London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202312998)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312998

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs to the toilet.
2. Poor staff conduct.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat within a block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident is first recorded as reporting the repair to the landlord on or before 18 May 2023. The resident reported that the toilet cistern had little water in it, and she was having to flush the toilet with a bucket of water. The resident noted that this had been ongoing for several months. The repair logs state that the landlord would check if there was an issue with the water pressure.
The resident complained on 22 June 2023. She reported that when landlord had attended on 18 May 2023, the contractor had caused a leak. The landlord reattended on 23 May 2023 but it could not complete the repair because the water supply to the block needed to be shut off. The resident reported that the landlord had reattended on 2 more occasions but could not complete the works because it had not shut off the water supply. The resident noted that she still did not have a flushing toilet in the property.
The landlord responded on 6 July 2023. It accepted that the resident had waited too long for the repair, it stated this was because her initial report had not been logged correctly. It also accepted that it had not called the resident when it had said it would. The landlord offered the resident the following compensation:
1. £250 for the failed appointments and outstanding repair.
2. £100 in recognition of poor customer service and delays in the water supply being shut off in the block.
The resident escalated her complaint on 7 July 2023. She reported that the landlord had reattended that day, but the contractors were unclear what works had been agreed. Other residents had been contacted to say the water would be shut off, but this did not happen. The contractor completed some work but did not do what had previously been agreed, and did not wait for the water to be shut off. The resident also reported a further leak from the pipework after the attempted repair.
The resident reiterated her escalation request on 10 July 2023. She noted that the attempted repair on 7 July 2023 had not resolved the issue and that she had not had a correctly flushing toilet for approximately 60 days.
On 11 July 2023, the resident additionally raised that the contractor that caused the leak had reattended when she had asked that they not return. The resident reported that the contractor arrived unannounced and denied causing a leak, they continued to argue and swear at the resident until she asked them to leave. The resident reported that the situation had made her feel unsafe.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 August 2023. It noted that it had now repaired the leak and would carry out further works for the water pressure on 14 July 2023. It also accepted that the water should have been shut off before the repair was attempted. It offered the following compensation:
1. £700 in recognition of the impact of the outstanding repair to the toilet.
2. £250 for the failed repair appointments.
3. £100 for poor customer service.
The resident remained unhappy with the level of compensation because the water pressure had not been resolved. The resident pointed out that the landlord had not addressed her complaint about the contractor’s conduct and noted that she had found his conduct to be triggering and distressing.
The resident’s water pressure was resolved to the resident’s satisfaction in or before October 2023. On 27 November 2023, the landlord revisited its offer of compensation in light of the works being completed. It offered the resident:
1. £1,050 in recognition of the impact of the outstanding repairs to the toilet.
2. £250 for the failed repair appointments.
3. £100 for poor customer service.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the toilet

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep all fixtures and fittings in the property in good working order, including water pipes and toilets. The landlord’s repair policy states that having no working toilet in the property considered an emergency and will be responded to within 24 hours. Routine repairs, which include leaks, will be responded to within 20 working days.
When the resident first reported that the toilet was not working correctly and she was needing to manually flush it, the landlord did not correctly categorise the repair as an emergency which meant they did not attend on time. This was inappropriate because it did not meet the timeframes set out in its policy. The resident was distressed by not having a working toilet in the property.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues if it is difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset, and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord.
Once it had attended, the landlord needed to attend again on several occasions. The landlord has acknowledged that it does not have a record of some of the contractor visits that the resident reported. This demonstrates a deficiency in its record keeping and is a record keeping failure. When more than one repair is needed, this Service would expect to see evidence that the landlord has kept the resident up to date on its progress and what it intends to do so that it can manage the resident’s expectations. This was not the case in this instance, which was a further failing by the landlord.
The landlord’s repair logs are unclear when the repair was completed. One entry says the repairs will be completed by 26 August 2023; however, the landlord confirmed with the resident on 2 October 2023 that she was happy with the repair. It is not possible from the evidence to determine whether the 26 August 2023 appointment resulted in a fit and lasting repair, or if it was completed in the weeks up to 2 October 2023. This further demonstrates the failings in the landlord’s record keeping. In any case, the time frame for the repair to be completed was outside of the landlord’s policy time frames, without any reasonable explanation.
The landlord’s communication was not sufficient at times. For example, there was confusion about whether or not the water to the block would be turned off for a repair to be completed. The resident reported that the landlord told her that it would do this, so that the toilet pipework could be replaced. Residents in the block were prewarned by the landlord that the water would be shut off. This did not happen which caused distress to the resident who did not know what repair was being carried out. The landlord has accepted that it should have shut off the water for the repair to be completed and apologised for not doing so.
The resident expressed frustration that several contractors who attended were unclear about what works they were meant to be doing, and that she needed to explain the problem each time. One contractor also caused a leak during an attempted repair. On this occasion the landlord failed to manage the contractor appropriately, to ensure that the repair could be completed as soon as possible. This also indicates that the contractors did not have access to records to allow them to know what had happened previously. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to manually flush the toilet for an extended period of time.
At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the repair had not been completed because there was still low water pressure to the toilet. The landlord appropriately accepted its failings in relation to the resident’s repairs and offered compensation, which was broken down clearly, so the resident understood what it was for. The landlord also revisited its offer of compensation after the repairs had been completed which is good practice.
The landlord’s final offer of compensation was £1,400. This Service considers this compensation officer to be a reasonable redress to the failures identified. The offer is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure that has seriously impacted the resident. The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £1,400 for its handling of the resident’s report of a repair to the toilet is paid to the resident, if it has not already been paid.
We encourage landlords to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not always in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report, if it has not already done so.

Staff conduct

The resident raised concerns about the conduct of a contractor who arrived at her property unannounced and had argued and swore at her. This service does not dispute the allegations made by the resident and acknowledges the distress this caused.
The resident asked the landlord to consider the matter as part of her complaint, which it did not. This was inappropriate and caused distress to the resident. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns or assure her that it was taking the matter seriously.
In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and to reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In these circumstances, this Service would expect to see evidence that the landlord raised the resident’s concerns with its contractors and interviewed them to assert what happened.
There is no evidence that the landlord spoke with the contractor or investigated the resident’s reports, which was inappropriate. The resident expressed that alleged conduct of the contractor caused distress and she felt unsafe. The landlord could have incorporated its response to this into its stage 2 response, or raised a new complaint about staff conduct. It did not do either which was a failure. The landlord has since accepted that it failed to respond to this element of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s handling of the reports of poor staff conduct amount to maladministration because it did not investigate the allegation, and it missed the opportunity to resolve the matter for the resident at the time. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the failures identified. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been an adverse effect on the resident and the landlord has not made an attempt to put things right.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days responded to within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The resident complained on 22 June 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 July 2023. This is a period of 10 working days and within the landlord’s policy time frames. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint which was a shortcoming, but the resident still received the complaint response on time.
The resident escalated her complaint on 7 July 2023 and again on 11 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 July 2023 and responded on 7 August 2023. This was 19 working days and within the landlord’s policy time frames.
The landlord set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint and responded in detail. It was candid in its response and accepted where it had failed to provide a service to the resident. The landlord apologised for where it went wrong and was sympathetic in its tone. Additionally, the landlord set out what learning it had taken from the matter and how it would use this to improve its service.
This Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a repair to the toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of poor staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £150 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident its previous compensation offer of £1,400 if it has not already done so. This was broken down as:
1. £1,050 in recognition of the impact of the outstanding repairs to the toilet.
2. £250 for the failed repair appointments.
3. £100 for poor customer service.
The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, if it has not already done so.