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

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202229997)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229997

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

14 February 2025


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 reports of:
    1. A leak into the property.
    2. Window repair issues.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a ground-floor flat in a building owned by the landlord. He resides with his partner and child, who was under 8 during the period of this complaint.
  2. The resident reported a leak entering his flat to the landlord on 14 January 2022. He reported a further leak from the top-floor flat on 17 January 2022. He reported damaged and insecure windows to it on 2 February 2022. It raised works orders for both issues and attended on multiple occasions.
  3. On 2 March 2023, the resident complained to the landlord as both issues remained ongoing. He reported that the leak was still active and that he had concerns about security after someone previously tried to enter his flat through one of the insecure windows.
  4. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 6 April 2023. It stated that its contractor would contact him by 14 April 2023 to measure for new windows. A separate contractor would be attending the block on 12 April 2023 to investigate the leak. It apologised for its poor communication and said it should have managed repairs more diligently. It offered compensation of £725.
  5. The resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 17 April 2023. Its contractor had not contacted him to arrange measuring for new windows and it had not communicated with him about whether it had completed repairs to the top-floor flat. He felt that it had let him down and hoped that a stage 2 complaint would lead to firmer actions.
  6. On 27 July 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for its poor communication and the poor service it provided to him. It stated that it was due to install replacement windows in mid-September 2023. It also increased its total offer of compensation to £5,725 by an additional £5,000, broken down as follows:
    1. £2,000 for repair delays.
    2. £1,500 for his time and trouble.
    3. £1,000 for the impact on the resident and his family.
    4. £300 for compensation excess.
    5. £200 for its delayed complaint response.
  7. The resident brought his complaint to this Service for investigation following further issues with leaks.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has told the landlord and the Ombudsman about the impact of the leak, damp, and mould on his and his family’s mental health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of his complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. The resident has reported problems with further leaks and damaged property to both the landlord and the Ombudsman. However, these issues occurred after the complaint period in this report. He may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord about these matters or seek legal advice in relation to making a claim for damages.

Leak repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will determine the priority for a repair by the type of issue reported and the likelihood of it to cause harm to the resident or the property. For this, it has 4 distinct categories, as follows:
    1. Urgent emergency response which it will attend within 4 hours.
    2. Emergency response which it will attend within 24 hours.
    3. Routine repairs which it will attend within 20 working days.
    4. Planned repairs which it will attend within 60 working days.
  2. The resident reported 2 separate leaks to the landlord on 14 and 17 January 2022. In one of these reports, he described that water was pouring from the external wall into his flat, affecting his electrics. In the other, he reported that water was coming into his kitchen. It raised works for both reports but has not provided evidence to show that it took any immediate action. It attended the top-floor flat on 21 January 2022 and found a leak from the toilet. It raised follow-on works to fix this, but it is unclear whether it was able to stop the leak fully due to the possible presence of asbestos.
  3. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports was poor. He described the water as pouring into his property and as such, it would have been good practice for it to provide, at a minimum, an emergency response within 24 hours. It had issues accessing the top-floor flat and did consider forcing entry, but this was already over 4 days since his first report.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 October 2022 about the leak from the top-floor flat. It agreed to visit and investigate as he stated the leak had been continuous since February 2022. He complained to it on 2 March 2023, stating that it shut-off the water supply to the toilet in the top-floor flat in early 2022 but that this did not stop the leak. He said that it had taken no action to stop the leak which had left him with mould growth and contaminated water entering his kitchen, causing damage to fixtures and fittings.
  5. After receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged an inspection of the top-floor flat. However, it found that it still required an asbestos survey as previously identified in January 2022. It completed this on 22 March 2023 despite challenging circumstances in the top-floor flat and raised follow-on works to investigate the leak on 12 April 2023. While this was a positive step, it was over 1 year since it was first aware of the leak. This exceeded all policy timescales, and it left him to chase it for updates instead of proactively managing the situation.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response of 6 April 2023, the landlord stated that the leak started in a neighbouring property but was linked to a communal issue and it raised this with its specialist contractor. It advised the resident that it would be investigating further on 12 April 2023 and that it would update him once it completed repairs. It apologised for its poor communication and said that it should have managed the repairs more diligently. It offered compensation totalling £725, £575 of which can be attributed to its handling of the leak.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments between £300 and £1,000 for considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes the failure to act in accordance with policy over a considerable amount of time. The policy also states that it should apologise for any failure. This should include acknowledging its error and providing a solution for this. Its stage 1 compensation offer and apology to the resident was in line with this policy.
  8. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 17 April 2023 as he had received no update from the landlord in relation to the leak and whether it had completed repairs. It updated him on 5 May 2023, over 2 weeks later, to advise him that it fixed the leak in the top-floor flat on 14 April 2023. He was waiting for this confirmation to be able to arrange repairs to his property through insurance and this again highlighted its poor communication with him.
  9. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response on 27 July 2023 that it failed to contact the resident, as promised, with an update on repairing the leak which had caused extensive damage to his kitchen and living room. It acknowledged that he had spent a considerable amount of time contacting it for a response. It apologised for its failures and the poor level of service it provided. £2,400 of the additional £5,000 in its offer can be attributed to its delays in fixing the leak. It also advised that considerable work was taking place to make improvements within its repairs service.
  10. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments over £1,000 for maladministration or severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. This includes physical or emotional impact, or both. Its offer of £2,400 for the delays in repairing the leak was appropriate and in line with its policy.
  11. In conclusion, the landlord took over 1 year to repair the leak entering the resident’s flat which far exceeded its repair policy timescales. Its communication with him was poor and it demonstrated no urgency in preventing further damage to the property. However, its ultimate offer of compensation and the apology offered were reasonable and appropriate when considering its compensation policy.

