London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202343090)

Background

1. The residents live in sheltered housing. They received a letter about a rent increase which referenced the landlord’s wider plans for a refurbishment programme of its housing stock. They made enquiries about this and were unhappy with its response. 

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Communication concerning a rent increase and refurbishment programme.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s communication concerning a rent increase and refurbishment programme.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Rent increase and refurbishment programme

4. The landlord acted in accordance with the tenancy agreement concerning notification of a rent increase. It told the residents at the earliest opportunity that it had no plans to refurbish their home.

Complaint handling

5. The same person handled the complaint at both stages. This was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”). We recognise the landlord has since remedied this by implementing staff training and self-assessing against the requirements of the Code.

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.

What we have not considered

6. We do not investigate complaints about the amount of rent charged, so we have not considered this. Instead, we have focused our investigation on the landlord’s communication with the residents concerning the issues raised.

What we have considered

7. The landlord has provided copies of the rent increase letters that it sent to the residents. We find that it acted in accordance with the tenancy agreement, which requires at least 4 weeks’ written notice before making changes to rent.
8. While the rent increase letters referenced the landlord’s wider £600m refurbishment and modernisation programme, there was nothing in the correspondence stating that the increased rent paid by the residents would fund refurbishment of their specific home. The letters explained that rent increases reflected inflation, ongoing investment to keep homes safe, and the need to maintain services.
9. We find that the landlord clearly communicated at stage 1 that there were no refurbishment works planned for the property. Although this was disappointing for the residents, it set out its position transparently in the initial stage of the complaint procedure. It reiterated this at stage 2.
10. Overall, the landlord provided timely responses, clarified the purpose of the rent increase, and explained that future works would be informed by stock condition surveys. It also gave the residents an opportunity to raise any specific issues they may have about the condition of their home. We have therefore found no evidence of service failure.

11. The landlord has not provided a copy of its complaints procedure that was applicable at the time of the initial complaint (2022).
12. The policy provided from 2024 met the Code’s definition of a complaint. The timescales also complied with the Code.
13. The landlord responded at stage 1 within 9 working days and at stage 2 within 15 working days. These are appropriate response times and in line with the requirements of the Code.
14. The landlord did not act fairly or in accordance with the Code when the same staff member considered the complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2. The Code requires that the stage 2 review be conducted by someone who was not involved at stage 1. This ensures independence and provides a more senior or impartial perspective. This separation also enables landlords to identify learning and service improvements effectively. The failure to allocate the complaint to a different officer at stage 2 therefore represents a service failure.
15. Although this was a procedural failing, there is no evidence that the residents experienced detriment as a result. In these circumstances, financial redress would not be an appropriate or proportionate outcome.
16. The landlord’s current complaints policy confirms that stage 2 complaints are reviewed by a manager who has had no prior involvement. Within its recent self‑assessment against the Code, it has recorded that all complaint investigators have undertaken our online complaints training. This is in addition to receiving feedback and regular training, including insights from quality assurance. It also highlights that separate teams or managers are now responsible for stages 1 and 2. As it has already taken steps to address this issue, we have not made any orders in this case.

Learning

General learning

17. At stage 2, it is clear the residents still felt the increased rent was linked to refurbishment work in their home. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether a visit or telephone call with a member of staff could have better helped them to understand its position.
18. When residents reference the cost-of-living crisis, it may be appropriate for a landlord to include signposting to internal and external support options within its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory in this case.

Communication

20. The landlord’s overall communication was satisfactory in this case.