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

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202302176)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302176

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

19 September 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 a broken front door lock at the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident has autism, and she also has personal circumstances which, the landlord is aware of meaning there were concerns with her and her son’s safety.
  2. On 26 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that her front door lock was sticking, and sometimes she was stuck inside the property and could not leave.
  3. On 27 March 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She stated she reported 1 month ago that the lock on her front door was not working, and it had still not been repaired. The resident explained she was told by the contractor that they were going to order a part for the door. She stated for the last month, she has had to sleep with the door unlocked, as if she locked the door, she could not unlock it and would be stuck inside her property, which she explained was a fire risk and breach of safety regulations. In addition, she explained that there were previous personal circumstances in which she felt her, and her child’s safety were at risk from leaving the door unlocked. She also stated since the door lock had been reported broken, one of her mobile phones had gone missing.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 April 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the outstanding repair to the door. The landlord explained that as the resident’s property was a new build property, it was still under warranty, and therefore stated that the developer was responsible for repairing the door. The landlord provided the resident with details of the developer so she could report the repair to it.
  5. On 13 April 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated the door lock had been broken for 3 months, which meant anyone could open her door. The resident stated that she previously explained her personal circumstances, which meant she had concerns for her and her child’s safety. She stated she informed the landlord that she had been burgled since the door lock had been reported broken, and she explained that her TV and mobile phone were stolen. The resident stated she had reported the issue with the door lock to the landlord and developer on more than 20 occasions.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 April 2023. It acknowledged that there needed to be improvements in its service to ensure it provides regular updates about repairs to residents. The landlord stated that changes and improvements were being carried out and monitored, including process changes, refresher training and the development of monitoring repair cases through quality. In addition, the landlord confirmed it had liaised with the resident and developer and scheduled an appointment for 20 April 2023 for the door lock to be repaired.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for the landlord to provide her with compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  8. In July 2023, after the resident had submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord contacted the resident and provided her with details for its liability insurance so she could submit a claim for her stolen items. In addition, the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the repairs and responding to her after the repairs were completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident raised as part of her complaint to the landlord that whilst her door lock was broken, items including her TV and mobile phone were stolen from her property. The landlord provided the resident with an insurance claim form so she could submit a claim on its liability insurer for her stolen items. Normally, when there is alleged negligence by the landlord or its contractors, residents may be able to raise a claim under the landlord’s liability insurance. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to manage such claims and it was reasonable for the landlord to pass on its insurer’s details to the resident. A landlord’s insurer is usually a separate organisation, and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. Therefore, we cannot comment on the outcome of any claim made to a liability insurer or any delays to such a claim.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The resident’s property was a new build house, built in 2022. New-build properties have a ‘defect period’ where the original builder is responsible for repairing certain issues which would have been present when the property was built. The landlord would be responsible for raising repair issues with the original developer of the property during this period. The landlord’s developer home user guide confirms the developer would be responsible for faults or defects for 12 months from the handover of the property.
  2. The landlord’s developer’s home user guide also states that a resident should contact the landlord’s repairs department if they need to report any faults, problems, maintenance issues or emergencies, and they would make the necessary arrangements to contact the developer.
  3. The landlord’s developer new home warranty document, which was issued on 13 April 2022, includes the developer’s repair categories timescales and examples of the different repairs which would be considered under each category. The warranty document states:
    1. Emergency repairs – the developer will attend within 24 hours. It also states that an insecure front or back door would be considered an emergency repair.
    2. Urgent repairs – the developer will attend within 5 working days. It also states that a faulty front or back door would be considered an urgent repair.
    3. Routine repairs – the developer will attend within 20 working days. It also states that a sticking door would be considered as a routine repair.

