Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202213272)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213272

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

29 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports of a leak into the property;
2. the water damage in the property;
3. the resident’s need to temporarily move out, and;
4. the complaint and the compensation offer.

Background

The resident had been a secure tenant since 2005. The property is a bedsit on the 11th floor of a 23-floor block.
The resident moved out on 30 August 2021 due to concerns over the safety of his flat and because he is asthmatic which was exacerbated by damp and mould.
The landlord received reports of leaks affecting the resident on at least 3 separate occasions in the months prior to the resident moving out. The resident advised leaks had been going on for years.
On 24 September 2021 the landlord completed a decant form with the resident. The decant form confirmed the flat had extensive water damage which required intrusive work to service ducts, asbestos survey and removal, removal/rebuild of non-loadbearing walls, electrics overhaul, and renewal of both bathroom and kitchen. It said the repairs were due to be completed in 8-10 weeks. The resident decided to organise his own housing arrangements, rather than going into the landlord’s temporary accommodation, to safeguard his health condition because of the covid pandemic.
The landlord fixed the leak and inspected the resident’s property in October 2021. The resident complained in December 2021 as he could see no progress with repairs to the flat. On 28 February 2022 the landlord upheld the stage 1 response and on 8 July 2022 it partially upheld the stage 2. It offered £550 for the repair delays and for the inconvenience the resident experienced.
The landlord raised the repairs identified in the October 2021 inspection on 10 February 2022. The works were completed 8 months later, 6 October 2022. The resident was permitted to move back in on 12 October 2022. The resident ended his tenancy approximately a month after moving back in.
The resident was not satisfied and brought his complaint to this service. As a resolution the resident wanted the accrued rent arrears clearing, from the date he moved out, 30 August 2021 to when he was permitted to move back in, 12 October 2022.
The landlord advised in May 2023, and after the stage 2 response that it wrote off the £3867.06 former tenant arrears on the resident’s account. This was the rent owed from 30 September 2021 to 19 October 2022. This service has had communication with the resident, and he is not aware of this.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b. put things right, and;

c. learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the property.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and installations of the property in good repair. The landlord’s repairs policy states it treats major leaks as a priority 1 emergency repair and will respond within 2 hours. For unsafe electrics it will respond within 24 hours, as a priority 2 emergency repair. For both priority 1 and 2 it may make the property safe to prevent further damage, the completion of the repair may take longer. The policy states the landlord will give estimated completion dates and aims to keep residents informed at all stages.
The landlord received reports of a leak affecting the resident and his neighbours on 26 February 2021, 4 March 2021, and 17 August 2021. This service has not seen evidence of the landlord’s actions following the 2 first reports. However, as the reports continued, and the resident advised that he moved out on 30 August 2021, it can be reasonably concluded the issue was not resolved and was still negatively impacting him.
The landlord wrote letters on 6 and 9 September 2021 to try to gain access to the neighbouring property where the leak was emanating. In October 2021 this issue was resolved when a corroded pipe was repaired. This service recognises there are additional difficulties when securing access to complete a repair through a neighbour or third party, however the impact of this on the resident needs to be acknowledged and addressed. There was a clear failing under the landlord’s policy to complete repairs in the timescales it sets out.
This service has not seen evidence the resident’s electrics were checked in line with its repairs policy. This was either a failing under record keeping or under the landlord’s repair policy. It has been noted the property has since been rewired.
The resident complained his calls to the landlord were not returned. This has been corroborated by conversations the resident had with a representative of the landlord who consistently emailed the responsible internal departments. This service has not seen evidence the landlord responded to these calls or updated the resident throughout the repairs process, in contradiction with its repairs policy.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it recognised the delays in progressing the repair to the leak and partially upheld the complaint. The landlord offered £550 for the inconvenience the resident experienced and for the delays to the investigation and repairs of the water damage to the property, not the delays in identifying the leak.
Without doubting the resident’s claims that the leak had been going on for years, this service has only seen evidenced reports from February 2021. The landlord took 8 months to resolve the leak which should have been satisfactorily repaired in line with its policy. If this had been resolved in accordance with its repair policy, it would have limited the significant impact to the resident as he may not have been displaced from his home for over a year. The delays were unreasonable, and the resident was not kept informed of the progress, therefore has experienced a loss of confidence in the landlord due to its poor management of the repair.
This service has been able to establish there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the property.

The landlord’s handling of the water damage in the property.

