Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202128621)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128621

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

15 September 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s repairs to a leaking boiler within the property, and the associated damage to the flooring.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The complaint was made by a representative of the resident. For the purpose of clarity, they will both be referred to throughout the report as the ‘resident’.
  2. The landlord informed this Service that on 23 November 2020 and 05 January 2021 contractors attended in relation to issues the resident was experiencing with a leaking heater which was resulting in the boiler shutting down. Between November 2020 and January 2021, it is not disputed that there were several occasions where the resident was left without heating. The contractors were initially unable to resolve the issue due to being the incorrect operative for the job.
  3. On 07 January 2021, the resident raised a complaint due to having intermittent heating throughout the winter months, despite the vulnerabilities within his family. The resident was dissatisfied with the service provided by the landlord and unhappy with the repairs being delayed. The resident was dissatisfied with the lack of communication from the landlord relating to the repairs and the contractors that had been attending. Whilst the heating issue was resolved on 21 January 2021, the resident remained dissatisfied as the leak had caused damage to flooring within the property and had caused a strong odour.
  4. Between 12 March 2021 and 02 November 2021, the landlord chased contractors in relation to the repairs needed to the flooring in the property following the leak. On 02 November 2021, a work order was raised for the flooring to be replaced. During this time, the resident also reported ongoing leaks with the toilet within the property. The resident was provided with a dehumidifier on 28 October 2021. He arranged for this to be collected in December 2021 due to an increase in electricity bills.
  5. On 24 February 2022, a contractor attended the property to carry out repairs on the damaged flooring. The works were not completed and the resident has advised this Service that the contractor stated he would return on 28 February 2022 to complete the works, although this appointment did not take place. The resident chased this appointment and advised that the contractor had been sent on another job and could not return until 03 May 2022. The resident was dissatisfied with the new appointment date, and the landlord arranged for the appointment to be brought forward to 26 March 2022. The contractor failed to attend on this date. The landlord has stated the works were then completed on 9 August 2022.
  6. In the landlord’s response to the complaint, it apologised for the disruption caused by repairs, advised flooring works would be completed, and increased the total compensation offer to £600. Following the contractor failing to attend on 26 March 2022, the landlord offered a further £150 in compensation. The landlord advised it would address the toilet leak as a separate issue as it was not raised in the original complaint.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and how it had handled his complaint. The resident was also dissatisfied that the landlord closed the complaint despite the works not being completed. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s communication throughout the process, and with the level of compensation offered. The resident is seeking for the remedial works to be completed, for improved communication from the landlord, further compensation, and an apology.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping heating in repair and proper working order.
  2. The repairs handbook states that leaks and repairs to flooring are the landlord’s responsibility.
  3. The repairs handbook lists the following timescales for repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours, such as loss of heating during winter time.
    2. Urgent repairs will be completed within five days; leaks will be completed within three days.
    3. Routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
  4. The complaint handling policy states that stage one responses will be sent within 15 working days, and stage two responses will be sent within 20 working days.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident had ongoing issues with a toilet that had been installed as a disability adaptation for a vulnerable member of the household. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. The landlord’s decision to not investigate this aspect of the complaint at stage two, and instead inform the resident that it had been raised as a separate issue, was in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code which says that “landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage two once it has completed stage one and at the request of the resident”. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the separate complaint and associated repairs, he can escalate the complaint to this Service following the landlord’s stage two investigation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the property

