Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202315550)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315550

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

10 October 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 report of:
1. Several repairs including damp and mould.
2. Pest control issues in the property.
3. Reports of asbestos in the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy at the property, a 2 bedroom top floor flat in a purpose-built block. The resident lives at the property with her adult daughter.
The resident told the landlord about various repairs issues at the property over a number of years, including in a disrepair claim in 2020. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 November 2023. The issues listed in her complaint were as follows:
1. Inadequate insulation in the property.
2. Damp and mould issues.
3. Leaks and drafts through the windows.
4. Water ingress on the walls.
5. Asbestos to be removed and contractors not attending because of asbestos.
6. Bedroom walls left bare and works left incomplete.
7. Bedroom & kitchen radiators removed and not replaced.
8. Property was very cold.
9. Mice infestation.
10. Missed or cancelled appointments from the landlord’s contractors.
11. Lack of consideration and engagement on the complaint from the landlord.
12. Previous complaints had been ignored. The landlord had started works but these were substandard and not completed.
13. The resident suffers from depression, respiratory and skin conditions and was worried about the mould.
14. The resident was concerned about the cost of heating the property in its current condition.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 16 November 2023. It apologised for the delays and acknowledged there were a number of outstanding repair issues at the property. It noted the resident’s concerns and confirmed it had referred the job to a specialist contractor who would oversee the work from now on. It offered £700 compensation, comprising £300 for the works not being completed, £200 for the delays and £200 for distress and inconvenience. The resident escalated the complaint on 6 December 2023 and the landlord responded on 24 January 2024.
In its stage 2 response it apologised that the resident had needed to chase the repairs causing further stress. It confirmed that it had booked an inspection on 23 January 2024. It offered an additional £100 compensation (comprising £50 for distress and inconvenience and £50 for its delayed stage 2 response) and said the case had been closed. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the matter to this Service.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident said she wanted the works completed to a good standard and for the offer of compensation to be increased.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

As part of her complaint, the resident raised concerns with the landlord ignoring previous complaints until an MP was involved. No further detail has been provided by either party about these complaints. The Ombudsman may only investigate complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process and that have been brought within a reasonable time. It is unclear from the evidence when these complaints were raised and what the outcome was. For this reason this investigation has only assessed the issues raised within the complaint made on 2 November 2023. General consideration has been given to the landlord’s approach to complaint handling as part of this assessment.
Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident has said this situation has had a detrimental impact on her health, including a deterioration in her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Several repairs including damp and mould.

