Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202107939)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107939

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

29 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests regarding redecoration works to her property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of a three bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a purpose built block. 
4. The landlord’s repairs booklet provides that “the procedures covering communal areas and annual maintenance are applicable to all tenures” and states that emergency repairs should be undertaken within two to 24 hours and urgent repairs between three and five working days. All other repairs should be carried out within 20 working days.
5. The lease covenant confirms the landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain the structure of the building, including the roof, walls, gutters, rainwater/soil/waste pipes, and other common parts.
6. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy in force at the time operated a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, it will respond to complaints relating to repairs within fifteen 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 it will usually follow the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when assessing compensation.

Summary of events

7. The resident has had ongoing issues with water ingress into her property from the roof of the block. The landlord had previously attended to repair the roof however, in February 2021 the resident reported that water was still entering her property and that this was affecting both her flat and the flat next door. Rainwater was coming in through the ceiling, wall, fireplace and window. This had affected the plasterwork which had crumbled, leaving a hole in the ceiling. She said that when the contractors had previously attended they took pictures and put temporary plastic sheeting down but there was now water ingress in additional rooms. The landlord responded to state that the works had been undertaken on 8 January 2021 with the asphalt renewed and that a new job would need to be raised.
8. On 26 February 2021 the landlord’s records state that the repair had been completed.
9. On 5 May 2021 the leaseholder called the landlord again to report that the roof was still leaking. In May 2021 the resident said in a telephone conversation with the landlord that she would make a complaint. She chased the repair again four more times during May and June 2021.
10. The resident contacted this Service in July 2021. She advised that she had raised a complaint regarding this issue in 2020. Her complaint was upheld and she was awarded £200 in compensation and assurances that the leak had been resolved but while the landlord continued to tell her that the leak has been fixed, every time there was heavy rain the roof would leak again. This Service agreed to follow this up with the landlord.
11. This Service wrote to the landlord on 2 July 2021 to request that they issue a complaint response within 10 working days, however by the 21 July 2021 the resident had not received a response. This Service contacted the landlord again that day to request that they issue a response to her complaint within 5 working days.   
12. The landlord responded to this Service on 22 July 2021 and confirmed that it had already investigated and responded to the complaint on 25 June 2020 and it attached a copy of its stage two response. This Service requested that the landlord contact the resident to investigate her new complaint and provide a response by 13 August 2021.
13. On 2 September 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response in which it stated that:
    1. The contractor had apologised for the poor service in relation to the repairs and confirmed that scaffolding would be put up on 1 September 2021 so that the source of the leak could be identified and repaired; 
    2. The landlord does not carry out decoration in leaseholder properties and that the resident should go through the insurers; 
    3. £150 in compensation was offered for the delay and inconvenience the resident experienced.
14. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 September 2021 to object that it had treated her complaint as a new issue when it related to her previous complaint which had yet to be resolved. She said that the insurers had previously arranged for her property to be redecorated however when the contractors had discovered that her walls were wet because of the leak, they could not continue with the works. She also said that no scaffolding had been erected despite assurances in her stage one complaint response and she had since received a letter informing her that the scaffolding would be put up on 23 September 2021. She asked that her complaint be escalated to stage two. 
15. When she received no response to her request, the resident contacted the landlord on 21 October 2021. She said that the ceiling was now bulging and she was worried that it would soon collapse. She complained that she had asthma and high blood pressure and that both health conditions had been exacerbated by the conditions in the property. She also said that the situation was causing considerable distress to her elderly mother who had dementia. The resident completed a complaints form on the landlord’s website the following day repeating her request that her complaint be escalated.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 22 October 2021 and informed her that she should have a response by 19 November 2021.
17. The landlord’s internal correspondence confirms that works were completed to the roof on 1 November 2021. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident to check with her that the works had been carried out to her satisfaction. The resident reported that the repairs had been completed and while there had be no sign of further water ingress, there had not been any heavy rain so she could not say for sure that the leak had been resolved. 
18. The landlord issued its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 24 November 2021 in which it:
    1. Apologised for the poor service the resident had received and for the inconvenience caused to her by the delay to carry out and complete works;
    2. Confirmed that roofing works had been completed on 1 November 2021; 
    3. Stated that it has resolved the issues which had caused the leak and acknowledged that there was a delay in it doing so; 
    4. Offered an additional £100 in compensation, making the total offer of compensation £250.
19. The resident advised the landlord on 26 November 2021 that based on the assurances the landlord had given that the repairs had resolved the leak, she would accept the offer of £250 in compensation. 
20. On 31 December 2021 the insurers wrote to the resident to advise that redecoration works could not commence in the property until they had confirmation that the walls and ceiling were dried out. They asked that a certificate be provided confirming that moisture readings had been taken and the property was now dry. 
21. On 4 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to ask that a completion certificate be provided to the insurers so that the decoration works could commence. She chased this up with the landlord on 21 January and 7 February 2022. 
22. The resident contacted this Service on 3 May 2022 to report that issues were still outstanding. Moisture readings needed to be undertaken before redecorating could commence and there were still some internal repairs outstanding to the wall in the living room, resulting from the leak. This Service accepted this case for investigation.

