Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202309170)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309170

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

10 March 2025

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to a bin shed lock.
   2. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to an external gate.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bed upper ground floor property in a residential housing block that is owned by the landlord.
3. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 March 2023 about 3 repairs which it had not completed by 20 March 2023. She explained that a bin shed door repair had been outstanding for more than 8 months.
4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 30 March 2023. It sent a holding response to her on 17 April 2023 because it had been unable to respond within its target timescale. It said it was due to complete repairs during that week, and it would respond to her by 26 April 2023.
5. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 17 May 2023. It said the complaint was about outstanding repairs on the estate. It apologised that the resident had needed to complain. Its supervisor had inspected the area and had confirmed that it had repaired both bin doors and a lock on a gate was working correctly. It explained that the gate had a removable post which contractors working on site had removed to provide access. It said it would visit the estate again on 16 May 2023 to reinspect the areas the resident had complained about to ensure they were secure. It partially upheld the complaint because the resident had previously complained about the repairs. It offered her £50 for its late response to her complaint.
6. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 20 April 2023 which said the repair work was outstanding and she would like to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She sent a further stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 17 May 2023 which said that the landlord had created a free parking space on a green space area because it had not completed repairs to a broken gate. The resident asked the landlord to complete the repair as soon as possible.
7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 24 May 2023, and it sent a stage 2 response to her on 30 May 2023. It thanked the resident for providing a photograph of gate post laying on the pavement. It said its contractor had inspected the gate and no repairs had been necessary. It explained that its contractor had unlocked the gate to allow access and that it would lock it again when it finished the works. The post was designed to be locked and unlocked and therefore no repairs were necessary. It apologised that its stage 1 response had caused dissatisfaction to the resident. It explained that its compensation offer of £50 had been in line with its internal repairs compensation policy and it was still available to her is she had not claimed it. It said it would contact her within 5 days and post-inspect and monitor the works.
8. The resident asked the Housing Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said that the landlord had not completed repairs to an external gate and a bin shed lock. She said that, to put the matters right, the landlord should complete the outstanding repairs and provide her with compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

9. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

1. 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 member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”

10. The resident reported outstanding repairs to bin shed locks in her stage 1 complaint on 30 March 2023. The landlord addressed the matter in its stage 1 response on 17 May 2023. However, in her stage 2 complaint she reported outstanding repairs to a broken gate that created free parking on a green space area only. As the resident did not escalate the complaint about the bin shed locks, the complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure and as such, the Ombudsman will not investigate it.

The scope of investigation

11. The investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the repairs to an external gate from the report in February 2023.

The repairs to an external gate

12. Under clause 1(c) of the sixth schedule of the lease, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the building and the common parts, including fences and walls. This would include communal gates and gate posts.
13. The resident reported a damaged external gate post to the landlord on 5 February 2023. The landlord’s duty under the lease would be to inspect and determine (a) whether the gate or the post was in disrepair and (b) whether it was responsible for that repair. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it would respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord raised an appointment to attend the next day (6 February 2023). Its decision to inspect the site the following day was prompt and reasonable.
14. The landlord raised a works order on 7 February 2023 to repair the post on 13 February 2023. The landlord’s repairs records indicate that the operative inspected all 4 gates on 13 February 2023 and noted they were secure. However, they adjusted the magnetic plates on four gates and replaced a faulty timer. The records state that the vehicle gate needed to be repaired as the post had broken away from the ground.
15. The resident reported the matter again to the landlord on 10 March 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord updated her before this point. The landlord booked a further appointment to renew the metal gate post on 24 March 2023. This timescale was not outside the landlord’s policy of 20 working days.
16. There is no evidence that the landlord completed the gate repair it had booked to take place on 24 March 2023. The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence that shows how it responded to the damaged gate repair to a satisfactory standard.
17. The resident raised a complaint on 30 March 2023. Following this, the landlord’s housing records show that it was itself unclear about the completion of the gate repair. It sent internal emails on 19 April 2023 that said that it had repaired the gate on 17 April 2023, despite the resident reporting it as outstanding. In recognition of this the landlord reinspected the gate.
18. Between 19 April 2023 and 17 May 2023 the landlord sent various internal emails about the condition of the gate. It ultimately concluded that the gate did not require a repair, as the gate post was removable. The Ombudsman has reviewed photographic evidence that the gate post is removable – and therefore this conclusion was not unreasonable. Specifically, an item is only in need of repair where it is not in proper working order or defective in some way. In this case, the post was in working order, as it was removable.
19. The landlord addressed the matter in its complaint response on 17 May 2023. It explained that the gate did not require a repair and that its contractors had been removing the post to park. However, the landlord ought to have made this clear to the resident much sooner than it did on 17 May 2023. The landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident was unreasonable. It also agreed to visit the site to ensure there were no further repairs which was appropriate.
20. The resident escalated her complaint about the gate on 17 May 2023. She restated that the gate was still broken, and she attached a photograph of it. It appears from the photographs provided the resident was concerned that the post had been removed so that contractors could enter the area. The landlord held further conversations about the gate in internal emails and at an internal meeting on 24 May 2023.
21. The landlord’s contractors would have a right of access to enter upon the area to complete works to the building and the premises if the landlord granted that.
22. What was a relatively simple issue that could have been responded to quickly as an explanation went on from 5 February 2023 to 24 May 2023. This involved multiple emails and communication – which was unnecessary – as the explanation ought to have been that the post was movable, and the landlord’s contractors were entitled to remove the post to enter to complete works. It appears at some point a lock for the gate was provided. That does not mean, however, the post or the gate was not in working order. The landlord is at fault in this case for not providing a clear explanation sooner to the resident.
23. Taken together the landlord ought to be responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to an external gate. The landlord should have been aware of the position sooner and explained it so that a complaint was not necessary. The confusion meant that the resident had to raise a complaint to have her concerns answered. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord pay a small sum of compensation to recognise the frustration caused by its handling of the matter.

The resident’s complaint

24. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
    1. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 30 March 2023 until 17 May 2023. This was 38 working days later than the 10-working day timescale contained in the Code. Additionally, this was 30 working days later than the revised target date it provided in its holding response.
    2. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 2 complaint in accordance with paragraph 5.16 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
25. The evidence suggests that the landlord delayed the response because it was due to complete the repair later than the response target date. Landlords need to ensure that they do not allow complaints to stay open indefinitely while they arrange and complete works. This runs the risk of blocking residents from escalating their complaints, as has happened here. The Ombudsman’s position is that the landlord can normally send a response detailing its assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. It can and should still check the progress of its plan after it has sent a complaint response.
26. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
27. The landlord offered the resident £50 as compensation for its complaint handling delays. This was reasonable to recognise the likely frustration caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling. As such, the landlord has offered redress to the resident for the poor complaint handling which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to a bin shed door is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to an external gate.
30. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint.

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of the external gate repair.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £75 in compensation for distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s response to the external gate repairs may have caused to the resident. This is to recognise the likely frustration caused by the time taken to detail the issue with the gate. The impact is likely to have be minimal.
32. The landlord is to pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Recommendations

33. The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.