Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202213507)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213507

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

15 June 2023

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 repairs to the property following a leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord which began in 2007. The property is a one-bedroom first floor flat.
The tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and tenant. The landlord’s responsibilities include keeping in repair the structure of the dwelling and installations for the supply of water. The tenant’s responsibilities include informing the landlord as soon as possible of any defects in the state of repair of the premises. The landlord will carry out repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook confirms that plumbing repairs and leaks are its responsibility. The handbook divides all repairs into five levels of priority, with corresponding response times. Major leaks are classed as ‘Priority 1’ with a response time of up to two hours, whereas minor leaks are classed as ‘Priority 3’ with a response time of up to three working days. Routine or ‘Priority 5’ repairs have a response time of up to 20 working days.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, it will acknowledge complaints relating to housing management and repairs within two working days and respond within ten working days. A complainant may escalate their complaint to stage two within 20 working days of the stage one response, and at stage two, the landlord will carry out a review of the stage one outcome within 20 working days. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states that its vision is underpinned by five priorities, including “doing things with residents, not to them” and “being ruthlessly financially efficient”. It says that the landlord will deal with each case on its own merits when considering compensation and will usually follow the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The landlord’s repairs complaints compensation policy provides more detailed guidance. It states that it will consider awarding financial compensation where a resident has experienced a delay due to its service failure, and that this may be particularly appropriate when it is unable to put a resident back in the position they would have been in had the issue not arisen. Examples of circumstances where compensation may be payable include “failure to meet agreed standards of service, including missed appointments and delays in delivering services”, “inability to use part of the property” and “poor complaint handling”.
When assessing compensation, the landlord will take account of the time taken to resolve the issue, as well as the severity of the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered (and whether this was reasonably foreseeable). Compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience is based on whether the level of disruption was ‘minor’, ‘moderate’ or ‘extensive’, with awards ranging from £50 to over £700. Compensation for complaint handling failure again depends on whether the failure was ‘minor’, ‘moderate’ or ‘severe’, with awards of between £25 and £100. The compensation due specifically for missed appointments is £50, and for living room loss is calculated at 10% of the weekly rent (after 48 hours).

