.

This Service contacted the landlord on 11 October 2022, to request evidence to assist with the investigation of the resident’s complaint. She said her complaint was about the outstanding repairs in the bathroom and the landlord’s handling of a leak to the bathroom. Whilst the landlord provided a record of the repairs reported by the resident, it did not include the following in the information sent to this Service:
1. Records of dates the property was attended, copies of any surveys or inspection reports, details of outstanding issues identified, or an explanation of any works carried out.
2. Details of any practical advice of support provided to the resident regarding alternative bathing facilities.
3. Information confirming whether decant was considered and the outcome of the consideration.
4. Information relating to the leaks in the bathroom including dates the property was attended, copies of survey or inspection reports and an explanation of works carried out.
5. A signed copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The lack of evidence brings to light concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and whether it kept appropriate records of the resident’s reports of repairs regarding the leak and any resulting damage. It did not explain the reason for its inspection on 21 September 2021, nor did it provide a copy of the report and works agreed. It has also not explained why the information was not provided as requested.
The importance of clear record keeping, and management cannot be over emphasised, given the impact it has on landlords’ effective overall service provision. This Service’s knowledge and information spotlight report (KIM) reveals how landlord’s services can be held back by weaknesses in data and information, that can turn an ordinary service request into an extraordinarily protracted complaint. It further notes that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. It is evident that throughout the life of this case that the lack of information, inaccuracies in feedback from its contractor and miscommunication within the landlord’s organisation impacted its ability to fully investigate and address the resident’s complaints at both stage one and two.
This has also impacted our ability to conduct a full and fair investigation of the complaint about the repairs to the property especially in determining the scope of the investigation. This Service therefore finds evidence of maladministration in its record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak to the bathroom and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to resolve the repairs to the resident’s bathroom within the timeframes for completing appointed repairs specified in its repairs policy. This meant that the resident was left without a functioning bathroom for at least 11 months. It failed to demonstrate that it effectively communicated with the resident regarding the progress of the agreed works or any anticipated delays or the expected timeframes for completion.
Whilst it acknowledged these failings seven months after the resident raised the complaint, offered apologies, compensation, and reassurance of the steps it would take to resolve the repairs, it failed to make good on its promises thereby letting the resident down again. It missed several opportunities to explore other options such as alternative housing arrangements for the family, particularly when it became aware that there were children in the household and when it was unable to complete the repairs on 7 and 8 July 2022. It did not assess or consider the impact the prolonged delays would have had on the resident and there is no evidence that it applied a person-centred approach in its overall handling of the resident’s case. Although it increased its offer of redress, it failed to learn from its mistakes.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaints at stage one and two. The responses were not adequate as they did not fully address the issues raised by the resident, especially the six-month delay in responding to the stage two complaint. The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered redress in form of an apology and financial redress 10 months after its internal complaints process. This does not however reflect the time and trouble to the resident and the frustration the delays would have caused.
The landlord did not provide sufficient information to this Service despite our repeated efforts to obtain evidence. This impacted our investigation, and it has not enabled this Service to obtain a full history of the resident’s reports and its handling of the bathroom repairs or other repairs reported by the resident. It has not clearly recorded the resident’s information by updating her vulnerability as an elderly resident.

Orders

The landlord should within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Ensure that an appropriate member of its senior leadership team apologise to the resident for the failures identified in the report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £4425 already offered and an additional amount of £625 broken down as:
  1. £500 for the time and trouble to the resident for the failings identified in its complaint handling.
  2. £300 for the failings identified in its record keeping.
  3. £3750 (previously offered to the resident) for the distress, inconvenience, frustration, and hardship caused to the resident for the delays in completing the repairs to their bathroom.
  4. £500 ex-gratia previously offered to the resident for the damage caused to their personal goods.
3. Support the resident to facilitate an insurance claim through their insurance provider for damages.
4. Assess itself against this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM).
5. The landlord should review their internal systems to ensure that the resident’s information and her household’s are up to date. It should in particular, ensure that any vulnerabilities within the household are accurately recorded.
6. Share this report with the relevant members of staff who handle complaints and ensure that they familiarise themselves with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code, with a view to providing responses that address all points raised in complaints.
7. Provide this Service evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing its complaints handling policy, to ensure that the timescales for responding to housing complaints align with this Service’s complaints handling code.
Implement a compensation policy that clearly sets out how much it would offer as redress where service failure or maladministration is identified.