Window repairs

  1. On the 2 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that windows at his property were damaged. Its contractor attended on 9 March 2022, and they reported that the windows were beyond repair and needing replacing. In an internal email on 15 March 2022, the landlord shared this with its capital works team along with the resident’s concerns about security due to the windows not locking. While this may have felt like a slow initial response, it is likely that replacing windows would fall under planned repairs, with its attendance due within 60 days. At this stage, it was in line with its policy.
  2. The evidence provided by the landlord in this case demonstrates that it was establishing whether a contractor would be able to replace the handles instead of the entire units in May and June 2022. It surveyed the windows again in August 2022 and again confirmed that it needed to replace the windows. This inspection noted that there was a health and safety issue as it could open the windows from the outside. At this point, it had exceeded its repairs policy timescale and had not communicated with the resident for some time.
  3. In his complaint to the landlord on 2 March 2023, the resident raised that he had previously had someone try to enter through the defective windows and that despite reporting this, it had not done anything. Its complaint handler began to investigate the matter internally. It found that while its surveyor found the need for replacement windows in August 2022, it never raised works. This was a clear failing and had left the resident with an insecure property.
  4. The landlord booked an appointment for 14 April 2023, for its contractor to attend and measure for new windows. It shared this information with the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 6 April 2023 but said that it could not provide a timeline for completion. While it offered compensation of £725, it did not specify if any of this was for the delays in replacing windows. It would only be possible to attribute £125 of this to the matter.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that payments between £50 and £300 are available for service failure that had a short or insignificant impact on a complainant. At this stage, it was over a year since it first identified the need to replace the windows, and this offer was not sufficient in the circumstances.
  6. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 17 April 2023. This was in part due to the landlord failing to attend the arranged appointment on 14 April 2023. It chased this internally and attended in late May 2023. It chased its surveyor for an update in June and July 2023. It then proposed the period of mid-September 2023 to complete works. This was 18 months since it found that this was necessary. It far exceeded its repairs policy timescales and communicated poorly with the resident throughout this period.
  7. As mentioned previously, in its stage 2 complaint response of 27 July 2023, the landlord apologised for its failings and providing the resident with poor service levels. It advised him that it was due to replace the windows in mid-September 2023 and that it would confirm the exact date with him once it had one. It offered additional compensation totalling £5,000. £2,400 can be attributed to its delays in replacing or repairing the windows.
  8. The landlord’s compensation offer, alongside its apology, was appropriate and in line with its policy. It was able to provide the resident with an estimated date for works which was a positive step forward.
  9. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 September 2023 to advise that the replacement windows were still manufacturing but it completed the works on 19 October 2023.
  10. In conclusion, landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved. 
  11. In this case, it took over 18 months for the landlord to replace the windows. While this can often be a lengthy process when a landlord needs to order windows for manufacturing, it missed several opportunities to start this process between March 2022 and April 2023 and did not communicate effectively both internally and with the resident. Its stage 2 response ultimately provided appropriate remedies and an estimated date for works.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. It states that it can extend its response time by a further 10 days for complex cases at either stage. It notes that complaints need to be made within 12 calendar months of the failure so that it can investigate fully and fairly.
  2. The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 2 March 2023. It acknowledged this on the same day and said that it aimed to respond by 16 March 2023. On this date, it extended its response period by 10 working days and provided him with a new response date of 30 March 2023. However, it then advised him of a further extension to 6 April 2023.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 April 2023. However, it provided factually incorrect information. In its response, it stated that its policy only allows it to investigate service failures within 6 months of them occurring. The policy actually states that complaints need to be made within 12 months. It is likely that it would have been able to provide a more effective response and identify the scale of its failings if it had adhered to this. It offered £25 compensation for the delay in responding to his complaint. This was under the minimum amount of £50 set out in its compensation policy.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 April 2023. It acknowledged this on 5 May 2023, 13 working days later. Its policy states that it will acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt. It stated that it would respond by 17 May 2023. On 18 July 2023, it sent a holding letter advising that it was still investigating. It offered an interim compensation payment of £200 for the delay. This was an appropriate offer, in line with its policy.
  5. On 27 July 2023, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 response. This was 70 working days after his escalation request which clearly exceeded its policy timescales for response and extension. It apologised for the delay and acknowledged that it provided incorrect information at stage 1 in relation to window repairs. It also stated that it did not monitor his complaint properly and that it did not keep him updated. It stated that this was something it was focusing on and that it was introducing more monitoring checks.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response was fair, and importantly, it acknowledged its failings. Across both responses it offered a total £225 compensation, which was fair and in line with its policy. Throughout this complaint it has been apparent that the landlord’s complaint handling team worked hard to chase repairs internally. It is likely that without this intervention, it would have taken even longer to complete repairs, and it is important to acknowledge this good practice from the complaints team.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. A leak into the property.
    2. Window repair issues.
    3. Associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord contact the resident to discuss any concerns he has about more recent repair issues.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord investigates the reasons for poor internal and external communication in this case and what measures it can put in place to prevent further issues.