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

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202308770)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308770

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

31 October 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 handling of the resident’s:

a.     Reports of a leak and damage to the property.

b.     Request to be decanted.

2.             The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3.             The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The tenancy commenced in June 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom flat located on the third floor of a block of flats.

4.             On 18 June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord he was experiencing a leak in the property from the ceiling. He complained to the landlord and referred his case to the Service. The Ombudsman determined his case on 6 April 2022.

5.             On 19 December 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that there was water coming through the roof or the tank (if present) into his property. The landlord booked an inspection for 6 January 2023.

6.             The resident complained to the landlord on 6 January 2023 as the inspection did not take place, there was an unresolved leak, and there was damage to his ceiling. He said other rooms were starting to be affected by the leak too. He told the landlord if it could not resolve the leak, he would want to be decanted.

7.             The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 January 2023. The landlord apologised for the missed appointment of 6 January 2023. It said it should have told the resident that the contractor was on annual leave so the appointment would not go ahead. It also said its team would inspect the property on 8 February 2023 and arrange for any repairs to be carried out. It offered the resident a total of £100, it said £50 was for the missed appointment, and £50 was for the inconvenience caused.

8.             The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested escalation of his complaint on 23 January 2023. He added that the ceiling was cracking and shared videos of the damage. He told it that he would want to move properties to allow the landlord to carry out works.

9.             The resident sent further emails expressing his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ongoing leak on 9 February 2023 and 28 February 2023. The landlord told the resident on 1 March 2023 that it needed a surveyor to establish what repairs were needed. On 22 March 2023 the landlord had offered an interim payment of a further £150 saying it was for the delays in arranging repairs.

10.        On 5 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It outlined the events up to that point, which included erection of scaffolding at the property by 28 March 2023. It said its contractor had not found a roof leak but had carried out repairs it identified to the guttering, fibreglass, and loose tiles. It said that it failed to erect the scaffolding in the right place and had relayed this to the contractor. The resident felt the leak was unresolved, so it committed to managing any repairs required, it said it would contact the resident in 5 working days. It offered £860 in compensation, comprised of:

a.     £100 the landlord offered at stage 1 of its internal complaint’s procedure.

b.     £150 the landlord offered on 22 March 2023.

c.      £460 for delays in resolving the ongoing leak.

d.     £150 for the complaint communication.

11.        The resident contacted this Service on 27 May 2023 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and response. He wanted us to investigate his concerns.

12.        On 1 September 2023 the landlord called the resident to arrange a surveyor’s inspection. The landlord visited the property on 8 September 2023 documenting repairs that were required, this included repairs to the ceiling. A surveyor’s report was completed on 27 September 2023 which said there was a suspected leak from the roof that was still ongoing

13.        The landlord advised this Service on 7 May 2024 that the roofing works were completed, but internal works remain outstanding, and the resident had been temporarily decanted.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14.        Paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where the resident seeks to raise again matters, which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.

15.        This Service had determined a complaint about the leak affecting the resident’s property in April 2022 under a different case reference. This report had taken into consideration events that transpired from the resident’s report of a leak in June 2021.

16.        In line with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme and in fairness to both parties, the scope of this investigation will start from the resident’s first report of a leak after the Ombudsman’s determination of April 2022. From the evidence available this was 19 December 2022 and was the first recorded instance of the issue since the Ombudsman’s determination of April 2022.

17.        Further, the resident had complained about the landlord’s handling of his request to be decanted. In his communication with the landlord of 9 February 2023, he told it he wants to be permanently rehoused.

18.        This Service cannot consider complaints which relate to an application for rehousing made to a local council. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, the award of points, or banding fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). If the resident wishes to pursue the aspect of permanent rehousing, he may wish to contact the LGSCO. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request regarding a temporary decant within its internal complaints procedure and its communication regarding being decanted.

Reports of a leak and damage to the property

19.        When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:

a.     Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.

b.     Put things right.

c.      Learn from outcomes.

20.        Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 confirms the landlord has a responsibility to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This is echoed in the tenancy agreement.

21.        The landlord’s repairs policy says routine repairs are to be completed in 20 working days and planned repairs are to be completed in 60 working days. Emergency repairs are to be completed in 24 hours. It also states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair the structure and key components of the building and exterior of property. This includes roofs and walls.

22.        Following the resident’s report of a roof leak on 19 December 2022, the landlord had arranged for a visit to the resident’s property on 6 January 2023. This was 11 working days after the resident’s reports, which is in line with the landlord’s routine repairs timeframes set in the policy. Although this was the case, the landlord did not provide any reasoning as to why this was not being treated as an urgent repair considering it was a report of a leak. In these circumstances it would have been reasonable to respond to the repairs within its 24-hour emergency policy timeframes.

