Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202213657)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213657

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

5 September 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her balcony flooring.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is the leaseholder of the property of the landlord (the freeholder). The landlord is a local authority. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the third floor and has a private balcony.
4. The resident had reported issues with her balcony flooring since 2017. She said the landlord carried out repatching works to the estate including painting her balcony floor. The balcony is south-facing and the paint used, when exposed to heat from the sun, became sticky and glue-like. In 2020, a number of work orders were raised to remedy this and repaint, but the issue was not resolved.
5. After the nationwide lockdowns arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the resident requested a repair again in September 2021. On 7 January 2022, a contractor attended the property noting there were no leaks to the balcony and the balcony had the asphalt painted which was now sticky. The landlord’s building surveyor attended the property on March 2022 and recommended works to remove existing screed and renew the asphalt.
6. On 1 June 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about the handling of the repair and said nobody was getting back to her. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
7. It issued its stage 1 response on 4 August 2022. In summary, it:
   1. apologised for the delays in repairing her balcony floor and the lack of updates.
   2. said its building surveyor attended on 14 March 2022 to inspect the balcony and subsequently raised a job.
   3. said its contractor attended on 8 July 2022 but the resident rejected the works which were to apply matting to the balcony floor.
   4. said if the resident wished to go ahead with the work, she should contact the landlord’s repairs centre. 
8. Dissatisfied with this, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 8 August 2022. It reiterated its position at stage 1. In addition, it said:
   1. The work recommended was appropriate to address the resident’s concerns raised and it had asked its repairs team to contact her with a new date for the work.
   2. The resident’s request for tiles instead of flooring was not part of its repairs remit but as the balcony is private for her, she can lay tiles at her own cost with permission from the property compliance team.
   3. It was sorry for lack of communication and delays during the handling of the complaint and while its officers were actively working on the case, they missed opportunities to provide updates and return the resident’s calls.             
9. The resident referred her complaint to this service on 27 September 2022. She remains unhappy that works still have not been carried out to date. As a resolution to her complaint, she wants the landlord to paint her balcony floor in matt paint like the other flats in the block.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. This service acknowledges the resident’s comments that this had been a long-standing issue with the balcony flooring: she said she had reported issues since 2017.
11. While this may be the case, this investigation will not seek to consider matters as far back as this time. This is because the Ombudsman expects residents to bring issues with which they are dissatisfied to the landlord’s attention in good time. This is set out in paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme, which explains that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint that was not brought to the attention of the landlord, by way of a formal complaint, within a reasonable period – which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
12. The landlord confirmed the resident made a formal complaint on 1 June 2022. As such, this investigation will consider the events from December 2021 up until the end of its internal complaints procedure in August 2022. This report will examine the landlord’s handling of requested repairs to her balcony flooring, including whether the landlord followed its policies, treated the resident fairly, and acted reasonably in all circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her balcony flooring

13. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 
    2. Put things right; and 
    3. Learn from outcomes. 
14. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’
15. As the resident is a leaseholder, the lease and repairs policy sets out the landlord is responsible for the common and structural parts of the building. The resident is responsible for the internal parts of her home and individual services to it. The Ombudsman recognises throughout the repair request and complaint, the landlord does not dispute that it had a responsibility to repair the resident’s balcony floor. When the landlord becomes aware of the need for repair, it should take appropriate steps to put things right and within a reasonable timeframe.
16. The resident reported the repair in September 2021. A work order was promptly raised, however in November 2021 the landlord’s roofing contractor rejected this order as it appeared to have unclear instructions. Further work orders were raised in November and December 2021 but its contractor considered these were duplicates and rejected the requests. Its contractor then inspected the property in January 2022 under the original September 2021 work order and considered the matter was not a roofing issue. The landlord made a mistake with the works that were required and the type of operative that was needed for the balcony floor repair. It was likely its contractor was under the impression a roof repair was required and this resulted in delays in getting the matter resolved.
17. It was appropriate the landlord arranged an inspection which it did in March 2022. However, given its contractor attended the balcony in January 2022, stated ‘this is not a roofing issue’ and did not carry out any remedial works, it is unclear why the March 2022 inspection was not carried out sooner. After an inspection, a landlord should arrange a mutually convenient appointment in a reasonable timeframe to carry out the intended works. This did not happen in this case.
18. A further inspection was arranged in June 2022 however its building surveyor reported issues with its management system and was unable to raise the required works. An appointment to carry out the works took place later on 8 July 2022. This was over 4 months after the March 2022 inspection and this was an unreasonable time.
19. The landlord cannot be held accountable for the resident’s decision to not allow works to proceed when its contractor attended on 8 July 2022. However, it is pertinent to note the resident said the scope of the works agreed had changed. She said the contractor intended to lay matting however she was informed by the landlord it would be matt painted. The landlord should ensure adequate communication with both the resident and its contractor in setting out the details of the required works. This would prevent any misunderstanding of the intended works to resolve the issue.
20. The landlord sought further clarity from its contractor to establish why the resident was told matting would be laid despite its building surveyor’s report of March 2022. Indeed, following a phone call from the resident, the landlord emailed the resident on 22 August 2022 stating it was agreed the roof contractor would renew asphalt covering to balcony and that no floor mats had been agreed. However, it is unclear why this was not clarified sooner than 22 August 2022. The Ombudsman considers the misunderstanding in what works were to take place and the landlord’s clarification of matters resulted in additional delays in getting the work done.
21. When the resident requested tiles for her balcony floor in August 2022, the landlord promptly informed her that this was not part of its repairs remit. It explained the balcony was private and she could lay tiles at her own cost with permission from the property compliance team.
22. It was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request to tile the balcony and its decision was clear and appropriate in the circumstances. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. Therefore, landlords are expected to ensure that repairs provide good value for money, including seeking the most cost-effective repair where appropriate.
23. While the sticky nature of the balcony floor did not strictly affect its use or the resident’s use of the property, the Ombudsman can appreciate the nuisance of black residue sticking to furniture, clothes and shoes. The landlord was aware of the need for repair in late 2021 and works have not been completed to date. This is significantly outside its maximum of 60 working day targeted completion time for planned repairs. The delays were considerable, avoidable and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she spent a large amount of time chasing the landlord. The landlord apologised for its failings and demonstrated learning outcomes from the complaint, but it failed to acknowledge substantial delays and missed opportunities to complete the work sooner.
24. The Ombudsman also considers that the landlord’s apology in its final response was not proportionate to the adverse effect caused by the failings identified in this investigation and it did not do enough to ‘put things right’. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100 – £600 should be considered where there has been a failure of no permanent impact.
25. The resident has informed this service the works have not been completed, however, as she frequently uses her balcony, she has made arrangements with the landlord for the asphalt works to be carried out in October 2023. The Ombudsman has considered this as part of its orders, set out below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

26. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they may escalate their complaint to stage 2. At stage 2, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If there are likely to be any delays, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new complaint response timescale at the earliest opportunity.
27. The landlord logged a formal complaint on 1 June 2022. On 4 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident stating it was still investigating some of the issues raised and it would aim to get back to her by 18 July 2022. It acknowledged there were some failings in its communication and its officers missed opportunities to update the resident and return her calls.
28. It was good practice to inform the resident it experienced delays with its stage 1 response, which it did 4 July 2022 however this was not the earliest opportunity and outside its 10 working day service standard. It also informed the resident it would aim to respond by 18 July 2022 (a further 10 working days). Despite promising to issue a response within a further 10 working days, it failed to do so.
29. Overall, it took 44 working days to issue its stage 1 response. Had the landlord addressed her concerns quicker this may have reduced her time and trouble. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this, the Ombudsman does not consider this remedy was proportionate to the adverse effect. The landlord’s failure to act in accordance with its own policy resulted in extra efforts from the resident to progress her complaint. Although this was a minor failure, it would have caused inconvenience to the resident.

Conclusions

30. The landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 4 September 2023 detailing the balcony works which are agreed to take place in October 2023. Following a review of the complaint, it noted the resident was not offered any compensation. It now offered the resident total compensation of £1,200 compromising of:
    1. £300 for its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint within its published timescales.
    2. £400 for time and trouble chasing the issue.
    3. £500 for the delays to the works including agreeing the scope and inconvenience caused.
31. This service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings at an earlier time and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appears to this service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Had the landlord made this offer of redress during the complaints process it would have been satisfactory in putting things right.
32. As it did not, however, the Ombudsman has determined that there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her balcony flooring and service failure in its complaints handling. The Ombudsman is content that the landlord has now made a fair offer of redress and so will not be seeking to make a further award, however the adverse findings in this case should encourage future learning for the landlord.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the her balcony flooring.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35. Within 28 days of the date of this report, as detailed in its email of 4 September 2023, the landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in the requested repair.
    2. £400 for the time and trouble chasing the issue.
    3. £300 for the delays in its complaints handling.
36. The landlord must provide evidence that it has attempted to make the above payments to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
37. Within 56 days of the date of this report, the landlord must complete the balcony flooring works as agreed and confirm with the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Recommendations

38. The landlord should:
    1. Investigate how it manages, reviews and organises ongoing repair issues with its contractors. It should endeavour to create a better channel of communication between the parties, to provide a better service to its residents.
    2. Review how it handles complaints from residents. It should re-train staff if necessary, to ensure that its responses are in-line with its own policy and the guidance set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.