Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202233336)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233336

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

23 April 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 reports of lack of heating, hot water, and water ingress though the boiler when it rained.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant in a 2-bedroom flat, in a block and lives with his family. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it is unaware of any vulnerabilities. The resident has explained to the landlord that his child lives with a vulnerability.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord shall keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling for the supply of gas, heating, and hot water. It states that it will carry out repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. It is responsible for gas and water supply and installations including gas central heating and plumbing.
2. It is responsible for managing hazards that may present a risk to health.
3. The priority allocated to a work order for a repair would be determined by the type of issue reported and the likelihood to cause harm to the resident or property.
4. It has 4 repair time frames in which it would deal with repairs:
  1. Urgent emergency responses which it would complete within 4 hours.
  2. Emergency responses within 24 hours.
  3. Routine repairs within 20 working days.
  4. Planned repairs within 60 working days.

Summary of events

The resident raised repairs with the landlord in October 2019. He told it there was an issue with the flue of the boiler which leaked when it rained. Between October 2019 and November 2022, the issue continued, with several reports made by the resident around a lack of heating and hot water.
On 15 December 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He stated:
1. He had raised a complaint in writing but had not received a response or resolution. It is unclear if the resident meant he had raised another complaint previously.
2. He informed it he had been suffering from a water leak through his boiler every time it rained. The water poured into the boiler and cut off the hot water and heating. He reported it in 2020, provided a reference number and said it was one of around 10 tickets he had raised for the issue.
3. Appointments were raised and missed. Engineers had looked at the issue and the video he had recorded while it was raining, which showed that the water poured down the kitchen through the boiler. They had been unable to identify why this occurred.
4. They would then leave saying they would report it to the office and then the job was closed without solving the issue. The kitchen flue had been changed once but the problem continued.
5. He had young children in the house and when it rained, they had no heating or hot water. He also had to put buckets out to collect the rain.
He went on to say that at nighttime, he had to change the buckets round at 2am to avoid flooding. He explained the property had flooded a couple of times causing lots of damage. A supervisor had attended and said they believed the problem was outside on the wall where the smoke flue “goes out” and was not sealed properly. He asked the landlord to resolve the issue and said he wanted to be compensated for the inconvenience and loss of income. He explained the issues which the situation had caused him since 2020 were:
1. Damage to his fridge and having to save money to buy a replacement.
2. That he had suffered a lot of inconvenience as he had to boil water to wash his children and for other uses.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on the 6 January 2023. It explained the resident’s complaint and provided its findings:
1. It apologised that he had cause to complain and for the effect it had on him, his family, and for the damage to his home. It said it had checked its internal system and liaised with its gas and heating department for comments on the issue.
2. It acknowledged that he had multiple visits for the issue, but it was noted that prior to 2022, the engineers that attended advised multiple times that there was no evidence of the rain leaking through the seal as it was not raining at the time of their visits.
3. It apologised that the orders were closed without resolution and that some past appointments were missed. Many engineers attended and advised multiple different things. It acknowledged that an “abseil” should have been booked to remedy the issue with the flue, but having reviewed the previous visits, there were no notes from engineers that advised that his heating was off. Once it was confirmed that an abseil was required to attend and reseal one of the external flues and to check the others, works were arranged and resolved by the abseil company on 21 November 2022.
4. Its contractor had apologised for the failure to diagnose the issue correctly during the first appointment, and across multiple further visits. It acknowledged this took a long period for it to get resolved and many visits to remedy.
5. It apologised for the poor service he experienced, and said it was working with its contractor to ensure the mistakes did not happen again, with multiple visits now being monitored to improve the service residents received.
6. It apologised for the damage to his personal belongings due to the leak. However, it could not grant him compensation around his belongings, as it could not accept responsibility for the damage. It advised residents to insure their personal belongings and make a claim through their insurance company should instances like this occur. It referred him to his tenancy agreement around contents insurance.
7. It told him it was unable to compensate due to loss of earnings.
8. It said it should have provided him with a level of service which met its standards and his expectations and apologised. It offered him £700 compensation for its service failures comprising of:
  1. £250 in failing to resolve the repair across multiple visits.
  2. £150 toward the fact the issue was ongoing for such a length of time.
  3. £300 for the misdiagnosis of the issue.
