Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202123468)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123468

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

12 May 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 landlords handling of:
1. The residents reports of a leak into her property
2. The decant process
3. The residents complaint about the ongoing leak in her property.
4. The residents request for compensation for damaged personal items.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
This Service will not consider claims for damaged personal items, as these should be referred to the landlord’s insurers. Unlike the courts or insurance companies, we are not able to make a legally binding determination on whether the landlord has been negligent or whether it is liable for damages. Therefore, the residents request for this Service to investigate and determine upon her request for compensation and the landlords response to this is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

a. The residents request for compensation for damaged personal items.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and lives in a two bedroom flat on the sixth floor of a purpose built block, the landlord has recorded the resident as suffering from anxiety and living with her 16 year old son. The tenancy began on 30 November 2015.
The tenancy agreement summarises the landlord’s obligations under the terms of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states the landlord will keep all fixtures and fittings for the supply of gas, electricity, heating and hot water “in repair and in proper working order”.
The tenancy agreement also states the landlord may force entry if it thinks that there is a risk that the property or other properties could be damaged or people could be injured.
The landlord’s repairs policy provides the following guidelines for priority repairs:
1. priority 1 within 2 hours eg. major leaks and burst pipes / total loss of electrical power
2. priority 2 within 24 hours eg. unsafe power socket or electrical fitting / loss of heating in winter time
3. priority 3 within 3 working days eg. loss of heating in Summer / minor leak, dripping pipe.
The landlord’s repairs policy also states on an annual basis it carries out an internal property inspection to tenanted properties”, “to undertake key health and safety checks, pick up key outstanding repairs and determine programmes of work”.
The repairs and maintenance handbook strongly advises tenants to insure their contents and says it will attend to a leak but will not carry out internal decorations as they are a tenant’s responsibility.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process, stage one complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage two complaints are responded to within 20 working days in writing.
The landlord’s compensation policy gives guidance on the levels of compensation which can be offered for time, trouble and inconvenience. The policy also gives guidance on repair specific compensation, this includes:
1. No heating – £5 per day after initial 24 hours.
2. No hot water – £2 per day per person after initial 24 hours
3. Total loss of power – £30 for the first 24hours followed by £10 per additional 24hours
4. Cost of additional food while cooking facilities are unavailable – £15 per day per adult and £10 per child after initial 24 hours.
The landlord’s decant policy states tenants will be decanted to accommodation assessed as suitable and in accordance with the council’s housing allocations scheme.