Post complaint

23. In May 2023 the landlord reviewed the complaint and contacted the resident to discuss this matter further. On 3 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it would now agree to undertake works and redecorate the resident’s property as a gesture of goodwill, in recognition of all the delays and the issues with the insurers. The landlord also agreed to increase the offer of compensation as follows:

a. £200 was offered for the landlord’s failure to response to the stage one and stage two complaints within their published timescales;

b. £500 for delays to works and the negative impact it had upon her;

This took into account the amount of £250 previously offered to, and paid to, the resident. The landlord wrote that the balance of £450 would be paid to her on receipt of the resident’s bank details. 

24. The landlord contacted this Service on 9 June 2023 to confirm that the decoration works had been completed. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

25. The resident and landlord have provided evidence dating back to 2018-19 in relation to this matter. This Service notes that the resident has raised this matter with the landlord over a number of years and details of earlier reports have been helpful in providing a clear picture of the history of this complaint to date and the landlord’s interventions. For the purpose of this investigation, however, these previous reports and the landlord’s responses are referenced for contextual purposes only. This is because the Ombudsman is limited to investigating only those issues that have progressed through all stages of a landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak

26. The resident has reported that she had been reporting issues with the roof since 2018. The focus of this investigation will be events from February 2021.
27. Although the landlord responded within the timescales in its repairs handbook by arranging for its contractors to attend to address the leak in February and March 2021, the works undertaken did not resolve the underlying problem. The landlord had an obligation to identify the cause of the leak and to carry out suitable repairs to permanently resolve this. Some repairs works and investigations were undertaken, however the landlord neglected to treat the issue as an ongoing problem. The repair was closed without the landlord arranging follow-up inspections or enquiries of the resident to determine if the leak was resolved. This was not reasonable, as the resident had to then chase the landlord to re-investigate the issue. The landlord failed to act proactively to find a solution to the leak, which, according to its policies should have been treated as an urgent repair.
28. While the leak and the resulting damage was reported again to the landlord on a number of occasions between March 2021 and August 2021, the landlord referred this to its sub-contractors but did not follow this up. A landlord should establish good internal communication procedures so that matters are followed up and outcomes recorded with other departments and contractors, in order to facilitate an effective and responsive service to its residents. Repairs should be monitored and reviewed with post-inspections undertaken so the landlord can be assured that repairs have been completed satisfactorily. It was not until the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord through this Service, in July 2021, that the landlord assumed ownership of the repair and arranged for scaffolding to be erected to facilitate an investigation as to the source of the leak from the roof. The works were eventually completed and the leak resolved on 1 November 2021. While it was appropriate that the landlord monitored the works and followed up the repair to completion during the complaints procedure, there was a missed opportunity to take this action at a much earlier stage. Overall there was a lack of accountability and oversight from the landlord.
29. The landlord’s communication with the resident was unsatisfactory. The landlord should ensure that the resident is kept informed of the progress of repairs in order to manage her expectations. If delays are anticipated, the resident should be put on notice and a revised timetable of works provided. The landlord did not update the resident and she was put to time and effort in chasing for repairs to be progressed to completion. The resident was also given unrealistic and inaccurate timescales for works which, when they were not met, would have added to her frustration and dissatisfaction.
30. The landlord had originally offered £100 in compensation for delays to repairs which was increased to £250 at stage two of its complaints procedure.  Following its complaints review in May 2023 this amount was increased again to £500. While this Service welcomes a landlord reconsidering redress where there are accepted service failures, in this instance the landlord has not provided an explanation as to why this revised offer was made almost 18 months after the conclusion of its internal complaints procedure following the involvement of this Service. Consequently, in determining this aspect of the complaint, significant weight has not been given to this offer as it post-dated the conclusion of the complaints procedure.
31. After careful consideration, a finding of maladministration has been reached in relation to this aspect of the complaint. This is because there were unnecessary and lengthy delays compounded by the landlord’s poor communication with the resident which had a detrimental impacted on the resident and her elderly mother. While the landlord has apologised for delays and offered £500 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, in the Ombudsman’s opinion further compensation is warranted and the landlord is ordered to pay an additional £100 to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request regarding redecoration works to her property

