Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202211906)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211906

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for paving works and a tree removal.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and the property is a three bedroom flat. The resident and her son are both disabled.
  2. The landlord stated that its records show that the resident reported the uneven paving in her garden on 4 August 2021. A job was raised for the paving works on 9 March 2022.
  3. On 15 March 2022, the resident complained about the handling of various repairs. In relation to the issues that this investigation is considering, the resident said that a tree had fallen in her garden and the roots had lifted the paving, which was causing a trip hazard. Also, she stated that her complaints to the housing team and her local councillor had been ignored and that when appointments were made for repair works they had not been kept.
  4. On 24 March 2022, the landlord sent its stage one response. It apologised and stated that its contractor would contact the resident within 10 working days to arrange an appointment. It offered £300 compensation for the inconvenience the resident had experienced for all the repair issues that she had complained about.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 April 2022. She explained that despite the landlord’s promise, she had not been contacted within 10 working days to schedule the outstanding repairs, nor to discuss a compensation offer. She disagreed with the landlord’s assertion that the repairs had only been outstanding since August 2021 and also, that she still had uneven paving and a fallen tree in her garden, with no indication of when this would be resolved.
  6. The landlord sent its stage two response on 13 May 2022. It stated that it would only consider events from August 2021 because it could not see any evidence of the resident reporting repairs prior to this date. It promised to remove the tree on 23 May 2022. Further, it promised after the tree removal was completed then its contractor would contact the resident to arrange for the paving works. It increased its compensation offer to £500.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this service on 4 September 2022. Her desired outcomes were for the landlord to remove the uneven paving and pave her garden, and to compensate her for the length of time she was not able to use her garden.
  8. On 3 May 2023, the landlord made a revised compensation offer of £1,425. In June 2023, both parties informed this service that all works had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. Although the resident stated that she reported the external repairs to her landlord in 2020, this service is unable to investigate the landlord’s handling of matters as far back as this. This is because this service has not been provided with evidence of any reports about the removal of the tree or paving works prior to 2021. This investigation will therefore only seek to comment on events from August 2021, which is when the landlord stated that it received its first report for the repair.
  2. The resident explained in her complaint to the landlord that the living conditions had adversely impacted both her and her son’s health. Unfortunately, this service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgments. Nonetheless, consideration will be given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused them.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for paving works and a tree removal

  1. The landlord accepted responsibility for completing the repairs. This was appropriate given the resident’s concerns about the health and safety risks she and her son faced. Although, the resident had reported the repairs for the paving works in August 2021, the evidence provided shows that no action was taken with regard to the repairs until 9 March 2022, when the landlord’s assistant surveyor raised the repair job. Whilst the landlord’s policy doesn’t state any specific timescales for work of this nature this service would expect the works to be completed within 28 working days which is in line with the industry standard. The landlord had delayed unreasonably with the repair job and failed to update the resident. The evidence shows that the resident took considerable time and trouble to chase the landlord through emails and phone calls. This would have caused uncertainty and distress for the resident and her son, as the works had not been carried out and she was waiting unsure of when they would commence.
  2. The resident reported that a tree had fallen in her stage one complaint made on 15 March 2022. The landlord’s stated that its contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The evidence shows that it failed to contact the resident or carry out any of the works. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 April 2022. She stated that the length of time it had taken to arrange an appointment for the removal of the fallen tree and repairs to the paving slabs had led to safety issues for her disabled son which the landlord had failed to take into consideration. The landlord unreasonably, failed to acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation until the 20 April 2022. It should have contacted her and explained the reasons if there were any for the delays in it responding. The landlords inaction in this situation would have led to distress and inconvenience for the resident and her son.
  3. The landlord promised that the tree would be removed on 23 May 2022 and that after this had occurred its contractor would contact the resident to agree on an appointment date for the paving works. The resident chased the landlord on 18 and 24 May 2022 requesting for a timescale for the repairs and to inform it that the repairs remained incomplete. The landlord called her and she informed it that the tree contractors had stated that they would remove the tree on 9 June 2022. The evidence shows that yet again this was not done and the resident was not contacted or updated. This was inappropriate. Due to the landlord’s lack of contact, the resident contacted this service to raise her concerns and contacted her landlord on 20 September 2022 for an update.