Summary of events

The resident asserts that there has been an ongoing leak at the property since 2015 when she first moved in. The landlord has provided this service it’s repair logs relating to the property. These repair logs include a record referencing a repair works order in January 2015, prior to the residents tenancy beginning, regarding a leak from above. It indicates that this was “causing damage” and specifies works it required it’s contractor to undertake to rectify. The works order was recorded as closed on the landlord’s log and the reason is indicated as “no access”. This service has not seen evidence of any subsequent landlord actions related to this reported repair requirement. Further reports of a leak were recorded in October 2016 and January 2018.
On 14 December 2020, the resident reported water coming through the ceiling of her hallway, bedroom and storage cupboard, and the landlord attended within 24 hours and made the property safe, although it is not clear what works were carried out at this visit. The landlord sent a plumber on 30 December 2020 to investigate the cause of the leak, a note on the repair log indicates this had happened before. An electrician also attended this day as the fuse box kept tripping. It is not clear from the evidence provided what work was carried out.
On 3 January 2021, an out of hours job was raised due to a leak coming through the ceiling hallway, an operative attended within 24hours and said a supervisor was needed as the cause of the leak could not be found. The landlord also tried to contact the resident upstairs but was not successful.
The resident reported a loss of power on 19 January 2021, an emergency job was raised and the landlord attended to restore power on the same day. A supervisor also attended this day and attempted to access upstairs but failed, no follow up job was raised for further access.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 March 2021 about the ongoing leak in her flat since she moved in. The resident says she reported this previously but no cause was ever found. The resident references the leak going on “for all these years”. The landlord’s works order notes in December 2020 refence the leak “occurred before, and has been for a while now” and in January 2021 reference the leak as “an ongoing issue”. Due to the location of the leak the resident advised her electricity was affected as the fuse would switch off automatically, which happened various times between December 2020 and January 2021. Within her complaint the resident also mentions an accident her son had from tripping on the flooring which had come loose due to the water damage.
The landlord acknowledged the residents complaint on 3 March 2021 and advised a response would be provided by 22 March 2021.
On 5 March 2021, the landlord made contact with the resident and confirmed that the electrics were working but the leak was still present. The resident told the landlord she felt ignored, she was always reporting the leak but no one was doing anything about it, she also said it was a huge inconvenience for her and her family.
The landlord’s repair logs show a job was raised on 7 March 2021 due to a leak from the property above but then makes reference in its notes to another two properties which may have been the source of the leak, one which it could not identify a leak within and the other was recorded as “no access”.
The landlord managed to speak to the resident above on 9 March 2021 and made an appointment to visit the property on 18 March 2021. The landlord did not gain access on this date and records show requests were raised to the housing officer to send a leak letter and force entry if needed. No evidence has been provided to show if this was acted upon.
It is not clear when the landlord did gain access from its repair logs but it references the leak being “repaired” on 22 March 2021 in its stage one response.
A surveyor attended the property on 24 March 2021 and noted due to the ongoing leak from the flat above into the consumer unit, an electrician had switched the power off and a decant of the household was necessary. The decant form stated the length of the decant required was to be at least 48 hours to allow the fuse box to dry once the leak was fixed.
The repairs team also spoke with the housing officer on 24 March 2021 to advise them of the decant required, an internal email states the contractor was to attend the flat above that afternoon and if no access was gained the landlord must consider forced entry. Another internal email on this date suggests the resident refused an offer of temporary accommodation, this service has not seen any evidence to show an offer of temporary accommodation was made at this time.
The landlord booked temporary accommodation for the resident on 29 March 2021 but this was subsequently cancelled by the resident according to the landlord. An internal email states the resident “ cancelled the booking because she went home, the leak had stopped, and she was able to turn the electrics back on herself”.
The landlords repair log show the resident reported a “bad leak” on 1 April 2021, where her son fell due to the leak. Records show on 7 April 2021, the landlord attempted again to access the flat above, again this was unsuccessful, it is not clear if this was an arranged visit. Notes indicate the housing officer was again spoken to about securing access.
The landlord responded to the residents complaint on 1 April 2021. Within its complaint response the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint, for the delay in resolving the leak and the inconvenience caused. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience experienced.
The landlords repair log shows another reported leak on 6 April 2021 which stated the electrics and water had been turned off on 1 April 2021 buy the out of hours service leaving the resident without water and electricity. The works order notes state, “turned off water and electrics but tenant has been left without water and electricity since. Please remedy leak and turn on water if possible”. It is not clear what works, if any, were carried out to rectify this and reinstate the water. The works order notes state “refused access: no adults in flat only 15 years old son”.
