Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202209327)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209327

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

23 April 2024

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. Repairs to the boiler.
2. Repairs to the property.
3. Damp and mould in the living room.
4. The complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Repairs to the property.
2. Damp and mould in the living room.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in its opinion 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. The resident has raised issues around damp and mould in his living room. He had explained this was caused by the landlord removing a water tank from a storage space in the living room, and the resident is unhappy that it had not made good the affected area. The resident did not raise this issue within his original complaint in 2022, and the landlord’s records demonstrate it was first raised in January 2023. There is also no evidence that the resident has raised a formal complaint about this issue, and that it has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. If the issues remain outstanding, the resident should consider if he would like to make a complaint to the landlord. If the resident does make a complaint, the landlord is encouraged to provide the necessary responses.
The resident has also raised issues around outstanding repairs to the property. The landlord has provided evidence of a stage 1 response dated 22 September 2020, which advised that it would start works in September 2020 on the outstanding repairs. It has also explained to the Ombudsman that although the resident escalated to stage 2, he advised that it put a hold on the complaint whilst he was abroad and has not since communicated about the complaint. Based on this, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the complaint, as the evidence suggests that it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s process.

Background and summary of Events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1 bedroom property in a block.
The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. It is responsible for gas and water supply and installations including gas central heating and plumbing.
2. It is responsible for managing hazards that may present a risk to health.
3. The priority allocated to a work order for a repair would be determined by the type of issue reported and the likelihood to cause harm to the resident or property.
4. Its operatives and contractors are expected to provide a professional and punctual service and should take steps to monitor customer satisfaction.
5. It has 4 repair time frames in which it would deal with repairs:
  1. Urgent emergency responses which it would complete within 4 hours.
  2. Emergency responses within 24 hours.
  3. Routine repairs within 20 working days.
  4. Planned repairs within 60 working days.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. It states within its policy that for complex cases, this timeframe can be extended by a further 10 days, and this would be agreed with the resident. For stage 2 responses it aims to respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 8 April 2022 and made a complaint. He explained he had raised the fact that he had no heating or hot water for over 4 weeks between 14 March 2022 and 4 April 2022. He had been trying to get the issue resolved but they stemmed from previous unresolved repair requests. He advised that he had 3 different sets of contractors in the last 4 years, who never fully resolved the repairs. He stated he wanted to be moved immediately on health and safety grounds into a temporary accommodation, until permanent accommodation could be found. He wanted to speak with someone to progress the repairs.
The landlord responded on 11 April 2022 to the resident and acknowledged his complaint. It told him it aimed to provide a written response by 4 May 2022. If there were any delays in providing the response, it would let him know.
The landlord confirmed internally on 14 April 2022, that it had visited the resident’s property. It said the heating and hot water had been restored. If it failed again, a boiler renewal would be considered, but it was not a decant situation.
On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord to add further detail to his complaint. He advised that a visit from a gas inspector and contractor had resulted in holes being made in the walls and in a cupboard behind the cylinder, being left exposed. The decision on a replacement had been pushed back until after Easter. It is unclear what replacement was referred to. The landlord’s note say that resident said he had “lost his job due to all the delays, and time taken off”. If he had not asserted himself, the inspection would be subject to further delays. He also wanted to know what was happening about his request to be moved and was advised by the landlord that as he had a detailed account, he should write in.
The landlord confirmed internally on the same day that the resident had temporary heaters in the property which were left previously. It said it could not find any leaks behind the hand basin in the bathroom or behind the cylinder void. It said the gas system was topped up again and left running and it asked him to phone it if and when the system went down. It recommended fitting a new combi boiler and possible pipework rerun. It offered him a Saturday appointment so that he did not have to take time off work and he had said he would let it know.
The landlord said on 19 April 2022 that it had asked the resident to contact it if the boiler lost pressure over the long weekend by phone. He had not been in contact and as such it could only assume the boiler was working.
The landlord’s notes on 25 April 2022 state that the resident said its contractor left a hole in the bathroom. He was told surveyors needed to attend the property, and he was due a response to his complaint on 4 May 2022. On the same day, further discussions took place internally. The landlord said a survey was conducted at the resident’s property that day. It asked for a work order to be raised to replace the shower to an electric shower as the existing one would become redundant. It advised it had also asked for a pressure test on the system to be done once the cylinder was removed to ensure everything was fine. It had also asked for it to be arranged for the builder to attend on the day to replace the tiles and making good in the cylinder cupboard. It is unclear what day the landlord meant about the building work.
On 4 May 2022, the landlord said it had received no response from the resident since Friday and this was often the case when they tried to book works in. It advised it had left a voicemail and had text him asking that he contact it so they could coordinate all the works together.
The landlord asked if there was any update on 9 May 2022. It advised it had left voicemails and sent messages for the resident requesting contact to facilitate works and there had been no response.
On 11 May 2022:
1. The resident wrote to the landlord and explained he had received an email on April 2022 which advised his complaint had been withdrawn and responded to under another complaint reference. He said he had tried to ask questions about his complaint and had not received any correspondence. He asked to be updated on what was going on.
