Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202407684)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407684

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

31 January 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 reported roof and kitchen light repairs.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in her flat since May 2008. We have not been provided with further details about the property such as the number of rooms, or location within the building.
In mid-2021 the landlord instructed its contractor (contractor A) to inspect a roof leak and carry out associated repairs to the resident’s kitchen ceiling. Soon after, contractor A subsequently stopped carrying out repairs on behalf of the landlord. The roof and kitchen repairs remained outstanding and the landlord re-directed the repairs to another contractor (contractor B) around the end of November 2021.
At this time, contractor B had a back log of repairs. This meant that it was also unable to complete the works at this time. Subsequently the landlord cancelled the work order for contractor B in early March 2022 because the repairs had not progressed. It is unclear what transpired following this.
On 30 January 2024 the landlord raised an order to restore power to the resident’s kitchen light. It is unclear what prompted the order. On 5 February 2024 it reraised the 2021 order to investigate and repair the roof leak.
On 25 March 2024 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said she had been without a functioning kitchen light since 2018 due to roof damage. She said that the landlord had failed to take action despite it carrying out several inspections over the years and her chasing the matter.
The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2024. It said:
1. contractor A and contractor B did not progress the repairs between 2021 and 2023 due to poor performance and backlogged repairs.
2. its investigation found that the resident had “repeatedly chased” it to arrange appointments during that period.
3. in February 2024 it had raised an order to repair the roof. It had closed the order because its contractor attempted to contact the resident “a few times” [without success]. It had now reraised the order to repair the roof.
4. it had also raised an order to restore the kitchen lights in January 2024. It said that the resident had refused the works until the leak to the roof was resolved. It had reraised the works order and its contractor would contact the resident to arrange the repairs.
5. it could arrange for a temporary light to be fitted until the work was completed so the resident could have some light in the kitchen. It told the resident to contact it if she wished for this to be arranged.
It offered the resident £225 for the “inconvenience due to the delays to the repair” and £25 for the delayed complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint on or around 24 April 2024. She said:
1. she did not receive any contact from the landlord’s contractor in relation to the roof repairs in February 2024.
2. she did not refuse the work to restore the kitchen lights in January 2024. She said that she was told by “multiple electricians” that the ceiling was unsafe due to its condition.
3. she was relying on candles as there was no light in the kitchen. She said that she had been burnt from “malfunctioning sockets”.
4. the offer of £250 compensation was not acceptable.
Between 20 and 24 May 2024 the landlord completed the roof works. It also attended to repair the kitchen light, but was unable to gain access. During this period the resident raised concerns that:
1. the contractor had not repaired the roof properly. She asked the landlord to inspect the works.
2. the landlord had not attended on 20 May 2024 as it said that it would.
3. the landlord had not confirmed the 22 May 2024 appointment to repair the kitchen light with her.
On 24 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. its contractors attended on the 20 May 2024 to scope works and book external and internal repairs.
2. it had emailed the resident to book in the repair for the kitchen lights on 21 May for the 22 May appointment. It would contact the resident to schedule in any remaining repairs.
3. it had received evidence that the operatives attended and had left a card [on 22 May 2024].
4. it would arrange for its surveyor to inspect the roof works.
5. it would not increase the compensation award as it had endeavoured to resolve the matter at stage 2 in a timely manner.
It is unclear whether the landlord inspected the roof repairs; however, the evidence suggests that the kitchen lights were repaired on 14 June 2024. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns and therefore referred her complaint to us for further consideration.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident explained during her complaint that she was burnt due to what she considered to be “malfunctioning” sockets. While the serious nature of this matter is noted, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts injury. Such matters would be best determined and considered further by either an insurer or the courts.
The resident raised concerns that she had not had a functioning light in her kitchen since 2018. We do not seek to dispute this. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from mid-2021 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint. Any reference to earlier events is for context only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs to the roof and kitchen light

The landlord’s repair policy states that:
1. it is responsible for repairing and maintaining the resident’s flat and building, including the roof.
2. it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days and planned works within 60 working days.
3. it will aim to schedule works at a time that is convenient for residents.
4. when residents miss appointments, it will attempt to contact them up to 3 times to reschedule before closing the job due to no access/no contact. The resident is then responsible for getting back in touch to request the works are carried out.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will make reasonable arrangements for entering the premises in order to carry out repairs.