Between 6 April 2021 and 12 April 2021, the landlord discussed options of temporary accommodation with the resident. The landlord recorded two formal offers of alternative accommodation on 12 April 2021 and 15 April 2021. In an internal email provided to this service the landlord stated “At times Ms Connors wouldn’t engage plus communication was difficult as Ms Connors couldn’t really speak during working hours due to work commitments.” On 19 April 2021 notes suggest the resident was worried about moving and paying for two sets of utilities. The landlord advised the resident to speak with her utility company.
The resident indicated that she resided with friends in Luton and stayed in hotels as, according to her, no suitable temporary accommodation was offered by the landlord. It is not clear however what dates the resident actually left or returned to the property.
An internal note on 27 April 2021, states the landlord contacted the resident when she confirmed the leak had stopped however it is not evident if the landlord identified the source of the leak and advised the resident she could move back in.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two on 26 April 2021. No evidence was provided to show this escalation request was acknowledged and actioned. The resident subsequently emailed the landlord again on 22 May 2021 asking for an update.
The landlord’s records show that the complaint was assigned on 24 May 2021 and was due for a response the day after. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 May 2021 to advise the complaint had just been assigned and it would arrange for a surveyor to attend the property and scope out works to make good.
Numerous internal communications were provided by the landlord between 8 June 2021 and 4 September 2021 where it chased information from different departments, it is not evident if the landlord made direct contact with the resident during this time to keep her updated with progress.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 September 2021, after she had contacted them on two separate occasions and arranged for a decorator to attend. The resident advised the landlord that an operative attended on 16 July 2021 and said he would be back but had not been and the works to the bathroom which were previously done was already “chipping”, it is not clear what action the landlord took in response to this.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 29 September 2021, five months after the resident escalated her complaint. Within its response it:
1. Clarified the resident experienced the leak since October 2020 which effected the electrics and boiler system causing loss of electricity, heating and water between December 2020 and January 2021.
2. Confirms the resident was unable to stay in her property for three weeks and that the decant properties offered were not found suitable by the resident especially in terms of location.
3. Confirmed the cause of the leak was identified and repaired in March 2021.
The landlord arranged to have the bathroom ceiling, hallway and hallway cupboard decorated in September 2021. A further appointment was arranged for October 2021 to fit door thresholds.
As a gesture of goodwill, it increased its offer to £500 but advised arrears will be taken into account.
The landlord reviewed its offer of compensation on 4 October 2021, following communication from the resident. The resident stated she felt ignored since April and was left for weeks with no contact from the landlord during a lockdown.
Within its review outcome the landlord said its offer was reasonable due to its decant team making a total of five offers of alternative accommodation within the borough, which the resident refused for different reasons. The landlord clarified two of the properties offered and refused were deemed as reasonable refusals because of the residents past. It deemed the other offered properties as suitable, as they were all decorated, had flooring and white goods and they just required the residents furniture to be moved in which the decant team would have arranged as part of the decant process.
The landlord clarified the offer of £500 compensation was to acknowledge the delays and inconvenience whilst repairing the leak.
In reference to the residents personal items she stated had been damaged, the landlord advised tenants are required to have contents insurance to accommodate such losses and signposted it’s insurance team.
The resident advised the landlord she would approach this service on 7 October 2021 as she was offered a shared women’s hostel in the middle of a lockdown and a one bed property which was not suitable.
It is of note that further repair logs were provided that showed reports of a leak from upstairs on 16 March 2022. These notes also indicate that the leak is now affecting the residents bedroom ceiling.
The landlord also provided additional information that states it visited the property on 20 March 2023 and discussed the leak with the resident, full details of this visit have not been disclosed; however the following summary of the visit was provided by the landlord:
1. It is arranging for a boiler survey to replace the residents boiler
2. The landlord is looking at gaining access to the property above to determine the source of the leak
3. Works to the original leak were previously completed and until access is gained and the source found the landlord is unable to confirm if a new leak is occurring or it is related.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 April 2023 saying it will reimburse the resident:
1. £150 for temporary heaters
2. £200 for the delays in responding to her complaint
3. £175 for a hotel stay
4. £2,250 for delays and negative impacts.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is recognised that this situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced a leak into her property over a prolonged period of time. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate and award damages. Although it is noted that the resident initially raised the leak in 2015, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlords handling of the recent reports from December 2020 onwards that were considered during the landlords complaint responses. However, previous reports have been considered insofar as they provide context to the resident’s complaint .