2. He contacted the landlord and said he was due a response based upon the complaint he made about the repairs and contractors. He asked what the outcome of the investigation was and said no one had tried to contact him about his complaint. The level of stress and pressure to resolve many issues had caused subsequent effects on his health, employment, family, and finances. He sent a further email stating the circumstance from 3 years ago remained unresolved, and asked why his complaint was closed. They were two different matter that seemed to be the same.
3. The landlord advised internally it had responded to the resident, but he was asking why his complaint was closed. It confirmed it had asked for a complaint to be closed, but the wrong one, which looked like the exact same complaint was closed.
4. It provided a further update internally. It explained it had contacted the resident and received an update from its contractor about the outstanding works. The boxing of the flue, repairs to the holes from the investigation of the leak, electric shower and tap in the kitchen remained outstanding. It then asked for works to be raised for the holes, electric shower and kitchen tap. It suggested leaving the repair of the holes for 7 days to be 100% sure there were no further leaks.
5. The landlord said it had explained to the resident that it was trying to schedule the remedial works with him. It had scheduled the shower repair for 19 May 2022 and was going to try to schedule the boxing of the flue for that date also. However, the resident interjected and queried if it was a “front line worker” he was speaking to. He told the landlord he was awaiting the outcome of his complaint and had emailed to advise that he wanted a response on the complaint before any remedial works could be scheduled. It is unclear which complaint the resident was referring to. The landlord tried to confirm if he did not want to schedule the works, and he told it to speak to a member of its staff for information and ended the call.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 May 2022 and explained its findings:
1. It apologised for the problems he experienced with the heating and hot water. Its gas team had contacted him to arrange an appointment for further investigation, however this was refused.
2. It explained when he reported the issue that its contractor attended the following day on 15 March 2022. They were unable to gain access and the work was rebooked for 16 March 2022. When they attended no issues were found with the boiler and it was left in working condition.
3. A further repair was reported on 18 March 2022, and this was attended on 21 March 2022. The heating and hot water were left working.
4. Another report was then made on 23 March 2022, its contractor was unable to gain access on 25 March 2022 when they attended. This was rebooked for the same day, and they completed some tests to try and locate a possible leak from the pipework but did not find one. The boiler was left in working condition and another visit was made on 29 March 2022.
5. It was believed that they may have located where the leak was coming from but were unable to access it during the appointment. The heating and hot water was left working when the contractor left his home.
6. Another report was made on 3 April 2022, and its contractor attended on the same day but were unable to gain access. When they spoke with him to rebook, they were advised that he did not want the repairs completed at the time.
7. It asked him to contact its member of staff who had been in contact with him previously or its customer services team and said they would be able to arrange for the works to be booked in for him. This would enable it to finish tracing the leak and resolve the issues he experienced.
The resident escalated his complaint on 25 May 2022 and said his issue was not just with the hot water and heating. He said he had made a complaint which was withdrawn. His concerns had been ongoing for 3 years. He said his complaint was about:
1. The length of time he went without hot water and heating.
2. Appointments missed by contractors.
3. Number of calls made by him to get appointments.
4. Health concerns.
5. Heating and hot water running costs.
6. Time off work to attend appointments.
7. Not being able to bring his children to a suitable environment.
8. Contractors refusing to complete the work or send the right operatives to do the job.
9. Three years of unfinished work in the property.
The resident went on to say that the landlord’s findings did not match his. He stated he was left for over 6 weeks with no heating and hot water. He had lost his job because of days he had taken off to attend appointments and its operatives did not attend. His children’s visits had been stopped due to the unsuitable environment with no hot water and heating. He was concerned about his health with the lack of heating as covid cases were increasing. There were outstanding jobs for a period of 3 years such as the kitchen flooring. He had made several calls to the landlord and its contractors with them ending the call on him. He had dealt with 3 different contractors for 3 to 4 years and this had been a “living hell” in the property. He had previously complained about some of these issues.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day. It told him it was assessing his complaint and would aim to respond by 24 June 2022. If any delays were likely to occur, it would inform him as soon as possible.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 response on 23 June 2022. It apologised he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and explained what he had raised in his escalation request. It then explained its findings:
1. It apologised for the distress he suffered and that it had impacted his health and wellbeing at the time. It said it understood how difficult it must have been managing his home and the issues he had raised about his children and the impact on them all.
2. It explained the other issues he had raised such as missed appointments, loss of income, impact of change in contractors on repair issues and told him it could unfortunately only investigate the matters raised by him in that specific complaint. It was unable to review historic details about other complaints as a decision would have been made on those issues raised under the other investigations.
3. Having reviewed the information from its repairs service, it showed that attempts were made to contact him to get the works booked and after raising the impact of appointments on his employment he was offered a weekend appointment. It told him it was unable to compensate him for loss of income but could offer some compensation for the period he was without heating and hot water and offered £200. It told him where applicable if he had any arrears, the payment would be paid into his rent or service charge account.
4. It stated it was disappointing it could not resolve his complaint at the first opportunity and apologised he had to escalate it. It appreciated the issues he experienced were frustrating and impacted him and his family and apologised. It informed him it was aware there were long delays on some repairs and senior staff were working closely with its contractors to address the issues. It was feeding back the complaint and repair issues to improve the service all round.

