Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202222638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222638

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

31 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs reported by the resident.

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. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at the property
The resident raised this issue as a complaint in October 2020 and the landlord issued its response on 29 November 2020. There was no escalation request recorded. This Service contacted the landlord in April 2021 to request that the complaint be escalated. The landlord responded that, in accordance with its policy, it would not escalate complaints if this was requested more than 20 working days since its stage one complaint response.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s 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 landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. The Ombudsman therefore cannot consider this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The complaint is brought by the representative on behalf of her mother, who is the sole secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a two bedroom flat on the second floor of a purpose built block. The resident occupies the property with her mother. For the purposes of this report, the representative will be referred to as the resident.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord shall keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It shall also keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas and electricity, sanitation, refuse disposal, space heating and water heating. The agreement also provides that the landlord is responsible for certain minor repairs including:
1. Door furniture, locks, handles, bolts, keys and locks
1. Casement stays and cockspurs (ie window fasteners)
2. Draught excluders
3. Floor tiles except where affected by rising damp not defective floor boards
4. All internal woodwork repairs
5. Clearance of all toilet blockages and blocked wastepipes
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook provides details of the landlord’s response times for certain repairs. Priority repairs are to be completed within 24 hours whereby the operative will make the property safe and remove the immediate danger. Routine repairs are to be completed within 20 working days and the handbook provides examples of such including minor leaks, dripping taps and repairs to windows. Planned repairs to be completed within 60 working days and include more complex works such as plastering walls and replacing individual windows.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint had two stages. Stage one complaints should be responded to within 15 working days. Stage two complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. A resident had 20 days from the date of the stage one response to request that their complaint be escalated or it would be closed.
The landlord’s compensation policy in force at the time states that financial compensation can be paid where a resident has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs due to service failure. It further states that compensation is calculated in line with the recommendations of this Service and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Scope of the investigation

In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has asked that we consider a number of additional repairs that she has raised with the landlord after it had issued its stage two complaint response. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
The resident has also raised that there have been historic issues with the landlord’s complaint handling with previous complaints not escalated or raised when made by telephone. This Service is limited to investigating matters that relate to the resident’s current complaint and cannot consider matters related to historic complaints.

Summary of events

The resident states that in February 2020 she contacted the landlord to report that there was a blockage in her bathroom causing a back surge in the bath and affecting its drainage. The landlord arranged for a plumber to attend to clear the blockage. Following this repair, the resident began hearing water running under her bath each time the water drained and noticed visible water seepage. This was reported several times to the landlord over the following months and operatives were called out to investigate the problem but they reported that they could not identify the cause. The resident continued to experience ongoing issues with leaks which caused the bathroom flooring to warp. On further investigation it was discovered that the plumber who had attended to unblock the bath, caused a pipe to become disconnected during the repair, resulting in water running out underneath the bath whenever the tap was turned on.
The resident reported that, as a consequence of this, there was damp and mould growth in the bathroom and the walls and flooring were damaged due to water saturation. On 19 October 2020 a surveyors appointment was raised to inspect the damp. Following the inspection, works to the bathroom were raised as well as works to refix the loose kitchen doors unit, decorate the toilet walls and hallway where there was water damage, replace flooring and skirting in the toilet and renew the electric shower.
The resident also stated that around this time she asked the landlord to undertake additional repairs:
1. She reported in August 2020, that the catch on the kitchen windows was broken.
2. In October 2020, she reported an issue with her bathroom extractor fan.
3. She also reported that there was a draught from her bedroom windows and under the front door which meant that the property was very cold.
Between October 2020 and February 2022, inspections were undertaken by the landlord and works raised. However, the resident reported that on a number of occasions operatives did not attend the appointment or when operatives did attend, they either carried out work to a poor standard or they failed to undertake the works at all.
The resident reported that on 7 December 2020 an operative attended without the parts required to complete the job and they attempted to resolve the issue with the extractor fan by swapping the batteries in the bathroom extractor fan with the kitchen fan, leaving the resident with a kitchen extractor fan that was not functioning. She believed that this contributed to the issues with her kitchen ceiling and moisture damage which she reported in early 2021. She also said that the operative painted the hallway to a poor standard.
The resident chased the repairs in February 2021 and through this Service in April 2021 and then raised a complaint in a telephone call on 22 June 2021. This Service has not been informed of the outcome of this complaint.
The resident reports that she continued to raise this issue with the landlord. In February 2022 when she received no further updates, she referred the matter to a local councillor. Shortly thereafter a new inspection was arranged for 25 February 2022 when it was recorded that the following repairs were to be raised:
1. To replace the extractor fan in the kitchen as the fanlight chain opener was faulty and needed replacing.
2. To prepare and redecorate the ceiling in the kitchen.
3. To prepare and wash down mould in the hallway cupboard and decorate hallway.
4. To replace the extractor fan in the bathroom.
5. To replace the flooring in the bathroom.
6. To redecorate the bathroom walls and ceiling.
7. To replace the flooring in the toilet with non-slip flooring.
8. Prepare and decorate right hand side wall in the toilet.
9. Prepare and decorate wall around radiators in the bedroom.
10. Replace draught excluder by the front door and tilt and turn windows in the bedroom.
11. To replace the draught excluder by the front door.
The landlord’s records show that attempts were made to contact the resident on 22 April 2022 to arrange works but there was no answer and contractors left a voicemail. The landlord has stated that there were issues in contacting the resident during this time as it had the incorrect number on file for her. When its records were updated with the residents contact details, it has said that its voicemail messages were not returned by the resident.
The resident raised her stage one complaint on 12 October 2022. In it she said that she:
1. Had raised a formal complaint in 2020 and the works the surveyor had raised at that time had still not been completed.
2. An operative had attended to replace the extractor fan in the bathroom but instead they removed the battery from the fan in the kitchen and fitted it in the bathroom fan. Since then, cracks and water damage had appeared on the kitchen ceiling.
3. The surveyor who undertook a follow-up inspection in February 2022 recorded the works that needed to be completed but there had been no progress since this inspection.
4. The resident complained of a lack of communication from the landlord and delay in works being undertaken. She described the strain that this had brought on the household.
