Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202332670)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332670

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

26 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

The complaint is about:

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy under an agreement dated 6 June 2008. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom, purpose built flat on the first floor, occupied by the resident and her 3 children. The landlord said it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord completed a routine inspection at the resident’s property on 7 December 2022. The inspection identified multiple repairs in the kitchen and bathroom, including renewal of silicone, replacement and regrouting of cracked wall tiles, renewal of the bathroom flooring, sections of the kitchen worktop and a base unit shelf, repairing a window and overhauling an extractor fan.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 29 March 2023. She said she was unhappy that a contractor had missed a repair appointment for the kitchen and bathroom repairs for a second time. She said the first missed appointment occurred on 20 February 2023. The resident said this had wasted her time and noted it had been a long time since the repairs had been identified.
On 6 April 2023 the landlord carried out repairs to the bathroom floor. The resident said the contractor had installed the new flooring in a way that made it difficult for her to open her bathroom door. Due to this, the resident removed the flooring. Whilst doing so, she injured her finger. On 20 April 2023 the landlord noted that the flooring renewal required an inspection.
A stage 1 complaint response was issued by the landlord on 21 April 2023. The landlord:
1. acknowledged that there was a missed appointment from 5 April 2023 for which it apologised.
2. noted the resident had requested a new bathroom as she had not had one in 15 years, although this was not part of the resident’s initial complaint.
3. apologised for how the bathroom floor repair had made the resident feel and confirmed it had arranged a flooring inspection on 2 May 2023.
4. apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
5. said its inspection on 7 December 2022 did not recommend a replacement of the whole bathroom, only repairs to aspects within it.
6. offered the resident compensation of £150, made up of:
  1. £50 for the missed appointment.
  2. £100 for the worry and inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 April 2023. She said she did not accept the stage 1 response and had not received any explanation for the delays to the repairs. The resident also noted there had been no acknowledgement of her finger injury, and that most repairs were still outstanding.
On 23 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged that there had been delays between the initial inspection and the repairs being completed. It acknowledged that these delays had not been addressed in its stage 1 response and apologised for the injury to the resident’s finger. In addition to the £150 offered in the stage 1 response, the landlord offered a further £425 compensation to the resident. This comprised of:
1. £100 for the delays in progressing the work reported at stage 1.
2. £25 for its miscommunication in its stage 1 response.
3. £50 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
4. A further £250 in recognition of the difficult experiences the resident and her family had faced, and the time and effort she had spent in getting the issues addressed.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord offered a further £50 goodwill payment for a missed appointment on 23 June 2023.
On 15 December 2023, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said that the delays to the bathroom repairs had caused her distress. She also stated her children had been inconvenienced by the door not functioning properly because of the poor repair. The resident said that although some flooring repair work had been completed, a post inspection identified the repair works had been done incorrectly and needed to be redone. Despite chasing the landlord, the resident had not heard any more and no progress had been made. The resident said she wanted:
1. the repairs completed as soon as possible.
2. a formal apology from the landlord
3. reasonable compensation for the anxiety and distress this had caused and continued to cause her family.
There is no evidence to show when the repairs were completed. An inspection report dated 29 May 2024 showed that there were no outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

After the stage 2 response had been issued on 23 June 2023, the resident made 3 further reports of missed contractor appointments. The landlord has not had the opportunity to comment on the reason for the missed appointments.
On 31 July 2023 the resident expressed concerns about a contractor leaving her toilet temporarily unusable. The resident also raised concerns about the contractor’s conduct. The resident reported these issues to the landlord after the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. Therefore, these issues have not been assessed in this report.
The resident said she injured her finger while removing the flooring in the bathroom. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
As a result, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.