Post complaint

The resident contacted the landlord in March 2023 requesting an update on his complaint. He was informed he needed to escalate it to the housing Ombudsman. He chased the landlord for another update on 25 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised issues about the impact of the property and the repairs on his and his family’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. Personal injury claims, must, be decided by the court as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on his health.
The resident has raised concerns around loss of earnings, due to the landlord’s actions. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for any loss of earnings. Whilst such works may inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, occupancy agreements will require access for repairs to be provided, to complete necessary repairs. It would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for repair appointments.
When the resident raised his complaint with the landlord, around the heating and hot water issues, he explained that the issue had stemmed from other repair issues. He also raised the fact that he wanted to be moved to temporary accommodation due to health and safety. It has not demonstrated that it considered his request around the temporary move. In both its stage 1 and 2 responses, it focused on the heating and hot water issues. As a result, the ombudsman has considered the issue of the temporary move within this investigation. This added to the resident’s frustrations with the landlord.
After the boiler replacement, the resident raised 3 more issues around the heating and hot water between November 2022 and February 2024. It is unclear if these issues were linked to the original issues which he reported, due to the length of time between the change in appliance, and the reports. As such the Ombudsman cannot consider these issues as the landlord needs to be provided with an opportunity to investigate and respond to these issues. There is also no evidence that a complaint has been raised around these concerns. Should the matter continue, the resident may wish to raise a complaint about them, and the landlord is also encouraged to provide the appropriate responses.

