Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202231833)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231833

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

28 June 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to concerns about the condition of the resident’s property when his tenancy commenced.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy for a 4 bed house with a local authority landlord. His tenancy commenced in early January 2023. He lives at the property with his partner and 4 children. The resident has high blood pressure, made worse by stress, and his partner and one of their children are asthmatic. The landlord states that there are no vulnerabilities recorded on the tenancy file.
The resident raised concerns on the day of letting with the contractor who renovated the house (referred to in this report as ‘the voids contractor’). These included:
1. no wash hand basins in the upstairs and downstairs toilets at the property
2. a leaking and rusted radiator in a downstairs bedroom
3. walls and plasterwork in the master bedroom were in a poor condition, which were noticed after the resident removed wallpaper
The resident has told this Service that he discussed his concerns over the lack of hand washing facilities by the toilets with the voids contractor at the start of the tenancy, and that he had been told small basins would be installed.
As the resident had been overcrowded in his former tenancy, he felt that he had no other option but to accept the new tenancy despite his concerns about the condition of the property on day of letting.
In January 2023, the voids contractor refused to carry out the works requested by the resident. This was on the basis that the contractor believed the resident had damaged the plasterwork himself when removing wallpaper, that it was not possible to install wash hand basins in both toilets, and that the resident had responded inappropriately to a message asking him to arrange an appointment for repairs to the radiator. The voids contractor told the landlord that these requests would have to be passed onto the landlord’s general repairs team.
On 13 January 2023, the resident made a formal complaint about delays to agreed repairs at his new property, poor communication from the voids contractors, and that he had a dual rent liability as he felt unable to move into the new tenancy until repairs were completed. This was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day with a stage 1 complaint response promised by 27 January 2023.
A stage 1 complaint response was given to the resident on 26 January 2023. The landlord explained that the voids contractor had refused to carry out all remaining repairs, including installing wash hand basins in the toilets, except repairing the radiator. The landlord stated that the voids contractor had attempted to arrange an appointment to do this work but had not been given access by the resident. A rent refund was refused on the basis that the property was ready to move into on the day that the tenancy commenced, but the resident refused to move in.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 26 January 2023. He explained in his request that the voids contractor had asked for his availability to carry out repairs, but that no appointment had actually been arranged, and that he did not feel that the voids contractor had completed repairs. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 31 January 2023 but told the resident that investigation of the complaint was on hold until the complaints team discussed the complaint with him. A telephone conversation between landlord and resident took place later that day and the resident provided photographs of affected areas of the property.
On 13 March 2023, a stage 2 complaint response was given to the resident. This noted that the resident had ended his former tenancy. It stated that installation of wash hand basins were improvements rather than repairs and that it was not possible to install these in the toilets due to the extensive plumbing work required. The resident was responsible for fixing damage to plasterwork in the master bedroom, as it believed he was responsible for this due to removing the wallpaper. Delays in the complaint response and poor communication between the voids contractor and the resident were acknowledged, although the landlord stated that the resident’s behaviour contributed towards the breakdown in communication. An offer of £75 compensation was made in acknowledgement of delays in the complaint response.
A day later, the resident told the landlord that he did not agree with the findings in the stage 2 response. This was because the response did not address issues with the voids contractor promising specific works then refusing to do them or with issues around communication between the resident and the voids contractor. The landlord reviewed the compensation offered at stage 2 on 28 April 2024 and increased it to £175 to acknowledge delays in the voids contractor not responding to requests for repairs.
In July 2023, the resident instructed solicitors to make a claim against the landlord about the condition of his property. The resident has told this Service that this was mainly concerning a leak which took place around January 2023 with a very minor overlap with the concerns raised about the condition of the property at the start of his tenancy. A letter of claim was sent to the landlord which detailed the impact of the leak on each room in the property and stated out that plasterwork in one of the bedrooms had fallen off after the resident removed the wallpaper. The potential claim, including points relating to plasterwork in the bedroom, was settled in December 2023 under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The resident has confirmed that all outstanding repairs have now been completed, including to plasterwork in the bedroom. However, the landlord continues to refuse to install wash hand basins in either toilet. He has told this Service that he finds the situation unhygienic, that he does not want to have to use the kitchen sink to wash hands after using the toilet for hygiene reasons, and that it is not possible to use the sink in the room adjacent to the upstairs toilet if someone is using the shower. He describes this as a particularly difficult scenario due to having 4 young children. He wants the landlord to acknowledge its failings and is clear that he believes that the voids contractor who showed the resident around the property had promised that a basin would be installed in at least 1 toilet.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to concerns about the condition of the resident’s property when his tenancy commenced.

