Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202211462)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211462

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

31 July 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 how the landlord handled cracking in the resident’s home. The Ombudsman also considered complaint handling.

Background of the complaint

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, which is a ground-floor two-bedroom flat.
3. On 22 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about an appointment with a contractor that went ahead on the previous day (21 March 2022). She believed the appointment was to repair the cracks in her living room and bedroom walls, which were first reported to the landlord on 10 December 2021. However, the contractor attended to inspect only and assess what work was required.  The resident contacted the landlord to clarify the purpose of the appointment and requested the works to make good the cracking be rebooked. 
4. The next day, the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It stated a response would be issued no later than 12 April 2022. The landlord contacted the contractor to request a copy of the telephone call. The contractor informed the landlord that no recording was available, as the call was to a mobile telephone. 
5. On 14 April 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint in which it stated:
   1. The contractor’s record-keeping had been poor, and it could not say why appointments had been missed.
   2. The resident had refused access to the property and requested a specific operative, which had caused some of the delays.
   3. It asked the resident to contact it, rather than the contractor – to avoid confusion.
   4. An operative would be in contact in the next five days to arrange an inspection of the works.
   5. The landlord offered £350 compensation for the missed appointments and late complaint response.
6. On 14 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord arranged an appointment for 18 May 2022 to survey the repairs needed to the wall.
7. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident to explain that as the property needed to be inspected, the stage 2 response would be delayed. It said it would provide its response by 19 June 2022.
8. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2022 and 1 August 2022 as she had not received the complaint response.
9. The repairs records indicate the scope of works was finalised on 20 July 2022, to patch and repair the cracked area and to decorate to match. The resident explained she was dissatisfied with this and believed the walls needed to be fully stripped back and replastered. On 2 August 2022, the landlord updated the resident. It said that it would not strip back the wall and complete full redecoration – but patch repair. Appointments were made for 30 August and 1 September 2022 to complete the work.
10. On 26 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed works. She explained that the walls needed to be fully stripped back, plastered, and redecorated. She stated that two of her rooms had been uninhabitable for 11 months whilst she had been waiting for the repairs. This, she said, was because her furniture and belongings had been boxed up during this time.
11. The landlord issued its final response on 30 August 2022. The response is summarised as follows:
    1. it stated it would not change the scope of works.
    2. it offered £750 compensation comprised of:
       1. £350 for the delay in issuing the stage 1 complaint response.
       2. £100 for the delays at stage 2
       3. £200 for the disruption caused by the cracks to the resident.
12. On 30 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say the appointment due to go ahead that day had been cancelled. The landlord was unable to confirm the reason but rescheduled the appointment for the next day.
13. The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 September 2022 and stated she was unhappy with the work being completed. She informed the landlord that she had stopped the works from going ahead on the basis that she believed the repair work would only cause more disruption when it failed. In response, the landlord asked the resident to allow the work to continue. The resident refused to allow the landlord’s contractors to finish the work.
14. The resident asked the landlord if she could source her own contractors for the works, and for the landlord to pay her costs. The landlord declined this.
15. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she would like a refund of 50% of the rent for 11 months for the period she lost the use of their living room and bedroom.
16. The resident presented photographic and video evidence to this service of the cracks within the property. The evidence suggests that the work has not been fully completed as of 21 July 2023. 

