Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202402102)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402102

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

18 November 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 landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s window and subsequent damp and mould in the property.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The resident moved into the property in 2000. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord said it is aware that the resident has physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
On 1 December 2023 the resident reported that there were issues with a window which was allowing a cold draught into the property.
On 5 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she had been waiting for a surveyor to inspect the window and for the landlord to replace it. She said that the property was cold because of issues with the window, and there was damp and mould on her blinds. The resident said she had no heating since January 2024, other than an electric heater which was costly to use. The resident said to resolve her complaint she wanted her window replaced, a follow up on the surveyor’s visit, compensation for her damaged blinds and help with her heating costs.
On 19 February 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said:
1. it had attended the property twice in January 2024, but the resident was verbally abusive to the contractor. The landlord said it returned to the property on 7 February 2024 and fitted a new thermostat, radiator, and radiator valves. The landlord said at no point was the resident without heating or hot water and she had refused additional works to improve the heating in the property.
2. it had arranged to inspect the resident’s window and blinds on 19 February 2024.
3. the resident would need to claim on her own contents insurance for the damage to her blinds, or she could make a claim through its insurer.
4. it had asked its damp team to inspect the property for damp and mould. The landlord said that the resident would be contacted with an appointment within 5 working days.
5. it had offered the resident £25 compensation for the delay in responding to her complaint.
On 21 February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the level of compensation that the landlord had offered her. She said the damp and mould had affected her physical and mental wellbeing and she wanted the landlord to investigate the cause of it. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 6 March 2024.
On 15 March 2024 the landlord inspected the property and found mould in the resident’s bedroom and a leak in the resident’s bathroom. The landlord said it would need to complete a mould wash and replace the bathroom flooring.
The landlord contacted the resident on 28 March 2024 and said it would respond to her complaint at stage 2 by 11 April 2024. On 11 April 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
1. it had inspected the property on 15 March 2024. The landlord said the resident had disputed the findings of the inspection and she was verbally abusive to the surveyor.
2. it had arranged a follow up visit to the property on 26 March 2024. The landlord said it would start repair works on 29 April 2024.
3. the resident would need to make a claim to its liability insurer for any damage to her personal belongings or personal injuries.
4. it had offered the resident an additional £25 compensation for extending its stage 2 complaint timescale (£50 total).
The landlord said it offered the resident a further £50 compensation on 25 May 2024, bringing the total compensation to £100. In September 2024 the landlord agreed to replace a blown double-glazing unit in the window. The landlord said it completed the remaining repairs in September and October 2024 and there were no outstanding works.
In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. she was unhappy with the delays in the landlord completing works to the window. The resident said she wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
2. the damp and mould had a significant impact on her health. The resident said she had to sleep on the sofa while the landlord completed works in her bedroom, and this caused pain in her back. The resident said she was unhappy that the landlord did not offer her temporary accommodation while it completed the repairs. The resident said the damp and mould also affected her breathing.
3. she had referred a claim to the landlord’s insurers for the damage to her blinds, but the insurer had declined the claim. The resident said she wanted compensation for the damage caused to her blinds by the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to another complaint that she raised with the landlord about its handling of repairs to the bathroom and the bathroom flooring. The resident did not refer to issues with the bathroom or the bathroom flooring in her complaint on 5 February 2024 or her escalation request on 21 February 2024. Therefore, the landlord did not address this issue in its complaint responses.
The resident said the landlord responded separately to this issue, although we have not seen copies of any complaint responses. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint on 5 February 2024.
The landlord’s internal complaint procedure investigated and responded to several issues including the resident’s concerns about a lack of heating in the property in January 2024. However, the resident subsequently confirmed to this service that she only considered the issues defined at paragraph 10 to be outstanding and the other issues of the complaint have been resolved.
However, the resident has since said she is having new issues with her heating system. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress this as a new formal complaint if required.
Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the issues that remain outstanding, being the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s window and subsequent damp and mould in the property.
The resident said the issues in her property have had a significant impact on her physical and mental well-being. 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.
In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it is not within this service’s role to determine whether the damp and mould impacted the resident’s health. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the repairs and response to reports of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s window and subsequent damp and mould in the property

