Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202339246)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339246

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

8 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s balcony door.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The landlord’s contractor initially attended the resident’s property in November 2022 to carry out repairs to the resident’s balcony door.
  3. On 24 October 2023, the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She explained she had contacted the repairs department twice to arrange for the balcony door to be repaired. However, the repair was still outstanding.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 November 2023. It apologised for the service the resident received from its repairs team. The landlord explained that a work order for the door had been raised but was closed down in error. It confirmed that it had booked a new appointment for the repair of the balcony door for 28 November 2023. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience of the delays in repairing the doors.
  5. On 23 November 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She explained she had called the landlord several times to arrange a repair to her balcony door. The resident stated that this was the fourth time the same door needed to be fixed, and she stated it would take weeks to get an appointment.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 November 2023. It apologised for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. The landlord confirmed that an appointment had been scheduled for the installation of a new balcony door for 19 January 2024. The landlord apologised for the difficulties the resident experienced. It offered the resident additional compensation of £200, which included £175 distress and inconvenience for the delays in repairing the balcony door and £25 for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. The compensation offered was additional to the £150 the landlord offered in its stage 1 complaint response.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for the landlord to improve its repairs service and for her to receive additional compensation for the delay in repairing the door.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the resident’s balcony door

Policies and procedures and lease agreement.

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property, doors, door frames, windows, and window frames.
  2.  The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it will respond to an emergency repair within 24 hours, routine repair within 20 working days and planned works within 60 working days.

Assessment

  1. The resident previously experienced repair issues with her door prior to her submitting her complaint to the landlord. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 14 November 2022 to carry out repairs to the resident’s balcony door. The contractor removed and refitted the door.
  2. The landlord’s records also show that the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 30 June 2023 to carry out a temporary repair to the lock on the balcony door. Following this, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 31 July 2023 to carry out further repairs to the balcony door. However, the contractor who attended specialised in wooden door repairs and the resident’s balcony door was a UPVC door. Therefore, the contractor could not carry out any repairs to the door. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been distressing for the resident dealing with the repair delay and the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to book the correct contractor for the door repair.
  3. On 8 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to book another appointment for the balcony door repair. However, the landlord failed to book an appointment for the repair and closed the repair work order in error. The landlord’s handling of the door repair appointment was unreasonable and resulted in the balcony door repair being outstanding for an unnecessary amount of time.
  4. Due to the landlord’s failure to book an appointment for the door repair, the resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2023, chasing for an appointment. In response to this, the landlord raised a new work order and booked an appointment for the balcony door repair.
  5. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response provided on 6 November 2023 that there were delays in repairing the balcony door. It confirmed that it had booked a further appointment for 28 November 2023 for the door repair. The landlord apologised for its level of service and offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused in relation to the balcony door repair.
  6. From the information the landlord provided, there is no evidence that the appointment for 28 November 2023 went ahead. This was unreasonable by the landlord and resulted in the balcony door repair remaining outstanding for several months.
  7. On 18 December 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord confirmed it had booked an appointment for the installation of a UPVC balcony door at the resident’s property on 19 January 2024. It also apologised for the difficulties the resident experienced with the balcony door repair. The landlord explained it had implemented improvements due to its failures with the resident’s complaint. It stated it had implemented regular meetings with its contractor to monitor outstanding work and would refer any outstanding repairs to the contract manager and repairs and service delivery team.
  8. The landlord also offered the resident additional compensation of £175 in its stage 2 complaint response to recognise the further delay and inconvenience in repairing the balcony door. The compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable and sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance recommends amounts in this range where the landlord has made errors which caused significant distress and/or inconvenience to the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the errors.
  9. After the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord’s contractor failed to attend the resident’s property for the booked appointment on 19 January 2024. This was unreasonable and may have led the resident to doubt that the contractors would attend appointments in view of the number of appointments which were cancelled.
  10. The landlord acted appropriately by rearranging an appointment for the installation of the new door. It rebooked an appointment for 5 March 2024. Considering the door repair had been outstanding for such a long period of time, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to rearrange the appointment much sooner than it did.
  11. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 5 March 2024 and completed repairs to the balcony door. Although the landlord completed the repairs to the balcony door, the resident was unhappy with the standard of repair and explained that there was still a gap around the door. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by arranging a post inspection appointment for 11 March 2024.
  12. On 11 March 2024, the landlord visited the resident’s property and inspected the balcony door. It confirmed that the door opened and closed, locked, and unlocked and there was no draft. The inspection report also stated that there were no signs of daylight coming through at the time of the visit. However, it was confirmed during the inspection that the resident would send the landlord photographs of the daylight coming through the door gap. The landlord acted reasonably by confirming it would review the photographs provided by the resident.
  13. Shortly after, the resident sent the landlord photographs of the sunlight showing through the door gap. The landlord reviewed the photographs and confirmed it had arranged an appointment for 16 April 2024. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if this appointment went ahead. However, the landlord attended the resident’s property on 19 July 2024 and carried out works to realign the door, as it identified that there was a gap when the door was closed. The following day, the resident contacted the landlord confirming she was happy with the door repair and confirmed that the balcony door repair had been resolved. The resident also confirmed with the Ombudsman in October 2024 that the balcony door had been repaired.
  14. The landlord offered additional compensation at stage 2 of its complaints process to reflect the further delays and missed appointments since the stage 1 response was issued. Overall, the landlord offered the resident £325 compensation during its complaint process. The amount offered was sufficient to recognise the delays in repairing the resident’s balcony door. The compensation offer is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above.
  15. The landlord’s compensation offer proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case for its handling of the balcony door repair.

The associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales as referenced in the Code.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days and contact a resident within 5 working days to confirm the elements of their complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy applicable at the time does not include any specific information about acknowledging an escalation request.
  3. The resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord on 24 October 2023. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 November 2023. The response was on time and in line with the timescales referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. On 23 November 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. There was a delay in the landlord logging and acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 11 December 2023.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 December 2023. The response was on time and within the 20-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
  6. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that there was a delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request and offered the resident £25 compensation to recognise the error. The compensation offered to the resident is compliant with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £350 compensation made during its complaint process if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.