Repairs to the boiler

The landlord took a reasonable approach in attempting to arrange repairs at the property, making contact via text messages and voicemails. It is acknowledged that on occasions access was not successful and that this contributed to some of the delays in carrying out works. However, despite this, there were still several issues in the way it handled the repairs to the resident’s property.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that the resident first raised an issue around a boiler leak, heating, and hot water in December 2021. This was then attended and remedied. There was then no further report around the issue for over 3 months. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence which demonstrates whether the two reports were linked. What is however clear is that the solution employed by the landlord in December 2021 appeared to remedy the issue temporarily.
The evidence around the reports also demonstrates that although the landlord did attend to the issues, its response times were often unreasonable given the situation and the time of year. For example, following the initial request in December 2021, its records demonstrate it took 5 working days to attend. This was unreasonable, especially given the time of year where it was likely to be colder. There were other instances of the delay to act in its records following the resident’s report in March 2022 to April 2022. The landlord’s policy does not explain how it deals with loss of heating. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have dealt with the issues as an emergency repair, due to the time of year, and attended within 24 hours. It also failed to demonstrate that it kept the resident informed about why it was delayed in acting, or that it considered the impact on him in line with its repairs policy. Further it failed to evidence when it took temporary measures to assist the resident through the provision of temporary heaters.
The resident also informed the landlord that he was vulnerable in April 2022 and it did not show that it took any action around this. It should have tried to identify what the vulnerability was or if the lack of heating and hot water had a greater impact on him due to his vulnerability. The resident’s report provided it with a valuable opportunity to reevaluate its position, assure itself that it had accounted for the vulnerability, and consider if its approach remained the best approach, or if it needed to take other measures. It failed to do so, and this was a missed opportunity to ensure the resident’s health and wellbeing and that he was not left significantly impacted. The failure to take these proper considerations and actions was unreasonable.
The resident also informed the landlord that the issue had impacted on him personally as he could not have his children at the property due to the lack of heating and hot water. At the time of his report, this was not acknowledged by the landlord. It was not discussed until its stage 2 response 2 months later and this was inappropriate. This demonstrates that the landlord did not take a sympathetic approach at the time of the report. It is acknowledged that the landlord was actively trying to identify the necessary solution, however it should have shown some understanding on how the situation was affecting the resident. The failure to do so in a timely manner was inappropriate.
In some instances, the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations. For example, where he asked for appointments to be completed at specific times, it explained to him that it could not guarantee this would be done as its contractors provided timeframes for appointments. At other times, it failed to do so. Following the resident’s reports in March 2022, although the landlord’s records show that it attended to the repairs, it also failed to attend several appointments. This left the resident frustrated and chasing updates from it. An expectation was created that it would attend the appointments, and if it was unable to, it should have communicated this to him in good time. The landlord has not demonstrated that it or its contractors communicated any of the missed appointments to the resident. Due to the missed appointments, and the ongoing nature of issue, this led to the resident becoming frustrated, this would have contributed to his lack of confidence in the landlord. This situation contributed to a breakdown in the landlord and resident relationship and left him feeling that he needed to request speaking to management to help resolve the matter.
The landlord has also not demonstrated that it addressed the matter of the missed appointments with its contractors. This would have gone a way in showing the resident that it took the matter seriously and wanted to improve the service provided to him. This would have also allowed it an opportunity to reiterate and ensure that its contractors were aware of and following any service level agreements. The failure to show the resident that it had taken steps to address this with its contractors would have added to his lack of confidence in the landlord.
It is acknowledged that repair issues concerning heating and hot water can often be complex to diagnose. It is also accepted that the landlord attended following each report during this period to try to effect a solution. It records state that each time its contractors attended, the boiler was “left in working order”. However, it is not sufficiently clear if this meant the boiler was left working, but the hot water and heating were not, or that the boiler, heating, and hot water were left working. It then further said that the resident was left without heating for a period of about 5 weeks between March 2022 and April 2022. This causes further confusion as it is unclear if the resident was left without heating and hot water throughout the period, or that it had attended, resolved the issue, and it had reoccurred. The ambiguity in its records was unsatisfactory and raise concerns around the landlord’s record keeping.

