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

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202336271)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336271

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

24 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Request for rehousing due to overcrowding.
    2. Reports of mouse infestation.
    3. Concerns about the handling of proofing works.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident’s landlord is a local council. Where a council is concerned, the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints to do with its management and provision of social housing. Complaints about other functions and services the council provides, fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). However, it is not always obvious when a council is providing a service as a landlord or as a local authority, and this has been true in the resident’s case.
  3. The records show that the resident’s reports of an infestation were made to the pest control team, which is part of the council’s Environmental Health Service. As such, the actions of the pest control team are not within the remit of this Service to investigate. This is also true of the resident’s concerns about the council’s decision on his application for rehousing on grounds of overcrowding. Therefore, aspects (a) and (b) of the resident’s complaint have not been investigated here and any reference to them is for context. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, which states that matters that fall under the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman or complaint-handling body will not usually be investigated. The resident may then wish to refer his complaints to the LGSCO.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He has occupied the 1-bedroom flat with his wife and 2 children since August 2022.
  2. In late September 2022, the council’s pest control service attended the resident’s property and found evidence of a mouse problem. They recommended proofing works which the landlord completed in March 2023, however, the resident reported that the mouse problem was ongoing. The pest control service attended 3 times between March and August 2023 and on each occasion, they reported that further proofing works to the kitchen were recommended.
  3. On 4 October 2023, the resident complained that the infestation had been ongoing for a year and was worsening. He was unhappy that when he contacted the repairs team about the proofing works, they advised they had not received any reports from the pest control service.
  4. The stage 1 response dated 20 October 2023 was from the council’s environmental health team. The council apologised that there were service failings in its handling of the pest control treatment, stating that this was because it was under resourced. It advised that 3 emails were sent over the previous month to the repairs team about the proofing works.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 9 November 2023 because he said the mouse problem was unresolved. He was also unhappy that he had been advised by the landlord that the appointment for the proofing works was on 6 December 2023 as he believed they would be completed sooner.
  6. In the stage 2 response dated 6 December 2023, the landlord apologised for the failure of the pest control service and repairs team to resolve the infestation over 2 months. The landlord offered compensation of £250, confirmed the repairs were due to be completed that day, and said a follow-up appointment with pest control had been made.
  7. After the complaints process ended, the resident reported that the landlord’s contractor had not completed the proofing works. These were though completed in mid-January 2024. Subsequently, the landlord revised its offer of compensation to £500. The resident has since reported further infestation and the landlord has undertaken further works.
  8. The resident referred his complaint to this Service because he believes the landlord has not fully resolved the mouse infestation. He said his family have been caused significant worry by the situation. The resident advised that he is seeking to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that he was concerned that his children were caused an illness from the infestation. However, the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on the resident’s health concerns but can consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A court has the expertise to investigate such matters, though the resident may want to seek advice if he wishes to consider that option.