23.        However, the landlord did not attend on 6 January 2023, which caused inconvenience to the resident, who would submit his complaint on the same day. The landlord apologised for the missed appointment and awarded £50 for this, and £50 for the inconvenience caused. Its compensation policy says it would award £50 per missed appointment, and awards from £50 for service failure that caused some inconvenience. Therefore, at that stage, although there had been some service failures, the landlord’s actions to remedy was appropriate.

24.        The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 12 January 2023. The resident said the contractor had taken images of the condition of the ceiling. This Service acknowledges the landlord’s first contractor was unable to progress the repairs as the roof was too high, therefore it arranged for another inspection on 8 February 2023. On this date, the contractors were unable to gain access. The landlord’s communication about this was poor as evidenced in the resident’s email of 9 February 2023, he wanted to know the contractor’s findings from its inspection, and shared he was distressed.

25.        The resident also emailed the landlord on 28 February 2023 asking about a disrepair ‘claim’. The landlord told the resident on 1 March 2023 that he could potentially make an insurance claim for damaged personal belongings, this was reasonable action by the landlord.

26.        From the evidence submitted to this Service, the landlord did not carry out any repairs until 27 March 2023. It said its contractors inspected the loft space in March 2023 and could not identify a rook leak. After erecting scaffolding, it had cleared 10 meters of guttering, carried out several fibreglass repairs, and refitted loose tiles, it considered the repairs complete. It was unclear when the landlord had inspected the loft area and when the works were completed, but further scaffolding was erected on 4 April 2023. Considering the resident first reported the issue on 19 December 2022, it had taken 67 working days for it to arrange repairs, which is 7 working days outside the timescales stated in its repairs policy for planned repairs, which was inappropriate.

27.        Despite the above repairs, on 26 April 2023 the resident said that the issue was not resolved. He told the landlord that the scaffolding was erected in the wrong areas and believed there was a leak still coming through the roof.

28.        In the landlord’s final response, it committed to the resident that it would manage the repairs going forward, as he believed the issues remained. It said it would contact the resident in 5 working days. It was not until 7 August 2023 that it had called the resident to arrange a surveyors visit. A further visit to the property on 8 September 2023 by the landlord found damage to the ceiling and it further repairs were needed. This was the first instance the landlord had recorded that repairs were required internally, despite the resident complaining about this in January 2023. This was inappropriate, 9 months had elapsed until the landlord recorded its findings from an inspection inside the property and the resident had provided images and videos for evidence during the internal complaints procedure. The landlord should have done this earlier and within 20 working days from when it was put on notice that the ceiling was damaged. The landlord acted inappropriately.

29.        The landlord’s surveyor’s report dated 29 September 2023 said the suspected leak from roof was still live. All external works were completed by 7 May 2024 however it is unclear to this Service the extent of internal works that remain. It is clear that despite exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident faced ongoing detriment by the leaks and damage to the property, which caused him distress and inconvenience.

30.        The landlord has told this Service it had encountered difficulties identifying the cause of the leak. This Service would have still expected the landlord to have monitored the risk to the resident at the outset. There is no evidence it had done so. There were no provisions of dehumidifiers, or any other temporary repairs offered while the landlord tried to find the cause of the leak. There is also no evidence it carried out a damp survey. Additionally, it did not carry out any controlled testing either. Through testing, it could have assessed whether after its repairs in March 2023 the roof was still letting in water. This would have all been reasonable action in the circumstances of this complaint.

31.        Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by particular service failures, considering the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as other relevant factors. In its final response the total award of compensation proportioned for its handling of the leak and damage to the property was £660.

32.        Due to the prolonged period that the resident experienced issues in the bathroom and the effort expended, this amount does not consider the full length the resident experienced detriment. A suggested amount for this level of long-term detriment in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, is up to £1,000. While it is acknowledged the landlord attempted to put things right for the resident, the issue remained unresolved, and it is the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord has not done enough.

33.        To elaborate on the above, while the landlord committed to managing any repairs needed in its final response, there was an absence of proactive communication or updates, which was unreasonable. It is clear from the evidence the resident expended time and effort in chasing the landlord for responses, while being distressed due to the leak and damage to the property being unresolved for a prolonged period. There was no evidence it had managed the resident’s expectations and ultimately it failed to address the leak and damage to the property in an appropriate timescale. The inaction and delayed action by the landlord despite the resident exhausting the internal complaints procedure in May 2023 demonstrates it had not learned from outcomes.

34.        As such, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and damage to the property. Orders have been made that take into consideration the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident while the issue remained unresolved.