The resident’s complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 13 October 2022 and the resident was informed in an email that she should expect a response by 2 November 2022.
On 22 October 2022 a local councillor contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident to enquire when the works would commence. They were informed that the works were scheduled to start on 14 November 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 27 October 2022:
1. It apologised for the delay in repairs being carried out.
2. A surveyor had raised works following an inspection in February 2022. Due to the complex nature of the works required, this had been sent to their subcontractors. An appointment had been arranged for works to start on 14 November 2022.
3. The landlord conceded that there was a service failure in that it had not provided her with correct information regarding the repairs and there was a delay with completing the works to a satisfactory standard.
4. £300 in compensation was offered which comprised of:
  1. £250 for the inconvenience the delay had caused and
  2. £50 for the lack of communication.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 8 November 2022. She noted that a number of the repairs had not been completed including a broken window, broken extractor fan and draughty bedroom windows and a draught from a gap under the front door. Her request was acknowledged by the landlord on 9 November 2022 and she was informed that she should expect a response by 7 December 2022.
Works went ahead on 14 November 2022 with a number of the repairs completed including the installation of extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and the internal decoration. However, the flooring was not laid at this time. Further, the resident later reported that other works such as the crack in the bedroom and living room wall, faulty windows and draughty front door had not been completed and as a result the property was very cold which she could ill afford to heat because of the steep increases in energy prices.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 26 November 2022:
1. It acknowledged that there were long delays in getting the complex repairs completed.
2. It confirmed that the repairs had started and were close to completion.
3. It said that the impact of lockdown on repairs and a change in the contractors in the residents area at the time had an impact on service delivery. There were also issues about resources due to recruitment shortages and with staff ill or self-isolating in accordance with government guidance.
4. It advised that an extensive review was taking place with senior officers to make improvements regarding its repairs service.
5. It made a revised offer of £750 in compensation based on the length of time the repairs had taken to complete.
On 26 November 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord in response to its stage two response. She said that it had not acknowledged that the works had first been raised in 2020 and she said that she had been given no information as to when the works would be finished. She also said that she was dissatisfied with the standard of the works that had been completed. Furthermore, some of the works remained outstanding including the flooring, the kitchen window replacement, the cracks in the wall and the replacement of the front door draught excluder. She had not received an update in relation to the flooring.
On 1 December 2022 she wrote again to the landlord for an update. On 13 December 2022 contractors failed to attend a scheduled appointment.
On 16 December, the landlord was informed that the sub-contractor had withdrawn from the job and an alternative contractor would need to be sourced to complete the outstanding works.
On 20 December 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise that it was no closer to getting all the repairs completed. It stated that it had been chasing an update and provided a named person at the contractors who was now dealing with her repairs through to completion. At the time when the stage two response was sent it was of the understanding the works were progressing to completion but that this had not happened. It was waiting for an update from the contractors.
The resident responded that day to raise that she had not been informed of when her windows, the draughty front door and the crack in the wall would be repaired.
The resident contacted this Service on 21 December 2022 to request that her complaint be investigated. She said that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two response for the following reasons:
1. She had not been given information by the landlord.
2. Contractors had not turned up to appointments.
3. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaints handling as there had been poor communication and responses had been delayed.
4. Works had been delayed and she had received no correspondence from the landlord as to when works would be carried out.
5. Where works had been carried out, it had been done to a poor standard.