Concerns about the handling of proofing works

  1. When pest control attended the resident’s property on 27 September 2022, the operative recommended that gaps in the kitchen units were filled. It is unclear from the available evidence how this was communicated to the landlord. However, records show that the landlord raised a job for the works in October 2022 and its contractor completed these on 15 March 2023, after 2 previously unsuccessful visits. The pest control then continued to attend to reports of infestation and recorded that further proofing works were recommended. Again, the available records do not show if and how these recommendations were shared with the landlord.
  2. The resident’s initial complaint on 4 October 2023 was about the actions of the pest control team and the council responded to this at stage 1. However, the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 9 November 2023 was based, in part, on the time he had to wait for an appointment with the landlord’s contractor. As the landlord addressed this at stage 2, this report focuses on the reasonableness of its response of 6 December 2023, issued the same day that its repairs operative was due to attend.
  3. According to the landlord’s repair handbook, it is responsible for “[m]anaging hazards that may present a risk to health”, which it states includes preventing pest infestations by filling gaps and holes in a property. Neither the repairs handbook nor the repairs policy specifies what priority is allocated to repairs preventing pest infestations. However, it is best practice for landlords to complete proofing works within routine repair timescales, which is 20–working days for this landlord.
  4. The available evidence included 2 emails from the pest control team dated 17 and 20 October 2023. The first advised the repairs team about required proofing works, and the second was a request from the complaint handler to prioritise the work because the resident was concerned about the health of his children. The landlord’s repair records show that a job was subsequently raised for the works on 19 October 2023. As previously stated, a repairs operative attended on 6 December 2023, around 35–working days after the email from pest control. In the stage 2 response, the landlord apologised that it had taken 2 months to carry out the repairs, which it described as poor service. This was appropriate because the landlord exceeded its timescale by 15–working days.
  5. When there have been clear and undisputed failings by a landlord, as is the case here, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider if and what action has been taken to put things right. For a landlord’s actions to be considered appropriate, it is expected to have followed its own policies and procedures and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Both require the landlord to apologise, explain what actions it will take to put things right, and that it will take learning.
  6. As well as apologising, the landlord offered compensation of £250, which it said was comprised of £100 for the delays in resolving the infestation, £100 for delays in completing the proofing works, and £50 for the poor communication between its contractor and the pest control team. The amount of redress awarded for the landlord’s failings was in line with its compensation policy for cases where a moderate level of disruption and distress has been caused. It is also within the range the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends for cases where someone has been caused a level of distress for a brief period, and there is no lasting impact.
  7. The landlord also confirmed that the repairs were due to be completed on the day its response was issued. However, this did not happen because the contractor reported that there was evidence of an active infestation and asked to reattend with the pest control operative. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to comment on the reasonableness of the contractor’s request. However, the landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its professionals in deciding what action it needs to take to resolve repair issues.
  8. On 19 January 2024, a joint visit was conducted by pest control and the landlord’s contractor. According to the records, this was the earliest available appointment that the contractor could accommodate. The contractor filled gaps in the kitchen and storage area, which was 64–working days after pest control’s first email requesting the works. The landlord subsequently revised its offer of compensation to £500 because it said the resident had been caused further “stress and inconvenience in getting the repairs carried out.” It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the additional impact and the amount of compensation was at the upper end of the range its compensation policy says it will pay for this level of impact. This offer is in line with the level of compensation this Service recommends for cases where someone has been caused significant worry over a relatively short period.
  9. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it needed to improve its repairs service, and said it was working closely with its contractors to do this. Not meeting its repair timescales is consistent with findings from other investigations carried out by the Housing Ombudsman into the landlord, and resulted in a special report, published in February 2024. This explained that in 2022/23 the landlord was failing to meet its routine repair timescale in 43% of cases. In its response to the special report, the landlord advised that it had increased its contractor capacity and introduced daily meetings to ensure timescales are met. The landlord though recognised there is still work it needs to do. As the landlord has taken action and is still actively seeking to address failings in its repair timescales, this report makes no orders but asks that it considers taking learning from the resident’s complaint.
  10. The available records show that the resident reported a reoccurrence of the infestation in April 2024. He believes that the previous works were ineffectual, and he is concerned that the problem will keep happening. This must have been distressing for him and his family, and his concerns are understandable given the history of the problem. However, nothing in the reports of the surveyor who inspected the property in April 2024 and June 2024 suggest that this was due to the earlier proofing works being defective or incomplete.
  11. There were delays in the landlord completing proofing works and this contributed to the resident’s worry and distress. However, the action the landlord took to put things right were appropriate and in line with its compensation policy and the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the following aspects of the resident’s complaint are outside of jurisdiction:
    1. Request for rehousing due to overcrowding.
    2. Reports of mouse infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to concerns about the handling of proofing works.

 

Recommendation

  1. If the landlord has not already paid the £500 it offered in February 2024, it should reoffer this to the resident.