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

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202101891)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101891

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

10 February 2022


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 door and window repair. 

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local council.
  2. In November 2019 the resident got locked in his bedroom. The door was taken off its hinges so the resident could leave. The landlord subsequently raised a work order to repair and refit the door.
  3. The resident raised a complaint in February 2021. He said his door had been broken since 2019 and needed to be replaced. The landlord said it would attend to inspect with a view of sourcing a new door. It offered £25 compensation for its poor service, and the distress and inconvenience caused.  When the resident escalated his complaint, he said work to his door and window (he reported an issue with his window in January 2021) had not progressed. The landlord apologised for its delay in its final complaint response. It said it completed work to the window in May 2021. It offered an additional £145 compensation for the further delays, and the inconvenience caused.
  4. When the resident brought his complaint to this Service, he said the door repair remained outstanding. He also requested compensation for the money spent installing CCTV.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, he said he sought compensation for the cost of CCTV he purchased whilst the property was insecure. There is no evidence of the resident raising this concern as a complaint to the landlord, and it is unrelated to his internal bedroom door repair. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not look at this matter. The landlord needs an opportunity to investigate this concern before the Ombudsman becomes involves. The resident should raise this matter with the landlord first, and then, once the landlord has fully investigated it, he can bring it to this Service if necessary.

Level of compensation

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy provides that the resident is responsible for the repair of internal doors. If the landlord carries out a repair it is not responsible for, it will recharge the resident for the cost of it. It will complete its lowest priority repairs within 20 working days. The landlord’s repairs handbook sets out that it is responsible for window repairs. The resident is required to grant access for repairs in line with his tenancy agreement.
  2. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, the resident is responsible for repairing internal doors. However, in this case, the landlord took ownership of the repair by raising multiple work orders for it, and there is nothing in the evidence to show it advised the resident that it was his responsibility, or that it would recharge him. It is however, noted that the resident stated in his formal complaint that the landlord had informed him that the broken door was a special fire safety one, thus, had to be specifically sourced. The landlord has not disputed this in its communications. The repairs policy clarifies that the landlord is responsible for renewing or repairing fire doors, thus, this suggests that the door is its responsibility to repair.
  3. The landlord’s records show it missed an appointment for the door on 23 December 2019. It attended on 4 February 2020 but was unable to complete the work as there was no door at the property (it is unclear what this meant). No evidence has been provided to this Service of any communication between the parties after this visit, until the resident chased the landlord for an update on 17 November 2020. There was another missed appointment on 4 January 2021. The landlord could not gain access on 20 January 2021. It measured the door on 2 February 2021. It is understood from the records that the landlord closed the work order following no access on 4 March 2021. The landlord re–raised the work order on 6 August 2021. The resident advised this Service on 26 October 2021, and the records indicate, that the repair remains outstanding.
  4. In terms of the window repair, the landlord records show that on 28 January 2021 the resident reported his kitchen window handle was broken. The landlord raised a work order for 14 February 2021, but the resident rescheduled. The landlord explained in its stage two complaint response that it completed the window repair in May 2021, but it is unclear when this was undertaken.
  5. The landlord offered the resident £170 compensation. The initial £25 was for the delay from November 2019 until February 2021 (when it attended to measure the door). The additional compensation was for the further delay, and inconvenience caused.
  6. The landlord has not provided its compensation policy for this investigation. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (found on our website) outlines our approach to offers of compensation for instances of repair delays. For example, the guidance suggests that offers in the region of £50-£250 are suitable when there has been service failure which has had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration, and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.
  7. In this case, it is evident that the door repair delay was not of short duration. Being without a bedroom door would not have been a significant inconvenience for the resident and would not have caused a long term or adverse impact, but the complaint email states that it was a fire door. This means that there were safety implications in the door remaining broken. However, the evidence shows that the resident failed to grant access for several appointments (for both the window and door repair) despite being required to in line with his tenancy agreement. This would have contributed to the delays, and would not be considered a failing on the landlord’s behalf. It is also noted that the national lockdown occurred in within the first year of the events. As such, the landlord’s offer of compensation does not appear unreasonable given the circumstances.
  8. Nonetheless, in the landlord’s stage two complaint response it acknowledged that the resident escalated his complaint as the window and door repair remained outstanding. However, it did not confirm whether the door repair had been completed or not or go into any detail explaining why there had been a delay. The Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (also found on our website) sets out that landlords should address all points raised in a complaint. Therefore, if a resident raises concerns about multiple repair issues, we expect the landlord to adequately address each matter. However, in this case, the landlord failed to do this. It missed its opportunity to justify its actions, and it acted unreasonably by not acknowledging its delay concerning the door.
  9. Ultimately, although the landlord’s offer of compensation appeared reasonable for the delays, given that the door repair still remains outstanding, and in light on the failings in its stage two complaint response, the landlord should offer the resident extra compensation which is proportionate to the actual delay and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of a door and window repair.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not take into account that the repair had not been completed. It failed to adequately address the door repair in its stage two complaint response.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to undertake the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident the total sum of £270 for the inconvenience and delay experienced as a result of the failings identified in his report. This includes the £170 previously offered.
    2. Contact the resident to arrange an appointment for the door repairs if it has not already been completed.