Section 8 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the property fit for human habitation during the tenancy.
The landlord’s decant policy does not give timeframes for completing decant repairs. It states it will complete a decant form to outline the estimated length of time the temporary accommodation will be needed for.
The landlord’s decant form was completed on 24 September 2021. It advised the resident the remedial works should take 8-10 weeks. Therefore, they should have been completed between 19 November and 3 December 2021. The resident moved out on 30 August 2021. The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 15 October 2021. The repairs were raised on 10 February 2022. The contractor completed the work on 6 July 2022, however there was snagging which was finished on 6 October 2022 allowing the resident to move back in on 12 October 2022. The works took over 13 months to complete which was in contradiction to the timescale of 8-10 weeks.
This service has not seen evidence the landlord updated the resident throughout the repairs process, in contradiction with its repairs policy. There has been evidence provided showing the resident contacted the landlord to check the progress of the repairs on at least 15 occasions. This was in addition to the stage 1 and 2 complaints he made and video evidence he provided on 3 May 2022 showing no work had been started at the property. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the resident did not feel well informed about the landlord’s management of the repairs. The resident was clear in his communication showing his growing frustration of not being kept informed of the repairs progress.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised the resident the snagging should be completed by 13 July 2022. The resident was only able to move back into the property 3 months later on 12 October. This service has not seen evidence the resident was kept informed of this delay or the reasons for it.
This service finds the landlord did not act in accordance with its repair policy. There were unreasonable delays to the progression of the repairs and the landlord did not keep the resident informed.
This service has been able to establish there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the water damage in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s need to temporarily move out.

The landlord’s decant policy states:
1. It has an obligation to arrange alternative accommodation, this would typically be bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation.
2. The policy allows the resident to make his own accommodation arrangements.
3. Should a resident do this, the landlord will not make payment toward rent or occupation of any property under private arrangements. It may consider a subsistence payment and a £250 incentive payable only once the resident has moved back into the repaired property.
4. The landlord’s decant form will outline the estimated length of time the temporary accommodation will be needed for.
5. The landlord will change the locks as the property will be a construction site and the Council and their contractor are responsible for Health and Safety.
6. The landlord will ensure households are dealt with effectively and sensitively.
The resident’s asthma diagnosis was integral to his decision to make his own accommodation arrangements. The accommodation was likely to be bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation. The resident did not believe this communal style living arrangement would be safe for him during the covid pandemic and did not receive any reassurances from the landlord to the contrary. In addition to this, the resident believed the repairs would only take 8-10 weeks.
This was in accordance with the landlord’s policy; however, it would have been reasonable to periodically review the resident’s decision to make his own accommodation arrangements especially when the repairs were not completed within the timeframe. In December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to obtain more stable accommodation, the landlord’s records show that it returned the residents call once, leaving a voicemail message. This service has not seen any evidence that the landlord had a conversation with the resident, continued to attempt to contact him, or tried different methods to contact him. This was a clear breach of the landlords decant policy which states it will ensure households are dealt with effectively and sensitively. By not communicating with the resident the landlord left him in a position without a secure home or any clear guidance about when he was likely to get one. Reasonably the resident would have felt isolated by this and experienced a loss of confidence in the landlord.
In accordance with the landlord’s policy, no payment was made to the resident until he returned to the property. Given the length of time the resident had been out of his property, and the additional costs he would have reasonably incurred, it would have been fair, reasonable, and sensitive of the landlord to review whether a further payment would be appropriate.
The landlord continued to charge rent and expected the resident to pay for a property he could not live in. The landlord’s policy permits this. This may be reasonable if the landlord adheres to the timeframes to complete the works. In this situation the resident had no control over the repair progression and received little communication from the landlord regarding this. The resident could reasonably believe he would be paying for a property the landlord described as in “gross disrepair and uninhabitable” indefinitely. This service finds the landlord’s policy was not fair in all the circumstances.
When the resident refused to pay the rent, he was pursued for payment by the landlord. This does not exhibit the effective and sensitive handling which the decant policy states the landlord will ensure.
The policy states the landlord will change the locks to the property, however, this was not done until at least May 2022 and the resident was able to gain access to the unsafe environment for a substantial amount of time. It is noted the resident had agreed not to access the property, but it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure this was not possible by abiding by its policy and changing the locks.
This service has been able to establish there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s need to temporarily move out. To calculate compensation this service has worked out the resident moved out of his property for 59.5 weeks, this service has disregarded 9 weeks of this as being the average time which the resident had accepted he would make his own accommodation arrangements. The resident suffered a 100% loss of enjoyment of his property for 50.5 weeks, therefore the landlord will be ordered to compensate the resident based on this charge.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the compensation offered.