Assessment and findings

17. Where there is damage to the structure and exterior of the property, the landlord is required to inspect, determine a course of action and repair within a reasonable time. Where there is a dispute over the works, it is for the landlord to decide how to repair the property, considering the age and condition of the property and value for money. The landlord is expected to seek advice from experts in deciding what the best course of action is.
18. In this case, the resident reported the cracking on 10 December 2021. To date, there is no evidence the work has been completed. Therefore, the question becomes whether the landlord is responsible for an avoidable delay.
19. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor missed appointments in January and February 2022. The contractors alleged that they attended the appointment in January 2022, but the resident refused access. It also advised that due to storm damage repairs being prioritised, the appointment in February 2022 was missed. There is no evidence the landlord notified the resident of this.
20. It is also clear that the resident was under the impression that the appointment of 21 March 2022 was to commence works, rather than inspect. Whilst an inspection took place that day, it is not clear why it took the landlord from December 2021 to March 2022 to inspect the damage.
21. The landlord’s internal records state that its contractor rejected the works on 11 April 2022, due to the work required being more extensive than the scope of works suggested. Moreover, the scope of works was not agreed upon until 20 July 2022 – which was some seven months later. That was inappropriate.
22. It then took the landlord until 1 September 2022 to attend to commence the works. This was 9 months since the resident reported the cracking in the property. This was unacceptable.
23. The landlord’s contractors were prepared to complete the works on 1 September 2022. The landlord was entitled to rely on the scope of works and complete them unless there was evidence from another surveyor to show the works would not have been a viable option. That evidence is not available to this service.  The Ombudsman has carefully considered the resident’s photographs and video evidence – however – that does not show the repairs proposed to have been entirely unworkable. It would have been reasonable to have allowed the landlord the chance to carry out the repairs in the first instance.
24. The landlord’s internal note dated 10 October 2022 states that it would ‘hollow out’ the cracks before filling them. The repairs records suggest that the cracks were filled by 8 December 2022 – and the area needed to be sanded. The outstanding work was painting work – which was booked for 27 January 2023.
25. This service has considered whether the landlord acted appropriately when they refused the resident’s request of 1 September 2022 to hire their own workers to complete the repair work and bill the council afterwards. There is nothing in the policies to suggest the resident has this right, and the landlord has the right to hire any worker they wish to complete the work. Although the resident shared their concerns about how the work was being completed, the landlord verified with the contractor that they were competent to complete the work and confirmed the landlord would visit the property afterwards to confirm the repair work was to the expected standard.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

26. Under the landlord’s complaint policy, it was required to provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. This is the same time limit prescribed by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
27. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 22 March 2022, the landlord took 30 working days to reply with their complaint response. That was three times the timescale set out in its policy.
28. At stage 2, the landlord was required to respond within 20 working days. After the subsequent stage 2 escalation on 9 May 2022. The took 54 working days to provide its final response.
29. It is clear the complaint process did not meet the standards it should have. This was at a time when the works were also delayed. 
30. The final redress offered by the council for this was £350 for the stage one complaint, and £100 for the stage two, totalling £450 for the complaint process. That was appropriate to recognise the failures.
31. However, the Ombudsman does not consider the level of compensation awarded for the delays with the repairs was reasonable or appropriate.

Compensation

32. The resident has asked for compensation totalling 50% of the rent for 11 months. However, the Ombudsman has considered that there is no evidence to suggest that the rooms affected were uninhabitable or that it was necessary to have items packed away in other rooms for 11 months. Moreover, some of the delays related to the resident refusing the work offered. On that basis, it would not be fair in all the circumstances to award 50% of the rent for 11 months. I do, however, award £120 per month for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays from December 2021 to September 2022 – totalling £1080. This is in addition to the £450 compensation for the poor complaint handling. 

Determination (decision)

33. On carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that:
    1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the cracking in the property.
    2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the poor complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

34. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to take the following steps within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Pay the resident £1,530 compensation, comprising:
       1. £1080 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor handling of the works.
       2. £450 compensation has already been offered for the poor complaint handling.
    2. Contact the resident to arrange a further surveyor to review the work that has been completed to determine:
       3. If it has been completed to a satisfactory standard and what outstanding work would be required.
       4. Whether the damage is indicative of subsidence and whether any additional monitoring will be required.
35. Once the landlord has arranged the survey, it must share a copy of the report with the resident and this service within 28 days of the date the survey was completed.
36. The landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure that it completes the outstanding repairs within 28 days of the date of the survey.