Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202009410)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009410

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

28 May 2021

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks in her property.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

As per the landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook, it aims to carry out emergency repairs, for example a major leak, within “[2] to 24 hours depending upon the seriousness of the problem.” It explains that its first priority is to make the property safe to prevent further damage. The landlord further explains that it may take longer to carry out a permanent repair, which may require a follow-on appointment, and that it aims to keep the resident informed “at all stages.”
The lease between the landlord and the resident for the property states that the resident is obliged to keep the property’s interior, fixtures, fittings and internal decorations in good and substantial repair and condition. The landlord is required to repair, maintain, decorate and insure the property’s building, and is permitted to enter the property for repairs and maintenance to this or to the building with reasonable prior notice or in an emergency.
As per the landlord’s corporate complaints policy, it aims to respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days, and within 20 working days for final stage complaints. It further details that, if it is necessary to extend these timescales, it must inform the resident why, and when they will receive a full response.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, with the landlord being the freeholder. The property is a two-bedroom, second-floor flat.
The resident has highlighted historic issues with leaks at the property of a similar nature since 2010, with the last instance being in 2017. While this has been outlined by the resident, and therefore mentioned in this report, this investigation will focus on events from the first report of the leak from 2019 onwards. This is because this Service cannot investigate complaints made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure, or that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising. Whereas the resident’s complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure on 1 May 2020 related to events from 2019 onwards.
The resident has advised that she had experienced a leak from her upstairs neighbour’s flat resulting in flooding at the property on 18 September 2019. The landlord’s records confirm that an out of hours attendance took place there on the same date, and that a work order was raised on 17 October 2019 for its contractor and a surveyor to rectify the leak into the resident’s property from her upstairs neighbour’s flat. It recorded that it attended the neighbour’s flat for this on 24 October 2019, with its records confirming that it had repaired a bath leak and was tracing the leak in the flat.