Summary of events

In December 2020 the resident reported a roof leak to the landlord. She said that water was leaking into her living room when it rained. The landlord’s repair logs indicate that it attended to fix the leak within two days, and that follow-on repairs were raised in February, June, September and October 2021. These included works to make good following leak damage, complete a mould wash and stain block, address swollen timber window frames, strip wallpaper, replaster, and carry out a survey of the property. A number of repairs remained outstanding in July 2022 and the resident continued to be unable to use her living room.
The resident complained to the landlord on 27 July 2022, stating that:
1. She had been waiting for two years for repairs to be carried out in her living room following a leak. She wanted to make a “serious complaint” in relation to the actions of “the repairs team, my housing officer, and everyone else who has been involved in my situation”.
2. A surveyor who completed a report at the start of this period “did it all wrong”.
3. In 2021 an operative attended her property to wash the walls, but was unable to complete this as they said the wallpaper needed to be stripped first.
4. She then had to make an appointment in February/March 2022. Two operatives were due to attend this appointment but only one arrived. The appointment was booked from 8am to 6pm, but the operative left at 12.30pm.
5. Following this, she attempted to make an appointment for the following week as advised, but received no response from the landlord. She was unable to speak to someone for nearly two weeks. She was then told that the next available appointment was in July 2022.
6. She understood the outstanding repairs would be completed on 4 and 5 July 2022, with operatives in attendance from 8am until 6pm both days. However, on the first day just one operative attended and was half an hour late. They stayed until 4pm and did not finish stripping the walls and ceiling. The operative told the resident that they and another operative would arrive the following morning at 8.15am and 9am respectively. However, one operative arrived after 10am and the other after 11am. They began stripping the walls, but after an hour said that the ceiling was not safe and had to be taken down.
7. She had not realised her housing officer may be able to help until the landlord’s repairs team mentioned this. She called her housing officer to explain the situation, and sent some photos at the housing officer’s request. The officer said they would get back in touch with the resident, but two weeks later she had not heard back, despite calling, texting and sending messages via an app.
8. The situation had caused her stress and exacerbated her depression and anxiety. She was also concerned about the effect of damp on her lungs.
9. She was scared that the ceiling was going to fall down on her or on her family and friends, and was not sleeping or eating.
10. She felt she was entitled to a move and that the landlord should facilitate this, so that she could “be settled, not have to worry and be happy”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day. It thanked her for bringing her concerns to its attention and said it aimed to provide a written response by 17 August 2022.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 11 August 2022, stating that:
1. It was sorry to hear about the issues the resident had had with repairs being carried out. It appreciated that the matter had taken too long to resolve and understood how concerning this has been for the resident.
2. The service the resident had received from both its surveying team and its contractor had not been “to the level we expect for our residents”. There had been “a clear issue” with communication, which had been escalated.
3. It accepted that, once it was identified that there had been an issue with its initial survey, this should have been escalated quickly at the time to avoid any further delays. This would also have prevented issues with operatives turning up and being unable to carry out repairs.
4. It understood that an appointment had now been made for its contractor to carry out the remaining repairs between 21 and 24 November 2022. Two operatives would attend on each of the four days.
5. It appreciated that this caused a further delay, and it had contacted its contractor’s management to request that the appointment was brought forward. If this was possible, the resident would be contacted.
6. Taking into consideration everything that had happened, it offered the resident £200 as a “goodwill gesture” for its poor service, which it recognised had caused her distress and inconvenience.
7. If the resident felt that it had not answered her complaint fully, she could request that any outstanding items were addressed at stage two of its complaints process within 20 working days.
The resident received the landlord’s email on 11 August 2022 but was unable to open the attachment containing its stage one response. She emailed the landlord on 20 August 2022, advising it of this and asking it to resend its response. She said in her email that “I’ve been suffering for a very long time being in that flat and it’s not right.” The landlord did not acknowledge or reply to the resident’s email.
The resident subsequently contacted the Ombudsman, who wrote to the landlord on 17 October 2022. The landlord confirmed on 18 October 2022 that it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process and aimed to respond by 15 November 2022. It informed the resident of this and apologised for failing to respond to her email of 20 August 2022.
