Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202232308)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232308

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

22 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her windows needed replacing due to disrepair.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and moved into the property in June 2008. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the third floor of a purpose-built block, with timber sash windows. The resident has disclosed a number of health conditions to the landlord, including fibromyalgia, which increase her vulnerability.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 April 2021 to report that repairs to her windows which were completed in December 2020 had failed as parts fitted had come off. She said that some of the windows did not close and the top windows were sliding and staying open which was letting cold air in. Job notes relating to this attendance state that the operative relocated 2 sash keeps, renewed 3 lengths of gasket, ‘overhauled’ 3 windows and eased and adjusted 2 windows.
A quote was provided to the landlord by one of its subcontractors on 1 November 2021, and this was highlighted to the landlord again on 22 April 2022. The quote was for bespoke “Richmond” weights and pulley sliding windows in the kitchen, bedroom and living room, as the operative found that the windows had warped and were very stiff.
On 26 August 2022, the resident reported that there were gaps in the window sashes in her bathroom, living room and kitchen. She called the landlord on 13 October 2022 to chase an appointment as she said she had an inspection booked that day. The landlord asked the works team to provide the resident with an update.
The resident chased the landlord on 28 October 2022 to ask when new windows would be installed. The landlord spoke to the operative who informed it that it was the resident who requested new windows. She said that was incorrect and stated that the operative had told her that the windows were beyond repair and needed replacing. As it was unclear whether an operative was attending, and what the attendance was for, a new job was raised.
On 3 November 2022, the resident made her original complaint as she felt the windows were in disrepair and required replacement. She reported that the windows did not open and close, there were gaps in every window across 3 rooms, and these gaps were letting wind and rain in with it being excessively cold. She mentioned that she had widespread pain due to fibromyalgia and the draughty conditions were exacerbating this, as was the stress of the situation. She highlighted that she had been in contact with the landlord frequently and said she had been informed on multiple occasions that the windows would be replaced yet this had not taken place. Another complaint had been made in January 2022 and the resident said she received a response but nothing else. She felt the communication had been poor and misleading.
The complaint was acknowledged the same day and the stage 1 response was issued on 9 November 2022. The landlord stated:
1. Contractors had attended a number of times but there was some confusion over what works were required.
2. It would schedule its own assessment of the windows and discuss the options with her.
3. It apologised for the poor service and offered a £200 goodwill gesture.
The resident was unhappy with this response and felt that the point of her complaint was missed, so she entered a new complaint on the landlord’s online system on 20 December 2022. As a stage 1 investigation had been completed, the landlord treated this as a request to escalate to stage 2 of its complaint process.
The resident felt that the landlord had not taken into consideration the effect of the situation on her physical health, nor the “overwhelming” effect on her mental health. She was concerned that the previous surveys where it was determined that the windows needed replacing were not being utilised. She felt lied to, and that the landlord was delaying the repairs by asking for another survey. To resolve the complaint, she requested that the windows be repaired or replaced and the level of compensation increased to reflect the effect that the disrepair had on her mental and physical health, along with the increased heating costs due to the heat loss through the windows.
The landlord sent an email to the resident acknowledging her escalation request on 21 December 2022, giving an estimate date for the stage 2 response as 25 January 2023. The resident called to chase the repairs and the complaint response on 23 January 2023, and an attempt at a callback was made on 24 January 2023 but was unsuccessful.
An operative attended the property on 23 January 2023 following a rescheduled appointment which was originally booked for 6 December 2022 but was rearranged by the contractor. The operative reported:
1. The windows were “poorly cut and were too short.”
2. Draft foam had been installed to “hide” the 3cm gaps around the frame which was also loose.
3. The resident could not open the window because sticky draft foam was wedged in the frame to cover the gaps.
4. The recommendation was for a job to be raised for replacement of the window frames.
The stage 2 response was issued to the resident on 25 January 2023 in which it was confirmed that a surveyor for the landlord was scheduled to attend the property on 30 January 2023 to assess the operative’s findings and arrange any required repairs. The landlord’s investigation found:
1. The repairs had taken a significant amount of time with lack of communication to the resident.
2. Cancelled surveyor appointments and delays had led to the resident being inconvenienced, and this was due to its poor management of appointments.