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord has an obligation under Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the resident’s property, as well as to ensure that the fixtures and fittings for the supply of gas, electricity, heating and hot water in repair and proper working order. Section 9A of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure that the property is fit for human habitation on the day of letting and throughout the course of the tenancy. A property can be unfit for human habitation if it is not reasonably suitable for occupation due to a defect, which can include if a hazard is identified under the Housing Health and Rating System (HHSRS). Relevant prescribed hazards to the resident’s complaint include food safety as well as personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage. Both of these obligations are triggered when a landlord is informed of a need for repairs and/or lack of fitness for human habitation for which it is liable. The landlord then has a reasonable period of time to carry out the works.
The landlord’s website states that residents can expect a ‘property will be in good repair’ when they move in and that ‘[p]lasterwork will be in satisfactory condition’. It also states that ‘[w]alls and ceiling surfaces will be in a suitable condition for redecoration. Any crumbling or loose plaster will be hacked off and repaired.’ The landlord has a voids works process which details the steps it takes from when it gains possession of a property to when it is let to a prospective tenant.
The landlord has a repairs policy which sets out 4 priority bands for repairs with response times:
1. Urgent Emergency Response – within 4 hours.
2. Emergency Response – within 24 hours.
3. Routine – within 20 working days.
4. Planned – within 60 working days.
Evidence provided by the landlord shows that it carried out comprehensive checks on electrics, fire safety, gas and heating before the tenancy commenced. In a void handover sheet dated 2 November 2022, the voids contractor noted that there were partial decorations in the living room, 3 of the bedrooms, kitchen and a toilet and that decoration vouchers were required to be given to the resident. No evidence has been provided that plasterwork was checked for any defects, although the Ombudsman appreciates that it is not possible to do this for walls covered in wallpaper without first removing the wallpaper. The handover sheet stated that all radiators were in good condition. The comprehensive voids process and works done to the property mean that it was reasonable to expect that the property would be fit for human habitation and free from disrepair at the point of letting.
No evidence has been provided to this Service of when the resident first raised concerns over the condition of the property and the lack of wash hand basins in the toilets. Correspondence on 5 January 2023 from the voids contractor indicates that concerns had been raised before this point as it is responding to points around the condition of a bedroom door, the lack of wash hand basins, a leaking radiator, and damaged plasterwork in the master bedroom. This indicates that the resident raised his concerns at the point of letting or shortly afterwards.
It is concerning that the landlord’s voids contractor initially refused to carry out repairs to the radiator. The resident had asked that the radiator was painted due to slight rusting, implying that the issue was caused by a leak although this was not explicitly stated by the resident. The voids contractor acted reasonably by refusing to paint the radiator, but the landlord should have looked beyond the resident’s report and arranged an inspection to see whether there were any issues with the radiator with follow up works arranged as appropriate. It is positive that the landlord intervened during the complaints process and asked the contractor to carry out these repairs.
The voids contractor did reach out to the resident to try and arrange an appointment for repairs to the radiator, but it was not clear in its messages about why the appointment was being arranged. Although the resident’s response to the contractor that it was ‘joker of the year’ was not helpful, the landlord should have considered the context of this response and seen this an expression of the resident’s frustration at the situation. Further contact should have been made to clarify that the appointment was about radiator repairs. The contractor and/or the landlord should have contacted the resident to find out why he was frustrated and to make it clear that they were willing to carry out repairs to the radiator, rather than refusing to arrange another appointment.
Although this Service has not been provided with evidence that repairs to the radiator were completed, the resident did not raise this as a concern in further correspondence beyond his initial complaint, which leads this Service to assume that this repair was carried out at a later point. Records provided by the landlord indicate that this repair was raised on 5 January 2023, with an appointment booked for this repair on 24 January 2023 that was missed due to issues with access. Repairs to the radiator are therefore likely to have been completed outside of the 20 day timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, although an appointment had been arranged within timescale.
