Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (201914426)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914426

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

24 Decemberl 2020


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 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a)     Repairs to the resident’s shower and garden drains, and

b)     The subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 1 July 2019 a repair was raised for a leaking shower cubicle in the resident’s property and a blocked drain and broken downpipe in the property’s garden. The target date for both repairs was initially 3 July 2019.
  2. The landlord noted, on 1 July 2019, that it “amended the appointment to 22 July 2019 as per [the contractors’] instruction”. The resident’s telephone number did not work for the landlord to notify her of this, and the landlord’s notes say it sent her a letter with the new appointment.
  3. On 19 July 2019 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that an appointment was not attended. The date of the appointment she was referring to is not apparent. The landlord noted that it tried to offer her an appointment for 31 July, but this was declined, and the resident asked to be transferred to the complaints team.
  4. On 21 July 2019 the landlord noted that there was “another cancellation”. It is not known what appointment this refers to or who it was cancelled by.
  5. A complaint was logged on 2 August 2019 about repair appointments for the shower and drain not being attended or followed up. The resident said that on 17 July the visit for her shower was rescheduled to 24 July. On 18 July an operative attended to fix the drain. On 24 July the appointment for the shower was again rescheduled for 1 August. On 1 August no one attended the appointment.
  6. On 15 August 2019 a repair was raised to renew the framed glass shower cubicle screen and door, and repair the broken downpipe in the garden.
  7. The landlord responded to the complaint on 22 August 2019. It confirmed that, on 2 July 2019, its contractor unblocked the drain in the garden but did not repair the downpipe and no follow-on job was booked. The landlord acknowledged that appointments arranged for 17 and 24 July, and 1 August were not kept. It said the failures were due to staff shortages and contractors overrunning on previous jobs. It acknowledged that the resident should have been notified when the contractors were aware that work was overrunning and would impact other appointments. The landlord apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused, and said it asked the contract manager to ensure that any rebooked appointment was not moved again. A new appointment was booked for the repair to the shower and downpipe in the garden on 10 September 2019.
  8. On 11 September 2019 the resident made an escalated complaint. She said that the works were not completed in the appointment the day before; the contractors did not look at the shower, they just measured up for new doors; a water pressure issue in the shower was not addressed; and the drain pipe in the garden was still broken.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 October 2019, following a telephone conversation with the resident, and apologised for the delay in doing so. It advised that it would respond to the complaint by 22 November 2019.
  10. On 20 December 2019 the landlord attended the property and noted that there was no issue with the shower doors, as per the work order, but there was a problem with the shower head pressure and mould around the shower tray. A new appointment was booked for 7 January 2020. A plumber would also attend to the blocked drain and broken downpipe on this date.
  11. It is unknown whether the appointment on 7 January 2020 was attended. However, on 10 January it was noted that repairs to the shower were still required. On 10 January the contractors repaired the downpipe and a shower door had been ordered.
  12. It was noted on 21 January 2020 that the resident reported that “further to the shower being fixed, the shower head is not powerful enough.”
  13. An appointment was booked for 6 February 2020. The resident called on his day to chase the repair and was told the workmen were on their way. However due to the time that the resident would need to leave for work this needed to be rescheduled for 11 February 2020.
  14. When attending an appointment to fit the new shower doors on 11 February 2020, the landlord’s contractor found that the wrong shower doors had been ordered. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord regarding this on the same day, and said that the complaints team were not responding to her.
  15. Following contact from this Service on 17 February 2020, the landlord spoke with the resident on 28 February. In its follow up letter to her, it advised that on 4 March the shower head would be replaced and the damp and mould in her bathroom inspected. The landlord agreed to speak with the resident again on the afternoon of 4 March to follow up on the attendance. It advised that, further to the outcome of the appointment on 4 March, it hoped to be able to respond to her stage two complaint soon thereafter.
  16. The repair records show contractors attending on 5 March 2020. It is not clear if this was the appointment raised for 4 March, or a separate one. Problems were found with the shower doors, which then needed to be re-ordered. On the same day a note was placed on the shower work order: “please cut and remove old mastic from shower and re-do new as tenant complaining of mould, also grout tiles”
  17. The resident informed this Service on 12 March 2020 that the appointment for 4 March was unsuccessful and had been rebooked for 13 March.
  18. The landlord’s contractors completed repairs to the shower on 14 and 15 March 2020
  19. On 19 March 2020 it was noted that the job to fit the shower door and mastic shower tray was completed on 13 March.
  20. In a further call with this Service on 16 March 2020 the resident said she was unhappy because, when the new shower doors were fitted on 13 March, the contractor did not change the shower head, nor did he take off the tiles to see if there was still damp. The resident confirmed that she had not contacted the landlord about this and subsequently this Service wrote to the landlord about the resident’s concerns.
  21. On 27 March 2020 the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response. It said that it found that poor communication between its contractor and its repairs service resulted in appointments being missed, which the resident should have been informed of but was not. It also found that its contractor had some problems in relation to the measuring and ordering of the replacement shower doors, with further delay seen as the doors had to be reordered. The landlord apologised for this.
  22. The landlord confirmed that the works were now complete. In acknowledgement of the delays, inconvenience and poor service to the resident, the landlord offered her £250. It informed the resident that, if she remained dissatisfied, she could bring her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

