Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202302081)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302081

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

1 July 2024

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:
   1. Request to remove scaffolding.
   2. Complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord in a 1 bedroom ground floor flat, with a garden, in a block. The landlord is the freeholder. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. The landlord wrote to all resident’s in the block to explain that it planned to complete major works to the balconies in the block. This was due to an “estate wide water ingress issue”. The landlord explained that the works would take approximately 52 weeks, and works would start following surveys of the affected properties.
4. In order to complete the works needed, the landlord erected scaffolding on 5 October 2021. Part of the scaffolding was situated in the resident’s garden, and accessed from the pavement (not via the resident’s property). On 27 June 2022, the resident contacted the contractor for the landlord to make a complaint. He explained he was unhappy that the scaffolding was not removed in April 2022, as he had been told it would. He asked it to ensure his complaint was passed on to the correct department. The contractor responded to the resident on 29 June 2022 and said it had passed the complaint on to the landlord for it to respond.
5. On 4 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord for an update about the scaffolding. The landlord advised the resident it would call him back to give an update. The landlord emailed the resident on 7 September 2022 and stated the scaffolding had been up longer than expected. It explained there were delays due to the need to consult with the local resident association about the works, and a “small number” of access refusals. The resident tried to escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 7 September and 14 October 2022. The landlord opened a stage 1 complaint investigation on 16 October 2022. It does not appear it responded to the stage 1 complaint.
6. The landlord removed the part of the scaffold that was situated in the resident’s garden on 11 January 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 January 2023 and asked why it had not actioned his previous request to take his complaint to stage 2. The landlord opened a stage 2 complaint investigation and sent the resident an acknowledgement on 31 January 2023.
7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 25 April 2023, it upheld the resident’s complaint, and said:
   1. It apologised for the “extensive administrative errors” in its complaint handling, and apologised it had not responded to the complaint when it was first made in June 2022. It also apologised for the fact its stage 1 response was not sent in November 2022.
   2. It outlined that all scaffolding was now removed, and gave an explanation for the delays in completing the works.
   3. The landlord offered the resident a total of £700 in compensation made up of:
      1. £500 for its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 2.
      2. £200 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in removing the scaffolding.
8. The resident contacted this Service on 28 April 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He stated that he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered. He also expressed a concern about the quality of the works completed, and wanted the landlord to consider reducing the costs passed on to leaseholders for the works.

Assessment and findings

Request to remove scaffolding

9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that when unplanned works are needed, such as repairs to a roof, it will consider the timescale needed for the works, and inform residents.
10. After the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response, the resident sent it an email on 25 April 2023 and expressed concerns about the quality of the works, and wanted it to consider reducing the costs it passed on to leaseholders. The resident also expressed these concerns when he asked us to investigate his complaint, on 28 April 2023.
11. The quality of the works, and associated charges, are not within the scope of this investigation. Our Scheme states that we can only consider complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to this specific concern as part of a complaint, we have determined it is not within the scope of our investigation. We have instead considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the scaffolding, and the length of time it was in place.
12. After the scaffolding was erected in October 2021, we have seen very little evidence of the landlord providing proactive updates to the resident about its progress. It is noted the landlord told this Service it was in “regular communication with [the resident] often via phone and face to face”. The landlord has not provided evidence to corroborate its claim for the period the scaffolding was in place. This is a shortcoming in its record keeping and its overall handling of the matter. Based on the evidence available it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s communication about the matter was poor and caused the resident an inconvenience.
13. The resident was evidently unhappy at the length of time the scaffolding was in place, and made a complaint in June 2022. The evidence indicates that the contractor conducting the works did give the resident an update. However, that the landlord itself did not provide an update, or offer an explanation to the resident at the time, was unreasonable. Considering the contractor was acting on the landlord’s behalf, that it did not provide an update directly caused the resident an inconvenience. The onus was placed on the resident to get updates directly from the contractor, this was inappropriate, and was inconvenient for him.
14. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to seek a further update in August 2022, as he had not received an appropriate response to his complaint. This cost him time and trouble and supports the conclusion that the landlord was not proactive in providing updates about the progress and when it hoped to remove the scaffolding. The evidence shows the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an update in September 2022. This was 1 month after his request for an update, and was an unreasonable delay, which caused a further inconvenience.
15. The landlord sent the resident its first formal complaint response in April 2023, nearly a year after he first expressed dissatisfaction about its handling of the matter. The landlord’s evident complaint handling failings will be assessed in greater detail below. However, in terms of its handling of the substantive issue, that it took nearly a year to receive a formal explanation of its position was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by the lack of proactive updates and was cost time and trouble in needing to repeatedly raise complaints in order to get the landlord to respond.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of April 2023, was detailed in its explanation of why the major works were delayed, and therefore the removal of the scaffolding. It gave a detailed explanation of the complexity of the works, including access issues, and how that had contributed to the delay. The level of detail was appropriate, and went some way to putting right the shortcomings in its communication up to that point.
17. While detailed in its explanation about the delay, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to acknowledge or reflect on its poor communication about the issue. This was inappropriate. It is noted it set out the update it gave in September 2022. However, it failed to assess the frequency and timeliness of its updates. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord missed an opportunity to show learning about its handling of the issue, and set out how it would improve its service. This would have helped build trust with the resident.
18. The landlord offered the resident £200 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in removing the scaffolding. It is noted the scaffolding was removed outside of its initial 52 week estimate, and the complexity of the work and access issues contributed to the delay. It is accepted that major works projects are complex and delays are sometimes unavoidable. There is little evidence that the landlord sought to provide the resident with periodic updates in relation to the delays. We welcome the landlord’s offer of compensation to try and put things right for the resident. However, given its poor communication, and lack of learning shown in its complaint responses, we have determined that its offer of compensation did not fully put things right. As such, a series of orders are set out below.