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will:
1. respond to urgent emergency responses within 4 to 24 hours, depending on the nature of the repair.
2. respond to routine repairs within 20 working days.
3. respond to planned works within 60 working days.
The landlord’s self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould recommendations states it will:
1. actively track reports of damp and mould.
2. escalate issues of damp and mould to an independent surveyor at “agreed points.”
3. provide dehumidifiers to residents where this would help manage the situation in the short-term.
On 1 December 2023 the resident reported that there was an issue with a window which was allowing a cold draught into the property. On 5 February 2024 the resident reported further issues with her window and said that there was damp and mould in the property. She requested a replacement window.
The landlord has not provided details of any inspections between 1 December 2023 and 5 February 2024. There is no evidence that it attended the property to inspect the window or that it identified what works were required to repair the window. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to conclude that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of issues with the window in accordance with its repairs policy. This was a failing.
On 12 February 2024 the landlord said it had attempted to repair the window, but the resident had refused the works as she wanted a replacement window. The resident said she had not refused any works. The landlord contacted the resident on the same day and said it had tried to arrange an appointment with her to inspect the damp and mould, but she had refused the appointment. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day and said she had not refused an appointment and asked it to contact her again.
Social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. In view of this, landlords are entitled to opt to repair damaged items where it is more economical to do so, rather than replacing them. However, the Ombudsman has not seen copies of any reports or inspections to confirm what was wrong with the window, what repairs were required to the window, and why a replacement window was not needed. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident to explain its decision not to replace the window. The landlord was aware on 5 February 2024 that the resident wanted a replacement window. The landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations and explained why it was unable to replace the window, referencing any relevant inspections, policies, or procedures where necessary.
On 16 February 2024 the landlord requested an inspection of the resident’s window. The landlord attended the property on 19 February 2024. It is unclear if the landlord identified any repairs to the window. However, the resident said she was unhappy that a “handyman” had attended the property on 19 February 2024, and not a qualified surveyor. The resident said there was damp and mould in the property, and she wanted a surveyor to inspect the cause of it. The landlord agreed to arrange a damp and mould survey.
There was some initial confusion in February 2024 about who would attend the property to inspect the window and the damp and mould. The landlord could have been clearer to the resident about who would attend the property on 19 February 2024. This would have better managed the resident’s expectations.
On 15 March 2024 the landlord inspected the property and found mould in the resident’s bedroom and a leak in the resident’s bathroom. The landlord said it would need to complete a mould wash and replace the bathroom flooring. However, the report did not address the issues with the window. This was not appropriate given that the landlord was aware of issues with the window in February 2024, and it had specifically requested an inspection of the window on 16 February 2024.
The landlord arranged a follow up visit to the property on 26 March 2024 and stated in its stage 2 response that works would begin to the resident’s property on 29 April 2024. The landlord should have ensured that the resolution offered in its complaint response was provided. However, it is unclear whether or not works began on 29 April 2024.
On 16 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said that the seals on the window were worn and were “breaking away” from the glass pane. The landlord responded to the resident on 24 May 2024 and said it had cancelled repairs to the window as the resident had asked for a replacement window, which it could not offer. The resident responded and said she had not refused any works and there were still issues with the window. It was inappropriate for the landlord to cancel the repair on the basis that the resident wanted a replacement window, especially as it is unclear how it came to the conclusion that it did not replacing, and as it had stated in its stage 2 response that it would carry out repairs. It should have ensured that any repairs needed were completed.
The landlord’s records show that it offered a mould wash in the property in May 2024. However, the resident declined the appointment. The landlord’s repair records show that it completed a mould wash in the property on 12 July 2024. While it is positive to note that the landlord completed a mould wash in the property, there is no evidence that it considered any further interim solutions to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident. For example, whether it could provide dehumidifiers.
The landlord’s records suggest there were issues in May 2024 in it accessing the property. The landlord said it started repairs in the property on 29 July 2024.
The landlord’s records show that it agreed to replace a blown double-glazing unit in the window in September 2024. This was 9 months after it was first aware that there were issues with the window. The fact that it was replaced suggests that it had deteriorated significantly, which supports the resident’s reports of cold and damp. The Ombudsman recognises that there were some access issues in the property in May 2024. However, the time taken for the landlord to identify and complete repairs to the window was significantly more than the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. This was not appropriate.
The resident explained to the Ombudsman that the issues she had reported caused her significant distress and inconvenience. For example, she said that the issues had affected her mental health because she had to sleep on her sofa while the repairs were completed. The resident said that she had to chase the landlord to complete the works, and she was concerned about the effect of the damp and mould on her physical health.
Overall, there were delays in the landlords responding to the reports of repairs and damp and mould. The landlord failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident in its handling of repairs to the property, and did not carry out the repairs in the timeframe set out in its stage 2 response to the complaint. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation, of which £50 was for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. It is not clear whether the additional £50 compensation was in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified failings. The Ombudsman has found maladministration for the reasons outlined above.
The resident said the damp and mould damaged her blinds. The landlord provided details of its liability insurer if the resident wished to submit a claim for the damage to her blinds. The landlord’s decision to refer the issue to its insurer in the first instance was reasonable.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s insurers have declined the resident’s claim. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as it can only consider the actions of the landlord.
The landlord has been ordered to write to the resident to apologise for its failings in its handling of repairs, as identified by this investigation. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.
With consideration of our remedies guidance, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of an additional £400 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified failings. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s window and subsequent damp and mould in the property.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report.
2. pay additional compensation to the resident of £400 (£500 in total, including the compensation already offered) to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home by its handling of the repairs and subsequent damp and mould in the property.
  The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident.
3. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders.