London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202316026)

Background

1. The resident complained the landlord failed to address a leak caused by its installation of a new boiler. He complained the leak was ongoing for 3 months which resulted in damp, mould, and decorative damage. He also complained the landlord failed to promptly replace a carbon monoxide alarm damaged during the boiler installation. Following the landlord’s stage 1 response the resident complained the landlord failed to honour a commitment it made to pause future works. To resolve his complaint, he would like further compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak, decorative damage, and a faulty carbon monoxide detector.
   2. Request for it to pause all upcoming repair visits.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. The resident’s complaint about a leak, decorative damage, and a faulty carbon monoxide detector is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.
   2. There was service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s request for it to pause all upcoming repair visits.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. Our scheme states we may not investigate complaints which have not been addressed at both stages of a landlord’s process, unless we can see evidence of a relevant complaint handling failure. The resident did not raise any concerns about a leak, decorative damage, or the carbon monoxide detector in his stage 2 escalation request. This meant the landlord did not address these issues at stage 2. Therefore, this aspect of his complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.
6. The landlord has already offered suitable compensation to address its failure to honour its stage 1 commitment to pause upcoming repair visits. However, it failed to suitably consider potential vulnerabilities or support needs in response to his 7 September 2023 email as per its policy on supporting residents. It also failed to follow through on completing a welfare check.
7. The landlord delayed slightly in issuing a stage 1 response. It also mistakenly raised another stage 1 complaint in October 2023, when it should have raised a stage 2 escalation as per its policy. It delayed slightly in providing a stage 2 response. While it has already offered the resident a suitable sum of compensation to address these omissions, it did not acknowledge the slight delay at stage 1 at either complaint stage.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. Our Scheme states we may not consider complaints which have not been addressed at both stages of a landlord’s process, unless we can see evidence of a relevant complaint handling failure.
9. The resident raised these issues in a complaint to the landlord on 23 August 2023. The landlord addressed his concerns in its 11 September 2023 stage 1 response. The resident then raised a stage 2 escalation request on 13 and 16 October 2023. However, in these emails the resident complained only that the landlord had sent contractors to the property despite committing to not doing so at stage 1. He did not raise any other issues.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 December 2023 and addressed only his complaint about the contractors who had visited the property against his wishes. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about a leak, decorative damage, and a faulty carbon monoxide alarm has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Given the resident did not raise these issues in his escalation request, it was appropriate that the landlord did not address them at stage 2. Therefore, as per our Scheme, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

11. The landlord’s policy on supporting residents explains it will consider individual circumstances to determine whether someone might have a vulnerability or support need.
12. On 7 September 2023 the resident advised the landlord that he was feeling severely mentally distressed and was scared that he might harm himself. He explained that his symptoms were being exacerbated by contractors attending the property to complete outstanding works and asked the landlord to pause all upcoming repairs.
13. Given the resident’s email, the landlord should have assessed his vulnerability as per its policy and considered what potential support it could offer. We can see it immediately raised a welfare check for the resident, which was positive. However, it then failed to follow through on this. This was disappointing and not in line with its policy.
14. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s requests for it to pause all upcoming repairs on mental health grounds. However, it then sent contractors to the property on 16 October 2023 to complete decorative repairs. Given it had assured the resident it would not do so, this was a service failure.
15. We note the resident’s occupancy agreement obliges him to allow the landlord reasonable access to complete repairs. The landlord also has an obligation to ensure the resident’s home is free from hazards and kept in a state of good repair.
16. We accept the landlord was acting as per the resident’s request by cancelling all upcoming repairs in October 2023. However, given the landlord’s obligations and the resident’s reported vulnerability, this was not a suitable long-term strategy. We note that the landlord might have been able to implement a structured approach to repairs by engaging the resident via the welfare check it raised but did not complete.
17. Ultimately then, the landlord did not act in accordance with the commitments it made at stage 1. It also failed to suitably consider the resident’s reported vulnerability and potential support needs.
18. The landlord has already offered the resident £75 compensation for mistakenly attending the property against his wishes. Its compensation policy sets out that it will award payments of £50 to £300 to put right service failure which has caused impact of a short duration.
19. While we recognise the frustration and distress the resident was likely caused by the unwelcome surprise of visiting contractors, this can only reasonably be described as short term and limited to the immediate period after these visits. Therefore, we consider the landlord has already offered appropriate compensation to put this omission right.
20. However, the landlord has not acknowledged its failure to complete a welfare check or attempt to engage the resident to find a long-term strategy to progress outstanding works. To put this right, we have ordered it to engage with the resident and consider what support needs he might have. We have also ordered it to invite him to discuss an action plan to address any outstanding works which accommodates any support needs it identifies.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20. When it cannot meet these timescales, it will write to residents and provide updated timescales. Its policy also explains that, when a resident raises concerns about issues addressed at stage 1, it will escalate the complaint to stage 2. These timescales meet the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code.
22. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 23 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged this 2 working days later within its timescales. The landlord wrote to the resident 2 working days past its timescales on 8 September 2023 and advised it needed more time to issue a response, which it issued on 11 September 2023.
23. The resident requested a stage 2 escalation on 13 October 2023 centred on commitments the landlord made at stage 1. The landlord mistakenly raised and issued a stage 1 response on 30 October 2023. It corrected its mistake on 6 November 2023 by acknowledging the resident’s October emails as a stage 2 escalation request. It was 5 working days late in issuing its stage 2 response on 11 December 2023. However, we note that it updated the resident and adjusted the deadline within its 20 working day timescales. Therefore, it mitigated the impact of this delay as per its policy.
24. At stage 2 the landlord apologised for failing to escalate his complaint to stage 2 in October 2023 and for the delayed final response. It offered the resident £50 compensation for this. While we recognise these omissions likely caused the resident some distress, this can only reasonably be described as short term in nature. Therefore, the landlord has already offered an appropriate sum to put this right as per its compensation guidance.
25. The landlord has not yet acknowledged its slight exceeding of its timescales in issuing a stage 1 response. However, given this delay was only 2 working days, this service failure did not likely result in any meaningful impact. Therefore, we have not made any compensation orders to address this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord failed to record the resident’s request to pause upcoming repairs in September 2023. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of good record keeping. We would also encourage it to consider how it might build trust with the resident moving forward by ensuring it keeps a clear audit trail of any further requests for vulnerability-related adjustments that he might make.

Communication

27. The landlord’s stage 1 response was very brief and did not set out which specific repairs it considered it had delayed in addressing. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of clear complaints communication to ensure it gives residents a clear picture of the specific issue it is attempting to put right.