The resident’s occupancy agreement states that the landlord will carry out repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its timescales for completing repairs as:
1. urgent emergency responses: within 4 hours.
2. emergency responses: within 24 hours.
3. routine repairs: within 20 working days.
4. planned repairs: within 60 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states the following guidance for financial redress:
1. Awards of £50 to £300 for service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. (e.g. distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.)
2. Awards of £300 to £1,000 for considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. (e.g. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.)
3. Missed appointment(s) by contractors: £50.
The landlord identified repairs in the bathroom and kitchen on 7 December 2022. The landlord raised a works order on 20 December 2022 with a target date of 20 January 2023. As these repairs were identified on an inspection rather than planned, this was not reasonable timeframe to raise the works order as it did not meet the landlord’s 20–working day policy for routine repairs.
The identified repairs were:
1. Kitchen: renew a section of the worktop, repair loose/cracked wall tiles, repair a base unit shelf, overhaul an extractor fan.
2. Bathroom: renew silicone, repair cracked wall tiles, regrouting, renew flooring, overhaul the window which was not opening.
The landlord’s records show that by 20 January 2023, only the kitchen fan had been repaired. On 20 February 2023 a contractor missed an appointment to complete tiling work due to absence, and after an unsuccessful attempt to reschedule with the resident, the landlord rebooked the appointment for 21 April 2023. The resident then rearranged the appointment for 2 May 2023.
The evidence shows that works to the bathroom did not start until 6 April 2023. This was 75 working days from the work order being raised, with work still incomplete at that point. This was not appropriate because it was not in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
On 21 April 2023 when requesting an escalation of her complaint to stage 2, the resident mentioned outstanding works in the kitchen. This included damage to her kitchen cupboards and flooring from previous leaks. Although the landlord did not list these repairs in the 7 December 2022 inspection report, an internal record dated 16 May 2023 noted that the resident had raised these repairs in a previous complaint, and that they should have been addressed. The landlord’s stage 2 response also acknowledged this.
In her escalation request, the resident stated that the landlord had failed to acknowledge the injury to her finger in its stage 1 response. The resident raised her complaint on 29 March 2023 and the evidence shows that she injured her finger after the bathroom floor repair on 6 April 2023. Although her injury did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint, in accordance with the Code, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address it in its stage 1 response, which was issued after the injury occurred.
The evidence shows that between 29 March 2023 and 22 May 2023, the resident raised her concerns with the landlord about the disrepair and the delays at least 9 times. Our Spotlight report on Repairs states that it is important for a landlord to clearly explain its priorities and timescales to residents and, if they cannot be met, the landlord should explain why more time is needed. Had the landlord followed this guidance, the stress and impact of the delays on the resident could have significantly reduced.
On 22 May 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the kitchen work had been completed, but some bathroom repairs were outstanding. The kitchen repairs were completed 103 working days after the initial inspection, far exceeding the 20-working days stated in the landlord’s policy.
While we acknowledge that the resident requested to reschedule an appointment, this delayed the works by 7 working days. Had the appointment taken place on 21 April 2023 as arranged by the landlord, the completion of works in the kitchen would have still taken 96 working days. In an email to the landlord dated 21 April 2023, the resident questioned whether her family deserved to have to wait “nearly 5 months” for repairs to be completed. The delay was not appropriate because it was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The first repair of the bathroom floor took place on 6 April 2023. The evidence shows that the contractor who repaired the floor advised the resident that the job had been difficult due to the shape of the bathroom and had resulted in a poor repair. The resident said the contractor told her he would inform the landlord that the floor needed repairing properly. There is no evidence to show the contractor reported this to the landlord. Although this was slightly outside of the landlord’s control, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have spoken with the contractor and put a process in place to prevent this miscommunication from happening again.
The resident reported the poor repair by email on 12 April 2023 and over the telephone on 14 April 2023. She informed the landlord that she was unable to open her bathroom door fully, resulting in her having to squeeze in and out to use the bathroom.
The landlord’s contractor completed another repair to the flooring on 18 May 2023. When the landlord spoke to the resident however, on 18 May 2023, she advised the work was still outstanding. On 22 May 2023, the resident advised the landlord that no post inspection of the bathroom floor had been completed. She also requested a bathroom upgrade. The landlord stated it had a responsibility to complete repairs, but upgrades were budget permitting. It also requested a post inspection of the floor from a contractor. This was a reasonable response.
The evidence shows that further works were completed to the bathroom floor by 23 May 2023.
On 3 July 2023, the landlord called the resident and discussed a post inspection of the repairs which had taken place around that time. The post inspection had identified issues with the repairs to the bathroom floor, mastic around the bath and kitchen tiles. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 July 2023 and said she was upset and frustrated at having to stay in to have the bathroom and kitchen work repaired for a third time. The landlord started further works on the bathroom floor and kitchen tiles on 29 July 2023.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to complete a post inspection of the works, there were further delays in it completing the repairs between July 2023 and September 2023. The resident reported further missed contractor appointments for repairs, including to the bathroom flooring. In this regard, the landlord failed to ensure repairs were made to a good standard in a reasonable time.
