We are currently experiencing technical difficulties with our online complaints form. Please contact us by phone during this time.

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202303975)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303975

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

28 August 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of a leak and associated damp and mould report.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 27 January 1997. The property in question is a three-bed flat on the first floor of a purpose built block.
  2. The landlord said that it has no record of any current vulnerabilities but it is aware of the resident being diabetic.
  3. The resident reported a leak from the downpipe outside her property on 20 March 2023. The works order raised by the landlord was logged incorrectly and this was cancelled before being raised again on 22 March 2023. The resident was not kept informed and had been under the impression that there should have been a visit to the property. An appointment was then booked for 29 March 2023 but the landlord did not attend.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 29 March 2023, following the missed appointment. The landlord attended on 6 April 2023 but the pipe was not repaired. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 April 2023 and upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged the communication faults around the required repairs and said that the repairs were completed on 6 April 2023. It offered £175 as compensation to address the complaint.
  5. The resident contacted this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. Following contact from this Service, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process on 4 May 2023.
  6. A dehumidifier was provided on 12 May 2023 to dry out the damp in the property and the landlord advised it would provide payment for the use of this. The landlord then attended and completed repairs which were believed to have resolved the leak on 23 May 2023. Following the repair, the landlord carried out a mould wash on 25 May 2023.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 June 2023 and apologised for incorrectly saying in its stage 1 response that the repairs were completed on 6 April 2023. It said that following the recent repair, it would carry out a post inspection of the property. It offered an increased compensation payment of £498 in recognition of the complaint.
  8. The post inspection was carried out on 7 June 2023 and a smaller leak was identified on the downpipe. The landlord carried out repair works to clear a blockage from the downpipe on 30 June 2023, which resolved the leak from the downpipe.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is evident that shortly after the stage 2 complaint response was issued on 2 June 2023, a further issue was identified in the building that contributed to damp and mould in the resident’s property. However, this investigation will not make a determination on the landlord’s management of this additional problem or any of the associated events during this time.
  2. Following the initial complaint, the landlord also made an improved compensation offer in response to those further issues. This investigation will only make a determination on the offer made at stage 2 in June 2023.
  3. This is in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as the landlord’s handling of those matters has not exhausted its complaints procedure, as they did not form part of the initial complaint. The resident has been advised to approach the landlord if she is dissatisfied with its handling of the more recent matters and raise this as a new complaint to allow it the opportunity to resolve and offer redress for these.

The landlord’s handling of a leak and the associated damp and mould report 

  1. It is acknowledged that the landlord incorrectly logged the initial report of a leak at the resident’s property. The resident was given the impression that the landlord would be attending the property following her report. However, this was not accurate, as the initial works order was sent to a contractor, rather than its own operatives. It is understandable that errors may happen when raising works to resolve leaks but the landlord then failed to communicate this to the resident. This is a service failing by the landlord, as it left the resident unaware of the status of her report and incorrectly believing that it was due to attend her property.
  2. It is evident that on 28 March 2023, the resident called to chase an update, only to be told that there was a scheduled appointment for the next day, despite this not having been arranged with her. After the resident agreed to the appointment on short notice, the landlord failed to attend. This is another service failing that inconvenienced the resident and left her with no progress on the report she had made 9 days earlier.
  3. The landlord attended on 6 April 2023 following the resident’s complaint but the leak was not repaired, despite it being recorded as having been. This is a further failing in the landlord’s management of the report, as incorrect record keeping led to an incorrect belief that the repair had been completed. This contributed to further delays and the resident continuing to experience the leak and the associated damp and mould this caused.
  4. After the resident disputed that the repair had been completed and her complaint was escalated, positive steps were taken to address the leak as an initial fix was completed on 23 May 2023, with a mould wash being carried out the next day. However, the repair should have been completed within 20 working days, as per its repair policy, rather than the 44 working days that it took. This failure to meet its own repair timeframe was inappropriate.
  5. Although the cause of leaks and damp and mould can be difficult to identify in some cases, it was clear that the downpipe outside the property was leaking and needed to be repaired before the damp and mould could be addressed. Had the landlord taken better ownership of this repair, it could have been completed much sooner. Given that the resident had expressed concerns around the level of damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom, these delays would only have added to the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
  6. Following the repair on 23 May 2023, the landlord maintained contact with the resident and carried out an inspection on 6 June 2023, with further works on the downpipe being arranged and completed to ensure no further leaks. Had this type of oversight been afforded to the resident when she made the initial report, she would have been saved significant frustration, distress and inconvenience. Additionally, a complaint may have been avoided.
  7. It is clear that after the resident reported the initial leak along with damp and mould, the landlord failed to manage the repairs, or the resident’s expectations, in a reasonable manner. It incorrectly recorded the repairs as being completed, which caused further delays and the required works were not completed until 44 working days after they were reported and a stage 2 complaint had been logged. During this time, the resident was left frustrated at the management of the works and experienced the effects of the damp and mould in her property.
  8. When addressing the resident’s complaint, the landlord did offer compensation due to its failings and the impact on her and her family. It initially offered £175 due to its early delays but increased this to £498 at stage 2 due to further delays and the costs of running a dehumidifier. The compensation was within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there has been a service failure that adversely affected a resident. It is the view of the Ombudsman that this offer was proportionate and reasonable in addressing the failings identified in the landlord’s management of the repairs.
  9. On this basis, this Service considers it appropriate to make a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the leak. This may have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not taken some steps to acknowledge and provide redress for its failings. This finding does not mean that the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s handling of the leak or the resulting impact on the resident to be ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were failings by the landlord, which its apology and compensation offer acknowledged in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. In managing the resident’s complaint, the landlord did provide acknowledgements and responses to the complaint within a reasonable timeframe. However, it is evident that the investigation conducted by the landlord at stage 1 was lacking, as it incorrectly said that the leak had been repaired.
  2. Given that within its response, the landlord acknowledged poor communication with the resident in its management of the repairs, it missed an opportunity to show an improvement by calling the resident to discuss her complaint. Had the landlord called the resident prior to issuing this response, it could have identified the error in its record keeping and arranged for the outstanding works to be scheduled. This would have allowed for a more accurate response. This is a service failing as its lack of investigation and communication led to further unnecessary delays in the works being carried out. Had the landlord arranged for the required works during the stage 1 process, as it did later, this may have also prevented the need for a complaint escalation.
  3. The landlord’s response at stage 2 provided an accurate reflection and acknowledgement of the failings in its management of the repairs. It outlined that the repair had been completed and proposed a schedule of follow on actions relating to those repairs. It also made a reasonable offer of compensation due to the issues highlighted throughout the complaint.
  4. The landlord did provide information on how the resident could make an insurance claim for damage to her possessions within its complaint response. It did not provide specific detail around her requests for decoration of the rooms affected by the damp, however, it is evident from further evidence that decoration was discussed at a later date, due to the further issues with damp that were experienced outside of this complaint period.
  5. When considering the landlord’s management of the complaint, there was a service failing in its initial investigation. This contributed to further unnecessary delays. The landlord acknowledged that the leak had continued after stage 1 despite it saying in the response that this had been repaired. However, given the likely distress and inconvenience this incorrect information will have caused, the landlord should have made a specific offer of compensation as redress for that failing. Having considered the failing in the initial management of the complaint, this Service therefore makes a finding of service failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for the failings in its handling of a leak and the associated damp and mould report.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in the handling of her complaint. This should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within 28 days, with evidence of compliance with this order.