Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202221605)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221605

29 February 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

The complaint is about the landlords handling of the:
1. Leaseholder’s reports of a leak in the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The leaseholder’s lease started in July 2003. The property is a three bedroom 3rd floor flat. The landlord is a local authority and holds the freehold of the property.
The leaseholder does not occupy the property and sublets to tenants.

The landlord’s obligations

The lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the:
1. The structure of the building and in particular the roof foundations external and internal load bearing walls balcony (excluding the internal surface).
2. Timbers (including the timber joists and beams of the floors and ceilings thereof)
The landlord’s management of leaks procedure states:
1. On receipt of a call regarding a leak the landlord will establish the type of residency, whether multiple properties are affected, and extent of the leak. The landlord will then raise a work order to trace the leak and remedy unless it forms part of the leaseholders’ obligations.
The procedure goes onto categorise the process based on the type of tenancy. In this case, the landlord has referred to the neighbouring property as tenanted. Therefore, the process is as follows:
1. Operative attends property, no leak found, job resolved.
2. Operative attends property and fixes leak (if a tenancy property).
3. Operative gains access to properties, leak found in internal pipework of leasehold property – leaseholder/landlord to arrange own plumber (operative may isolate to stop leak).
4. Operative to ensure other leaseholders/landlords affected are informed.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out target times for repairs. This is as follows:
1. Urgent emergency response within 4 hours.
2. Emergency response within 24 hours.
3. Urgent repairs category 1 within 7 working days.
4. Routine repairs within 20 working days.
In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, the landlord’s response to residents/leaseholders’ complaints at stage 1 is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage 2 response in 20 working days.
The landlord operates a compensation scheme detailing the factors it should consider when assessing appropriate financial redress if it has identified failings and guideline rates.