3. The original offer of compensation did not accurately reflect the effect on her, and instead it offered £1200 comprising of £920 for time and trouble, and £280 towards heating costs for that time period. It said that the increase in the compensation offer was guided by the Ombudsman guidelines and was for the delay, inconvenience, the increased heating costs she said she had incurred, and the negative impact the whole process had on her.
4. Following this investigation a number of areas for improvement were identified including:
  1. Complex cases were to be discussed and reviewed by Senior Managers and new processes implemented as a result.
  2. Regular meetings were to be held with contractors where complex cases had not gone as well as it would have liked. These were discussed in detail and preventative measures put in place.
  3. Monitoring reports had been put in place to capture cases in the early stages to prevent delays or poor communication with residents.
  4. Staff training was held with regards to managing its residents’ expectations as some issues cannot be resolved easily but communication was key in order to “minimise frustrations.”
The resident responded on 30 January 2023 stating that the operative had attended and advised the windows would be replaced which was a relief for her. She felt the compensation did not fully account for the distress she had experienced, however she wished to accept the amount offered. Her main wish was for the property to be a good standard of living as it had not been for some time. She asked that she be kept updated with the timescale for the window replacement. On 5 February 2023 she asked that the compensation be used to clear rent arrears, and the remainder sent to her by bank transfer. She said she had needed to reduce her working hours due to chronic pain.
The resident chased both the compensation and repairs to the windows on 10 February 2023, as she was still experiencing draughts which meant the property was too cold. The landlord responded to apologise for the delay and agreed to chase the compensation payment. It also signposted her to cost of living support.
On 13 February 2023 the surveyor attended the property and found that the windows had reached the end of their life and needed replacing under the capital works programme. There were no repairs identified, and it was decided that the windows were in a suitable condition to wait until the next date for planned works (the Ombudsman notes that there was no indication of any set timeframe for these works to be completed). This was relayed to the resident the same day, and she was “shocked and appalled” at the surveyor’s findings that the windows were in suitable condition. She stated that he told her the windows would be changed and that she should expect someone to contact her to arrange to change the living room and kitchen and bedroom window. She said that the surveyor saw that the latches were not functional, he saw gaps in the frames, and noticed the draughts. She informed the landlord that she would be making another complaint and seeking legal representation.
The resident confirmed she had received the compensation on 22 February 2023 however was still struggling financially as she needed to constantly top up her gas due to the heat loss. She felt that she was in the same situation, with constant draughts in her property and she felt ignored by the landlord.
On 3 March 2023 there were further discussions between the landlord and resident following a visit to the property from a housing officer the week before. The resident said that the housing officer took videos of the disrepair and she was physically unwell due to the effect the conditions in the property was having on her. She included a letter from her GP which confirmed her diagnosis of fibromyalgia. She also said that her rent had been increased to account for renovations, however no renovations were planned and she was still living in poor conditions.
The resident made a new complaint on 9 March 2023 as she felt the decision to pay compensation was inconsistent with the surveyor’s recent decision that no works were required. This complaint was closed by the landlord as the substantive issue was the same as in the previous complaint which had already completed the complaints process. The landlord then resent the stage 2 response to her and referred to the compensation which had been paid.
On 23 March 2023 a new work instruction was raised for an operative to assess what works were required in the property as there was confusion around whether remedial works could be completed until capital works were scheduled. This appointment was attempted on 2 occasions but both were logged by the landlord as ‘no access’.
A further quote was provided to the landlord from its subcontractor on 23 September 2023 and this was relayed to the resident. The landlord advised the Ombudsman that the quote would have been rejected as there was no notable damage in the photographs included in the request, there was no description of damage nor notes that repairs had been attempted, and no job number was provided.
The landlord has advised this service that another operative attended the property on 21 December 2023 and found that the windows in the kitchen, living room and lounge required like for like replacement. The windows were measured up in the first week of January, and the quotes and specifications received approval on 1 February 2024. As there is a 6-week lead time, it expects the windows to be replaced on or around 15 April 2024.
The resident has informed this Service that she remains in the same situation with draughty windows and is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She has said that she feels that the landlord is ignoring her requests for assistance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

There is evidence of reported issues with the windows in the property as far back as 2008. To ensure fairness for both parties, the Ombudsman will focus on matters which were raised and responded to within the internal complaints process. For this reason, this report will not assess the landlord’s handling of repairs to the window prior to March 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her windows required replacement due to disrepair.

The landlord’s repairs policy and tenancy wording states that it has responsibility for the structure and key components of the building exterior which includes windows. Reactive repairs are carried out with the aim of maintaining the “useful life” of the item in question. There are four categories of repair with differing response times:
1. Urgent – attendance within 4 hours
2. Emergency response – attendance within 24 hours
3. Routine – attendance within 20 working days
4. Planned – attendance within 60 working days.
From the records provided by the landlord, it is unclear which timescales were aimed for when responding to the repair requests in this case. The data provided shows a target date but does not list a completion date. Several jobs which were raised were follow on works from failed repairs and it is unclear which timescales needed to be followed. There was also no record of feedback from the operatives on the repairs log to document what works were carried out at each appointment.
The windows were deemed as needing replacement in November 2021 and again in January 2023. The survey in January 2023 clearly listed a number of issues with the windows and there is no evidence that any substantial works took place between this survey and the one carried out 16 working days later. However, the landlord concluded that no works were required based on this follow up survey, even though there was a clear history of requests for repair relating to the windows going back to 2008.
Considering the number of repairs completed previously and the reports from multiple operatives that the windows required replacing, the landlord should not have solely relied on the findings in the survey from February 2023. Whilst it is not clear why the outcomes and advice from the various surveys varied in terms of the extent and severity of the issues identified, several of the jobs raised previously were callbacks from repairs, which suggests that the repairs had not held up sufficiently. The landlord should have considered whether the windows were beyond economical repair, as the time and trouble to continue sending operatives to repair them may have been higher than the cost to replace the windows.
It is understandable that the resident was frustrated with the landlord’s handling of her concerns, as she was given mixed messages on a number of occasions over a prolonged period of time. She had repeatedly informed the landlord of the impact on her, including the negative impact on her mental health, the worsening of her fibromyalgia which she attributed to the draughts, and the financial impact on her due to the heat loss through the windows. From the evidence provided, operatives attending to complete repairs were advising the resident and the landlord that the windows needed replacing, however this work was never scheduled and instead more operatives were sent.
The internal communications and record-keeping throughout the specified time period were poor. There is evidence that multiple quotes were provided for replacement windows, however additional operatives were sent to reconfirm what works were required as it was not sufficiently clear on the landlord’s systems. As part of its complaint investigation, the landlord’s internal notes indicate that there was acknowledgement of the confusion on the case, and it was unclear to the stage 2 complaint reviewer what time period was investigated in stage 1.
The compensation of £1200 offered by the landlord was a positive step towards acknowledging the inconvenience experienced by the resident. The amount offered may have been considered appropriate if the windows had then been replaced within a reasonable period of time from the end of the complaints process in January 2023.
However, the windows have not been replaced as of the date of this report meaning that the resident has experienced further distress and inconvenience for a period of 13 months after the end of the complaints process. This was a significant failure to put things right for the resident. Taking into account the impact of this on the resident, we have therefore made a finding of severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s overall handling of the works needed to the windows and have ordered additional compensation in recognition of the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her windows needed replacing due to disrepair.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord’s chief executive must issue the resident with a written apology within 4 weeks. It should recognise the landlord’s failures with regards to its poor handling of the window disrepair and the inappropriate delays. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the letter.
2. Within the next 4 weeks the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £2700, in recognition of the distress, miscommunication, and inconvenience from March 2021 until the date of this report. This amount is inclusive of the £1200 already paid to the resident during the complaints process. The figure has been based on a calculation of £25 per affected room (kitchen, bedroom and living room) per month for 36 months.
3. Within the next 8 weeks, the landlord must do everything within its power to ensure that the scheduled replacement takes place as planned. Should there be any delays due to parts or suppliers, this must be clearly explained and a new timeframe for completion must be provided to both the resident and this Service.
4. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman has recently published a special report on this landlord, available at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/2024/02/20/ombudsman-investigation-into-hammersmith-and-fulham-council/. This report included recommendations relating to the landlord’s repairs handling process, specifically around managing repairs to completion. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further orders or recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account when completing work to comply with the recommendations from the special report.