The landlord has a statutory duty to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair and fit for habitation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It is unclear from the evidence when the resident first reported the repair issues. However, the landlord’s repair logs show the landlord attended the property in June 2023. The notes from this attendance state the resident refused the repair work as she wanted the damp resolved first. Therefore it is confirmed that the landlord was on notice of the repairs from June 2023 at the latest.
There is no evidence of the landlord acting on these repairs until after the resident complained in November 2023. It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to act on the reports of damp or follow up the other outstanding repairs following this alleged refusal of work by the resident. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will make 3 attempts to complete a repair order and then close the job. There is no evidence of the landlord making any further attempts to complete the work and this was inappropriate.
It is of particular note that the landlord failed to act on the resident reports of damp and mould within the property. Damp and mould are listed as hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the landlord has a duty under this legislation to keep the property free from hazards. The landlord’s damp and mould works process notes that a damp and mould survey will be raised for every report of damp and mould. The resident’s GP wrote to the landlord on 6 March 2023 explaining the damp conditions were having a detrimental impact on the resident’s health. The landlord’s stage 1 response notes it completed a mould wash on 22 May 2023 and that orders were raised for damp works to be completed to the walls and for two new extractor fans, however these works were not completed. There is no evidence of the landlord completing a damp and mould survey until May 2024. The landlord acted inappropriately in failing to follow its own process to complete and damp and mould survey upon receiving a report of damp and mould.
It is important to note that this Service has not seen any evidence of the severity or extent of the issue, with the exception of the report completed in May 2024 which confirmed there was an issue. The landlord’s records do not appear to contain any photos as evidence of the situation prior to this.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 24 January 2024 acknowledged that the damp and mould works remained outstanding and that an inspection had been booked for 23 January 2024. It did not confirm the outcome of this inspection. It was unreasonable that it took the landlord almost 3 months from the resident’s initial complaint and 10 months from the date of the GP letter to inspect the damp and mould. There is no evidence of the landlord completing any works following this visit other than a further survey in May 2024. The landlord failed to respond with an appropriate level of urgency to the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould. This was a failure and an increased offer of compensation would have been appropriate. The landlord’s compensation offer has been assessed later in this section of the report.
The landlord’s internal emails in March 2024 show the issue with water ingress through the dormer window in the bedroom was complex to resolve due to the building site next door. It noted there would be limited access for scaffolding to the external area. It is reasonable to conclude that this ongoing water ingress was contributing to the damp in the room. There is no evidence of the landlord sharing this information or discussing the complexity of the issue with the resident. This Service published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021. Two of the recommendations within the report were for landlords to:
1. Satisfy themselves that they were taking all reasonable steps to put in place mitigations to support residents where structural interventions are not appropriate or possible.
2. Share the outcome of all surveys with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps.
The landlord failed to deliver a service in line with either of these recommendations in its handling of the damp and mould reported at this property. It also failed to act in accordance with its own policies. If the landlord concluded it was not possible to repair the dormer window at this time due to the restrictions caused by the building site next door, it should have explained this to the resident and agreed on an alternative course of action. The landlord missed the opportunity to do so and this was a failure. Orders have been made below regarding this, including an increased offer of compensation.
The landlord’s stage 1 response commented that the bedroom radiator had been removed on 9 May 2023 to locate a leak. It said it had been replaced on 25 May 2023. However the resident said in her complaint that it had not been replaced. The landlord did not comment on the kitchen radiator which the resident said had been removed some time ago and never replaced. Its stage 2 response did not address the resident’s concerns about the missing radiators at all. It was unreasonable of the landlord to state that the bedroom radiator had been replaced without first confirming this either with the resident or by inspecting the property itself. It was also unreasonable of it to ignore the resident’s complaint about the kitchen radiator, especially given her concerns around the cost of heating the property and her health concerns. The landlord is ordered to survey all radiators within the property and confirm to the resident whether they are considered adequate for heating the property.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns around inadequate insulation, the property being cold and the costs of running portable heaters due to the missing radiators. The landlord said it acknowledged the resident’s health concerns but did not comment further on the matter or explain how it would take this into account going forwards. The landlord’s failure to address these issues does not demonstrate any consideration for the resident’s potential vulnerabilities due to her health concerns. Failing to address certain aspects of the complaint is also not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy which says its immediate aim is to put things right.
Excess cold is listed as a hazard under the HHSRS and the landlord was responsible for investigating and resolving this. There is no evidence of the landlord making any enquiries into the thermal efficiency of the property or discussing this with the resident. This could have involved providing the resident with a copy of the current Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).
In terms of putting things right, the landlord’s compensation policy outlines it will offer £5 per day to properties running portable heaters. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to make any such offers in its complaint responses. The landlord acknowledged the resident was without a radiator in her bedroom with a portable heater for 14 days meaning a payment of £70 was due for this period and this has been included in the orders for compensation below. As the landlord failed to confirm the status of the radiators within the property it is not possible for this investigation to confirm the exact period the resident may have been using the portable heater for. For this reason, a payment for additional compensation for distress and inconvenience has been awarded in recognition of this.
The landlord is also ordered to provide the resident with a copy of the current EPC and apologise to the resident for ignoring her concerns around the overall insulation and temperature of the property. The landlord should ensure it considers any work required to appropriately heat the property when it completes the outstanding repair work.
The landlord’s complaint responses both acknowledged that a number of the repairs remained outstanding. Neither of the responses confirmed a plan of action to resolve the issues or a timescale by which the repairs would be resolved. Both the responses suggested someone would be overseeing the repairs however no contact details were provided for the relevant person or team. The landlord therefore failed to put things right and the resident has informed us that some of the repairs are still outstanding
The landlord offered £750 compensation related to this aspect of the complaint in its stage 2 response, comprising:
1. £500 for 3 specific repair orders which had not been completed and overall delays completing the repairs.
2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused
Where landlords have acknowledged failures and made an offer of redress, this Service must assess if the redress offered was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may make offers between £300 and £1000 for “considerable service failure” such as the failure to address repairs in line with policy over a considerable period of time. Given the landlord was on notice of the repairs since at least June 2023 and failed to even inspect the repairs until January 2024, it would be proportionate to offer the resident the maximum of £1000 compensation in recognition of this delay. An order has been made below for increased compensation in line with this.
The landlord also failed to acknowledge the resident’s reports of missed appointments. Its compensation policy notes it will offer up to £50 for missed appointments. If the landlord disputed the resident’s claims of missed appointments it should have explained this within its complaint responses. It missed the opportunity to do so and failed to offer any compensation in recognition of the missed appointments. This was inappropriate and an order for £50 compensation has been made below in line with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s offer of £250 for distress and inconvenience was proportionate to the impact of the specific failures it acknowledged within its complaints responses in line with its compensation policy. The policy says it may make offers up to £300 for distress and inconvenience which may have had an impact on the resident’s stress, anxiety or overall wellbeing. The resident informed the landlord that the issues were having an impact on her physical and mental wellbeing. However, as set out above the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the status of the radiators. Therefore an additional order of £50 has been made for the distress and inconvenience the resident has reported to have experienced as a result of its failure to address, in line with maximum amount set out in its compensation policy.
In conclusion, although the landlord apologised for the delays in completing the repair work and offered compensation in recognition of its failures, it failed to act with an appropriate level of urgency. It also failed to commit to a timescale to resolve the outstanding repairs, some of which remain outstanding to date. This was especially true of the repairs related to damp and mould. The landlord has failed to evidence any robust attempts to resolve the issues in a timely manner. It also failed to communicate with the resident regarding the complexity of the repairs and a plan to complete the works or mitigate the resident’s living conditions in the meantime. This investigation has found maladministration and orders have been made below. Inclusive of the £750 already offered by the landlord, compensation of £1,420 is ordered in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for failures resulting in severe long-term impact on the resident.
For the avoidance of doubt, the total compensation awarded to the resident for this element of the complaint is £1,420 comprising:
1. £750 previously offered.
2. £70 for running the electric heaters.
3. An additional £550 for the impact on the resident of the delays in handling the repairs.
4. £50 for the failure to address the missed appointments.