  4. Moreover, the delays in completing the works were due to the landlord failing to correctly schedule the works required. The evidence shows that in May 2022 the landlord had stated that the fallen tree needed to be removed first before the paving slabs could be replaced. It had pledged to do this in May 2022 and stated that after the tree removal, its contractor would contact the resident regarding the repairs. The landlord failed to do this, however. The resident informed that she was told by the tree contractors that they would remove the tree by 9 June 2022. This also was not completed. Both the landlord’s internal communications and its emails with its external contractor show that between October and November 2022 there had again been further delays with carrying out works. The landlord had raised the tree removal works, but this was delayed because it had ascertained that it needed to first remove the paving slabs. The landlord at this time changed the works order for replacing the paving slabs to remove them. The landlord should have investigated the problem at the offset and then raised then taken decisive action. This would have lessened the detriment suffered by the resident.
  5. It is noted though, that between October and November 2022, the resident had contacted the landlord to reschedule the appointments for the repairs. The dates both parties agreed on were the 3rd 4th and 5th April 2023. While this would therefore account for some of the delay the resident experienced, the landlord still failed to complete the repairs on these agreed dates. This Service is unable to see that the landlord updated the resident on the reasons for its delay at this time. The absence of updates in light of the lengthy amount of time that had passed would have been distressing for the resident. Works were not subsequently completed until June 2023.
  6. The landlord has provided very limited repair records to this service. This service has not received details of actual completion dates, the reasons for failed appointments or any records relating to the tree removal works. The landlord stated that it failed to keep complete records because its repairs service had changed contractor twice since 2018 and also that staff changes had made it difficult to obtain information. Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repairs obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, and can monitor outstanding repairs, to enable it to provide information to resident’s. In other recent investigations this service had highlighted the landlords record keeping and made orders to address this. In this service’s view the landlord was expected to update its databases regardless of changes to contractors or staff to ensure that it effectively delivered repair solutions. The negative impact of not being in a position to do this is exacerbated in cases such as this one where the household has disabilities.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy states that this can be awarded for time, trouble and inconvenience. For  moderate disruption such as failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with its policy to address repairs it would offer between £250 and £700.
  8. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £500 in its stage two response and committed to completing the repairs. In this services’ view this offer was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy given the impact the outstanding repairs had on the household and how long they had been outstanding by this time. However, the landlord failed to complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe after this or provide an update to the resident.
  9. It was therefore appropriate that, the landlord made a revised compensation offer to the resident of £1425 in May 2023, after it had arranged to complete the repairs. This offer was comprised of £75 for its failure to respond at stage two within its timeframe, £750 for the delay to work and negative impact , and £600 for the residents inability to enjoy the use of her garden. This new offer is adequate redress because it takes into account the impact of the delays in completing the repairs after the landlords stage 2 response.
  10. There is no evidence in the landlords complaint responses that it had reviewed the substantive issues in this case and learned from the outcomes. The landlord should have investigated its handling of the repairs and the complaint so that it could established what had gone wrong. This would then allow it to take the necessary actions to prevent these service failures from reoccurring in the future.
  11. While the landlord’s offer of compensation was ultimately proportionate, this service has still determined that there was maladministration. This is because of there was an overall failure to follow through on the commitments made to the resident and to take appropriate action to resolve the repair issues, despite knowledge of the impact on the resident. It was only once the resident referred her complaint to this service, that the landlord completed this work and offered fair redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for paving works and a tree removal.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. pay the resident the £1,425 compensation offered, if it has not done so already.
    2. review the handling of this complaint, to determine the reasons for the failings and what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these in the future.
  2. The landlord must provide this service with evidence of compliance with the above, within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record-keeping procedures to ensure that accurate, detailed records are kept in relation to its repairs. This will ensure information can be provided to the Ombudsman when required for review purposes.