Summary of events

The leaseholder contacted the landlord on 11 December 2019 to report a leak from the above neighbour’s property. The landlord raised a routine repair to attend the neighbour’s property to track and trace the leak.
The landlord attended the neighbour’s property on 14 December 2019 but was unable to gain access to make safe the electrics.
On 17 December 2019 the leaseholder contacted the landlord and reported that the leak had got worse. The landlord raised an emergency repair to track and trace the leak.
On 18 December 2019 the landlord contacted the leaseholder to confirm it was attending the neighbour’s property that day to fix the leak.
The landlord attended the neighbour’s property on 18 December 2019 and the records state that the leak was identified and resolved. Also, that the leak was from the washing machine pipe. The landlord’s contractor tightened the pipe and resolved the leak.
On 9 January 2020 the leaseholder contacted the landlord and confirmed that the leak was still ongoing. As such, the leaseholder reported that this had caused further damage to her property. The same day, the landlord attended the above property but was unable to gain access.
The leaseholder contacted the landlord on 16 February 2020 to report that the leak was affecting the electrics in the property. The landlord’s electrician attended the property and made safe the electrics by disconnecting the lounge light.
The leaseholder contacted the landlord on 6 March 2020 to report that the leak was still ongoing. The landlord’s repair records state it raised a routine repair to trace and remedy the leak in the neighbour’s property.
On 23 March 2020 the landlord attended the leaseholder’s property to reconnect the lounge light after a period of drying out.
On 2 April 2020 the leaseholder emailed the landlord to report a further leak from the property above. The landlord contacted the neighbour above and left a voicemail.
The leaseholder contacted the landlord on 18 June 2020 to report that the leak was ongoing. On 19 June 2020 the landlord attended the neighbour’s property and identified the need for repairs in the neighbour’s property and raised an order to complete this.
On 10 August 2020 the landlord recorded that a leak was coming from the bathroom in the property above causing it to overflow into the leaseholder’s property. The landlord’s repair records state it was struggling to gain access to the neighbour’s property.
On 24 September 2020 the leaseholder contacted the landlord for an update. The landlord sent an internal email to clarify whether it had been able to gain access to the property above the leaseholders.
The leaseholder contacted the landlord on 11 February 2021 to report that the leak was now affecting her utility room and bathroom. The landlord attempted to contact the neighbour on 11 and 16 February 2021 but was unable to get an answer. Therefore, was unable to schedule an appointment. The landlord left a card for the neighbour to get in touch.
On 26 March 2021 the leaseholder contacted the landlord and reported that the leak was coming through the ceiling of her kitchen. The leaseholder said the leak was reoccurring and had happened 3 times.
The landlord attempted to contact the neighbour in the flat above on 29 March 2021 but was unable to get through. The landlord contacted the leaseholder to confirm it had raised a repair on both properties and was awaiting contact from the neighbour.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord attended the neighbour’s property and identified the cause of the leak.
The landlord’s repair records state on 8 April 2021 the neighbour provided photos showing items needing repair to alleviate the leak.
On 30 April 2021 the leaseholder contacted the landlord and reported that the ceiling in her bathroom was caving in from the leak. The landlord arranged for an emergency engineer to attend the flat above.
The engineer noted that there were no leaks coming from water supplies in the property. The engineer identified the cause of the leak and arranged a repair.
On 4 May 2021 the landlord contacted the leaseholder and confirmed that it was in the process of repairing the leak in the neighbour’s property.
On 1 July 2021 the leaseholder contacted the landlord for an update on the leak. The landlord sent an internal email requesting an update.
The leaseholder contacted the landlord on 8 October 2021 to report a further leak into her property. The landlord emailed the neighbour to ask whether works had been completed in their property.
On 19 January 2022 the leaseholder contacted the landlord to say the leak was reoccurring from the property above.
On 25 January 2022 the leaseholder contacted the landlord and reported that the leak was getting worse. The landlord contacted the neighbour to discuss the leak.
The leaseholder raised a complaint with the landlord on 26 January 2022. The leaseholder said she was complaining that:
1. The landlord failed to complete repairs causing her property damage.
2. The impact led to her facing financial loss as her tenants had given notice due to the disrepair. The leaseholder said she is part of a family of 5 with 3 small dependents they rely heavily on the rent to pay their own mortgage.
3. She had made 12 reports of repairs since 2020 and attached 5 dated pictures of the disrepair.
On 26 January 2022 the landlord emailed the leaseholder to acknowledge her stage 1 complaint. The landlord said it aimed to provide a response by 16 February 2022.
On 1 February 2022 the landlord contacted the leaseholder’s tenant to arrange for a surveyor to attend to inspect the leak. The landlord left a message with a proposed appointment for 4 February 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 February 2022. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response.
2. Confirmed it had identified and resolved the leak in the neighbouring property. Also, it confirmed a surveyor inspection had taken place.
3. Advised the leaseholder to claim on her insurance for any damage caused and if it was liable her insurance company could claim from its insurance.
The leaseholder’s tenant contacted the landlord on 3 March 2022. The tenant reported that the fuse board had tripped due to the bathroom light being wet from the leak.
The landlord attended the leaseholder’s property on 7 March 2022 to make sure the electrics were safe due to leaks. The landlord could not gain access to the property.
On 16 February 2022 the leaseholder emailed the landlord to request it progresses the complaint to stage 2. The leaseholder said she disagreed with the landlord’s stage 1 response that the leak was resolved, as it had not attended the property. Therefore, it could not say the leak was resolved. Also, she had sent the landlord picture evidence that the leak was still ongoing.
On 26 March 2022 the landlord emailed the leaseholder to acknowledge her request to progress the complaint to stage 2. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing an acknowledgement and that issues are still continuing and not resolved. The landlord advised that further works had been arranged and asked the leaseholder to call to provide a convenient time for its surveyor to attend.
On 29 March 2022 the leaseholder contacted the landlord to report that mushrooms were growing in the ceiling due to mould. The landlord confirmed a call back would be arranged.
On 30 March 2022 the landlord returned the call. The leaseholder said:
1. There was damp in the property due to leak.
2. The light was not working in the bathroom and there were mushrooms growing in the ceiling.
3. She had been told the leak had been fixed time and time again. The leaseholder said she believed the source of the leaks in the property above was from a wet room. The leaseholder requested that an inspection take place.
4. The same day the landlord emailed the leaseholder to request the leaseholder’s tenants’ details.
On 31 March 2022 the leaseholder provided her tenants’ contact details.
On 5 April 2022 the landlord contacted the leaseholder’s tenant to ask for a contact telephone number to arrange a visit to the property. The tenant provided their contact details.
The landlord instructed a surveyor, who attended the property on 22 April 2022 and noted that there was no active leak.
The leaseholder contacted the landlord on 22 April 2022 to request for an update on the ongoing leak.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord contacted the leaseholder to ask if its surveyor could visit the property on 3 May 2022. The landlord confirmed that it had completed works in the property above. The leaseholder asked who was inspecting the property and whether she could obtain a copy of the repair report from the property above.
On 3 May 2022 the leaseholder’s tenant emailed to say access could be given that afternoon if a visit was still planned. The landlord emailed back to confirm the appointment was booked in.
On 11 May 2022 the landlord’s surveyor attended the leaseholder’s property. The surveyor reported that there were no active leaks.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 May 2022. The landlord:
1. Apologised for its delay in issuing its stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged that this was not the level of service it wanted to provide and apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused.
2. Said it was unable to share other properties details but confirmed repair works had been completed. It also confirmed that it attended the leaseholder’s property on 4 May 2022 and the surveyor confirmed that works were carried out effectively and found no evidence of an active leak.
3. Advised the leaseholder that it was open to her to make a claim on her insurance. The landlord explained that if it was found liable then the insurance company can contact its insurance company.
4. It apologised for any distress, and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder and her tenants by its delay in completing works.