Reports of pest control issues in the property.

The landlord’s pest control contractor had previously attended the property following reports of mice on 6 and 20 July 2020 and 3 August 2020. The contractor attended again in March 2021 and the notes say there was a low infestation level and no further appointments were made.
The resident reported the issue again in March 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response notes that it raised an order on 17 October 2022 to fill any holes allowing access for mice to the property. The landlord’s response further said the work to block the holes was completed but the landlord’s repair logs do not show evidence of this repair job nor of its completion. The landlord has not provided its policy for dealing with pests. However given that pests are listed as a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), it is reasonable to conclude it should have applied some urgency to resolving the matter. An attendance within 28 days would be reasonable in the circumstances. It is inappropriate that it took the landlord 7 months to raise an order for the works to block the entry points to the mice. It is also unreasonable that the landlord’s records lack any definitive confirmation of the actions it took to resolve this matter and this was a failure.
It is unclear from the evidence when the resident next reported the issue however the pest control contractor attended again on 20 April 2023. The notes from this attendance say that mice were still present in the property and the landlord needed to complete proofing works to prevent this. This report would suggest that the landlord failed to complete the work it ordered in October 2022, despite its complaint response saying otherwise. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it raised an order to complete this work on 19 June 2023 however this was cancelled as the operative was asked to complete other works by the resident. As above, there is no evidence of the landlord raising this order and this is another record-keeping failure.
In failing to complete the proofing work to prevent the entry of mice, the landlord failed to respond reasonably to the resident’s reports of pest control from March 2022 onwards. Neither of the complaint responses confirm the next steps to resolve the issue. The resident has informed this Service that the landlord is yet to complete this proofing work, meaning the resident has been living with an intermittent mice infestation since March 2022. The landlord is ordered to treat any current infestation and complete the proofing work as recommended by its pest control contractor.
In conclusion, this investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice within the property. An order for £300 compensation has been made below, which is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for failures which had a considerable impact on the resident over a prolonged period of time. The landlord is also ordered to issue the resident with an apology for its failures in handling the matter.

Reports of asbestos in the property.

