We are currently experiencing technical difficulties with our online webform, please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused. All other contact methods remain open as we work to resolve the issue. Contact us

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202206648)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206648

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

16 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s::
    1. Report of a kitchen window leak.
    2. Report of a kitchen roof leak.
    3. associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (The Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of the kitchen roof leak. Paragraph 42 of the Scheme says:
  3. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

  1. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident has raised the repair issue with the roof leak to the landlord as part of his formal complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints process. If the resident considers that the issue is still outstanding, he can raise this as a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident may be able to refer the complaint to this Service for investigation if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to the new complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident initially reported that the kitchen window leaked when it rained on 7 August 2020. The landlord noted there was a repair appointment on 3 September 2020 but the operative was unable to gain access to the property, and the work was subsequently completed on 25 November 2020. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 January 2021 as the leak had recurred. The landlord noted there was a missed appointment on 2 February 2021.  It said this appointment was missed because the resident did not allow access to the property.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 13 July 2021, as he said there were ongoing issues with the kitchen window leaking and he had not been kept updated by the landlord.
  4. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint on 24 June 2022, it stated it had not received further correspondence from the resident following the no access appointment on 2 February 2021 until 16 July 2021. It stated contractors had attended on 27 August 2021, but the repair was not successful and it had since been completed. It apologised for the delay in its complaint response and explained this delay was because it had kept the complaint open while the repair was outstanding, before issuing its response.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he disputed that he had failed to allow access to the property, as he said he had not been notified prior to the appointment and was not in the country at the time. He wanted an explanation for the delays in completing the repair, the landlord to recognise its poor communication and apologise for blaming him for the missed appointment. He also wanted the landlord to repair the window to a good standard.

