Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202222739)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222739

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

28 February 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to, and a subsequent leak from, the resident’s toilet.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 16 August 1993.
The resident has learning disabilities and is visual impaired. The resident has been represented by her sister (who has lasting power of attorney in respect of the resident’s property and financial affairs, and who herself has vulnerabilities). The resident is also supported by the local authority learning disabilities team and has carers to help support her with daily living.
On 4 July 2022, with the assistance of her carer, the resident reported that her toilet cistern kept overflowing and was leaking constantly into toilet. On 11 July 2022, the landlord received another report regarding the same issue. Neither of these repair records indicated that the resident was vulnerable.
Between July and September 2022, the learning disabilities team made contact with the landlord to expedite and resolve the repair.
On 1 September 2022, another job was raised, at this point the resident was noted as vulnerable. An operative attended that day but was unable to locate the stopcock and concluded that the resident required a new toilet. The resident and her carer were present during the visit. The operative left the property with the repair still not resolved.
The overflowing cistern was again reported on 15 September 2022, the repair note recorded that the resident was vulnerable. The job was given a target date of 17 September 2022. On 22 September 2022, the resident’s representative reported that the toilet was still constantly running.
On 24 September 2022, there was an uncontrollable flood from the resident’s toilet. The resident had her carer with her when the flood occurred. The resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours team, at 11am, and made them aware that she was vulnerable. The resident’s carer tried to help the resident protect the surrounding areas from being affected by the water, however the carer had to leave at 1pm. Following this the resident continued to contact the landlord for an update. The operative arrived between 4:30pm and 5:00pm and stopped the leak from the toilet.
On 27 September 2022, the landlord raised a job to drop a dehumidifier off at the resident’s property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 September 2022 and said it would aim to provide its response by 18 October 2022.
On 3 October 2022, the landlord raised a request for a surveyor’s visit to the resident’s property, noting that the reason for the surveyor inspection was to check for damage to the flooring and joints following a leak. The landlord noted that both the resident and her representative had vulnerabilities and were worried about their health and safety.
On 11 October 2022 the landlord’s complaints team chased its technical team regarding the surveyor’s appointment and for an appointment date to be provided by 13 October 2022. The same day the complaints team also chased its contractor regarding the repair to the toilet.
On 13 October 2022, the resident’s representative confirmed that the toilet had been repaired and that they had been contacted about arranging for a surveyor to attend. The resident’s represent said that they had referred the contact to the learning disability team. The resident’s representative also raised concerns that the resident’s carpet was damaged beyond repair and was still holding water, and about the cost of using the dehumidifier.
On 14 October 2022, the landlord raised a job to inspect the damage caused following the leak in the toilet, specifically joists in the cellar and hallway carpet. The landlord noted that the learning disability team were also to attend.
A pre-booked survey appointment was arranged with social services for 24 October 2022. The social worker attended for the appointment at 11:50am However, the surveyor did not attended until 2:40pm by which time the social worker had had to leave.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord was contacted by social services asking that the dehumidifier at the property be collected as this was causing a trip hazard to the resident, as she was partially sighted. In her escalation request the resident’s representative said that nobody turned up to remove the dehumidifier on 7 November, she chased this and it was finally removed on 14 November 2022.
The surveyor’s inspection of the property took place, in liaison with the resident’s social worker, on 12 January 2023. The surveyor confirmed that the joists showed no signs of damage and no further works were identified, which the landlord confirmed to resident’s representative on 24 January 2023.
The complaint to the landlord, initially made on 27 September 2022 and escalated on 14 November 2022, was that:
1. The Out of Hours team failed to acknowledge or act in accordance with the resident’s vulnerabilities.
2. There was an ‘’extortionate’’ delay in sending over the job. That it was only expedited when the resident ‘‘frantically’’ called repeatedly and reiterated her disabilities. There were also incidences where the repair operatives were uncontactable between July and September 2022.
3. The repair was reported approximately 2 months prior to the flooding and both the resident’s representative and the learning disabilities team had made several attempts, via email, to expedite this.
4. The toilet had flooded for approximately 5 hours and 30 minutes. The resident had conveyed her disability on two separate occasions but this information was not acted upon until 5 hours later, when it was discovered that the job ‘had not been sent over’ .
5. The landlord’s contractor failed to respond to the request for the removal of the dehumidifier, which the landlord had been advised was a trip hazard for an adult with a visual impairment, particularly as the hallway provided the resident with access to her toilet, bedroom, living room, kitchen and basement.
6. The hallway carpet was soaking and smelt “really bad’’. The representative explained that the repairs team had come out but could not get the water out of the carpet and so the resident had to get a private company to do the job, which cost her £150.
7. These matters had made the resident extremely anxious and overwhelmed. The representative also spoke extensively of the impact this had had on both the resident’s and her own health.
In its final response to the complaint, dated 21 February 2023, the landlord:
1. Apologised for the delay in its final response and said that it understood that the process had been very challenging for the resident’s representative due to her health and that of the resident.
2. Apologised for the inconvenience they had experienced and for the failures in addressing the resident’s repairs by its Out of Hours, its Repairs Services, its Contractor and its Surveyors. The landlord said that they could have done better in listening to the resident’s concerns regarding her vulnerability, especially as this was confirmed by her care providers.
3. Acknowledged that the initial repair was not identified as an emergency and recognised the anxiety this would have caused the resident. The landlord also acknowledged that waiting 3 months for the repair to be addressed, which it said, lead to the toilet flooding and causing further damage to the property, was not acceptable, for which it apologised.
4. Acknowledged that its contractor was notified on 31 October 2022 regarding the removal of the dehumidifier, but this was not collected until 14 November 2022.
5. Said that it acknowledged the importance of information about vulnerabilities being made visit on its database. However, having liaised with its repairs service and tenancy management it was not currently possible to make this information available to its Out of Hours team as they were a third party contractor and did not have access to the landlord’s main database. The landlord suggested that, were the resident to need to contact the Out of Hours team again, she make them aware of her vulnerabilities. The Out of Hours should then contact the duty Emergency Response Officer, who would have access to the landlord’s database.
6. Offered the resident £965.25 made up of:
  1. £124 reimbursement for carpet cleaning costs of £124.10
  2. £80 for the cost of the dehumidifier for 40 days.
  3. £86.25 for receipted expenses incurred by the resident’s representative including, travel to the resident’s property, providing lunch etc.
  4. £200 for the delay in completing the repair and addressing the flood.
  5. £300 for the negative impact this has had on the resident’s and her representative’s wellbeing.
  6. £100 for the poor communication and service.
  7. £75 for the delay in providing its Stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Whilst this Service empathises with both the resident and her representative regarding their concerns about the impact this situation has had their health, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. This is because this Service does not have the expertise to assess these matters, which are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience that may have been caused.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.