  1. The tenancy agreement details that it is the landlord’s responsibility to: keep the structure and outside of the property in repair; keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and hot water, and for sanitation and refuse disposal; and carry out repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook says that it will undertake repairs to electric showers, and shower spray head and hose in some circumstances.
  3. The handbook also details that “the customer service advisor will always tell [the resident] the date the repair is expected to be completed by and ask [the resident] to make an appointment for non-emergency repairs. They will also give [the resident] a job number.” The handbook details timeframes and says that routine repairs are to be undertaken within 20 working days. Repairs to a minor leak, dripping pipe etc. are to be done within 3 working days.
  4. Based on the evidence, on the following dates the contractors attended but further appointments were needed:

a)     18 July 2019 the drain was unblocked, but follow work to the downpipe did not take place nor was any update provided.

b)     10 September 2019 the contractors did not look at the shower, they measured up for new doors; a water pressure issue in the shower was not addressed; and the drainpipe in the garden was still broken.

c)     11 February 2020 the landlord’s contractor found that the wrong shower doors had been ordered.

d)     5 March 2020 there were issues obtaining the shower doors, which then needed to be re-ordered.

  1. If an appointment is rearranged and agreed with the resident, this does not necessarily mean there was service failure. The same applies to appointments where follow-on works are required. However, on 27 and 24 July 2019 the appointments were rescheduled without the resident being informed that the workmen were running behind, and an appointment was not attended on 1 August 2019.  There was also more than one occasion where the landlord did not have the shower doors required. Additionally, there is no evidence of actions taken by the landlord and the landlord updating the resident between 11 September and 20 December 2019. These failures by the landlord contributed to the delays in the works being completed, which were outside of the timescales given in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook.
  2. Considering the poor communication, missed appointment (and appointments which were rearranged and not communicated with the resident) which contributed to the delays, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its mistakes, apologise to the resident, and offer some form of compensation. The amount it offered was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for a complaint with this range of failings.


Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure details that, at stage one, complaints should be acknowledged within three working days, and a full written reply sent within fifteen working days. The procedure says that, if the resident is dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage one investigation, at their request, the landlord will arrange for the complaint to be reviewed by a more senior manager. The request should be acknowledged within three working days, and a full written reply sent within twenty working days.
  2. In line with its policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the stage two complaint by 16 September and responded by 9 October 2019.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on 31 October 2019 and responded on 27 March 2020.
  4. Based on the evidence, the landlord has not adhered to its complaints procedure in responding to the complaint. In particular, there were considerable delays in the landlord acknowledging the complaint at stage two, and delays in the landlord responding further to the escalation of 11 September 2019. Based on the landlord’s correspondence of 28 February 2020, it appears that in responding at stage two, the landlord awaited the completion of the repairs before responding. This was unreasonable because it allowed the complaint to be open and not progress for several months.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to the resident’s shower and garden drains.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord offered a reasonable remedy for the failures identified with its handling of the repairs. However, it did not follow its complaints procedure and delayed considerably in sending its stage two response.

Order

In light of the service failure found in this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:

–          Pay the resident £125 for its failure to adhere to its complaints procedure.

This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The order is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord in its complaint response, which it should now also pay, if it has not already done so.