Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202403025)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403025

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

25 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:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. The formal complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of the property, which is a ground floor, one bedroom flat. The landlord is a council. The landlord says it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, who has told this Service she has asthma, skin conditions, and anxiety for which she is receiving therapy.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, and the installations for the supply of services. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The tenancy agreement says it will complete repairs within a reasonable time and give priority to urgent repairs. It sets out these responsibilities within its repairs policy, as well as its responsibility for managing hazards which present a risk to health. It categorises repairs as emergency (respond within 4 to 24 hours), routine (repair within 20 working days) or planned (repair within 60 working days).
The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). One of the 29 identified hazards is damp and mould. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards.
The landlord does not have or has not provided a damp and mould policy but has provided a process chart. This says it will raise an inspection when a resident reports damp and mould. It will survey the property and raise a repair to treat the mould, then devise a plan to resolve the damp based on its cause. The landlord has told this Service that it has had a damp and mould specialist team since 2022.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould ‘It’s not lifestyle’ sets out 26 recommendations for landlords in relation to their handling of damp and mould and complaints relating to this. The landlord has provided a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations to this Service.
The landlord defines ASB as “where there is unwelcome activity that causes alarm and distress to individuals or families. Acts of ASB can range from noise nuisance to violent behaviour.” It categorises ASB based on its severity, with grade one being violence and threats and targeted ASB based on the protected characteristics of the reporting resident. Grade 2 includes other non-violent harassment or intimidation, grade 3 includes misuse of communal areas, and grade 4 neighbour disputes.
For grades 1 to 3 it will contact the resident within 2, 3 or 5 working days respectively. It will complete a risk assessment and consider all available remedies to produce an action plan with the reporting resident. It will work with the police and other relevant agencies and try to gather evidence. The policy sets out the steps it can take when the perpetrator is identified as a resident of the landlord. It also says it can support the resident by applying for a management transfer to a different property when there is a serious threat to life or serious risk of injury. It may close an ASB case if there has not been any ASB reported within a 3-month period since the last report.
Under its complaints policy, in use at the time, the landlord defined a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If it requires a further 10 working days, it will agree this with the resident. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The Code in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.9) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases.