The resident escalated his complaint on 20 January 2023, he explained that he was informed that an abseil had sealed one of the external flues and that should resolve the issue. He stated the issue was initially caused by a previous contractor’s repair back in 2019 where they damaged the external seal and since then he had ongoing water leaks whenever it rained. He advised he had informed the landlord many times that the flue only leaked when it rained. He had taken pictures and videos of the leak numerous times and informed it when the leak started, it cut off the hot water and heating. He had spent his own money to get an external specialist to identify the cause as he suspected it was a broken seal at the exit of the boiler flue. He explained despite providing all those facts, he was not listened to, and his family were left to suffer for 4 years. He stated the landlord had failed to address within its stage 1 response:
1. The effect of the lack of heating and how it affected him and his family, especially his children who had lung issues due to the exposure to cold.
2. The fact he had accrued huge financial loss, including thousands of pounds in costs to heat the rooms, paying an external specialist to verify the issue and a huge loss of earnings due to taking time off work for countless repair appointments.
3. That over the years, when the leak occurred, his family were unable to take a hot shower at home for 24 hours.
4. His fridge and white goods were damaged, due to damage caused by its engineer and he had to replace them.
5. That his family felt neglected and experienced suffering and inconvenience.
6. He stated that the compensation offered was too low, unfair, and his complaint had not been answered in full. He asked the landlord to reconsider his complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation and told him it aimed to respond by 17 February 2023. It also explained if there were any delays, it would inform him as soon as possible.
On 17 February 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it could not provide his stage 2 response on the agreed date and apologised. It told him it was continuing to investigate and aimed to provide a response by 3 March 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 March 2023. It apologised for the delay and recapped its stage 1 response. It then provided its findings:
1. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family, its contractors handling of his appointments, and the poor service he had received. It acknowledged that the service he had received was poor and said it aimed to ensure its residents were kept up to date with the progress of their repairs. It stated that it aimed for reported issues to be resolved in as timely a manner as possible and the level of service provided was not what it expected from its contractors.
2. Whilst the delay was acknowledged at stage 1, in reviewing its repair records, it identified the issue went back to 2020 with numerous contact from him, visits and appointments. Whilst the repair attended on 21 November 2022, resolved the issue, it took a considerable period of time to achieve this.
3. It acknowledged his frustration and disappointment with the length of time taken to resolve the issues. It said it would have liked the repair to have taken place far sooner and acknowledge the time that had elapsed. It said this was not the way it wanted to manage issues with repair cases and was sorry for the delay.
4. It acknowledged there had been failures and impacts on him and his family and apologised.
5. It reiterated awareness around the impact of lengthy delays on its residents, and this not being the service it wanted to provide. It explained changes and improvements were being monitored including process changes, refresher training, and development of monitoring cases through quality assurance. Senior managers in repairs were aware of the changes needed to improve the service and were engaging with contractors directly to provide a better service to residents.
6. It reiterated the advice provided in its stage 1 response around insurance and told him he needed to make a claim through his insurance company in relation to the damage to his personal property.
7. It awarded the resident an additional £1300, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidelines on remedies and resolutions and broke it down as:
  1. £600 for the impact the delay in works being carried out caused him and his family.
  2. £400 towards incurred heating costs.
  3. £200 for the delay and inconvenience to resolve the complaint.
  4. £100 for the extension applied to the timeline and for the delay in the stage 2 complaint response.
Following the stage 2 response, the resident remained dissatisfied and contacted the Housing Ombudsman. He said his family had to put buckets out to collect the rain. Even at nighttime, they had to check to change the bucket around 2am to avoid full house flooding. As a result, they had also incurred costs by buying and using an electric heater. He reiterated the reasons for his dissatisfaction he had explained to the landlord across his stage 1 and 2 complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised issues about the impact of the property and the repairs on his and his family’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. Personal injury claims must be decided by the court as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident, as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on his and his family’s health.
The resident has raised concerns around loss of earnings, due to the landlord’s actions. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for any loss of earnings. Whilst such works may inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, occupancy agreements will require access for repairs to be provided, to complete necessary repairs. It would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments.
The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the damage to his white goods such as his fridge. The landlord has informed the resident that he is able to claim the costs of such goods through its insurance. Paragraph 42 (f) of the Ombudsman’s scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider issues where it considers it may be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. In this instance, the Ombudsman considers it would be more reasonable and effective for the resident to seek a remedy through the landlord’s insurance, as such no determination will be made on the matter, as the Ombudsman cannot decide whether the damage was caused because of the landlord’s actions/inaction. The Ombudsman will however consider how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damage to his belongings.

Reports of lack of heating, hot water, and water ingress though the boiler when it rained.