  1. It is not disputed that the incorrect contractors attended the property on 23 November 2020 and 05 January 2021 in relation to the repairs needed on the leaking heater and boiler. The landlord is responsible for ensuring that appropriate contractors are assigned to the remedial works, and not doing so exacerbated the delay in repairs. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage one response, and apologised. However, the further delays meant that the resident was without heating on several occasions over a three-month period. This is  inappropriate given the landlord’s repairs handbook stating that loss of heating would be dealt with within 24 hours during winter months and leaks repaired within three days. The landlord acknowledged within its stage one response that it was inappropriate that the resident was left without heating, and was not provided with an alternative, especially given the vulnerabilities within the household. Whilst the landlord apologised for the failing and offered £50 in compensation, this was not an adequate amount of redress given the situation.
  2. The resident informed the landlord that the leak had resulted in the flooring being damaged in January 2021. Between March 2021 and October 2021, the landlord chased the contractor for updates in relation to a surveyor’s appointment at the property. This appointment was then booked for 12 October 2021, a total of nine months following the resident’s report of the damaged flooring. This timescale is inappropriate based on the repair’s handbook stating that a routine repair, the lowest priority, would take 20 working days.
  3. Following the surveyor’s appointment, a works order was raised on 26 October 2021 for replacement flooring. On 5 November 2021, this work order was raised again after it was closed in error. The contractor updated the landlord in March 2022 to advise that they had attended on 20 December 2021, 10 January 2022, and 24 February 2022 but ran out of materials so were unable to complete the remedial works to the flooring. Whilst it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on its contractors, the timescale in this case is inappropriate given the repairs had already been delayed by nine months previously, and the repairs work was only partially completed a further four months later.
  4. The works were due to be completed on 28 February 2022 however, the contractor failed to attend. The appointment was then rearranged for 03 May 2022, three months later. The landlord recognised that the proposed appointment would have been inappropriate and attempted to rectify this. The appointment was brought forward to 26 March 2022 which was more reasonable, although the total timeframe of the repairs work remained inappropriate.
  5. Nevertheless, the contractor failed to attend in March 2022, further exacerbating the delays. The landlord continued to chase the contractor between March 2022 and July 2022 Due to the length of delays, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take further steps in ensuring the works were completed in a more time–efficient manner, rather than continuing to email the landlord to ask for updates.
  6. The landlord has advised this Service that the remedial works of the flooring were completed on 09 August 2022, a total of 19 months following the resident’s initial report. This timeframe is a significant failure and was exacerbated by poor record-keeping, poor management of repairs and a lack of communication from the landlord with both the resident and the contractors. This situation was understandably distressing and highly inconvenient for the resident and, ultimately, the landlord is responsible for the failings of the contractors and itself. The landlord offered the resident a total of £750 in compensation, due to the distress and inconvenience caused, and the delays in repairs.
  7. The resident was provided with a dehumidifier on 28 October 2021, in preparation of the flooring repairs needed. This was set up for the resident by the contractor, and the resident has advised this Service that the contractor who attended suggested that his children were moved out of the room and into the living room during this time. The resident contacted the contractor in relation to his increased electricity bill due to the dehumidifier, and was advised to contact the landlord. The resident contacted the landlord, but advised this Service that the landlord had no record of the dehumidifier being delivered. Following this, the resident requested for it to be collected. This is evidence of poor record-keeping from the landlord as it did not know what support had been provided to the resident; it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail in order to handle repairs most appropriately. Furthermore the landlord failed to explore the reported increase in energy bills. If the dehumidifier was considered required by the contractor to prepare for the repairs, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider helping with the running costs.
  8. Throughout the duration of the repairs, the resident had to consistently chase the landlord for updates. Whilst the landlord has provided evidence that it was also chasing the contractor, the landlord is ultimately responsible for ensuring that high levels of communication are provided to the resident. The resident made it clear to the landlord that the situation was distressing for his family, especially due to the vulnerabilities in the household. It would have been best practice for the landlord to provide regular updates, particularly considering the lengthy delays throughout the process. The lack of communication in this case intensified the distress and inconvenience for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it is recommended that a landlord’s complaints procedure include a maximum timescale of 10 working days from receipt of the complaint; if this is not possible, an explanation and a date by when the stage one response should be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. The landlord’s complaints policy states that their timescale for a response to a stage one complaint is 15 working days, and therefore this does not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Non-compliance with this Code could result in the Ombudsman issuing complaint handling failure orders. Details of the Code can be found here: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Complaint-Handling-Code.pdf.
  2. In certain circumstances, there are occasions where it would be reasonable for a landlord to delay providing a complaint response. However, in accordance with the landlord’s Complaints Policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord should have kept the resident informed of any delays and managed the resident’s expectations accordingly, setting clear timescales in which the resident was likely to receive a response, rather than the resident having to chase the landlord. Therefore, because the landlord failed to comply by its obligations set out in its Complaints Policy, this does constitute a service failure.
  3. The accepted timescale for a stage two response is 20 working days, as per the landlord’s complaints policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. If this is not possible an explanation and a date when the stage two response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. Whilst the landlord did provide a holding response, the landlord took a total of 285 working days to respond to the resident’s stage two response. This is a significant failure and evidence of poor complaint handling from the landlord.
  4. In the stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding damage to the flooring following the leak. However, the landlord failed to properly consider the concerns and, instead, the response focused on the heating issues being resolved. The landlord should address all aspects of the resident’s complaint, as stated in the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service.
  5. In the stage two response, the landlord acknowledged its failings and accepted that it had provided poor service to the resident due to delays and inconvenience. It set the resident’s expectations that remedial work would be carried out in March; however, from the evidence provided, it is clear that this appointment did not go ahead. The landlord would have been expected to manage the resident’s expectations accurately, especially given the previous delays and unattended appointments the resident had experienced.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings, and to recognise the poor service, distress and inconvenience that the resident had experienced. The landlord offered compensation of £750 to assist in remedying its failures. Whilst this offer was in line with its compensation policy, it was disproportionately low when the length of repairs, number of failures, and the level of impact on the resident is considered, as well as the complaint handling timescales.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the repairs to a leaking boiler within the property, and the associated damage to the flooring.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1200 which is inclusive of the £750 the landlord previously offered;
    1. £700 for the significant delays in remedial work.
    2. £150 for loss of heating on several occasions throughout a three-month period, during winter months.
    3. £100 to acknowledge inconvenience of not having an alternative heating source during delayed repairs.
    4. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience case by the landlord not investigating the need for the dehumidifier, and whether it could help with the cost.
    5. £150 for the handling of the associated complaint
    6. This should be paid within 28 days of the date of this letter.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide a written apology to the resident within two weeks of the date of this letter.
  3. The landlord is ordered to bring its complaint policy in line with the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service within 28 days of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff training in relation to complaint handing to ensure responses are provided within the appropriate timescales provided by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord provide further staff training on how repairs are handled internally, and ensures its contractors are aware of its expectations relating to remedial works being carried out within appropriate timeframes.
  3. Whilst it was outside the scope of this investigation, it is recommended that the landlord investigates the remedial work needed in relation to the resident’s ongoing issues with the toilet provided due to vulnerabilities, and respond through its complaint process. If there were failings, the landlord should consider appropriate redress.