On 20 October 2022 the landlord’s stage two responder contacted the resident to check their understanding of her reasons for escalating her complaint. They then spoke to her on the phone on 26 October 2022.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord contacted the resident about a convenient date for a surveyor’s inspection. The same day, it issued an interim response to the resident’s complaint, stating that:
1. It had not yet concluded its investigation or received all the information it required to make a finding. It was therefore providing an interim response at this stage, and would provide a fuller response by 15 November 2022.
2. The resident’s complaint was about its delays in completing repairs to her living room following a leak in 2020. In addition, on receipt of its stage one response, the resident was unable to open the attachments and her email advising it of this went unanswered.
3. It accepted that significant delays had occurred in the management of the resident’s repairs, and it was sorry for this. Once it had concluded its investigation it would share its concerns with its contract manager.
4. It had spoken to the officer who was responsible for the resident’s email about its stage one response being unanswered. They advised that they were away from work on the day the email was sent. It acknowledged that this was not an excuse and the email should have been picked up on the officer’s return. The relevant manager had since held a team meeting in which all resolution officers were reminded of their responsibility for any requests for assistance or further information.
5. In response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of her living room, it had arranged for its surveyor to carry out an inspection on 8 November 2022. It would be able to further update the resident following the surveyor’s visit.
6. Due to a shortage of resources, its contractor was finding it difficult to bring forward the appointment to repair the resident’s walls and ceiling. This had already been scheduled for two operatives to attend between 21 and 24 November 2022. Once it received its surveyor’s recommendations, it would be able to advise further on this matter.
7. As an interim measure, it would like to increase its offer of compensation to £500. It would review this amount once its investigation was completed and increase it if necessary.
8. It again apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident, and the fact that this resulted in her being concerned for her safety in the property.
On 11 November 2022 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s living room ceiling. They concluded that it was “safe and free from leaks”.
Between 14 and 16 November 2022, internal emails by the landlord discussed confirming with its contractor that the works beginning on 21 November 2022 would go ahead. However, it noted that the contractor was “aware of the importance of keeping complaints appointments” and did not contact it.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 17 November 2022, stating that:
1. Further to its interim response, it was pleased to confirm that its surveyor inspected the resident’s living room ceiling on 14 November 2022 and found that it was safe and free from leaks.
2. Its contractor was still due to carry out works between 21 and 24 November 2022 to take down paper in the ceiling, strip wallpaper, clean the wall and plaster. Two operatives would attend over four days.
3. It had liaised with the manager of the resident’s housing officer. The manager had reviewed the housing officer’s files and phone records, and had also spoken to the officer in question. They apologised that the resident felt the officer did not support her in relation to the leak in her living room. The officer reported that they spoke with the resident in July 2022 when she reported the issues with her ceiling, and they passed this on to the repair team. The officer then received a message from the resident on 5 September 2022 asking if they had made progress with the repair. Any photos that the resident may have sent were not received by the officer. The manager checked the officer’s phone on 7 November 2022 and found no texts or other messages with photos. The officer had chased the resident’s repair in September 2022, and the landlord was sorry that they did not inform the resident of this or reply to her promptly.
4. It had learned lessons from its handling of the resident’s complaint, which was not in line with its customer service standards. It accepted that the resident was failed by a lack of communication from both its officers and its contractors, and it apologised that this was her experience of its services.
5. To prevent further issues, its housing management team now held weekly meetings with its contractors. The contractors were also in the process of acquiring additional resources to assist with reducing delays.
6. It realised how stressful the situation had been for the resident, and thanked her for her patience in allowing it to reach this point of resolution.
7. Having completed its review, and taking into account the length of time that the repair had remained outstanding, it increased its offer of compensation to £1,000. This comprised £900 for the delays and inconvenience and £100 for its poor customer service.