It is unclear why the landlord did not investigate the voids contractor’s suggestion that the resident caused damage to plasterwork on the walls of the master bedroom or why the landlord did not inspect the wall following this to assess whether it had a responsibility to carry out repairs. This Service acknowledges that the resident could have caused this damage when removing wallpaper, but it is equally possible that the plasterwork was in disrepair before removal of the wallpaper and it is this action which brought the issue to light.
The landlord’s website explicitly states that plasterwork will be in a satisfactory condition when a tenancy starts, although this Service acknowledges that the wallpaper covering the walls in the master bedroom means that plasterwork could not be checked effectively unless this was removed. The plasterwork would also have been covered by the landlord’s repairing obligations under section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, unless the damage was caused by the resident behaving in an untenant-like manner. The landlord’s failure to investigate whether it had an obligation to repair the plasterwork led to substantial delays in carrying out repairs and would have undermined the landlord/tenant relationship. As the landlord has offered compensation for this failing as part of the terms of settlement for the resident’s prospective housing conditions claim, and the resident reports that repairs to the plasterwork have now been completed, this Service has not made any orders for the landlord to remedy failings connected to delays in repairing the plasterwork.
The resident’s request that the landlord installed wash hand basins in both toilets at the property was understandable. This was effectively a request for adequate sanitation in both toilets and the landlord should have properly assessed this request. The landlord’s voids contractor did not give adequate reasons for why a wash hand basin could not be installed in the upstairs toilet, simply asserting that it did not usually do this when there was a bathroom with a basin adjacent and that it was ‘unable to fit’. More detailed reasons were given by the voids contractor for refusing to install a wash hand basin in the downstairs, namely that it would be challenging to run a water supply and waste pipe to and from the kitchen, the door to the toilet blocked potential sites for a sink, and that it believed the prospective location of the basin would lead to constant blockages. However, the landlord did not show a willingness to carry out its own assessment on whether basins could be installed or whether there were other options, such as installing a basin in the top of the toilet cistern, which could be explored. This is a failure of the landlord to fully consider the resident’s reasonable request and to make its own enquiries as to whether the request could be fulfilled.
Although the landlord’s voids contractor did carry out an assessment of whether sinks could be installed, this assessment did not factor in the number of occupants at the resident’s property or that there are 4 children living in the property. The landlord should have taken the resident’s household circumstances into account when assessing the resident’s request, including the impact on the household by refusing to install sinks in the toilets.
The resident has told this Service that, at present, he and his household can only use the kitchen sink and the sink in the upstairs bathroom to wash their hands after using the toilet. He states that if someone is using the bathroom, the only sink which is accessible is the kitchen sink. The landlord should have been aware that a lack of hand washing facilities in the toilets may be hazards under the HHSRS. This is on the basis that not having immediate access to hand washing facilities after using a toilet may be food safety and personal hygiene hazards, particularly if there is no choice but to use a kitchen sink, and whether there are a sufficient number of suitably connected and sited wash hand basins for the occupants. Current building regulations also state that where additional sanitary conveniences are installed, each should have hand washing facilities provided either within the room containing the convenience or in an adjacent room or place provides the sole means of access to the room containing it (as long as this is not a room used for the preparation of food). This is a failure of the landlord to consider whether the lack of wash hand basins in the toilets poses a hazard to the resident and his household, to pay due regard to its legal obligations when assessing whether sinks could be installed, and to assess whether there are suitable alternative handwashing facilities in the resident’s property.
The resident has raised the point that he felt unable to move into the property due to the issues identified in his complaint and that he ended up with a dual rent liability for an extended period of time due to this. Evidence provided by the landlord indicates that, although there were issues with the condition of the property, they were not so serious that the resident was prevented from moving in and ending his former tenancy. It is regrettable that the resident felt unable to move in and incurred extra costs as a result, but the landlord should not be held responsible for this specific issue. This Service has therefore made no orders in connection with this point.