The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days. In complex cases an additional 10 working days can be allowed for. If a further extension is necessary, this will be agreed with the resident prior to the response date and confirmed in writing. The complaints policy commits the landlord to stage 2 responses within 20 working days, the policy does not give a right to extend this.
The landlord’s compensation policy for repair service failures allows it to offer over £700 where there has been extensive disruption. The policy cites one example of this where a resident has had a long stay in temporary accommodation due to mishandled repairs.
The landlord’s complaints compensation policy can award up to £100 where there are extensive failures to follow its complaints policy or to investigate a complaint correctly which caused significant impact to the resident.
In its stage 1 acknowledgement letter, the landlord stated it would respond 18 working days later. This timescale was not in accordance with its complaints policy. The stage 1 complaint was responded to after 50 working days. The landlord updated the resident but only after the deadline had expired and this was not agreed with him, therefore this was not in accordance with its policy.
The stage 2 response was 89 working days late, despite the resident’s numerous calls chasing for an update. The policy does not give the right to extend the stage 2 deadline, however the landlord on 2 occasions advised the resident of an extension on the day the response was due. This was not in accordance with its policy, due to this the landlord undermined itself, compounding the resident’s frustration, and lack of confidence in the landlord.
For delays to progressing the repair and the resident’s inconvenience the landlord offered the resident £550 in its stage 2 complaint response. It did not award any compensation for its complaint handling failures.
Both the landlord’s complaint responses conflict with this service’s dispute resolution principles to achieve an effective resolution landlords should be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Given the severe delays experienced by the resident it was unfair for the landlord not to acknowledge this in its compensation offer. This was not in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which cites a situation close to the resident’s would result in an offer over £700. This service has seen no evidence or explanation as to why the landlord felt this failure warranted less compensation than it would usually award.
The complaints process should be utilised as an opportunity to put potential problems right. The complaints process existed in isolation to the issue being complained about, therefore vital opportunities were missed in both responses. The resident’s distress and inconvenience could have been substantially reduced if the landlord had capitalised on this opportunity at the initial complaint stage.
Despite upholding and partially upholding the stage 1 and 2 complaints, the landlord has exhibited no learning in its responses. This service expects not to see recurring situations and there is no evidence the landlord has put anything in place to stop this situation occurring again.
The complaint responses show disparity: the landlord in its stage 1 response says the resident was not offered temporary accommodation and in the stage 2 it states he had been. The landlord did not provide the resident with clear reasoning as to why it changed its position and does not allow this service to have confidence in its record keeping or decision making.
In May 2023 after its stage 2 response, the landlord increased the financial settlement on the case by writing off the resident’s rent arrears of £3867.06. There has been no clear reasoning for this change of direction except for an internal email which states ‘I think we will have to write the rent arrears off…he can argue that the property was not habitable & the accommodation was not provided’. From this service’s communication with the resident, he is not aware of this credit to his former rent account. The resident is clear that he has received no financial redress for the situation he found himself in. This indicates the landlord has re-evaluated its response following the Ombudsman’s involvement.
This service has been able to establish there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the compensation offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of water damage in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s need to temporarily move out.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the compensation offered.

Orders

The landlord is to issue a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This apology should be from a senior member of staff.
The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £6,270.62. This comprises of:
1. £4,670.62 to reflect the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of his property for the period the property was uninhabitable. This is inclusive of the £3,867.06 payment made by the landlord on to the resident’s account.
2. £300 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing updates.
3. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
4. £300 for the landlord’s failure to handle the complaints and compensation appropriately.
The landlord is to conduct a review of this case to learn from its failings and to put in place steps to ensure that these do not happen again. The landlord is to share the review and this report with its governing body.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to this service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its decant policy to consider when it would be appropriate to suspend or credit the rent account when a resident makes their own accommodation arrangements if a decant is necessary.
The landlord should review its record-keeping policy to ensure that it has detailed reports of the repairs it completes and interactions with residents. It is recommended the landlord utilises this service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management to support this.
This service has recently ordered the landlord to review its complaints policy and self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s updated complaint handling code. A copy of the landlord’s self-assessment and any revised policy must be provided to this service.