32. In the resident’s complaint, she asked that the landlord arrange for the affected rooms in her property to be redecorated following the leak. The landlord responded in its complaint response that the resident would need to issue a claim through their insurers for these works as they did not carry out decorations in leaseholder properties.
33. As a leaseholder, the resident is responsible for repairs to her own property. However, as she lives in a purpose built block, the landlord is responsible to repairs to the common parts including the roof. Where works are required to the resident’s home as a consequence of disrepair to the common parts, the resident is entitled to raise a buildings insurance claim.  
34. The advice given by the landlord to the resident regarding redecoration works to the property was correct, as it would be normal practice for a resident to be directed to insurers to claim for any damage to their own property. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurers to pursue a claim. 
35. However, the redecoration works were delayed as the resident could not provide the evidence requested by the insurers that the property had been sufficiently dried out to allow the works to commence. Given the inconvenience the resident had experienced as a result of delays in repairing the leak, it would have been appropriate and good practice for the landlord to have arranged for its contractors to return to undertake a post-works inspection and to take moisture readings to confirm that the leak had been resolved satisfactorily. It is not clear from the records why this was not actioned although there is some indication that the landlord considered that the resident should bear the cost of this. There is no evidence that the resident was informed of the landlord’s decision as she continued to chase the landlord for a response between December 2021 and June 2022. This was unreasonable and the landlord’s inaction and failure to communicate with the resident, directly contributed to the delays in the resident’s claim being processed. Consequently the resident suffered detriment as the outstanding works and redecoration did not go ahead. 
36. It was appropriate for the landlord to take the positive step of agreeing to redecorate the resident’s property as a ‘gesture of goodwill’ in acknowledgement of the delays, however this decision was made after this Service had agreed to investigate the resident’s complaint. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that this offer was prompted by a referral to this Service. A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the complaint, in recognition of the unreasonable delays to the resident’s insurance claim and the associated detriment to the resident. An order for compensation has also been made recognition of the impact of the delays on the resident and her household. A recommendation has been included regarding the landlord’s handling of information requests in support of insurance claims.    