Post complaint

There were works raised to repair the kitchen window locking mechanism in November 2022 and two appointments were scheduled for January 2023 which the resident has reported did not proceed as the contractor did not have the correct parts to undertake the repairs. A further appointment was scheduled for 13 March 2023 but did not go ahead for the same reason.
In December 2022, the contractors reported that they were liaising with the resident around available dates to undertake a mould wash to the affected areas. The works to the flooring would be undertaken by separate contractors.
The resident confirmed in August 2023 that despite a surveyor attending on 4 August 2023, there has been no further update from the landlord about when the outstanding works would be completed.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

After the pipe under the resident’s bath was reconnected in September 2020, there was a surveyor’s inspection in October 2020 following which works were raised to include to make good the damage caused by the leak and additional works. Despite a second surveyor’s inspection in February 2022 and operatives attending in December 2020 and March 2021, other than the replacement shower being fitted in February 2021, the majority of the works identified were not undertaken until November 2022. Further, some of the other works, such as the flooring, remain outstanding.
In the landlord’s stage two response, it acknowledged that there were delays in undertaking works and attributed this to COVID-19 and the government’s public health restrictions in place during lockdown periods which meant that landlords were limited to undertaking only priority repairs. Across the social housing sector at this time delays to repairs were widespread. The impact of government imposed restrictions caused a significant backlogs of repairs for landlords and, once restrictions were lifted, priority was given to the most urgent repairs. These delays were further impacted by workdays lost when employees and contractors of landlords had to self-isolate. However, while this may account for some of the delays during 2020 – 2021, restrictions were periodically relaxed outside of lockdown periods and lifted in full in July 2021, some 16 months before the works were undertaken. Even if there had been further delays caused by a backlog of works for reasons relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, this Service has not been provided with any evidence that an explanation for the delays had been communicated to the resident prior to her raising a complaint.
The landlord also stated that there was an issue in gaining access to the property as it either had the incorrect contact details for the resident or she did not respond to voicemail messages that it had left. Delays which occur as a result of the resident not arranging access for works are beyond the control of the landlord. However, this Service has been provided with evidence of only one appointment being missed for this reason, this being in April 2022. Furthermore, a resident may not always be able to pick up a voicemail message, for example where they have insufficient funds on their mobile phone account. It is good practice therefore for a landlord to follow a telephone call up with either an email or a letter in order to both keep an audit trail and to satisfy itself that all efforts had been made to contact the resident. The landlord has provided no evidence to this Service that efforts had been made to contact the resident by other means.
The landlord has advised that there had been a number of changes with contractors throughout the period of the complaint, with former contractors providing limited records in relation to the outcomes of inspections, appointments and works raised. Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service as this assists the landlord to fulfil its repairs obligations. It is the landlord, and not the contractor, who has legal responsibilities towards the resident and consequently the landlord should monitor the repair to completion. There is no evidence that the landlord assumed ownership of the repair or that target dates for completion were considered.
There was also evidence of the landlord’s poor internal communication, with works being raised with no follow-up, with contractors attending without the correct parts for the job and with appointments missed. The landlord’s failure to oversee and monitor works undertaken by contractors was unsatisfactory and avoidable. Ultimately, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that it is meeting its legal responsibilities to undertake repairs within a reasonable time. There was a lack of accountability on the part of the landlord.
The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the period under investigation was also lacking. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident was kept updated as to the progress of repairs other than in its formal complaint responses. Where delays to repairs occur, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to communicate this to a resident and provide estimated timeframes for works where possible. If a repair is expected to extend beyond these estimated timeframes, the landlord should provide an explanation for this along with regular updates as to when they anticipate the repair will be completed. This provides reassurance to a resident that the landlord understands the impact that delayed repairs can have. The resident was not kept informed of actions the landlord was taking neither was she given realistic estimates of when works would be completed.
If the landlord had foreseen that the repairs would be delayed beyond its target timescales, it could have considered whether it would be appropriate to offer the household a decant to another property. There is no evidence that this was done or that it considered what it could do to minimise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
This Service considers that actions that the landlord took at stage two of the resident’s complaint, such as allocating the resident a named point of contact with the contractors, should have been put in place at an earlier stage. This would have helped reassure the resident that matters were in hand. Instead, the resident had an unnecessary level of involvement in the repairs process having to chase for works and, when works were not forthcoming, had to involve local councillors and this Service before the landlord to action to progress the repairs.
In summary, while there were periods where delays may have been beyond the control of the landlord, such as those related to the pandemic and where they could not make contact with the resident to arrange access, pandemic restrictions were relaxed between lockdown periods and removed entirely from July 2021 and for the majority of the time the resident was able to accommodate the repairs. The delays, on the whole, appear to be for reasons related to the frequent changes in contractors/sub-contractors who failed to keep accurate records of repairs or provide the landlord with updates as to works. Overall, the delay of over two years in completing the necessary follow-on repairs was unacceptable. Further, the landlord had multiple opportunities to provide updates following the resident’s requests but failed to do so. As a result, the resident suffered detriment not only because her use and enjoyment of the property was impacted due to the poor condition of her home but also because as she had to take time off work to allow access to contractors only for appointments not to go ahead. Further she was not given sufficient notice of works starting to enable her to plan for other commitments and she was put to expense having to purchase floor tiles that she was later informed would not be fitted.
The landlord offered an explanation and apology for these delays in its stage two response. It also offered compensation of £750 and the tone of its response signified that it had heard the resident and recognised the distress and inconvenience the delays had caused to her and her mother. Further, as part of lessons learned it provided assurances that it was undertaking a review of the repairs service in order to prevent a recurrence of such service failures in future. Had the landlord taken action to then undertake the outstanding repairs within a reasonable time of its stage two response, the Ombudsman may have been satisfied that the landlord had offered reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s complaint. However, it failed to deliver on its assurances that the works would be completed within a reasonable timescale and at the date of writing this report, nine months after the landlord’s complaint procedure was completed, a number of the works remain outstanding. In failing to complete the outstanding repairs the landlord has failed to ‘put things right’ for the resident. In the circumstances this Service makes a finding of maladministration for which further compensation is warranted.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of multiple repairs reported by the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaint relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

Notwithstanding general delays caused by the pandemic, the landlord’s delays in undertaking repairs to the resident’s property were unreasonable. There was a lack of accountability and customer care by the landlord which meant that the resident had to chase for works to be raised and escalate her concerns to local councillors and this Service in order for works to be completed. The resident was inconvenienced by these delays and missed or cancelled appointments. The resident was caused significant distress having to live in a property that was in disrepair for an extended period of time. While the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within its target timescales, it failed to resolve the complaint satisfactorily as a number of the repairs remained outstanding some months after the landlord’s final complaint response.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Send a written apology to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £1300 which is comprised as follows:
  1. £550 for distress and inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays in undertaking repairs;
  2. £750 previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid to the resident.
3. The landlord is to provide evidence to this Service once payment of compensation has been made.
Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to provide to the resident and this Service a schedule of works for the outstanding repairs with target dates for completion.

Recommendations

52. It is recommended that upon receipt of evidence of a quantifiable financial loss, in regard to the resident’s heating costs in the property for the period between when the draughty door and windows were reported and subsequently repaired, the landlord considers reimbursing the resident for this loss.