Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202211264)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211264

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

29 June 2023

 

Our approach

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

Both the 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs in the resident’s bathroom, and;
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy that began on 8 December 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom purpose-built flat.
  2. Following a stroke, the resident is partially paralysed and requires a wheelchair. The resident’s daughter (the representative) makes the complaint on the resident’s behalf.
  3. The resident’s representative reported damage to the bathtub with the landlord on 31 August 2021. The landlord’s contractors attended on 2 September and 9 September 2021, where they took pictures and measurements of the bathtub. The resident then chased the landlord for an update five times between 13 September 2021 and 19 October 2021. On 5 November 2021, the landlord’s contractors determined the resident required a new bath. As installing this required the movement of gas pipes, a member of the landlord’s heating team was required to attend. The landlord scheduled appointments for 7 December and 16 December 2021. Its gas engineers failed to attend both appointments.
  4. The resident’s representative raised a complaint with the landlord on 16 December 2021. She was unhappy that the landlord had still not replaced the bath. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 February 2022. It apologised for the delays and advised that since the bath was not a standard tub, the replacement had taken additional time. It also confirmed an appointment to complete the works was scheduled for 17 February 2022 and offered the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of the situation.
  5. The resident’s representative escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 17 February 2022. She was unhappy that contractors had still not completed the repairs, as a gas engineer was required to re-route pipes. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 August 2022, upholding the complaint and providing £2,500 compensation. It acknowledged that it had taken too long to complete the repairs and that several of its visits failed to meet expectations. The landlord confirmed it had installed the bath. It also arranged a final appointment for 21 August 2021 to complete the work and remove asbestos.
  6. The resident’s representative referred the complaint to this Service on 25 August 2022. She was unhappy with the length of time the landlord took to complete the repairs considering the resident was disabled. She also felt that the level of compensation offered was insufficient. She would like this increased to resolve her complaint. On 9 July 2023, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £3,500 for its failings.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom

  1. The landlord’s repair policy lists this repair as one that would fall under its responsibility. The landlord’s policy says it will complete emergency repairs, depending on their priority, within two hours (priority 1) or 24 hours (priority two). It says it will complete urgent repairs in either three working days (priority 3) or five working days (priority 4) or routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and requirements, this should have been treated as an emergency or urgent repair. Even if the landlord had treated this as a routine repair, the time taken for the landlord to complete the repair represented a failure to adhere to its policies. The resident first reported damage to the bathtub in August 2021, and at the conclusion of the internal complaint process, 11 months later, the landlord had still not completed the necessary repairs. The resident’s representative confirmed the landlord has now completed this work.
  3. The repair required was more complex than usual. The landlord had to order a new bathtub and rerun gas pipes to install it. However, its actions contributed to unnecessary delays in completing the repair. It failed to correctly organise appointments resulting in two occasions where the correct contractors did not attend. On multiple occasions, the landlord’s contractors missed appointments, and there were also instances of contractors arriving at the property and being unable to carry out any work. The landlord’s failure to effectively communicate with its contractors and the resident caused significant delays to the repairs.
  4. The landlord’s failure to complete the repairs within a reasonable period left the resident unable to take a bath for just under a year. The resident, therefore, had to have bed washes or be taken from her home to access alternative facilities. Given the seriousness of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the issue being unresolved for an excessive period, this represented severe maladministration from the landlord.
  5. The landlord (after the completion of the internal complaints process) offered the resident £3,500 compensation for its failings on 9 June 2023. This Service considers this to be appropriate financial redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and lack of amenity. However, the landlord has not shown this Service any evidence that it has learnt from its mistakes in this complaint or put any steps in place to prevent a comparable situation in the future. This Service, therefore, finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
  6. This Service orders that the landlord undertake an internal review of this repair to identify the reason behind its issues in completing the repair and identify what can be done in the future to prevent recurrence in similar cases. The landlord should share this report with all relevant staff paying particular attention to scheduling of works and coordination of contractors.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, it states it will provide an acknowledgement within 48 hours and a response within 15 working days. At stage 2, the landlord says it will respond within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 16 December 2021. It acknowledged this complaint on the same day. It failed to adhere to its policies when answering the resident’s complaint as it provided its response 39 working days later.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord took almost six months to provide its complaint response. It did update the resident about the delay on one occasion. Throughout the landlord’s complaints process, the resident continually chased it for updates showing it had failed to keep her adequately updated. The landlord, again, failed to respond within the timeframes set out in its policies.
  4. The landlord’s responses were fair in tone and content.
  5. The landlord offered the resident £250 for its complaint handling failures in its most recent compensation offer. Considering the distress and inconvenience its delays caused to the resident, this is an appropriate offer of compensation. However, since the landlord offered this after the conclusion of the internal complaints process, this Service finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  6. The landlord should pay the resident the £250 offered as part of its £3,500 compensation offer.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord:
    1. Must apologise to the resident for the exceptionally poor handling of her repair issues. The landlord should consider issuing the apology directly from its chief executive.
    2. Pay the resident the £3,500 compensation it offered on 9 June 2023 if it has not already done so.
    3. Provide proof to this Service when it has complied with these orders.
  2. It is ordered that within six weeks of the date of this letter the landlord carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The landlord should share a copy of this report with this Service.

Recommendation

  1. It is also recommended that relevant members of the landlord’s staff be made aware of the failures in dealing with this complaint and provided with the report.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord train its staff in line with its complaint policy to ensure that complaints are identified, responded to, and escalated within the appropriate timescales. If it has not already done so, it should refer to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code for guidance.