Post complaint process

The leaseholder contacted the landlord on 13 June 2022 to say she was dissatisfied with its complaint response as she did not find it was taking her complaint seriously. The leaseholder requested a copy of the surveyor’s reports.
On 15 June 2022 the landlord’s surveyor attended the leaseholder’s property. The surveyor reported that the ceilings were mostly dry with minor damp marks that were showing signs of receding.
On 11 October 2022 the leaseholder contacted the landlord and provided pictures showing that the leak was not resolved.
On 18 July 2023 a surveyor visited the leaseholder’s property. In an email to the landlord the surveyor said there has been a historic leak into the bathroom which the leaseholder’s tenant said has not leaked for the past 6 months. The surveyor said the apparent cause of the leak was a blocked/broken pump to a wet room from the property above. There was no sign of an ongoing leak at the time of their visit. The surveyor said at the time of the inspection the tenant showed them a minor area of damage to the ceiling in the kitchen. The tenant advised that she though it was from the property above. The surveyor said he checked the kitchen ceiling and it was dry to touch but agreed to revisit the property above and test again.
On 4 September 2023 the landlord emailed the leaseholder. The landlord apologised for the level of service she had received regarding her complaint and repairs. The landlord confirmed that it was delivering training to all of its resolution/investigation officers to ensure they follow the standards set out in the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code).
The landlord confirmed that its surveyor had visited both the leaseholder’s property and the property above and did not find any active leaks. The landlord said it had noted that it had not awarded compensation in its stage 2 complaint and it said this was not in line with the code. Therefore, it offered the leaseholder £1,200 made up of:
1. £250 to cover its failure to provide its stage 1 and 2 within its published guidelines.
2. £700 for the time and trouble chasing the issues.
3. £250 for complaint handling.
The landlord advised the leaseholder to claim via its leaseholder insurance for any internal remedial works.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlords handling of the leaseholder’s reports of a leak in the property