Request to be decanted

35.        The resident wanted to be decanted because of the leak and missed appointment of 6 January 2023. This formed part of his complaint so the landlord was put on notice from this date.

36.        Although the resident’s request to be decanted was acknowledged at stage 1 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it provided no commentary on the request at that stage which was unreasonable. He further mentioned that he wanted to be decanted on 9 February 2023 and 22 March 2023, but it was not until 27 April 2023 that the landlord raised queries internally regarding the resident’s request to be decanted. It is evident the resident expended time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a response.

37.        The first time the landlord provided commentary to the resident about his request to be decanted was in its stage 2 complaint response. This was 119 calendar days since he put the landlord on notice, which was an unreasonable amount of time. It said there was no application made for the resident to be decanted as his property was not deemed uninhabitable. It apologised the resident was under the impression that this was going to be done.

38.        No evidence has been provided to this Service as to how the landlord had deemed the resident’s situation meant a decant was not needed or was not a suitable interim measure. In any event, it is this Service’s opinion that it would have been reasonable for it to have communicated its decision making to the resident sooner than it did. Even more so as the above findings in this report illustrate, it had failed to assess and make record of the condition of the interior of the property until September 2023. The resident had told the landlord on 28 February 2023 that he felt it was unfair he was having to pay full rent due to the condition of his property.

39.        Although there is no evidence the landlord had considered mitigating detriment caused to the resident within its internal complaints procedure by decanting him, this Service acknowledges that in May 2024 the resident was temporarily decanted.

40.        The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments up to £250 where service failures occurred, and a resident repeatedly had to chase responses. It was clear time and trouble was expended by the resident, and the lack of communication and early consideration for a decant by the landlord caused the resident detriment.

41.        Considering the above, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be decanted. Orders take into consideration time and trouble expended by the resident, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

42.        The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it would respond to complaints at stage 1 in 10 working days, and at stage 2 in 20 working days. Extensions could be agreed.

43.        While the timeliness of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was appropriate, the stage 2 response was delayed. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure on 23 January 2023. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says escalations should be acknowledged in 5 working days. Inappropriately, the escalation request was not acknowledged until after 13 working days. This caused delays to the resident’s complaint journey, which was inconvenient.

44.        The landlord’s stage 2 complaint acknowledgment email said it aimed to respond by 20 February 2023. As the resident had not received a response, he chased the landlord on 28 February 2023, expending time and effort. The landlord and the resident agreed a 10-working day extension on 1 March 2023. The reasoning provided by the landlord that it needed to extend the stage 2 complaint response time, was that it was arranging a surveyor’s visit to assess the property. While this is within the parameters of its complaints policy, it only agreed an extension after the complaint was overdue, this was unreasonable and demonstrated poor communication by the landlord.

45.        The code says that a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.

46.        The resident was not kept updated as to the status of the stage 2 complaint response. This is evidenced by him chasing the landlord on 22 March 2023, 17 April 2023, and 26 April 2023 This was inappropriate and not in accordance with the Code.

47.        The landlord’s final response was sent on 5 May 2023 which was 35 working days over the extension it had agreed. This was inappropriate as it was outside the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. It also affected the resident’s complaint journey, and it was clear he spent time and trouble in chasing a response to his complaint.

48.        The landlord proportioned £150 of the £860 offered in its final response for its complaint communication. While this amount is line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, it did not acknowledge the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response and it had not evidenced that it had learned from the resident’s complaint. The delay in responding unfairly delayed him further in referring his complaint to this Service. Overall, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. As the Code is now statutory, no orders will be made in relation to the delays.

Determination

49.        In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and damage to the property.

50.        In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be decanted.

51.        In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

52.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Apologise to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.

b.     Pay directly to the resident’s bank account, £1,400 in compensation comprised of:

  1. £1,000 for the delays, distress and inconvenience caused due to its handling of a leak and damage to the property.
  2. £250 for the landlord’s poor communication, as well as time and trouble expended by the resident regarding the landlord’s handling of his requests to be decanted.
  3. £150 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response for complaint handling.
  4. If any of the £860 offered in its stage 2 complaint response has already been paid to the resident, it can be deducted from the total of £1,400. For the avoidance of doubt, this would mean a payment of £560 to the resident is due.

c.      If it has not done so already, to provide a report detailing its current position of repairs to the property. It is to outline the works that were completed to the exterior of the property and the extent of internal works that have been completed. It is to outline any remaining repairs and provide timescales for completion. It is to share this report with the resident and this Service.

53.        The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendation

54.        The landlord is also recommended to review its repairs policy and include examples of urgent and emergency repairs, or what it would generally categorise as an urgent repair.