Summary of events

On 7 November 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord, stating the following:
1. On 17 October 2019, the landlord had booked a half-day appointment for a surveyor and plumber to attend the property for the following week. The resident was unwilling to do this as it had not shown up on the last four occasions, and she had no annual leave left, for which the landlord had agreed that a manager would call her back but had not yet done so.
2. On 24 October 2019, the landlord confirmed that it had found blocked gutters and three leaks after attending her upstairs neighbour’s flat, which it agreed that it would address.
3. She had received no contact with her housing officer, although they had promised her on 23 September 2019 that it would arrange to fix her light fittings, which had been disconnected by the landlord’s contractors for safety when addressing the leak and that she had chased it for on 4 October 2019.
4. The resident felt that the landlord’s staff were “negligent and unprofessional” and she wanted to escalate her complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure. This Service has not been provided with the landlord’s response to this correspondence.
The landlord’s records evidenced the resident’s subsequent complaint to it on 25 February 2020, which it recorded was at the final stage of its complaints procedure and is summarised below:
1. The resident had experienced another leak at the property from her upstairs neighbour’s flat during the previous week causing flooding in her bathroom “up to [her] ankles” that filled the bathroom floor. The landlord’s contractor had attended within 24 hours but had refused to make her bathroom ceiling light fitting safe due to this being full of water. She had also not been given any further updates from the landlord, despite the above flooding incident happening at the property on 18 September 2019.
2. The contractors employed by her buildings insurance company via the landlord did not finish the job of making good the damage from the last major flood at the property, and they had “robbed [her flat] of tools”. She had also suffered damage to “irreplaceable possessions” as a result of the leak, with the issues impacting her and her children’s health.
3. The resident wanted the landlord to identify the cause of the leak, fix this, and compensate her for her costs from dealing with regular flooding, her stress and her loss of annual leave taken for its appointments.
On 25 February 2020, the landlord’s records also confirmed that repairs were completed on 24 October 2019 to trace and fix a bath leak in the resident’s upstairs neighbour’s flat. A courtesy text message was sent to inform the resident of this. It also highlighted that the work to make her bathroom light fitting safe was agreed as a goodwill gesture, as it would normally expect residents to make a claim for this on their home contents insurance.
On 21 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on her case, stating the following:
1. There had been no contact from the landlord in response to the above complaint, and she felt that she was due “contact, [an] update, or apology” from the landlord.
2. A downstairs neighbour had also experienced an issue with leaks and had incorrectly believed these to be coming from the resident’s property. This caused difficulties with the neighbour and added financial cost to the resident in having to arrange for a plumber, who had unnecessarily damaged her bath panel and left nails dangerously sticking out of this.
3. She informed the landlord that water was no longer leaking under her bath, however, she had not been updated on the progress of the repair. The resident also highlighted that it had not offered to compensate her for the cost of arranging a plumber, or how her bathroom would be fixed, which was “ruined” and “unsafe”.
On 23 April 2020, the landlord noted that it raised a work order to check the internal pipework of the resident’s upstairs neighbour’s flat and of another neighbouring property. There were issues in gaining the required access to these flats, however, and the one of neighbours told the landlord that there was no problem with the water pipes in their bathroom.
On 1 May 2020, the landlord provided its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised below:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response to her complaint due to it having to work through a backlog of cases.
2. It confirmed that a new order had been raised for a plumber to check the pipework to the bathrooms of the above neighbouring properties, following its attendance on 7 March 2020 that had found no problem with her building’s roof and guttering, and that it would confirm the outcome of the latest inspection to the resident.
3. It apologised to her for its “continued inappropriate service delivery” and her inconvenience, recognised that its communication “could have been better” in keeping the resident informed and in assisting the resident during the flood by ensuring that her electrics were made safe, and offered her £70 compensation “for the inconvenience caused as a result of poor communication.”
4. In response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the cost of her plumber for the leak in her bathroom in February 2020, it stated that it had reviewed their receipt and this had found that the leak had been caused by incorrectly installed bathroom taps. As she had also mentioned experiencing other problems with the standard of her buildings insurance company’s contractor’s works, the landlord suggested that the contractors might also be responsible for this leak and recommended that she refer this to the insurance company to review.
On 17 October 2020, the landlord’s records showed that it authorised a plumber to turn the water off to the resident’s upstairs neighbour’s flat, as it was unable to gain access to this. This request was cancelled, however, on 26 October 2020, with a further update on 24 December 2020 advising that access was required to turn off the water.
On 26 November 2020, the resident referred the complaint to this Service, and this is summarised as follows:
1. The resident had experienced regular flooding from her upstairs neighbour’s flat since 2010, which had resulted in damage to treasured personal possessions, continual redecoration, the loss of her bathroom lighting with each leak and her stress and mental ill-health that the landlord had failed to address.
2. As a result of the most recent flooding on 17 October 2020, the landlord had cut the electrical supply to the resident’s bathroom light, and it was now refusing to fix this.
3. To put matters right, the resident felt that the landlord should pay her plumbing costs, “properly” fix all of the leaks from the upstairs neighbour’s flat, fix the lighting in her bathroom, and “make sure [they] [do] not flood me again”. The resident also felt that she should be compensated for the time she spent and distress that she had experienced over the last ten years.
4. The resident felt that nothing had been done since submitting her complaint to the landlord; she relayed that “a few housing officers” had attended the upstairs neighbour’s flat, but that staff turnover meant that she had to “start again” in explaining the situation.
5. She had been offered £70 compensation by the landlord after the complaint had taken over a year to address, when she was advised that “all the leaks were fixed”. The landlord had also “promised” to refund her plumbing costs, but had then refused when the complaint was closed. She also raised concerns that, as a leaseholder, she had paid for communal lighting when she had no bathroom lighting.
6. The resident also alleged that the buildings insurance company’s contractor arranged by the landlord had stolen from her and had damaged her front door, leaving this “wide open and unsafe all day.”
On 21 December 2020, the landlord recorded that a work order was raised to repair the resident’s bathroom light that had been disconnected by a previous operative cutting through the wires to the light. This job was noted as being completed on 29 December 2020.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has advised this Service that the stress and inconvenience of her case have had a negative impact on her and her children’s health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her family’s health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing in the way that a court or insurer might because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her.
The resident has additionally accused her buildings insurance company’s contractor, arranged by the landlord, of the theft of her possessions in the form of tools. However, this Service cannot consider complaints about organisations, such as the building insurance company or their contractors, that are not members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme or determine criminal matters, such as whether theft has taken place, because we do not have the authority to do so, and this is therefore not within the scope of this investigation.
It is also understood that the resident has raised concerns over the cost of communal lighting in the building. However, complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and not this Service’s and so this matter is outside the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks in her property