The evidence shows the landlord completed an asbestos survey in March 2023. It identified there was asbestos containing material in the board around and behind the gas meter in one of the cupboards and recommended this was encapsulated. To complete this, the landlord:
1. Contacted the resident on 17 April 2023 to book an appointment but the resident wanted the asbestos removed.
2. Spoke with the resident on 19 April 2023 and confirmed the asbestos would not be removed. It explained what works would be carried out.
3. Attended to encapsulate the asbestos on 14 June 2023. However upon internal sign off the landlord identified that the wrong panel had been encapsulated.
4. Returned to complete the works on 30 June 2023 and signed this off as completed.
The landlord’s asbestos management plan says it will complete remediations recommended within its asbestos surveys, such as encapsulation and it will manage asbestos in good condition. It does not remove asbestos that can be managed in this way. The landlord acted appropriately in encapsulating the asbestos and although an error was made in encapsulating the incorrect panel, this was put right within a reasonable timeframe.
In her complaint of 2 November 2023, the resident reported the landlord’s contractor had refused to complete other repair works because it suspected the presence of asbestos. There is no evidence of works raised prior to this point so this investigation has not been able to draw conclusions on this. Rather, it has assessed the landlord’s handling of the matter from the point it was raised in the complaint.
In both the landlord’s complaint responses, it failed to directly address the resident’s reports of failed appointments due to suspected asbestos. Instead it confirmed the action it had taken to encapsulate the asbestos. The resident continued to report that she suspected there was asbestos in the hallway ceiling and that this had prevented repairs being done to the property. In response to this, the landlord:
1. Confirmed with its asbestos contractor in November 2023, February 2024 and March 2024 that there was no asbestos present in the hallway ceiling.
2. Confirmed with its asbestos contractor that it was safe to proceed with all required repair works.
3. Spoke with the resident on 7 March 2024 and agreed to complete a further asbestos survey to give the resident reassurance. A plan was agreed to proceed with other works in the property while awaiting the results of the survey.
4. Completed the additional survey on 11 March 2024.
5. Received the report confirming no asbestos present. It sent the report to its contractor on 12 March 2024 and notified the resident that works could proceed.
6. Spoke with the resident on 26 March 2024 to reassure her that no asbestos was present.
7. Sent a letter to the resident on 27 March 2024 summarising the survey outcome.
The above steps were all reasonable in handling the resident’s concerns about asbestos within the property. However there is no evidence of the landlord making any enquiries into the resident’s allegations that its contractor had refused to complete works on the basis that asbestos was present. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will investigate all complaints and on this occasion it failed to do so. It appears from the landlord’s internal communication that the contractor was eager to complete the work, however it should have clearly communicated this to the resident to prevent any further misunderstandings or delays in completing the work. This was a failure and the landlord did not acknowledge this in either of its complaint responses.
In conclusion, the landlord handled the presence of asbestos within the property in an appropriate manner. However, it did not fully investigate the resident’s allegations that its contractor had refused to complete works because of suspected asbestos. This investigation has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint. An order for £50 compensation has been made below in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for failures that have had some short term impact on the resident.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says it can extend these timeframes if extra time is required and that it must notify the resident of this extension. The landlord’s stage 2 response was originally due by 9 January 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 January 2024 and extended the response date to 23 January 2024. Then on 23 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident again and informed her it needed one more day to respond to the complaint. Although the landlord has responded outside of the timescales detailed in its policy, the landlord did apologise for the delay and offered £50 compensation for this. This offer was proportionate to the minor delay incurred by the resident.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord noted that the case was now closed. The resident was understandably confused by the suggestion that the case was closed when so many of the repairs remained outstanding. The landlord is obliged to act in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that complaints can be closed when a plan of action has been agreed. It was not appropriate for the landlord to have closed the complaint without providing a plan or timescale to resolve the resident’s complaint. This was a failure and the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience that was likely caused by its failures to provide the resident with an explicit plan of action to resolve the repair issues.
It is noted that the landlord made spelling errors in the resident’s name on both its complaint responses which does not show an appropriate level of attention to detail in handling complaints. The landlord should ensure its apology to the resident includes this failure.
In conclusion, the landlord compensated the resident proportionately for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response. However it closed the resident’s complaint before agreeing a plan of action to put thing right. This investigation has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs within the property, including repairs related to dampness and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest control issues in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of asbestos in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
1. Inspect the property for all outstanding repairs and provide a written copy of the scope of works identified to the resident and this Service, including:
  1. A timetable for completion of the works.
  2. Details of any interim solutions for mitigating the impact of the more complex works, such as the leaking bedroom window, or an offer of temporary accommodation.
  3. Details of how the works will be post inspected.
2. Arrange with the resident to carry out pest control treatment for any current pest control issues and to complete the proofing work as recommended by the pest control contractor.
3. Complete a survey of the radiators within the property to confirm if the property is adequately heated. The landlord must confirm the outcome of this survey to the resident and this Service in writing.
4. Provide the resident with a copy of the current Energy Performance Certificate.
5. Provide the resident with a written sincere apology for the failures outlined within this report
6. Pay the resident the £800 already offered within its stage 2 response, if not already paid.
7. Pay the resident an additional £1,070, comprising:
  1. £70 for running the electric heaters.
  2. £50 for the missed appointment.
  3. £550 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling several repairs including damp and mould.
  4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s reports of pest control issues in the property.
  5. £50 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the reports of asbestos within the property.
  6. £50 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord must:
1. Complete a case review, under paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, to identify any improvements that can be made or training required to prevent similar failures in future. A summary of the case review must be provided to the resident and this Service.