Summary of events

On 22 August 2023 the landlord visited the resident at the property. Following the visit, it exchanged text messages with her in which it said it would raise repairs and she said she had reported an ASB incident to the police. The following day it sent an internal email which said the repairs needed were for the front door which was insecure, and for damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom.
The landlord raised a repair for the front door on 24 August 2023 (marked completed 10 November 2023) and in an internal email said it had tried to call the resident and left voicemails on 29 and 30 August 2023 about the damp and mould. The landlord has not provided any evidence of a damp and mould repair having been raised to this Service.
On 6 October 2023 the resident and the landlord exchange text messages. It said local CCTV cameras had been working a few weeks previously but were no longer. She said the incident was about graffiti being drawn on a wall next to her flat. She also said her front door had been kicked in. She said, based on what a neighbour had told her, that the perpetrators were teenage boys from another estate. She said she felt vulnerable as she lived alone on the ground floor and the CCTV was not working. The landlord suggested she get a video doorbell, but she explained other neighbours had done this and they had been damaged.
In an internal email the landlord said it had arranged a damp and mould inspection for 20 October 2023 but had had to cancel it on the day. It said it had tried to call the resident to rebook and left voicemails. She sent it a text message on 26 October 2023 and said she had been trying to call and asked for a call back. It tried to call back, left a voicemail, and sent a text message the following day.
On 3 November 2023 the resident used the landlord’s online ASB reporting form to report ASB. She said since May 2022 groups of teenage boys had been loitering outside the block during evenings, smoking drugs, playing loud music and they were intimidating. She said the previous week they had set the recycling on fire and had previously written graffiti referring to her door number, profession and other indecent things. She also said her door had been kicked in multiple times, she felt she was being targeted and was not safe. She confirmed she had reported this to the police on 6 October 2023. The landlord discussed the report in an internal email that day and said the resident had not wanted to pursue the ASB previously as she believed the boys attended the school she worked at.
Also on 3 November 2023 the resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
1. The ASB she had reported, which she believed the landlord had not dealt with including:
  1. The CCTV provision for the estate, which she said was temperamental and prone to not working, and that it only covered the car park and not the block. Other estates in the area had had a CCTV upgrade but not her estate.
  2. She had suggested repositioning the CCTV and upgrading the security for her front door, but the landlord had not done this.
  3. She did not feel safe, had had to reduce her working hours and attended therapy every week.
2. Having damp and mould and having to sleep in her living room. She had tried to report this, and it cancelled its inspection on the day. She said her Housing Officer had seen the extent of the damp. She had tried to rearrange the inspection to her non-working day of the week, but it had not agreed to this. She had explained the effect the mould was having on her asthma. She said she had been waiting since July 2023 for the damp and mould to be resolved.
3. Wanting to move away from these issues.
The landlord emailed the resident the same day to acknowledge her complaint. It said it would respond by 24 November 2023.
On 8 November 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss her reports of ASB. It set out what she told it and its advice in a note. It completed a risk assessment and agreed an action plan, which included it:
1. Contacting the police regarding the report she had made and its neighbourhood policing team.
2. Looking into a management transfer.
3. Contacting Environmental Health, who were responsible for the CCTV and a local ‘enforcement’ patrol, to ask about the CCTV provision and for extra patrols.
4. Contacting the Housing Officer and other members of its staff about the ASB issues.
The following day the landlord emailed a copy of the action plan to the resident and asked if she consented to this. It also emailed Environmental Health about more enforcement patrols. On 17 November 2023 it emailed the resident again and emailed Environmental Health about CCTV. She replied to it on 21 November 2023 to consent to the action plan and it confirmed it had asked for more patrols. It also said how she could report any further ASB and suggested she keep a diary of incidents for evidence gathering.
On 27 November 2023 the landlord’s records say it extended its stage 1 response timeframe, but did not state whether it agreed this with or told the resident. It completed a police disclosure request and sent this to the police on 30 November 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 December 2023 in which it:
1. Defined the complaint and resident’s desired outcome.
2. Regarding ASB said:
  1. It was investigating the ASB and would keep her updated.