Following the reports of a leak at the property from 18 September 2019, the resident confirmed that the landlord attended this on the same day. In order to make the property safe, its contractors reportedly had to cut the supply of electricity to her light fittings for safety reasons due to the presence of water and in order to address the leak. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take at the time, and was in accordance with its repair responsibilities as detailed in its repairs and maintenance handbook and her lease above at paragraphs 2 and 3, respectively. The former obliged the landlord to make safe such emergency repairs within 24 hours and permitted it to complete permanent repairs to them at a later date.
Although the landlord had attended the property to carry out the above emergency repair, it was still obliged to identify the cause of the leak, and to carry out suitable repairs to permanently resolve this. This was not completed until approximately 21 April 2020, however, when the resident confirmed that she was no longer experiencing issues with the leak. It is acknowledged that the landlord encountered difficulties in gaining the required access to inspect and repair the leak at her neighbours’ flats both before and after the above date.
However, it was an excessive delay for the resident to have waited up to seven months from September 2019 to April 2020 for the leak into the property to be resolved, and the landlord had failed to keep the resident informed of the progress of the repairs contrary to the requirement from its repairs and maintenance handbook for it to do so. This is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to her, and also resulted in her expenditure of time and trouble in trying to progress the complaint to a resolution. Service failure has therefore been found in respect of this on the part of the landlord because it unreasonably delayed the completion of the work to address the leak, and failed to communicate with the resident in line with its repairs and maintenance handbook.
As the resident reported having issues with having the to pay for the cost of a plumber for the leak in her bathroom in February 2020 and with the standard of the buildings insurance company’s contractor’s works, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer her to the insurance company to these items on 1 May 2020. This is because it found that her plumber had attributed the leak to incorrectly installed bathroom taps that it suggested that the insurance company’s contractor might be responsible for given her other difficulties with their works, and it was the insurance company and not the landlord that was responsible for the contractor and able to make awards for damages arising from their works.
The resident additionally reported experiencing damages to treasured personal possessions, decorations, her bathroom lighting and to her and her children’s health. However, it is not the purpose of compensation awarded by landlords or this Service to reimburse such damages in the way that a court or insurer might, as we instead award compensation in recognition of acknowledged service failures by landlords at levels recommended by their policies and procedures and our remedies guidance.
The landlord nevertheless also reportedly agreed to carry out the repair to the resident’s bathroom light on 23 September 2019 and it confirmed that it would do so on 25 February 2020. While it did do this, which was in excess of its repairing obligation to her as she was responsible for repairs to the property’s interior, fixtures and fittings under her lease, this was not completed until 29 December 2020. This meant that the resident may have waited up to in excess of 15 months for her bathroom light to be repaired, during which time she could have had no alternative lighting for her bathroom when this was not working. It was not reasonable for the resident to have waited so long for the repair to be completed, and service failure has additionally been found on the landlord’s part for this reason.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Following the complaint being received initially from the resident on 7 November 2019, the landlord was obliged to provide her with its reply to this within 15 working days in accordance with its corporate complaints policy above at paragraph 4. No response was sent to this by the landlord from the information provided to this Service, however, representing a failure in its service as there is also no evidence that it complied with the policy’s requirement that it alternatively inform the resident why the complaint response timescale had been extended and when she would receive a full response. This added distress and inconvenience for the resident, as well as time and trouble in submitting further complaints, which were then escalated by the landlord.
Having received the resident’s further stage two complaints on 25 February and 21 April 2020, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 1 May 2020. This was additionally contrary to its corporate complaints policy, which allowed 20 working days for a final stage response or obliged it to explain to her why this had been extended and confirm when she would receive its full response.
In the landlord’s final stage complaint response to the resident, it accepted that its communication had been poor, and that it could have kept her better informed even though she was no longer experiencing issues with leaks at that time. Accordingly, it offered her £70 compensation for this.
In considering the suitability of this, the following has been taken into account:
1. The time taken to identify the issues.
2. Whether the landlord’s offer of redress was suitable in addressing the issues, and whether it returned the resident to the position she was in before the issues occurred.
As per this Service’s remedies guidance, £250 to £700 compensation may be awarded where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure, but there may be no permanent impact on the complaint. Examples could include:
1. A resident repeatedly having to chase responses, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident.
2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy in addressing repairs.
In view of this, the landlord responded fairly in acknowledging its failure to carry out timely repairs that it had committed to completing, and in its failure to keep the resident informed of the progress of the complaint. However, its offer of £70 compensation to her did not proportionately recognise the detriment to the resident as a result of its failings in light of the length of the delays that she experienced from it and this Service’s above remedies guidance’s recommendations.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of leaks in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took up to seven months to repair the cause of the leak into the resident’s property, which was unreasonable. It did not keep her informed of the progress of this work, which it was obliged to do. The landlord also committed to repairing the resident’s bathroom light, and took up to in excess of 15 months to do so, which was excessive.
The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure and delayed responding to the complaint at the final stage of the procedure, for which it apologised and offered compensation that was not proportionate to the length of its delays or in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Orders and recommendation

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £680 within four weeks, which is broken down into £250 each for any distress and inconvenience that she experienced from its delays in repairing the leak and the bathroom lighting at the property plus £180 for any unnecessary additional time and trouble that she incurred from its failure to respond to her at stage one of its complaints procedure and its delay in responding to her at the final stage of the procedure.
2. Review its staff’s training needs in respect of their application of its repairs and maintenance handbook and corporate complaints policy to seek to prevent a recurrence of its failings in the resident’s case. This should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £70 compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendation.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.