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

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202211844)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211844

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

4 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:
    1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s floor, and;
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. On 4 February 2022, the landlord attended the resident’s property to fix a water leak. It was found that the leak had caused damage to an area of flooring in the property. After the leak had been repaired, the landlord raised a job to rectify the flooring on 7 February 2022.
  2. The landlord attended the property on 25 March 2022 to inspect and measure the flooring. The landlord then attended on either 9 or 10 April 2022 in order to complete an asbestos survey on the area concerned.
  3. The contractor reattended to repair the floor on 10 June 2022. The resident complained to the landlord the same day. He explained that although the contractor had arrived at the property, he was unable to complete the job. The contractor had telephoned his office, who informed the contractor that a job to repair the flooring was booked for 12 August 2022. The resident complained that this was too long to wait, and requested that it be brought forward.
  4. The landlord sent its stage one response on 22 June 2022. It apologised and offered £100 compensation for the delays experienced so far. It brought the date of the repair forward to 3 August 2022 and explained that it had taken steps to ensure the contractor completed the job.
  5. On 3 August 2022, the resident escalated his complaint, explaining that the contractor had not attended as promised.The resident had called the repair service for an update and had been told his appointment was now booked for 16 September 2022. The resident explained how he had cancelled a hospital appointment to accommodate the repair.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 August 2022 apologising that it would not be able to meet its 1 September 2022 deadline for its stage two response. It instead issued its stage two response on 7 September 2022.
  7. The stage two response apologised for the delay and poor service the resident had experienced. It explained that it had faced a number of challenges, including shortages in both labour and materials. It provided a list of appointments with an explanation of each one, including the intended purpose of each appointment and the outcome. It offered £300 in compensation and stated that it had been unable to move the rescheduled 16 September 2022 appointment forward due to staff sickness.
  8. On 16 September 2022, the contractor attended the property. However, the contractor explained that his instructions had not been to repair the flooring, but to attend outstanding repairs to the kitchen cabinets. The contractor called the repairs office and confirmed that the flooring was due to be attended on 24 September 2022.
  9. The contractor reattended on 24 September 2022 and completed the works. Further actions remained outstanding, such as sealing the floor and removing waste. The repairs were completed on 13 October 2022.
  10. The resident complained on 25 November 2022 that he had still not received the compensation he had been promised. The payment was processed on 28 November 2022. The resident contacted this service on 12 December 2022 to explain that he was happy with the with the works completed and the outcome. However, he wanted this service to investigate the experience he had had to ensure that the landlord learned from what happened.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to the resident’s floor

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook states that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. The landlord therefore fell significantly below its required expectations in this case.
  2. The evidence appears to show that seven visits were required to complete the works. Evidence provided by the landlord and its contractors show the reasoning for, and outcomes resulting from, each of these visits:
    1. 25 March 2022, the landlord attended and successfully took the measurements required.
    2. On 9 or 10 April 2022, the landlord attended to survey for asbestos in the property. The evidence shows that the landlord was implementing changes in the way it handled reports of asbestos at this time and this action was deemed a necessary prerequisite to complete the repairs.
    3. On 10 June 2022, the contractor attended, however it was discovered that the results of the asbestos survey remained outstanding. The works were therefore postponed.
    4. On 3 August 2022, the contractor was due to reattend. The evidence shows that the contractor did not attend due to staff sickness and failed to notify the resident.
    5. On 16 September 2022, the contractor attended. However, due to a miscommunication with both landlord and the resident, the flooring was not repaired as expected. Instead, the appointment was for carpentry work to the kitchen counters, which was required before the flooring was repaired. The records show that the landlord had raised this job with the contractor on multiple occasions including 8 March 2022 and 12 May 2022. However, the contractor had failed to arrange the works previously.
    6. On 24 September 2022, the contractor reattended and finished the majority of the repair. Only silicone sealing and waste removal remained outstanding. The resident said that the contractor told the resident they would return “on Monday”, however the records show that the contractor then mistakenly marked the job as “complete”. After a call from the resident, the contractor reattended and all works were completed on 13 October 2022.
  3. It is clear from this timeline that the resident was subject to an excessive number of visits by the contractor to complete the works and received inadequate communication throughout this period. The landlord is responsible for the service provided by the contractors it employs; it was therefore correct to apologise to the resident in its complaint responses and to offer compensation. However, it is important in addressing the outcome that the resident desires from this investigation to distinguish between the actions of the two parties. The evidence shows that throughout the period of this investigation, there was a clear disparity between the standard the landlord held its contractors to, and the standard at which the contractors performed. This service has seen multiple and repeated instances where landlord staff pursued the contractors in a proactive and timely manner in order to ensure the works were completed.
  4. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it described the service and communication the resident received as “poor”; it explained that it had taken steps to raise this with the contractor. The records show regular emails which the landlord sent to the contractor in which it requested repair dates be brought forward, impressed the need for better communication with the resident and demanded overall improvement in the service provided.
  5. In the landlord’s stage two response of 7 September 2022, it explained that senior staff were aware of delays experienced by residents and were taking steps to seek improvement from its contractors. The evidence supports this, showing that it met with the contractor on 21 September 2022 to discuss the ongoing issues. It also met with the resident on 3 May 2023 and interviewed him about his experience in order to inform this work.
  6. Throughout this period, the resident had to live with damage to his property and suffered repeated inconveniences because of poor communication and planning on the part of the contractor. He was obliged to chase the repairs on a number of occasions and make himself available for appointments which either did not happen, or did not result in the work being completed. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but had no permanent impact, it is appropriate to offer between £100 and £600 compensation. The landlord offered £350 during the complaints process and therefore offered reasonable redress.