Post complaint

The Ombudsman has discretion to consider the following significant events that have occurred since the resident’s complaint concluded its internal complaints process.
On 18 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord if its offer of compensation could be reviewed, as she did not feel £1,000 reflected the length of time that the repairs were outstanding. On 20 November 2022 she said she would update the landlord on 24 November 2022 following the repairs. She reiterated her views regarding compensation, noting that her health had been “affected badly”; that she had felt unable to have visitors while her property was in a state of disrepair; and that she sought redress of between £8,000 and £10,000.
On 23 November 2022 the resident updated the landlord regarding its contractor’s visit. She said that the operatives did not arrive at 8am, so she called the repairs department at 8.05am. A member of staff contacted the contractor and told the resident the operatives would arrive “at some stage during the morning”. At 8.18am an operative arrived to disconnect a light, which the resident had not been informed about but allowed. She asked the operative if the other two operatives were en route, but they did not know. The operative who had disconnected the light left at 8.38am. Another operative then arrived at 10.04am but “didn’t know what [they were] doing”; they looked at the resident’s living room and said it was a big job that required two people. The resident explained that two operatives were meant to have attended. The operative asked if the living room ceiling contained asbestos, and the resident said she wasn’t sure but thought the contractor would have checked in July 2022. After going to their van to make a call, the operative told the resident that the ceiling needed to be checked before the repairs could be completed, and that the job would be cancelled.
The resident told the landlord she “cried most of the day” as she was “so drained” and “sick and tired of this”. She said she no longer believed anything the landlord said as it had repeatedly broken its promises. She said she felt she was being bullied because she was a single woman living alone. She felt that the landlord had “robbed me of my life for two years”, putting her in a position where she felt unable to have a partner and making her feel “like a tramp squatting in the flat”. She described how she was left “in a tiny bedroom packed with most of my stuff, sleeping on a blow bed”, which she found claustrophobic and caused her panic attacks. She said her depression had worsened and her anxiety was “through the roof” as she was worried about becoming ill from mould. She was also concerned about being cold and uncomfortable over the Christmas period.
On 2 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to ask what was happening. She told it she had been “badly ill” and felt “so let down by everyone”. She then spoke to the landlord on the phone on 16 January 2023. The landlord’s record of this conversation noted the resident’s frustration and that an asbestos survey requested by the contractor in November 2022 had previously been completed.
On 6 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident, saying that:
1. It thanked her for taking the time to meet with its officer at her home the previous week.
2. It was sorry the repair issues were yet to be resolved and for the impact on her.
3. As discussed, appointments had been made for two operatives to attend and complete the outstanding repairs on 7 and 8 March 2023. Allowance had also been made for one operative to attend for two further days as a contingency.
4. The operatives should arrive between 8am and 9am. It asked the resident to let it know if there were any issues while the operatives were on site.
5. It was again sorry that the service it had previously delivered fell short of its expected standard. It had allocated an officer to be the resident’s single point of contact until the repairs were completed.
6. It had revised its offer of compensation to £2,600. This comprised:
  1. £1,050 for delays to work and the negative impacts of this;
  2. £1,500 for lack of usage of the living room from February 2021 to date;
  3. £50 for a skylight opener, in response to a recent issue raised by the resident.
7. It would also follow up with the resident separately regarding an insurance claim she had made, as the compensation offered did not include damage to furniture.
The landlord has since informed this Service that it completed the repairs on 20 April 2023. Following this, it made an increased compensation payment of £3,100 to the resident. This comprised £1,550 for delays to works and negative impacts, £1,500 for lack of usage of the living room, and £50 for the skylight opener.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property following a leak