The resident raised concerns about missed contractor appointments for repairs on at least 5 occasions between February and June 2023. The landlord offered the resident compensation for 1 of the missed appointments in its stage 1 response, in line with its compensation policy. The landlord offered the resident a further £50 compensation for a repairs appointment that was missed on 23 June 2023, although this was offered outside of the internal complaint’s process.
While the landlord offered compensation to the resident for some of the missed appointments, the landlord should have considered why there had been multiple missed repairs by its contractors. The landlord should have monitored the progress of the repairs and communicated the delays to the resident. Our Spotlight report on Repairs states:
1. when making appointments, landlords should provide sufficient notice to the resident and try to accommodate their preferred timing. Landlords should confirm appointments and send reminders by text message or another agreed method of contact if the resident agrees to this. Landlords should update the resident if they need to reschedule.
2. landlords should monitor progress and have accessible records of appointments, inspection reports, work orders and completion dates for its own repairs service and for its contractors.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for its handling of the repairs. It offered an additional £350 compensation in its stage 2 response for the delays in progressing the work and the difficulties faced by the resident and her family. The landlord offered a further £50 for a missed appointment outside of its internal complaints procedure, however as the payment was made soon after the stage 2 response was sent, it is reasonable to include the £50 as part of this assessment into the outcome.
The total compensation offered for the landlord’s handling of its repairs was £550. The landlord apologised to the resident in both complaint responses. It also acknowledged and apologised for the injury to the resident’s finger. As the resident had expressed a clear dissatisfaction regarding the injury, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with its insurance details and signpost the resident for advice on making an injury claim. In this regard, the landlord did not fully address the resident’s complaint.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, some repair works were still outstanding. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a schedule or timescales for when the repairs would be completed. This was unreasonable and failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord addressed many of the issues that the resident raised and offered compensation, however it failed to fully address the finger injury and did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations regarding the completion of repair works. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
This Service has not seen any evidence to show when the landlord completed the repair works which demonstrates poor record keeping. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. A failure to maintain adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs processes are not operating effectively. Our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) states that without good record keeping, a landlord cannot adequately ensure evidence-based practice.
A post inspection report dated 29 May 2024 showed there were no outstanding repairs. The resident signed this report to confirm her satisfaction that there were no outstanding repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of it acknowledging the complaint. Landlords should respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days of it acknowledging the complaint.
The Code states that if an extension beyond 20 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, both parties should agree this.
The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant, and the stage one response has not been issued.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides the following timescales for complaint responses:
1. Stage 1 response: 10 working days. This can be extended by a further 10 days for complex cases.
2. Stage 2 response: 20 working days. This can be extended by a further 20 days for complex cases.
The landlord’s policy states that if an extension is required, it will agree with the resident prior to the extension being applied, then confirm the extension in writing.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 April 2023, 11 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was 1 day outside of its policy. However, in its acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint, the landlord said it aimed to provide its response by 21 April 2023. In this regard, the landlord responded within a reasonable time.
The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 21 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 4 May 2023. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 23 June 2023. This was 35 working days later and falls outside of the timescales stated in the landlord’s policy as well as the Code.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it can extend timescales for complaint responses, however, there is no evidence to show that the landlord informed the resident about the delay. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
The resident noted in her escalation request that the landlord had not provided any explanation for the delays in completing the repairs. In its stage 2 response, the landlord:
1. acknowledged that there were aspects of the resident’s complaint it had not addressed.
2. apologised for its failure to acknowledge the injury to the resident’s finger.
3. apologised for its failure to provide a full response.
4. offered the resident £25 compensation for the miscommunication in its stage 1 response.
5. Offered an apology and a further £50 for the delayed stage 2 response.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £75 compensation for its handling of the complaint. It acknowledged the failures in its complaint responses and apologised and made reasonable attempts to ‘put things right’ in this regard. The Ombudsman has therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
The determination is made on the understanding that the £75 is reoffered to the resident if this has not already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £600 compensation for its failures to fully address the resident’s concerns regarding the handling of reports of repairs. The landlord may deduct the £550 offered if already paid.
2. Write to the resident to provide her with its insurance details and relevant signposting information in relation to the injury to her finger.
3. Set out in writing, to the resident and this Service, the lessons learnt from the failures identified in this case and how it will prevent further failures in the future, with specific reference to:
  1. monitoring the progress of repairs and recording contractor feedback following repairs.
  2. multiple missed contractor appointments.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £75 compensation offered for failures in its handling of the associated complaint, if not already paid.