Complaint Handling

  1. The resident expressed dissatisfaction to this service about the landlord’s complaint handling, citing delays in its stage two response and further delays in receiving the compensation promised. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that the landlord has up to 20 working days in which to provide a stage two response. However the landlord’s stage two response, which was raised by the resident on 3 August 2022, was not issued until 7 September 2022.
  2. Despite this, the evidence shows a number of steps the landlord took during this period which, in the view of this service, showcase best practice in complaint handling. For example, internal correspondence shows that the landlord had gone to great lengths in pursuit of the answers it required in order to adequately provide the resident with a stage two response. When it became clear that these would not be forthcoming in time to meet the deadline, the landlord wrote to the resident on 30 August 2022. It apologised for the delays and provided the resident with as much information as it was able to provide at that point, in line with the guidance set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. When the contractor contacted the landlord with the information requested on 7 September 2022, it issued its stage two response on the same day.
  3. Additionally, the landlord took a number of appropriate steps in both its stage one and two responses, to ‘put right’ what had gone wrong. It did this by offering appropriate amounts of compensation at both stages of the complaints procedure and by doing what it could to ensure the resident’s issues were dealt with. Internal staff emails throughout this period show that complaint handlers showed due concern to the resident’s issues and were consistently proactive in acting upon them. It is therefore disappointing that the contractor was unable to adhere to the improvements the landlord promised on its behalf.
  4. The landlord also met with the resident on 3 May 2023. As a result of this meeting, the landlord felt that it was appropriate to offer an additional £400 compensation. It appears that this was, in part, to reflect the further delays which occurred after the conclusion of the internal complaints process. This is a further example of the landlord being proactive in its attempts to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  5. The resident reported that following the initial complaint process, despite being offered compensation on 7 September 2022, it was not paid until 28 November 2022. The evidence shows that the resident had given the landlord his bank details over the phone on 11 October 2022. The landlord had attempted to process the payment to the resident on 19 October 2022 and again on 31 October 2022. The landlord queried the failed payments and was notified that the payment had been returned due to the bank details being incorrect. As the bank details were taken over the phone, it is unclear exactly how this happened, though it appears there was a discrepancy of only one digit. This suggests a simple miscommunication as the most likely cause.
  6. Upon discovering the mistake, the landlord attempted to contact the resident over the telephone but was unsuccessful. It wrote to the resident, who contacted the landlord to correct the error on 8 November 2022. The records show that the landlord sent this information to the relevant department and the payment was successfully processed on 28 November 2022.
  7. In conclusion, despite the resident experiencing delays at various stages during the complaints process, the evidence shows that many of the delays were minor and outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord has satisfactorily demonstrated that it did what it could to mitigate the impact of these delays and was proactive in its attempts to put things right. As a result, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress following its handling of repairs to the resident’s floor.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.