The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord was aware of long-standing issues of a leak coming into the leaseholder’s property since 2019. In this case, the leak was coming from a neighbour’s property above who had a tenancy with the landlord. Therefore, the landlord had repairing responsibilities for the property above. This is also stipulated in the lease agreement as the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the ceilings between the properties.
The landlord’s repair records show that it initially acted in accordance with its responsibilities in identifying the cause of the leak in 2019. At this time, the landlord recorded that the leak was from a washing machine pipe and that this was resolved. It is however apparent from the records that the leaseholder reported that the leak was ongoing less than a month later on 8 January 2020. It is unclear from the records whether the leak in January 2020 was a separate leak to the one reported in December 2019.
It is reasonable to expect the landlord to undertake a thorough investigation to establish the root cause of the leaks. Particularly when the issue is reoccurring, as in the leaseholder’s case. Despite this, the records show it was only in June 2020 that the landlord attended the neighbour’s property and identified that the leak was coming from the neighbour’s bathroom. Until this time the evidence shows that the leaseholder contacted the landlord to report further leaks and requested updates. This included that the leaseholder contacted the landlord on 5 occasions between January and June 2020.
The repair records provided to this Service by the landlord do not contain sufficient information as to what, if any, actions the landlord took between January and June 2020. While the landlord assigned appropriate emergency priority to logged leak repairs, there is no evidence that the landlord attended either the leaseholder’s or their neighbour’s property to complete ‘make safe’ repairs. The repair records are only limited to stating that the leak needed to be tracked and remedied.
The landlord missed opportunities to assess the impact the leak was having on the leaseholder’s property. Also, to ensure the property was safe and to take any appropriate mitigation measures. This led to the leaseholder contacting the landlord for updates and with further reports of leaks.
The records show in this time that the leaseholder reported that the leak was affecting the electrics in the property. The landlord took appropriate action in prioritising this as an emergency and attended the property the same day to disconnect the affected light.
The timeline of events the landlord provided showed that since August 2020 the landlord was not successful in gaining access to the neighbouring property. This Service recognises that this was a contributing factor as to why the leak continued to remain unresolved at this time. In this case, this Service would have expected the landlord to consider other options available to obtain access. Also, the landlord should have kept the leaseholder informed as this would have reassured her that it was doing everything it could to overcome any barriers.
The landlord’s failure to attend the properties sooner to assess the leak meant that it failed to comply with its repair obligations. The records indicate that this remained the case until April 2021 when the landlord accessed the neighbour’s property. At this time, the landlord identified the cause of the leak in the property and works required to repair the leak.
The landlord’s repair records are not detailed in showing what work was undertaken at this time or whether works took place in the neighbour’s bathroom. As such, it would be appropriate for the landlord to improve its records keeping as this would have significant benefit to both the landlord and its residents/leaseholders. Further to this, it would allow the landlord to better understand the leaseholder, the history of the property and previous actions in relation to the repairs completed so that it could consider the most appropriate response.
The evidence shows that since the landlord identified the cause of the leaks in April 2021, the leaseholder contacted the landlord on 6 occasions to report that the leak was re-occurring up until it issued its stage 2 complaint response. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively sought to update the leaseholder about the steps it was taking to resolve the leaks. This was not reasonable and caused the leaseholder further inconvenience having to contact the landlord for updates.
Overall, the landlord did not take reasonable steps to identify the cause of leak for a significant period of time. Additionally, the landlord was not proactive once it had identified the cause in the neighbour’s property. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have looked to ways to support or give advice to the leaseholder to help mitigate any further damage. This is not reasonable as the landlord should have instructed a surveyor or inspection earlier than the 22 April 2022 to assess the damage in the leaseholder’s property. This would have gone some way to reassure the leaseholder that her concerns were being taken seriously.
Taking this into account, this demonstrated there was a repetitive pattern of the leaseholder reporting issues with leaks. As such, the evidence indicates that the landlord was not proactive in establishing the source of the leaks or the totality of damage caused by leaks. This led to the leaseholder making a formal complaint inclusive of concerns that the leaks had led to damp and mould formulating in the property. This caused frustration, distress, and inconvenience to the leaseholder. This amounts to maladministration.
Whilst the landlord apologised for the delays in completing repairs in its stage 2 complaint response the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests financial redress of between £100 and £600 where a maladministration finding is made. The landlord did not put things right within its response as it failed to offer an appropriate remedy at this time.
Following the leaseholder’s contact with this Service the landlord reviewed the complaint on 4 September 2023. The landlord offered the resident £700 in compensation to cover the leaseholder’s time and trouble chasing the outstanding repairs.
Whilst the landlord took positive action in revising its offer of compensation post complaint, it appears to be prompted by a referral by this Service. This Service finds the compensation offered to be reflective of what the Ombudsman would award for the failings identified. Therefore, no further award of compensation has been made. However, as the revised offer was after the complaint was brought to this Service, a finding of maladministration has been made.

The associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
The leaseholder initially complained to the landlord on 26 January 2022 and it acknowledged her complaint the same day. The landlord’s acknowledgement stated it would provide a response by 16 February 2022. Twelve working days later the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 February 2022. The Code is clear that landlords should provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. While the landlord was only slightly out of this timeframe it is notable that its initial acknowledgement stated it would provide its response within 20 days. This is not appropriate and is not in line with either the Code or the landlord’s own complaint policy.
The leaseholder contacted the landlord on 16 February 2023 to request it provided a stage 2 response. Twenty-Seven days later on 26 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s stage 2 request. This is not in line with the Code for landlords to acknowledge complaints in 5 working days. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 May 2023, nearly 3 months after the leaseholder requested the landlord progress to the next stage.
There was a failure in the landlord not acknowledging and providing its stage 2 complaint response in a timely way. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code requires a landlord to keep its residents regularly updated about progress. The landlord failed to do so. This adversely affected the leaseholder and caused her unnecessary time and trouble requesting a response. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify, address and learn from the failings identified above.
The landlord identified its complaint handling failures in both complaint stages. However, the landlord did not offer any redress during the complaint process for the time and trouble, or distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder being left in the complaint process for an unnecessary period of time. This is not in line with this Services code that if something goes wrong, a landlord should acknowledge this and put things right by way of remedy. In addition, the Code is clear that landlords should apologise for any failings identified and provide an appropriate remedy to reflect the extent of its service failings.
This Service notes that post the complaint process the landlord contacted the leaseholder on 4 September 2023 and apologised that it had not previously awarded compensation. It awarded compensation of £1,200 inclusive of £250 for the delay in providing its stage 1 and 2 complaints, £250 for overall complaint handling.
Whilst it was positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and increased the offer of compensation, this step was taken only after the involvement of this Service. This was a missed opportunity to potentially resolve the complaint at an earlier point and it is of concern that the landlord did not use its complaints procedure to address these matters.
This Service’s outcomes guidance provides that it is not in the spirit of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles or the Complaint Handling Code for a landlord to make a substantial offer of redress late in a protracted process with the effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further.
Whilst the landlord offered a revised increased offer of compensation, apologised and made assurances that there will be improvements to service delivery, as this happened only at a late stage once the resident had referred her complaint to this Service, a finding of maladministration has been made.
However, this Service finds that the compensation offered post complaint for the failures in complaint handling was reasonable. This is because this amount is reflective of the award the Ombudsman would make given the failures and considering the distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder. Therefore, no further award of compensation has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaseholder’s reports of a leak in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The delay experienced by the leaseholder regarding identifying and repairing the leak was contrary to the landlord’s maintenance policy and repairing obligations. It failed to keep the leaseholder appropriately updated about its repair efforts. While the landlord did acknowledge limited failings in its communications concerning the leak, its complaint response failed to recognise or seek to redress its full failings. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate. This adversely impacted on the landlord’s communication with both the leaseholder and this Service.
There was a small delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 and a significant delay in it issuing its stage 2 complaint response. Additionally, the landlord failed to acknowledge the leaseholder’s request to progress the complaint to stage 2. This was not reasonable and not in line with what this Service would expect. Further it is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy. It offered no explanation for these delays or make any undertaking on what steps it would take to ensure the same complaint handling failure is avoided in future.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord will:
1. Pay the leaseholder £1,200 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,200 previously offered to the leaseholder if it has not been accepted and previously paid.
2. Provide support to the leaseholder to make a claim through the insurance. If the claim is successful the landlord should reimburse any excess payable by the resident.

Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.