  2. It had referred her CCTV concerns to Environmental Health and would let her know when it had a response.
  3. The enforcement patrol would continue to routinely patrol the area.
3. Regarding damp and mould, said it regretted “if she was still waiting for a surveyor” and it would contact her to make an appointment.
4. Partially upheld the complaint. It said while it had correctly followed its ASB policy, it was sorry it had not inspected for damp and mould yet.
5. Said how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On 7 December 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update. It replied on 12 December 2023 and said it was processing her management transfer application and chasing the police for an update. The following day she asked to escalate her complaint as it had not said how it would investigate the ASB with its current CCTV cameras. She also said the enforcement patrols were being done at the wrong time of day and they needed to come in the evenings, and she had still not been contacted about the damp and mould. She also pointed out the landlord did not acknowledge that its stage 1 response was late.
The police provided its limited disclosure to the landlord on or after 14 December 2023. It also provided a risk assessment which said the risk to the resident was low.
On 2 January 2024 the resident called the landlord to report ASB. She said young boys had been letting off fireworks on New Year’s Eve outside the property. She said she felt targeted, and it suggested she report this to the police. It also offered her temporary accommodation, which she declined. She followed up the call with an email the following day and provided a police incident number.
The landlord’s records say it called the resident on 18 January 2024 to discuss her complaint. It also extended its response timeframe on this date, although did not say if it told or agreed this with the resident.
On 25 January 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it:
1. Suggested the resident apply for a transfer based on medical grounds as she said she had experience stress due to the ASB situation.
2. Said it was transforming its repairs team and some previous repairs had been cancelled and reraised with a new contractor.
3. Promised to inspect the property week beginning 29 January 2024 and that it would contact her to agree an appointment.
4. Apologised for the delays and her having needed to chase it about damp and mould. The time it had taken was not acceptable and in line with the service it should provide.
5. Offered compensation of £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in repairs, and £50 for its delay in providing a stage 2 response.
6. Said how she could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord emailed the resident on 7 February 2024 to tell her that her management transfer application had been denied as she did not meet the criteria.
Between 15 and 19 March 2024 the landlord and resident exchanged emails and had a call. In these it asked if there had been any further ASB incidents. She asked it to put in writing what it had told her about the CCTV working but there not being any footage of the graffiti, or fireworks, incidents she had reported. It emailed her again on 18 April 2024 to ask if there had been any further ASB.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 June 2024 and said it was proposing to close its ASB case as she had not reported any further ASB in the previous 3 months. The resident replied to withdraw her consent for any further ASB action, and the landlord confirmed it had closed the case on 3 July 2024.
On 12 September 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and said it had tried to call her about the damp and mould she had reported. It said it had emailed “to ensure that you are satisfied that the matter has been resolved.”
The resident has told this Service on 19 August 2024 that the ASB has been ongoing for 2 years. She said she was given conflicting information about the CCTV. She also said she still has damp and mould in her bedroom and bathroom, that the landlord has not done anything to help her, and that she has been asking for mould washes and to remove a built-in wardrobe which is mouldy. She said the mould is affecting her health, asthma and she has a skin condition. On 22 October 2024 she said she still had mould and provided a doctor’s letter which set out her medical conditions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised through her complaint and contact with this Service that she believes damp and mould have caused or made her medical conditions worse. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters of personal injury and cannot determine liability or award damages as a court can. This is because under Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. While this Service can consider distress and inconvenience more generally, if the resident does wish to pursue a personal injury claim, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
In addition, under paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. Functions which the landlord has but which do not form part of its housing management function, such as its Environmental Health department, have been referred to within this report. However, this Service cannot assess these functions. If the resident wishes to pursue a complaint about the Environmental Health department, she may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