Assessment

  1. On 26 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that her front door lock was sticking and sometimes she was stuck inside the property and could not leave. The following day, the landlord contacted the resident and explained that it would contact its contractor to arrange an appointment. However, the landlord’s records indicate the landlord did not contact the developer until 8 March 2023 to arrange an appointment for the resident’s front door lock to be investigated. The delay by the landlord was unreasonable, and the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to inform the developer immediately about the faulty door lock. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the developer that the resident was vulnerable without providing specific details, so it would have been aware that the repair of the door lock was a priority.
  2. The landlord’s developer attended the resident’s property on 9 March 2023, which was the day after the landlord reported the faulty door lock to the developer. The developer informed the landlord that it had attended the resident’s property and made some adjustments to the lock. However, it stated to avoid any further issues, it had placed an order for a new cylinder and confirmed it would fit the part once it had arrived. The resident confirmed with the Ombudsman that an operative visited her property on 9 March 2023. However, she explained that the developer’s operative adjusted the door so it could close, but she still could not lock the door, so it could be pushed open by anyone.
  3. Although the landlord’s developer adjusted the front door lock, the resident was still experiencing issues with the door and due to this, she submitted a complaint to the landlord on 27 March 2023. She explained that she reported the faulty door lock over a month ago to the landlord, and it still had not been repaired, and stated she was told by the contractor they were going to order a part to fix the door. The resident stated due to the door lock not being repaired, she had to sleep with the door unlocked for the last month. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been very difficult and distressing for the resident and her son living in the property with the door unlocked, particularly because of her personal circumstances which had a high impact on her safety concerns.
  4. After the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord, the landlord arranged for the developer to attend the resident’s property on the same day the resident sent her complaint, to carry out repairs to the lock. However, the developer could not gain access to the property because the resident was not at home. It is recognised that the landlord attempted to resolve the issue with the door lock immediately after it received the complaint from the resident. This was a reasonable step taken by the landlord in this instance, but it would have been appropriate to contact the resident first to arrange an appointment.
  5. The landlord’s developer tried to arrange an appointment with the resident for 28 March 2023 to repair the door lock. However, the resident stated she was unavailable on that date. The Ombudsman recognises that residents may sometimes be unavailable for appointments for legitimate reasons. However, the resident being unavailable would have been outside the landlord’s control. From the landlord’s records, it is unclear whether it tried to arrange attendance for any alternative dates at the end of March or the start of April 2023. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange for its developer to attend as soon as possible to make the door safe and provide a temporary means of securing it whilst it was waiting for the ordered door part to arrive. However, the landlord failed to do this, which meant the resident’s safety was at risk.
  6. On 12 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and informed it that items had been stolen from her property due to her being unable to lock the door. She informed the landlord that she had reported the incident to the police. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident having items stolen from her property must have been very distressing. As explained above, the stolen items themselves can be considered as a liability claim which falls outside the complaints process.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 April 2023. It apologised for the outstanding repair to the resident’s door and explained that its developer was responsible for repairing the door and provided her with the contact details for the developer. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the delay. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to communicate with the developer about the door repair in line with its developer’s home user guide policy. It was unreasonable to expect the resident to contact the developer directly about the door lock repair, particularly as she had raised the issue with the door lock previously to the landlord in February 2023.
  8. The landlord’s records show that on 14 April 2023, the ordered part for the door had arrived. In addition, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 April 2023. It acknowledged that there were delays in repairing the door lock and recognised that it needed to improve its service in relation to repairs. The landlord confirmed that changes and improvements were being carried out and monitored, including process changes, refresher training and the development of monitoring repair cases. Considering the landlord’s delay in communicating the faulty door lock to the developer and the importance of the repair, it was a positive step by the landlord to make improvements to its repairs process. However, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation at this point for the distress and inconvenience she would have experienced due to the delay in her front door lock being repaired.
  9. Shortly after the ordered part arrived, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange an appointment for the cylinder lock to be fitted. An appointment for 20 April 2023 was arranged as this was a date when both the resident and the developer were available. The landlord’s developer attended on the arranged date and fitted the cylinder lock, which resolved the issue with the door.

 

  1. In July 2023, the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint and contacted the resident and offered £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its communication and delays in arranging for the door lock to be repaired.
  2. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord identified that there was a failure in its handling of the broken front door lock at the resident’s property and ultimately offered redress for this. However, the compensation of £250 was only recently offered to the resident after she submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. It is the Ombudsman’s role to consider the landlord’s handling of complaints through its internal complaints process and, in assessing this, we consider the reasonableness of any offers made during the complaints process. Where a landlord makes a reasonable offer of compensation after the end of its complaints process, the Ombudsman may make a finding of service failure or maladministration by the landlord as the offer should have been made during the complaints process. In this case, the works to fix the door lock have been completed. However, considering the landlord’s lack of communication and delay in arranging for the door lock to be repaired by its developer and the resident’s personal circumstances. It would be appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident further compensation of £250. This amount is in addition to the £250 compensation the landlord offered in July 2023, making the total compensation £500.
  3. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation, which is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. In this case, there was no permanent impact as the door lock was eventually fixed, although there was significant distress and inconvenience for the resident for a long period before the repair was completed. The landlord did not do enough to remedy this during its complaints process. Therefore, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a broken front door lock at the resident’s property.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a broken front door lock at the resident’s property.

 

 

 

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation for its handling of the broken front door lock at the resident’s property. This amount is in addition to the £250 compensation the landlord offered the resident in July 2023, which should also be paid if it has not been paid already.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date.