In this case, the landlord has failed to adequately respond to reports about disrepair to the radiator or to investigate to determine whether it had a responsibility to carry out repairs to plasterwork in the master bedroom. It has also failed to adequately assess the resident’s reasonable request that wash hand basins were installed in the toilets at the property or consider alternative options to ensure there were adequate hand washing facilities available to the occupants. Due these cumulative failings, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the condition of the resident’s property when his tenancy commenced.

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

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days and a complaint response given within 10 working days. No timescales are given for acknowledgment of escalation requests but stage 2 complaint response are given within 20 working days.
The stage 1 acknowledgement and complaint response were both given within the timescales set out in the complaints policy. The response was apologetic and answered the points raised by the resident. However, the landlord simply restated the opinion of the voids contractor on repairs, refusing to install wash hand basins in the toilet without giving clear reasons for its decision. This presents a missed opportunity for the landlord to fully review the resident’s complaint and to see if it could do anything else to help resolve his concerns. This would have been frustrating for the resident, given him the impression that his concerns were not being heard, and that the landlord was unwilling to take further action. Points regarding the landlord’s failure to properly assess whether sinks could be installed have already been considered in this report so no weight has been given to this when considering complaint handling issues
Although the resident’s escalation request was acknowledged within 5 working days, it is of concern that the landlord’s acknowledgement stated that the complaint would be placed on hold until the resident had made contact and discussed his desired outcomes. This Service considers it good practice to clarify an escalation request and ask that any additional evidence should be provided, but there are no provisions for placing a complaint on hold within the landlord’s complaints policy or within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code. Placing a complaint on hold in this manner could have led to delays in providing a stage 2 response within timescale. As the resident responded quickly to the landlord’s request for contact, this approach has not had a negative impact in this case.
The stage 2 response was provided on 13 March 2023, 32 working days after the escalation request. This is a minor breach of the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged this delay in the complaints response and offered £75 as compensation for this failing.
The stage 2 response did not fully consider the resident’s points in his escalation request, particularly about delays in correspondence from the landlord’s voids contractor. Although it did acknowledge that there had been a breakdown in communication, it did not offer compensation for this failing. The response stated that the resident had caused the damage to the plaster work, that installation of wash hand basins were improvements rather than repairs so the landlord had no legal obligation to install them, plus that installing wash hand basins was not possible due as extensive plumbing work was required. This presents a further missed opportunity to review the resident’s complaint and see what steps the landlord could take to resolve the resident’s concerns. Points regarding the landlord’s failure to properly assess whether sinks could be installed have already been considered in this report so no weight has been given to this when considering complaint handling issues
It is positive that the landlord reviewed the compensation offered at stage 2 and offered a further £100 for delays in responses to requests for repairs, although this point should have been considered fully in the initial stage 2 response.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, both complaint responses appeared defensive and lacked a focus on reaching a resolution to the resident’s complaint. Due to this and minor delays in providing a stage 2 response, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It is positive that £75 was offered as compensation for complaint handling issues, but this is not enough to put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the condition of the resident’s property when his tenancy commenced.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Arrange an inspection of the toilets in the resident’s property to determine whether current arrangements pose a hazard under the HHSRS. This inspection should also determine whether basins can be installed at sites anywhere in the property which promote use and good hygiene. The inspection must be carried out by a member of staff or contractor who has had no previous dealings with this case. A copy of the inspection report, including any agreed schedule of works with clear timescales for completion, must be provided to the resident and this Service.
2. Send a written apology to the resident from a senior member of the landlord’s housing management team for the failings identified in this report.
3. Pay the resident £600 compensation directly, plus the previous offer of £175 if this has not already been paid to the resident, comprising of:
  1. £150 for distress and upset caused by the landlord failing to investigate whether the resident had caused damage to plasterwork.
  2. £50 for distress and upset caused by delays to repairs to a radiator.
  3. £300 for distress, inconvenience and upset caused by the landlord’s failure to adequately consider the resident’s request for wash hand basins to be installed in the toilets at his property.
  4. £100 for failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should review how it handles requests for repairs at the beginning of the tenancy and create a procedure about whether these are directed to the voids team or general repairs. This procedure should also ensure that the voids team refers queries about repairs and/or improvements to the landlord where appropriate.