Although it attended to the repair requests, it failed to provide any information within its record which shows that it completed any tests to ensure that the issues complained of were resolved and this was inappropriate. This would be for example, running the hot water to ensure the temperature, or turning the heating on to assure itself that the radiators were working. This was also an opportunity for it to consider its options due to the repeated nature of the issue, and the potential impact on the resident. It failed to demonstrate that it had considered if the situation posed a health risk to the resident, and if it needed to take any action. It failed to demonstrate that it took these considerations in line with its repairs policy, and this was unreasonable This added to the resident’s frustration and distress with the landlord.
Following the landlord’s inquiries, it concluded that it needed to investigate the pipework behind the bathroom wall as it believed the leak causing the issues may be behind the wall. It took the landlord 13 days to raise the required works. Given the issue had been ongoing for over a month, it should have shown more urgency to get the works raised. It also failed to show that it explained the findings of the investigation to the resident and has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of any report/ findings. This raises questions with the landlord’s communication and record keeping.
The resident said within his complaint that he wanted to be moved under health and safety grounds into temporary accommodation. The landlord discussed this internally but has not demonstrated that it explored the matter the with him. Its records say it told him that a decision for a move to temporary accommodation would be made following a visit on 14 April 2022, however no evidence has been provided that an outcome was ever given to him. It also has not shown that it discussed and considered any circumstances which may have meant it would be unreasonable for him to remain in the property without sufficient heating and hot water. This was unreasonable and added to the resident’s frustration and lack of confidence in the landlord.
The landlord failed to show that it considered his request, or that it reflected or advised on the potential need to put temporary measures in place around the lack of hot water. It failed to appropriately identify if the need for a temporary move was as a result of the heating and hot water concerns, or other general housing issues and this was unacceptable. It also failed to address this in its complaint response.
In summary, the landlord on occasions faced issues in accessing the property and appropriately employed measure to try to resolve these. Despite this, there were several failings in its handling of the repairs. There were delays, issues with its communication and record keeping, and it failed to show it had addressed repeated missed appointments by its contractors with them. It was often reactive to the resident rather than proactive to ensure that the works were completed in a timely manner. Although it offered the resident compensation, this did not go far enough. This is because this only accounted for the loss of amenities. It failed to take consideration around the resident’s vulnerabilities, its failure to appropriately reconsider its position, or address his requests for a temporary move. It failed to provide him with advice or show that it had considered temporary measures around the resident’s hot water issues. It did not show that it took appropriate consideration of the frustration and distress caused to the resident. Despite the resident raising concerns around missed appointments by its contractor, it failed to demonstrate that it had addressed this with them. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord advised the resident that it would provide its stage 1 response by 4 May 2022, this is earlier than the 10 day time frame contained within its policy. It then failed to do so. An expectation had been created that a response would be provided on this date. It also told him that it would inform him of any delays and failed to show that it agreed an extension to provide its response with the resident in line with its policy. It failed to demonstrate that it kept him updated around the delays with regards to the complaint and then provided its response 4 working days later than the timeframe within its policy. The delays saw the resident taking the time to chase his complaint response on at least 2 occasions. These were also further opportunities for it to explain the delays to him, and it failed to do so. Its inaction around the delays and failure to follow its policy was inappropriate, given that it had the opportunity to correct the issues at multiple occasions.
Across both of its complaint responses, the landlord failed to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in the provision of its stage 1 response. Had it done so, this would have gone a way to show that it had identified its failings and looked to put things right. The failure to do so was unreasonable.
In February 2024, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its handling of complaints, repairs, and record keeping. The report recommended the landlord review its process, practices, and procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those in our special report. To avoid duplication no further orders for policy, process or practice review have been made. We do expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account when delivering future service provision.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Repairs to the property.
2. Damp and mould in the living room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
2. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were several delays by the landlord in completing the works to the property, some of which lasted for over 2 years. It failed to demonstrate that it appropriately tracked the progress of the repairs, as often the resident was having to inform it about its contractor’s failure to attend, and works were closed before they were resolved. It failed to show that it had considered the resident’s wellbeing, or that it took appropriate action when he raised issues around his vulnerability. There were issues with missed appointments and its actions were often reactive to the resident providing it with information. It failed to demonstrate that it addressed the issues with its contractor asides from looking to find out information on missed appointments. There were also issues with its record keeping.
The landlord was delayed in the provision of its complaint response. It created an expectation that it would respond by a certain date and failed to do so. This led to the resident seeking updates around the response. Although the delay was not significant, it failed to demonstrate that it kept the resident updated or requested an extension to provide the response late. It then failed to acknowledge and apologise for the delay at stage 1 across both of its responses.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology about the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £700 consisting of:
  1. £200 previously offered to the resident if this has not already been paid.
  2. £400 for its handling of the repairs to the property.
  3. £100 for its complaint handling failings.
3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

Complete an inspection of the resident’s property, identify any outstanding works, and provide him and this service with an action plan/schedule of works around completing the works.
Consider introducing timescales for heating and hot water repairs or make the timescales for such repairs clear within its repairs policy.