It is not clear when the resident first reported ASB to the landlord. She has said she has experienced ASB for 2 years. There is evidence that she discussed graffiti with her Housing Officer during a visit in August 2023 and was advised to report this to the police. It did not carry out a risk assessment in breach of its ASB policy which was a failing. Neither the landlord nor the resident has provided any evidence of any reports of ASB before this date. The landlord positively raised a repair for her front door which she said was insecure, however, it failed to provide any record of what repairs, if any, it carried out which was a failing.
Following further text messages on 6 October 2023 when the resident also said her door had been kicked in, the landlord again failed to carry out a risk assessment or check on the front door repairs which was a further failing. Although it said the resident had not wanted to raise an ASB case, this is contrary to the resident’s later ASB report and complaint, when she said the landlord had failed to act.
After the resident used its online ASB reporting form the landlord contacted her within 3 working days in line with its policy for grade 2 cases, which was appropriate. It correctly completed a risk assessment, drew up an action plan and agreed this with the resident in line with its policy. As the ASB had been reported to have been caused by persons unknown, and thought not to be residents of the landlord, its suggested actions were appropriate. It then carried out its agreed actions and advised the resident to keep an ASB diary.
The landlord contacted Environmental Health about CCTV and enforcement patrols and made an offer of temporary accommodation following the second incident at New Year and applied for a management transfer as the resident had requested. It kept in contact with her until it closed the case which she agreed to.
Considering the perpetrators were persons unknown, and there is only evidence of 2 incidents having been reported (graffiti and fireworks) there was no more the landlord could have done in the circumstances. However, it could have raised an ASB case earlier, although the resident may have not wanted this, and should have carried out a risk assessment earlier. It also should have considered adding more security, such as extra locks, to the resident’s front door which she had asked for and may have made her feel safer. It could have also asked Environmental Health to review its positioning of CCTV in the area to cover the area concerned. There was maladministration. To reflect the distress caused the landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord visited the property and witnessed the damp and mould issues on 22 August 2022. The resident said it took photographs, but these have not been provided to this Service. It did state in an internal email that there was damp and mould in the bedroom and bathroom following the visit.
The landlord raised an inspection for 20 October 2023, however, there are no records (considered below), then cancelled on the day due to staff illness. It did try to contact the resident but there appears to be some confusion following this. The resident said she needed an appointment on a Friday, as she works the rest of the week in a school, which was a reasonable request. However, the landlord refused to agree to this and said she would need to contact it for any appointment. The landlord should have been more flexible in its approach considering it had cancelled the initial appointment.
When the resident raised damp and mould in her stage 1 complaint, she explained that she had asthma and had not been able to sleep in her bedroom. Upon receiving the complaint, the landlord should have contacted her to book an inspection or a mould wash or treatment, but it failed to do this. In its stage 1 response, on 4 December 2023, it said it regretted if she was still waiting for a surveyor, which showed it had not checked or its record keeping was poor, and it would contact her but it failed to do so, which was a significant failing. By this point over 2 months had passed since it had visited her and saw the mould.
As she had not been contacted by 13 December 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. In its stage 2 response, on 25 January 2024, the landlord again said it would contact her to book an inspection, but again it failed to do so. It did contact her in September 2024 and asked if it had resolved the matter, which was highly inappropriate as there is no evidence that it had taken any action at all. The resident has also confirmed this, and that the damp and mould is continuing to impact her health.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered £150 compensation for its delay in repairs. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
There was severe maladministration. The landlord failed at every stage to follow its repairs policy and damp and mould process. It cancelled its inspection and did not assist in re-booking this. It failed to inspect or carry out any mould treatments, despite the resident telling it the effect it was having on her and her medical conditions. She has been left to live with a HHSRS hazard and without full enjoyment of the property. This has caused her substantial distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble. She feels like she has been ignored. To reflect this substantial impact and loss of amenity an order has been made that the landlord pay £2,800 compensation, which is reflective of 40% of the rent charged between 22 August 2023 and the date of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 3 November 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it that day, in line with its complaints policy timeframe. It said it would respond within 15 working days, which was not the correct timeframe for housing management related complaints under its policy, and so this was incorrect.
The landlord extended its response date on 27 November 2023 but there is no evidence it discussed or agreed this with the resident as required under its policy, which was a failing. It provided it stage 1 response on 4 December 2023, which was 21 working days after the complaint was made, in breach of its policy and paragraph 5.1 of the Code. It failed to recognise, apologise or offer any redress for this within its response.
After the resident escalated her complaint there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this. It called her 23 working days later to discuss the complaint. While its record said it extended its response timeframe, it did not record whether it agreed this with the resident. It provided its stage 2 response after 28 working days, in breach of its policy and paragraph 5.13 of the Code.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord did correctly accept its response had been late and offered £50 compensation. However, it again failed to acknowledge its delay in its stage 1 response. Due to this, and its failure to correctly inform or agree extensions of time with the resident, there was maladministration. This caused further inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in pursuing her complaint. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £150 compensation.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
During this investigation there has been a lack of evidence which would have assisted the Ombudsman, and this has been highlighted within this report. Whether the landlord did not record this evidence, or failed to provide it to this Service, this is evidence that its policies and processes are not operating effectively. Specifically, the landlord has not provided records regarding damp and mould or its damp and mould team. This led to its inappropriate statements within its stage 1 response and letter of 12 September 2024 as set out above.
There was service failure which caused further distress for the resident. To reflect this the landlord has been ordered to pay £100 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
2. The formal complaint.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration as the landlord has not resolved or treated the damp and mould issue, which it was aware of from at least August 2023. It failed to inspect or take into account the resident’s medical conditions.
There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB as it should have completed risk assessments earlier. It should have reviewed the resident’s security and whether it could have added extra locks to her door to have improved this.
There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint as it did not respond within its policy or the Code’s timeframes to both the stage 1 and 2 complaints. It failed to recognise or remedy it stage 1 delay and failed to agree or notify the resident of any extensions of time it had made.
There was service failure as the landlord has not kept, or failed to provide, records regarding its actions relating to damp and mould. Its lack of records led to its inappropriate statements within its stage 1 response and more recent letter to the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £3,250, made up of:
  1. £2,800 for the substantial distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling damp and mould.
  2. £200 for the distress caused by its failings in handling her reports of ASB.
  3. £150 for the further inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
  4. £100 for further distress caused by its knowledge and information management failings.
3. Contact the resident to book a damp and mould inspection, and mould wash or treatment, for a date and time at her convenience.
4. Contact the resident and book a repair for a date and time at her convenience to fit additional locks to the front door.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a full surveyor’s report following the damp and mould inspection to include the diagnosed cause and how it plans to resolve the issue, with timescales for any repairs needed. A copy of this report is also to be given to the resident.
2. Under paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, carry out a review into its handling of damp and mould in this case, to include but not be limited to:
  1. Why it failed to inspect.
  2. Why it failed to consider the resident’s availability for appointments.
  3. Why it failed to take into account her medical conditions.
  4. Its record management for damp and mould cases and why full records were not kept, not reviewed by its staff, or not provided to this Service.
The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.

Paragraph 49 investigation

The Ombudsman completed a special investigation report in February 2024 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included “an apparent cultural acceptance that it will fail to meet its targets. Both in its repairs service and in complaint handling, with a lack of scrutiny and oversight to challenge the situation”. Regarding complaints we found “Instead of the complaints process resolving issues for residents, it instead became yet another issue for the resident to contend with…all too often the promised actions failed to materialise and the issues continued.”
The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its repairs service and complaint handling. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of that investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made in addition to those made within the special report.