While the landlord’s initial response to the leak reported by the resident was in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs handbook, its delay of over two years in completing the necessary follow-on repairs was unacceptable. During this period, the condition of the property was such that the resident was unable to use her living room at all; the photographs she provided to this Service show exposed plaster on the walls and ceiling, which is in places crumbling and/or mouldy, and protective sheeting on the floor. Her prolonged lack of access to the main living space in the property had a significant impact on her lifestyle, as she felt unable to have visitors and was storing furniture in her only bedroom. Since the landlord says it aims to complete all repairs within 20 working days, this meant that the repairs took 26 months longer than the resident could have anticipated.
The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the period under investigation was also inadequate. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it kept her updated at regular intervals, and other than in its formal complaint responses, it did not explain the reasons for delays. If the landlord had foreseen that there may be delays of several months in carrying out the repairs – for example, if this was due to availability of materials or staffing levels – it should have considered whether a decant was appropriate. If the delay was unforeseen, it should have identified the exceptional circumstances of the resident’s case, closely monitored progress, and considered what it could do at each stage to minimise the distress and inconvenience caused. In either case, having regular discussions with the resident would have demonstrated openness and supported its aim of “doing things with residents, not to them”.
When scheduled repairs were not completed in 2021, February/March 2022 and July 2022, the landlord missed opportunities to address this effectively with its contractor and put measures in place to prevent recurrence. In fact, the landlord’s internal correspondence on 16 November 2022 suggested that there was a known issue with the contractor not keeping appointments. Had it confirmed with the contractor, as it proposed, that the repairs planned for 21-24 November 2022 would go ahead, the misunderstanding regarding an asbestos survey may have been avoided. A timely check-in with the contractor could also given the landlord a chance to set expectations regarding timekeeping.
The resident’s concerns were understandably elevated when the landlord’s contractor told her that her living room ceiling was unsafe and in danger of “coming down”. It is unclear whether the landlord was aware of this specific comment until the resident submitted her formal complaint on 27 July 2022. While the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s stage one complaint (discussed below), it was inappropriate for it to delay arranging a surveyor’s inspection until 4 November 2022, with the inspection itself taking place a week later. If the landlord had spoken to its contractor and satisfied itself that there was no immediate risk of the ceiling collapsing, it should have documented this and given reassurance to the resident. If it had not investigated the contractor’s concern, it failed to address a potentially serious health and safety issue raised by a qualified member of staff within a reasonable period of time. Because of the delay and lack of communication, the resident believed she was living in an unsafe property for over four months. This was unsatisfactory, and avoidable. Actions that the landlord took following the resident’s complaint – such as arranging weekly management meetings with its contractor, and allocating the resident a single point of contact – would have improved the resident’s experience if they had been implemented sooner.
The landlord’s final offer of compensation in relation to the delayed repairs was £3,050. While only a simplistic breakdown was given, this amount was sufficient to cover the various things the landlord said it would award compensation for in its repairs complaints compensation policy, which (in the Ombudsman’s view) applied to the resident’s case. These included: over £700 for time, trouble and inconvenience resulting from extensive disruption; £75 for moderate failure in relation to complaint handling; £100 for at least two appointments that were effectively missed; and 10% of the resident’s rent over a 27-month period, ie around £1,500. The stage two response also said that £100 had been awarded for “poor customer service”, which did not fall into the categories above or the revised breakdown of delays and room loss. The level of compensation was broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in the circumstances.
That said, it is not in the spirit of this Service’s dispute resolution principles or our complaint handling code for a landlord to make a substantial offer of redress at the end of a protracted process, with the effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further. Following careful consideration, a finding of maladministration has been made, as there were numerous missed opportunities over an extended period and there is little evidence that the landlord has sufficiently learnt from its poor handling (which would be required for a finding of reasonable redress). It is also clear that the landlord reviewed the case, and its offer of compensation, following escalation and intervention by this Service. Had compensation of suitable magnitude not ultimately been offered, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of severe maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord initially responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its corporate complaints policy, acknowledging the complaint within one working day and providing its stage one response ten working days later (four working days before its target date). Its failure to identify or respond to the resident’s email of 20 August 2022, in which she said she was unable to open the attachment containing the stage one response, appeared to be down to human error. While this was obviously frustrating for the resident, the error was an isolated one for which the landlord rightly apologised. It also informed the resident that it had addressed the issue with the officer and team in question to prevent recurrence. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s prompt apology and subsequent action constituted appropriate redress.
It was good practice for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm her reasons for escalating her complaint, and to discuss the situation with her over the phone prior to issuing its stage two response. It is unclear why an interim response was issued at stage two, particularly given that the fuller stage two response followed (only two days outside the target timeframe) less than two weeks later. To the Ombudsman’s knowledge, the landlord was not aware when it issued its interim response that its fuller response would become overdue. In any case, both responses were detailed and engaged meaningfully with the substance of the resident’s complaint. They evidenced that the landlord had carried out a thorough investigation – for example, by speaking to the resident’s housing officer and their manager, and cross-referencing their accounts with documentary evidence such as phone records – and introduced practical measures to prevent issues from recurring. At the time of issuing its stage two response, the landlord had no reason to believe that the repairs scheduled for 21-24 November 2022 would not go ahead (although it could have done more to ensure this, as discussed above).
The landlord’s approach to compensation was confusing. Its initial “goodwill gesture” of £200 was disproportionately low and did not reflect the substantial delay of 18 months already experienced by the resident. Its subsequent decision to increase its offer to £500, then £1,000, was indicative of arbitrary and inconsistent decision making. It was only once the offer reached £1,000 that the landlord provided a breakdown, and even then, the categories did not fully align with those set out in its policy. While the landlord’s complaints procedure does not provide for revisions to compensation beyond a stage two complaint response, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to review the level of compensation once additional information became known. However, the further significant increases to £2,600 and £3,100 (including £50 for a recently reported and apparently unrelated issue) were a cause for concern. The breakdown of these higher amounts suggested that the landlord had not previously factored in loss of room use. While £3,050 may have been appropriate overall, the disparity between the initial and final amounts offered – with breakdown of the amounts being either absent, conflicting, or apparently inconsistent with policy – has resulted in a finding of complaint handling service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property following a leak;
2. service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord made an eventual offer of compensation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reflective of its 26-month delay in carrying out repairs to the property, its poor communication, and the impact of these things on the resident. The amount offered was in line with the landlord’s policies and took account of the loss of use of the resident’s living room. However, the level of compensation was significantly increased after the complaint concluded the landlord’s internal complaints process and following the involvement of this Service, which is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles.
The landlord apologised for an error that resulted in the resident not receiving its stage one complaint response for two months, and demonstrated that it had put appropriate measures in place to prevent recurrence. While its complaint responses were thorough, its initial offer of compensation (£200) was disproportionately low. Its four revisions to this amount, resulting in a vast increase, suggested a disorganised and inconsistent approach.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Reiterate its apology to the resident.
2. Pay the resident £3,250, comprising:
  1. the £3,050 it previously offered for its delayed repairs, the impacts of its delays on the resident, and loss of use of her living room;
  2. £200 for its service failure relating to calculation of compensation.

If the landlord has already made a payment of £3,050 (plus £50 for a skylight opener) to the resident as it indicated, this may be deducted from the amount above, meaning that £200 should now be paid.

Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its contract management arrangements to ensure that these are robust, and that resident feedback in relation to contractors’ timekeeping, cancelled appointments and incomplete repairs is actively sought and taken into account.