Assessment and findings

  1. Scope of investigation
  2. The resident raised an earlier complaint, which the landlord responded to in December 2020, regarding the landlord’s handling of the leak prior to the leak reoccurring in January 2021. The resident has not raised any issues with the landlord’s handling of the initial leak in his complaint to this Service. Accordingly, whilst the earlier leak provides context to the more recent events, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the issues that remains outstanding which are the landlord’s handling of leak reported in January 2021 and the subsequent complaint about this.
  3. The resident’s report of a kitchen window leak
  4. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in good repair. The landlord’s repair guide states that it is responsible for repairs if water is penetrating the window frame. Its repairs policy states that routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
  5. The resident reported a recurrence of the window leak on 8 January 2021 and the landlord should have responded to this in line with its repairs policy. The landlord initially acted reasonably as an appointment was arranged for 2 February 2021, which was within its repair timeframe of 20 days for routine repairs. The landlord noted that the resident did not allow access to the property for this appointment. However, in his complaint to this Service, the resident disputed the no access appointment as he advised he was not informed of this appointment prior to the contractor’s attendance. There is no evidence to confirm that the landlord had informed the resident of the appointment or that it contacted him following the appointment to ascertain why he had not provided access. There is also no indication that the contractor left a card to confirm they had visited but had been unable to access the property or that the landlord made any attempts to reschedule the appointment or advised the resident to do so. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that the resident was provided with the correct information to reschedule the appointment to prevent any additional delays.
  6. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord stated the resident did not make any further service requests until 16 July 2021. However, there are discrepancies in its records as in an internal email on 5 August 2021 the landlord stated it had been chasing the repair team since May 2021 (indicating the resident had reported it at an earlier date). Furthermore, the resident raised a complaint regarding the outstanding repairs on 13 July 2021, so it is contradictory that the landlord stated in its response that he had not made a repair request until 16 July 2021.
  7. The landlord should ensure that it has comprehensive communication records regarding repairs. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regard to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that any relevant repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. As the landlord’s records are contradictory, this Service is unable to confirm when the resident chased the repairs following the missed appointment in February 2021. It is therefore unclear whether the resident encountered additional time and effort pursuing the repair, that the landlord has not acknowledged in its complaint responses.
  8. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it stated that contractors had attended on 27 August 2021 and the repair had since been completed. The landlord’s response was not sufficiently detailed as it did not reflect the full extent of the delays or demonstrate that the landlord had properly investigated its handling of the repair.
  9. The landlord’s repair records show that the repair was recalled on 4 November 2021, and an appointment was attended on 15 December 2021, which identified the brickwork needed to be repointed to resolve the leak and scaffolding was required. Follow-on work was booked for 21 June 2022, but the scaffolding was in the incorrect place so the work had to be postponed. The work was subsequently completed on 28 July 2022.The landlord has failed to account for the seven-month delay between identifying the cause of the issue of the leak and completing the required repairs. It is understood that works requiring scaffolding are likely to exceed the landlord’s usual timeframes, however, the landlord was expected to keep the resident reasonably updated, and there is no evidence that it did.
  10. The landlord did not offer any compensation to the resident and internally it stated that this decision was due to the missed appointment in February 2021. This was inappropriate because as identified in this report not only is there insufficient evidence to confirm whether the resident had been advised of the appointment beforehand but there were also additional significant delays in arranging the subsequent repairs after the missed appointment.
  11. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests that awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or made an attempt to put things right. In this case, the landlord has failed to provide a clear explanation to the resident regarding the cause of the delays, or recognise its failings in the handling of the repair and take accountability. Ultimately, it has failed to fulfil its repair responsibilities within an appropriate timeframe, so compensation is warranted in view of this.
  12. The resident experienced inconvenience due to the delay in repairing the leak and unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the repair. However, it is important to note that the leak was intermittent (due to the nature of the leak occurring when it rained) so the impact on the resident would have been less than if the leak was continuous. Although the situation would understandably have still been worrying and frustrating for the resident. In light of the delays to complete the repairs and the landlord’s lack of acknowledgement and lack of redress for its errors, the landlord should award the resident £300 compensation, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
  13. The resident has advised this Service that he wanted the landlord to ensure the window repair was completed to a high standard. There is no evidence that the resident has reported any further issues with the windows since the repairs were completed. Therefore it appears from the available evidence that this issue is resolved. If this is not the case and the resident has any outstanding concerns about the window, he should report them to the landlord and it should respond in line with its repairs policy.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it has a two stage complaints process. The landlord should respond to complaints at stage one within 15 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 13 July 2021, and the landlord issued its response on 13 August 2021. It therefore responded within 23 working days and although it exceeded its response timeframe, the delay was not excessive. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in its complaint response.
  3. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. In accordance with the Code, landlords should issue stage one complaint responses within ten working days. The landlord should therefore review its complaint handling policy, to ensure that it brings its response timeframes in line with the Code. This is to ensure the complaint is resolved within a reasonable timeframe, to prevent additional time and trouble to the resident.
  4. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 17 August 2021, however there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acknowledged it. The resident subsequently chased the complaint on 22 October 2021, which the landlord acknowledged the same day. The landlord advised the resident on several occasions that the stage two response would be delayed, and it issued its response on 24 June 2022. As a result, the landlord significantly exceeded its response timeframe as it took over 10 months to issue its final response.
  5. The landlord explained in its final response that it delayed its complaint response to monitor the progress of the repair works. It is the established view of this Service that landlords should respond to complaints in a timely manner and it is not necessary to wait for repairs to be completed before responding to a complaint. A complaint response can be issued whilst repairs are outstanding and compensation can be awarded for any delays which have taken place and which are expected, based on the proposed completion date for any outstanding repairs. If there are further delays after the landlord has issued its final complaint response, the landlord can issue a further response and consider whether to offer additional compensation for the further delays.
  6. The significant delays in responding to the complaint would have been inconvenient for the resident as this prevented him from being able to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman sooner for independent review. The landlord’s delayed response caused additional time and effort to the resident in pursuing the complaint and uncertainty regarding the progress of the repairs. However, the landlord’s correspondence advising the resident that the response was delayed likely mitigated the need for the resident to chase the complaint as often.
  7. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code also states that landlords “must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. As referenced in the assessment of the substantive issue, the landlord failed to fully assess its handling of the repair and provide clear reasons for the delay. Furthermore, the lack of explanation provided for the delays in completing the repairs was counterintuitive to the landlord’s decision to keep the complaint open until the repairs were completed. As a result of the landlord’s failing, it caused the resident additional time and effort in pursuing the complaint as he brought it to this Service in order to receive an explanation of the cause of the delays.
  8. Although the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay, it took no further steps to offer redress for this. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failing has adversely affected the resident and it has acknowledged the failings, but not offered proportionate redress. In light of the significant delays and it’s failure to adequately investigate the complaint, the landlord should award the resident £200 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s report of the kitchen window leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Orders
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 in light of the delays to resolve the kitchen window repair.
  3. The landlord should pay the resident £200 due to its complaint handling failures.
  4. The landlord should provide proof of the payment to this Service, within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its complaint handling policy, to bring it in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling, to ensure that complaints are responded to within the response timeframes set out in its complaints policy.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record handling practices, to ensure its records concerning repair visits and communication with residents are clear and reliable.