Reported leak and damage to the roof

The landlord was aware that the leak in the roof needed to be investigated and repaired in mid- 2021. However, between 2021 and 2023 the landlord failed to take steps to do so. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that due to performance issues and backlogs, its contractors failed to progress the repairs over the years. That the landlord acknowledged and explained its failure was positive.
It offered the resident £225 compensation for the inconvenience for the delays. While this went some way to put matters right, it did not go far enough. The landlord acknowledged that the resident also spent time chasing it for appointments during this period and it made visits without any progress made to the repairs. This would have likely caused the resident time, trouble and distress over the two year period. The landlord failed to offer a remedy in relation to this, and as such it has yet to be put right. Therefore, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, an order has been made for the landlord to pay additional £150 compensation in recognition of this.
In February 2024 the landlord reraised the order to repair the roof. In the resident’s formal complaint, she explained that she was told by the landlord at that time that it would start the repairs, but it never did. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that its contractor had attempted to contact the resident to arrange appointments for the repairs but was unsuccessful. Therefore, it had closed the repair.
In her escalated complaint, the resident disputed the landlord’s account. She said that its contractor had not tried to contact her to arrange for the repairs at that time. The landlord did not address this further in its stage 2 complaint response and it would have been reasonable to do so. That it did not was a missed opportunity to try to establish what had happened.
The landlord’s policy states that it would attempt to contact residents up to 3 times to reschedule a repair before closing the job due to no access/no contact. However, we do not have evidence that it did so. Therefore the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it reasonably followed its own policy.
In its April 2024 stage 1 complaint response, the landlord reraised the order to repair the leak and roof which was appropriate. We do not have any contemporaneous record relating to these repairs. However, the evidence suggests that works to repair the leak and the damage to the roof started on 25 April 2024 and was completed around 20 May 2024.
On 24 May 2024 the resident raised concerns that the landlord’s contractor did not repair the roof properly. She asked the landlord to inspect the roof. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord confirmed that it would carry out an inspection and would contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The landlord’s response was reasonable and resolution-focused. However, it is unknown whether the inspection went ahead, or if it contacted the resident to arrange an appointment. While any action would have taken place after the conclusion of the complaints procedure, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to record the outcome of any inspection. It would have also been reasonable for it to write to the resident to confirm what it had found and whether any further works would be undertaken. We have therefore made a recommendation that the landlord attends to inspect the roof now.