The landlords handling of the residents reports of a leak into her property

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, keeping all fixtures and fittings for the supply of gas, electricity, heating and hot water in repair and in proper working order. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
From the records provided the landlord attended the residents property on 10 occasions regarding the leak over a period of four months. When the landlord received reports of a leak into the residents property it did attend to make safe on each occasion. However it is unclear from the records provided if it was responded to as per the priorities detailed in its repair policy, for example when the resident reported loss of power it is not clear this was attended to within two hours. It is also not clear what follow on works were required following each visit. Therefore, it is not evident that the landlord took the necessary steps to make safe the resident’s property within its target timeframe and take the necessary actions required to provide an enduring repair to the leak and make good the resident’s property. Furthermore, repair logs covering events prior to this four month period and afterwards show the leak issue was never satisfactorily resolved.
The landlords repair records show that it attempted access or to contact the flat above without success on five occasions between December 2020 and March 2021. Records indicate that this has been a historical issue and no evidence has been provided to show the detail of the attempted access upstairs or any proactive approach being taken by the landlord. Once access to the flat above was successful in March 2021 a repair took place but the leak reoccurred.
The records indicate the landlord was aware of the impact the leak was having on the residents property as its repair logs state in March 2021 when requesting a letter be sent to the tenant above that “the leak seems to be severely affecting the flat below”.
The landlord confirmed in its complaint response in September 2021 that the leak was fixed in March 2021, however its repair logs show additional reports in April 2021 and in an update to this service in April 2023 the resident claims the leak was still not fixed. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord investigated or resolved the further leak reported in April 2021which is not acceptable.
The landlords delay in addressing this issue caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Although there is no dispute that the property was unhabitable for a period of three weeks, the landlord should have considered the additional costs incurred by the resident during this time when making an offer of redress. It did not follow its own policy in respect to the repair specific compensation guidance for no heating, no hot water, total loss of power and cost of additional food. This service does not see the offer of redress made in its final complaint response as reasonable and fair in the circumstances.
Opportunities for an earlier resolution were missed due to a lack of oversight, cohesion and accountability between departments, Specific examples include, follow up actions not being taken in a timely manner following no access. This resulted in further avoidable delays and extendedimpact on the resident. Opportunities for resolution were consistently missed which is not acceptable.
Given the level of failures identified in this report, the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, experienced by the resident as a result, a finding of maladministration has been made. The landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her a total of £1,200 compensation.

The decant process

The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that the resident had to move out of the property for three weeks but it is not clear when this was and what works took place in these three weeks. The records suggest the resident moved back in, of her own accord, in April 2021 and the decant was no longer required.
The landlord met its obligations under its own decant policy in formally offering two alternate properties and these were classed as suitable in line with the local housing allocations scheme.
The landlord offered more options to the resident and internal notes of discussions were provided to show the landlord tried to offer alternative accommodation on a more informal basis, however when the resident expressed worry over the upheaval these discussions seem to have stopped.
The landlords decant form states the decant was needed for at least 48hours once the leak is fixed, however no evidence has been seen of any cohesive plan or actions taken to gain access to the property above once the resident had moved out. The tenancy agreement states it could force entry in certain circumstances however the landlord did not take a proactive approach to do so despite a number of requests from its repairs contractor. This caused an unreasonable, prolonged amount of distress to the resident having to live with friends or stay in hotels during this time.
The landlords communications to the resident during this time were not acceptable. Following a surveyor visit in late March 2021 the resident moved out the property without knowing what the landlord would be doing in her absence to fix the problem. It is of concern that the resident moved back into the property of her own accord and reported the leak had stopped and she could turn the electrics back on. No evidence has been seen to suggest the landlord had confidently resolved the leak and ensured the electrics were safe to use prior to the resident moving back in. It also did not communicate effectively to the resident as to whether it was safe to return.
Although the landlord met its obligations in offering alternate accommodation its communications were poor and it failed to take into account the residents recorded vulnerabilities and the adverse impacts this would have had on her. Therefore a finding of service failure has been made and the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for this failing.

The residents complaint about the ongoing leak in her property.

The acknowledgement to the residents stage one complaint gave 14 working days as a timeframe for its response, its policy says responses should be within 10 working days. It then responded to the complaint after 22 working days and although it apologised for the delayed response it gave no reason as to why, it is not clear if the resident was advised more time was needed to respond.
The landlord did not acknowledge the residents request to escalate her complaint and only assigned the escalation request after a chase up email from the resident. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 April 2021. According its policy, the landlord should have provided a response by 24 May 2021, within 20 working days.
However, the landlord only issued its stage two response on 29 September 2021, 111 working days after the resident requested the complaint be escalated. Again, there is no evidence the landlord managed the resident’s expectations by updating her during this period. This was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait and the landlord made no mention of the delay in its response nor made any apology to the resident.
The landlord also confirmed it its response, the leak was fixed in March but its repair logs show further reports of a leak and the decant team were involved after March which suggests the leak was not fixed in March. This shows the landlord did not respond with due care to the residents complaint. The landlords role in its handling of a complaint is to identify what had gone wrong and put things right. However in this case the landlord did not understand or adequately consider the facts relating to the residents complaint, consequently it’s complaint response was flawed.
The landlord showed a lack of empathy to its resident and did not acknowledge in either of its complaint responses the residents claims that her son had fallen due to the leak, even though it noted pictures of bruises were provided.
The landlord failed to identify and acknowledge any learning from the residents complaint in its responses, this would have further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. In particular the complaint process offered the opportunity to investigate the residents dissatisfaction, provide a cohesive cross service remedy to the issues involved and make a reasonable level of redress.
Although the landlord apologised and offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused within its response, it did not provide a breakdown of this or advise how it decided on the figure it offered. Its compensation policy guidance lists repair specific compensation but this does not seem to have been taken into account. As such its offer, however well intentioned, was not founded on the principles within its own policies or communicated clearly.
Given the significant delays in the landlord providing its response at stage two and, more significantly, its failure to either acknowledge or apologise to the resident for the delay in its response, a finding of maladministration has been made. In order to redress these failings the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay her £900 compensation. Further orders have also been made with regards to actions the landlord is to take in order to help prevent failures reoccurring.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to the residents reports of a leak into the property
2. Service Failure by the landlord in its handling of the decant process.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling and compensation offer.

Reasons

The landlord failed to resolve the leak for a significant period of time, records show it was aware of a leak from above before the residents tenancy began yet it failed to proactively resolve this issue when the property was empty. Despite multiple opportunities thereafter the landlord failed to provide a successful remedy. It’s lack of oversight of this repair and a lack of cohesion in its efforts to enforce its own policy and tenancy terms to gain access to the property above to determine the source of the leak are significant failings in this case. These failings caused significant distress and inconvenience and excessive time and trouble to the resident across an extended period.
Although the landlord fulfilled its obligations as per its decant policy and offered alternate accommodation, the standard of communication to the resident were not acceptable, clear advice or timescales were not given and the landlord did not have a clear plan to manage the temporary decant.
The landlords complaint handling was significantly inadequate, outside its own policy framework and it has failed to use its complaint process as an opportunity to put things right. There were excessive and unreasonable delays in the landlord providing its response to the resident, which the landlord has failed to either acknowledge or apologise for. The compensation offered by the landlord to the resident within its internal complaint process lacks reference to its policy and inadequately reflects its failings or degree of detriment caused.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to :
1. apologise in person to the resident.
2. make good any decorative damage to the residents flat related to the leaks covered in this investigation.
3. pay the resident in total £2,800 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This amount comprises of:
  1. £1,200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to repair the leak in a timely manner and in recognition of the additional expenses that would have been incurred when unable to stay in her property.
  2. £200 in recognition of the poor communication in its handling of the decant process.
  3. £900 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in the landlords complaint handling.
  4. its previous offer of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused if this award has not already been paid.
4. This service is aware of a revised compensation offer to the resident, the landlord must advise this service and provide evidence of compliance with the above within 4 weeks of this report. It also must provide its intentions regarding any further compensation offer in addition to the above. Such considerations must take into account further distress and inconvenience caused by the continuing leak following its stage two complaint response. The resident must be advised of her right to make a new formal complaint if she is unhappy with its response and final offer of compensation.
5. The landlord must provide this service with details of its intentions to inspect and remedy any residual repair needs associated with water ingress into the property within four weeks of the date of this report. Such works must be fully completed within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
To consider the learning from this case and put in place actions to prevent and limit failures reoccurring. This review must consider and propose actions to address specific issues of concern surfaced in this case, including:
1. Working practises, oversight, and cohesion between its repairs team, contractors, and housing management staff where access to another property or a decant of a resident household is required. The landlord must provide an outcome of its review and change proposals to this service within six weeks of the date of this report
Review the complaint handling failures identified in this reportand confirm to this service what steps it proposes to take to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future. The landlord must provide evidence of this within 4 weeks of the date of this report.