Complaint Handing

19. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy states that it will acknowledge both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days.
20. The evidence indicates that the complaint the resident made to its contractor was passed on to it to respond to on 29 June 2022. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord opened a complaint investigation at the time. This was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and does not need to include the word complaint. That it did not open a complaint investigation, when the resident had expressed clear dissatisfaction, was unreasonable.
21. That it did not open a complaint investigation at that time is evidence the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident, and he was cost further time and trouble by needing to send the contents of his complaint to the landlord again in October 2022.
22. The evidence suggests the landlord closed the stage 1 complaint after it sent the resident an email update in September 2022. This was inappropriate, as the update did not state it was a complaint response, or tell the resident how he could escalate his complaint. This was inappropriate and evidence the landlord operated an unfair and obstructive complaints process that inconvenienced the resident. Its approach created a confusing complaint process for the resident, as evidenced by his request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 in October 2022, only for it to open another stage 1 investigation. This was unreasonable and poor complaint handling practice.
23. Despite opening another stage 1 complaint investigation in October 2022, the landlord did not issue the resident with a stage 1 complaint response. This was a further failing in its complaint handling. The resident was caused a further inconvenienced by having 2 stage 1 complaints logged, without receiving a formal response to either. The frustration this caused is evidenced by his email to the landlord on 30 January 2023 when he asked the landlord to clarify why his requests to escalate the complaint earlier were not acted on.
24. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 25 April 2022, nearly a year after the resident first tried to complain about the substantive issue in the complaint. This was an unreasonable delay and the resident experienced a considerable inconvenience in trying to get a complaint response, as well as seeking to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
25. The stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised and showed learning about its complaint handling, and explained it would retrain its staff on how to approach a complaint investigation. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and showed an appropriate level of learning, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes.
26. The stage 2 complaint response failed to acknowledge the additional time and trouble the resident experienced by needing to seek assistance from this Service in order to get a response to his complaint. This was a shortcoming in its complaint response, as such as recommendation is set out below.
27. The landlord offered the resident a total of £500 for its complaint handling, and the poor complaints service he received. The landlord showed appropriate learning and advised how it would provide training to improve its service. There was a lengthy delay, and the complaint handling failings were numerous. The landlord operated a protracted and hard to access complaint process. However, considering the apology offered, the genuine learning shown, and the level of compensation offered, we have determined its offer of redress was appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove scaffolding.
29. In accordance with 53(b) the landlord, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £400 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s request to remove the scaffolding. The landlord should deduct the £200 in compensation it offered at stage 2, if already paid.
    3. Remind its staff responsible for overseeing major works of the importance of:
       1. Providing regular updates to residents, especially when there are delays.
       2. Keeping a record of all communication with residents.

Recommendations

31. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £500 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so).
32. Given the identified failings in the landlord’s complaint handling it should issue a reminder to its staff responsible for investigating complaints of:
    1. The importance of opening and escalating a complaint investigation in line with the approach set out in its complaint policy, and the Code.
    2. The need for a complaint response to acknowledge the full detriment experienced by a resident, including time and trouble.