Kitchen lights

The landlord’s repair logs show that in August 2021 the landlord raised an order to investigate and test the lighting and power in the kitchen. We have not been provided with any evidence relating to the investigation or test. We therefore cannot establish what was found, or what action was taken, if any. However, it is noted that there were no further reports in relation to the light until 2024.
On 30 January 2024 the landlord raised an order to repair the light. The evidence suggests that at this time the repair did not go ahead because the roof leak that was affecting the kitchen ceiling had not been resolved. It is unclear whether the resident had requested that the work be postponed, or if this was a suggestion by the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that any delays to completing the repair were accurately documented.
Nonetheless, the landlord later raised an order on 5 February 2024 to repair the roof. The evidence shows that the leak and damage to the roof was affecting the kitchen ceiling. Therefore, it was reasonable to ensure that the roof was repaired first.
In her April 2024 formal complaint, the resident expressed concern that the light repair remained outstanding. Given that the roof works were underway at this time, this was understandable. However, the resident should reasonably have been informed of this in advance and that the repairs to the light would follow once the roof works were complete. That the resident was not informed as such was a missed opportunity to manage her expectations. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it had asked its contractor to scope out the works required. It said that in the meantime it could fit temporary lights in the kitchen. This was positive and demonstrated that it was taking proactive steps to mitigate any further distress and inconvenience while it progressed the repair. However, it is unclear why this offer was not made sooner given that the resident had reported that she had no lighting 3 months prior – during the winter months. The evidence does not suggest that the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of temporary lighting.
On 22 May 2024 the landlord attended and reported that it was unable to gain access to the property. On 23 May 2024 the resident advised that she was unable to provide access and the appointment had not been confirmed with her.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord explained that it emailed the resident about the appointment on 21 May 2024. We have seen evidence that the email was sent as discussed by the landlord. However, it is unclear whether the resident had confirmed that this was convenient for her. It is understandable that the landlord wanted to ensure the light was promptly investigated after it had repaired the roof. However, its repair policy states that it would aim to schedule appointments that were convenient for its residents. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought confirmation with the resident that she would be available for the appointment prior to sending an operative to the address. This may have mitigated the inconvenience caused by the failed appointment on the day.
The evidence available suggests that the landlord attended the property on 30 May 2024 to commence the work and completed it on 14 June 2024.
Overall, the landlord failed to progress the repairs to the roof in a timely manner between 2021 and 2023. This meant that the repairs went unresolved for a prolonged period of time. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its stage 1 complaint response and offered the resident compensation for the delays. However, given the likely time, trouble and distress caused during that period the award did not go far enough.
It also failed to demonstrate that its contractor appropriately contacted the resident to book in the roof repairs in February 2024 before it closed the case as per its policy. Therefore, it has not demonstrated that its contractors did not unreasonably cause further delays in resolving the repair.
It offered to fit temporary lights in the resident’s kitchen while it progressed her light repair. This was positive. However, it is unclear why this offer was not made sooner – either at the end of January or early February. It would have also been reasonable for it to have confirmed the May 2024 appointment with the resident before attending. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs to her kitchen light and roof. Given the distress and inconvenience caused by these additional failures a further award of £100 has been awarded.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time states that it would issue stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in a timely manner. It explained that it would issue its stage 1 complaint by 12 April 2024. On 15 April 2024 the landlord told the resident that it had extended its response deadline to 19 April 2024. That the landlord informed the resident of its extension after its response was due was unreasonable. However, it is noted that the landlord offered the resident £25 for the delayed response. This was resolution-focussed and a proportionate award in the circumstances.
In her March 2024 formal complaint, the resident also raised additional concerns. These included repairs to her kitchen fan and concerns about her cooker switch.
However, the landlord did not address any of these concerns in its stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Therefore, while the reason that the landlord did not acknowledge these concerns is unclear, that it did not was unreasonable and not in accordance with the Code. Furthermore, its failure to respond meant that the resident’s concerns went unanswered. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns that she may have in relation to those complaints. The landlord should consider raising new complaints if required.
In her escalated complaint the resident also told the landlord that she had been burnt from “malfunctioning sockets”. The resident had raised a potential health and safety issue which she explained had caused her injury. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed and acknowledged this in its complaint response. In addition, it would have been appropriate for it to have referred her to its insurers and arranged for a timely inspection. There is no evidence that it did either. While the reason that it did not do so is unclear, that it did not was unreasonable.
The resident also said she felt unsafe due to the unresolved repairs. While it is unclear, the resident’s comments suggests that she was referring to repairs other than the kitchen light and roof. It is noted that the landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that it had spoken to the resident about her complaint on 25 April 2024. However, we do not have a contemporaneous record of the outcome of the call. Therefore, it is unclear whether it took reasonable steps to fully discuss the resident’s complaint at that time.
Overall, the landlord failed to issue its stage 1 complaint response within its policy timescales. In recognition of the delay, it offered the resident reasonable compensation. It also failed to address all of the resident’s concerns in her stage 1 and escalated complaint. That was unreasonable and left the resident’s concerns unanswered. This would have caused her distress and inconvenience. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

There have been several instances in this case where the landlord has not provided contemporaneous records to demonstrate that it had taken reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s concerns and complaints.
It is unclear whether the landlord does not have this information, if no record was kept, or if the landlord simply failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord should ensure that it maintains a clear and accurate audit trail of all actions taken in any case. Not only do such records assist the landlord in reviewing its own service provision, but they are also imperative in the event of an independent investigation conducted by organisations such as the Ombudsman.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. Therefore, we recommend that the landlord considers the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report when reviewing its record keeping practices.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs to her kitchen light and roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. pay the resident £400 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reported repairs to her kitchen light and roof.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. pay the resident the compensation it offered in its complaint response, if it has not already done so.
4. contact the resident to:
  1. ascertain if there are any outstanding repairs to her roof and kitchen light.
  2. discuss the additional concerns that she raised in her complaint that it did not address. In doing so it should ask the resident whether she would like to raise a new complaint about any of the matters.
  3. ascertain whether she would like her concerns about injury from “malfunctioning sockets” to be referred to its insurers.
5. confirm with this Service that it will consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit. It should also remind staff that they should respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint in its responses.

Recommendations

Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to review its record keeping practices in relation to repairs. When doing so, the landlord should pay particular regard to the failings identified in this case and the recommendations as set out in our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
the landlord should inspect the roof as stated that it would, if it has not done so already.