Lack of heating and hot water

The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported a lack of heating and hot water on 15 December 2019. It also demonstrates that the landlord was aware that the resident had a newborn baby in the property. Despite this, its records show that it did not raise the required works to address this issue until 19 December 2019, 4 working days after the resident highlighted his concern and this was unreasonable. This was outside the repair timescales of 24 hours for emergency repairs within its repairs policy.
The resident then raised another repair request about heating and hot water on 19 January 2020. The landlord’s notes identify that it was aware he had 2 children under 5 in the property. Its records again demonstrate that it did not raise the repair until 22 January 2020, 3 days after he raised his request, this was unreasonable. This was outside the emergency repair timescales within its repairs policy.
It is of concern that the landlord was made aware that there was a newborn and young children within the property and failed to act promptly. It had a responsibility to ensure its residents are not living in hazardous conditions. This is especially the case given that there was a newborn within the property. It had a responsibility to ensure the repairs were completed in a reasonable time, and it failed to do so on both occasions. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it took appropriate consideration around the vulnerabilities identified within the household and acted promptly to avoid any potential harm. The repairs should have been dealt with as emergency repairs based on the vulnerabilities within the household. It also failed to demonstrate that it took account of the time of year involved in both reports. This was unreasonable and caused the resident frustration and distress.
The resident first raised the issues around the lack of heating or hot water in December 2019. The resident has explained that he was using electric heaters within the property which was a temporary solution. A permanent solution was then not established until November 2022. This represents a delay of almost 3 years before the matter was properly fixed and this was unacceptable, especially given that the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities within the household.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it offered the family any form of support while the issue was on going and this was unacceptable. There is no evidence to suggest the resident raised any issues around costs prior to the complaint. However, it could have been proactive to identify any such issues. It has not shown that it offered him temporary heaters when he complained of a lack of heating, and he has explained that he bought one. Its inaction was unsatisfactory and shows a lack of customer focus.
The landlord did however appropriately provide him with heating costs at stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure but has not shown that it contacted him to identify the costs incurred. Doing so would have ensured its offer reflected the costs of his purchase and additional electrical usage. It did not demonstrate that it considered making any arrangements to allow them to cater to their hygiene needs as he had explained they were left without hot water for 24 hours when the issue occurred. The failure to do so may have added to the resident’s overall frustration and lack of confidence in the landlord.

Water ingress through the boiler

Throughout the landlord’s records, there are numerous instances of works being raised, then closed, completed, or cancelled with no information around why the landlord took such action. This raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping, as it makes it unclear what works it had completed, or why the jobs were closed or cancelled. This issue was also identified in the Housing Ombudsman’s recent paragraph 49 investigation into the landlord. The poor record keeping meant that the landlord did not have oversight of the repairs, and this contributed to the delays faced by the resident.
The resident initially informed the landlord about the leak in October 2019, at this time there were no reports around a lack of heating or hot water. It then did not effect a solution until November 2022. It is acknowledged that the landlord raised works and completed investigations in response to try to rectify the issue, however, it failed to identify the issue promptly and put a solution in place within a reasonable timeframe. Its failure to do so led to him taking the time to repeatedly raise the issue with the landlord. It also led to a delay of over 3 years, which the landlord has acknowledged, however, the length of the delay was unacceptable. This caused the resident frustration, distress, and a lack of confidence in the landlord’s actions.
The landlord explained to the resident in its stage 1 response that prior to 2022, there was no evidence of the rain leaking through the seal as it was not raining at the time of its visits. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it may have been difficult to plan for operatives/contractors to attend based on the weather. The resident made it clear that the issue occurred when it rained. The landlord has not demonstrated that any of its investigations took place when it rained in line with the resident’s information. Sending operatives to the property when it was not raining would not have allowed it to properly identify the root cause of the issue. The failure to take proper consideration around this contributed to the delays faced by the resident and caused him frustration and distress.
The stage 1 response also contradicts its operatives notes in January 2021 which states that the flue should have been changed due to the poor sealing which caused the rain getting into and around the boiler. This demonstrates that the cause of the issue had been identified 22 months before it took action. This highlights poor investigation into the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate as it was not in keeping with the terms within the tenancy agreement of completing repairs within a reasonable time and giving priority to urgent repairs.
This was also inappropriate, as it was not in keeping with its repairs policy as the repair was ongoing for longer than provided timescales for any repairs. Further to this it was suggested on 3 occasions between January and June 2021, that an abseiler was required. This was unreasonable as the landlord did not act on this advice, show that it explored the option, or demonstrate its reasons for not doing so. This caused the resident avoidable frustration, distress, delays, and inconvenience. It raises questions about the landlord’s review of its own records around the repair, and its internal communications.
Across both issues, the landlord did not demonstrate that it ever reconsidered its position around the wellbeing of the resident or his family due to the issues and this was unreasonable. It has not shown that it completed any risk assessments or health and safety assessments to inform its position despite his reports of health concerns. Completing these actions would have allowed it to reassure itself and the resident that it was taking appropriate action, given the circumstances of the household. This is especially the case as he had raised concerns about the health of his young children. It should have reassessed its position and considered if it needed to take any mitigating action, if its current plan with dealing with the repairs was appropriate, and how best it could support the family. This was also not in keeping with its repairs policy around appropriately managing hazards which may present a risk to health. This failure to demonstrate that it did this was unreasonable.
The landlord informed the resident that it was not responsible for the damage to his belongings due to the damage from the leak in its stage 1 response and referred him to his content’s insurance. It then provided the same advice at stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure. Whilst it was reasonable for it to refer him to his own insurance, it should have explained to him, that if the damage was caused after it became aware of the leak, and due to its inaction in fixing it in a timely manner, he could make a claim from its own insurance. It was not until 2 months after the stage 1 response, that it identified its mistake and informed the resident. This was unreasonable. It should have taken steps to assure itself the information it looked to provide was correct before it formally did so in its stage 1 response. It should have then ensured the information remained correct before providing it in its stage 2 response. The failure to do so was inappropriate.
The landlord has appropriately demonstrated that it raised issues around the misdiagnosis of the repair with its contractor and this saw them apologise to the resident. It also showed that it raised issues with its own operatives around closing orders without resolution. It has however not demonstrated that it has reminded the contractor or its operatives of the service levels it expects from them, and this was unsatisfactory. Doing so would have gone a long way to demonstrate to the resident that it took the matter seriously.

Compensation

The landlord has appropriately acknowledged several of the issues raised within this report within its complaint responses. Across its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord offered the resident compensation to address its failure to resolve the matter, the length of time the issue was ongoing, and misdiagnosing the issue. It offered further compensation in its stage 2 response for heating costs, delay and inconvenience caused to the resident, the impact of the delay on the resident. This amounted to £2000 in compensation. Although this goes a way in acknowledging the level of detriment caused to the resident, this does not go far enough in addressing the lack of consideration of the vulnerabilities in the household, failure to take appropriate steps around the family’s health and safety, and the issues caused by its record keeping over the 3 years. As such, an order has been made for further compensation to be paid.
In summary, the resident raised 2 repair requests around his heating and hot water which the landlord failed to respond to in a reasonable time. It failed to show that it considered the time of year around the repairs, and its delays in address the repairs left the resident and his family in a potentially hazardous situation. It failed to demonstrate that it had completed any form of risk or health and safety assessment, despite the fact he had explained he had young children within the property and there had been an impact on their health. It also failed to account for the vulnerabilities that had been highlighted to it. It appropriately acknowledged several issues in its handling of the repairs.
Despite this, there were further issues such as with its investigation into the matter, its communication both internally and with its contractors around the matter, and its review of its records. Its investigations failed to identify that the required solution had been proposed much earlier. The failure to do so led to unnecessary delays in completing the works. Despite the fact the landlord appropriately offered the resident several apologies and compensation, it failed to account for the lack of consideration of the vulnerabilities in the household, failure to take appropriate steps around the family’s health and safety, and its record keeping. It also failed to appropriately investigate its responsibility around insurance and provided inaccurate information. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
In February 2024, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its handling of complaints, repairs, and record keeping. The report recommended the landlord review its process, practices, and procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those in our special report. To avoid duplication no further orders for policy, process or practice review have been made. We do expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account when delivering future service provision.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of lack of heating, hot water, and water ingress though the boiler when it rained.

Reasons

The landlord failed to appropriately consider the vulnerabilities of the family. There were delays in it taking action to deal with the matter on several occasions. It failed to complete any health and safety, or risk assessments to inform its approach with the repairs and reassure both itself and the resident around its actions. It failed to appropriately assess its records which had identified the required works at a much earlier point, and this led to unnecessary delay. It also failed to properly assure itself around the information it was providing the resident. This led to it providing him with inaccurate information around its insurance responsibility for the damage to his possessions. Although it offered compensation, this did not appropriately consider its failings. These were things such as the consideration of the vulnerabilities, completion of relevant risk and health and safety assessments, and the inappropriate advice provided.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology around the identified failings.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2400 consisting of:
  1. £2000 previously offered to the resident across its stage 1 and 2 responses if this has not already been paid. This should be paid directly to the resident and not on to his rent account.
  2. £400 for the failings identified within this report.