Handling of repairs to, and a subsequent leak from, the resident’s toilet.

In their referral to this service on 21 February 2023, the resident’s representative said that they agreed to the reimbursements and the goodwill gestures outlined in the landlord’s final response. However, despite admitting its faults, the representative said that it had omitted two essential points:
1. That it failed to recognised the significance of the impact of its failures. The representative said that these were ‘‘mentioned in passing’’ but had been ‘‘underplayed’’.
2. That it should contribute to, or pay for the replacement of the resident’s hallway carpet.
This assessment will therefore focus on whether the landlord’s response to these two issues was fair and reasonable, given all the circumstances in this case. When assessing the impact of the distress we take into account the severity of the situation, the length of time involved, any disabilities or particular vulnerabilities of the resident and any other relevant factors.
The Ombudsman expects landlord to handle repairs, for which it is responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged that this did not happen and that the resident had to wait 3 months for the repair to be addressed, which it said lead to the toilet flooding and caused further damage to the property.
Having recognised this, it was appropriate for the landlord to have apologised and to have offered compensation to the resident for those failures. In this case it offered a total of £600 made up of:
1. £200 for the delay in completing the repair and addressing the flood.
2. £300 for the negative impact this has had on the resident’s and her representative’s wellbeing.
3. £100 for the poor communication and service.
The landlord evidently went some way to addressing and putting right its failures with regards to the delay in the initial repair and the subsequent flooding. However this Service is not satisfied that the £600 offered by the landlord was proportionate in this case.
This is because, this Service’s remedies guidance suggests amounts between £600 and £1,000 in cases where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s and her representatives vulnerabilities it would have been appropriate for it to have offered compensation towards the higher end of this range, not the lower end. As a result a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident an additional £400. This brings the total payable for the delay, the impact and its poor communication to £1,000.
With regards to the landlord contributing to, or paying for the replacement of the resident’s hallway carpet. The tenancy terms and conditions confirm that the resident was responsible for insuring her belongings in her home. During the complaints process, the landlord advised the resident to make a claim for any damages via her insurance company and that should she not have contents insurance, it ‘’strongly’’ recommended that she consider it going forward, which was reasonable given the terms of the resident’s tenancy.
However, as the landlord had acknowledged in its final response that the delay ‘‘lead to the toilet flooding’’ it should have gone further in its response and advised the resident that she could submit an insurance liability claim to its insurers. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would also have been reasonable for it to have offered the resident support in doing so. That it did not so was a further failing on its behalf for which it has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £100. The landlord has also been ordered to liaise with the resident’s representative with regards to what support it might offer to assist the resident in completing the liability claim.

Handling of the associated complaint

At the time of this complaint, the landlord had a 2 stage formal complaints process which stated that complaints should, at stage 1, be acknowledged within 3 working days and a full written reply sent within 15 working days. Complaints escalated to stage 2 should also be acknowledged within 3 working days, with a full written reply being sent within 20 working days.
It is noted that the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy was not in line with this service’s Complaint Handling Code at that time. However it is also noted that this service’s Special Report on the landlord, published on February 2024, confirms that in 2023 the landlord undertook a review of its complaints policy, and in February 2024 updated its complaints policy to comply with the Complaint Handling Code. As that is the case no further orders will be made in this report in respect of the timescales for the landlord’s stage 1 response at the time of this complaint.
In this case, the resident’s initial formal complaint was submitted to the landlord on 27 September 2022. In accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy, the landlord would have been expected to issue its stage 1 response by 18 October 2022, which it did.
The complaint was escalated on 14 November 2022. In accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy, the landlord would have been expected to issue its stage 2 response by 12 December 2022. However, it failed to do, not issuing its final response until 21 February 2023 and more than two months outside of the given timescales.
In its final response, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for this delay and to offer the resident compensation. However, given the length of the delay, and the vulnerabilities of the resident, the £75 compensation offered was not proportionate to the level of its failing. As such a finding service failure has been made in respect of this element of the resident’s complaint and the landlord ordered to pay the resident an additional £75 bringing the total payable for the delay in it issuing its final response to £150.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to, and a subsequent leak from, the resident’s toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of is handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,540.25 made up of:
  1. The £965.25 offered to the resident in its final response, if this has not already been paid.
  2. An additional £400 for the delay, impact and its poor communication in relation to the repair to, and subsequent leak from, the toilet.
  3. £100 for its failure to advise the resident that she could submit an insurance liability claim to its insurers.
  4. An additional £75 for the unreasonable delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response.
2. To liaise with the resident’s representative with regards to what support it might offer to assist the resident in completing the liability claim, to be submitted to its insurers, regarding the damage to the resident’s carpet.
3. Confirm to this Service that it has complied with the above orders.