The landlord’s complaint handling

37. Member landlords are required to comply with the Ombudsman’s ‘Complaint Handling Code’ which was published in July 2020. The Code provides that stage one complaints should be responded to within 10 working days of receipt, with stage two complaints within 20 working days. The timescales for response in the landlord’s Complaint Policy in force at the time of the resident’s complaint were not compliant with the Code. This Service notes, however, that the landlord has since updated its Corporate Complaints Policy to reflect the timescales in the Code.
38. After this Service contacted the landlord on 2 July 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to determine what issues remained outstanding and to try and resolve matters with her or to respond within its published timescales. Instead, the landlord took no further action and responded to this Service on 22 July 2021 that the resident had exhausted its complaints procedure on this issue in June 2020, without enquiry of the resident or its repairs team as to whether the problem was ongoing. It is of concern to this Service that the resident’s complaint was not progressed by the landlord at that time and its response is not indicative of an accessible, transparent complaints procedure nor a proactive approach to complaints handling. 
39. The landlord did act in accordance with its corporate complaints policy by acknowledging the resident’s stage one and two complaints working day and providing a target date for its response. However, the stage one complaint acknowledgement was dated 12 August 2021, which was 29 working days after the referral from this Service.
40. The landlord’s stage one complaint response rightly acknowledged and apologised for its service failures and attempted to resolve the issue by confirming an appointment to progress the repairs. However, the landlord was unable to meet its assurances that works would commence on 1 September 2021 and works were delayed until 27 October 2021.
41. The resident first emailed the landlord to ask to escalate her complaint on 10 September 2021. She emailed again on 21 October 2021 but it was not until she completed a complaint form on the landlord’s website on 22 October 2021 that her complaint was escalated. It is unclear why the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 10 September 2021 was not actioned. The landlord’s failure to do so led to further delays in the resident’s complaint being progressed. 
42. The landlord’s stage two complaint response offered an apology for the poor service the resident had received and confirmed that works had been completed on 1 November 2021. The landlord’s complaint response did not review how the complaint had been handled with reference to its complaints procedure. The landlord did not offer any separate redress to the resident for the inconvenience its complaint handling failings had caused her, or demonstrate that it had learned lessons from its handling of her complaint.
43. In its review of the resident’s complaint in May 2023, the landlord offered the resident £200 in compensation for delays at stage one and stage two of its complaint procedure. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings in its complaint handling and offered redress. However, it is not in the spirit of this Service’s dispute resolution principles for a landlord to make an 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 service failure has been made, as there were a number of missed opportunities and little evidence that the landlord has learnt lessons going forward to effect service delivery improvement. It is also evident that the landlord reviewed the case, and its offer of compensation, following escalation and intervention by this Service. 

Determination (decision)

44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak;
    2. maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s requests regarding redecoration works to her property;
    3. service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

45. The landlord missed opportunities to address the leak at a much earlier stage and this, coupled with its poor communication with its contractors led to protracted delays. The landlord failed to keep the resident informed and investigative works to identify and resolve the leak were only raised following the intervention of this Service. While the landlord did resolve the leak and following its complaint review it did increase its offer of compensation, this happened only once the complaint had been referred to this Service. Further, it did not identify it had learnt from outcomes.
46. While the landlord correctly signposted the resident to its insurers in relation to the redecoration works to the property, the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively with the resident in relation to this and its inaction in neglecting to supply required evidence that the property was dry contributed to the detriment caused to the resident in delaying decoration works to the property.  This Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to redecorate the property in May 2023, however this was significantly outside of the period of the complaint and there was a missed opportunity for it to resolve this aspect of the complaint at an earlier stage. 
47. While it is positive that the landlord reviewed its complaint and offered redress for complaint handling failures, it did not recognise the detriment to the resident in its response nor did it identify what steps would be taken to improve service delivery going forward.

Orders and recommendations

48. The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident £1000, comprising:
       1. the £500 it previously offered for its delayed repairs;
       2. the £200 it previously offered in recognition of complaint handling failures;
       3. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delays to repairs;
       4. £100 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble in following up repairs and complaints;
       5. £100 in recognition of the time and effort, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to delays to her insurance claim being progressed;
       6. If the landlord has already made a payment of £700 to the resident as it has indicated, this may be deducted from the amount above, meaning that £300 should now be paid.
    2. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendation

49. The landlord should consider its procedures for responding for requests for information in support of leaseholder insurance claims to ensure that:
    1. decisions are communicated to residents without delay and;
    2. information is provided to insurers in a timely manner.