London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202341738)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341738

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that his windows needed replacing.
2. The time taken by the landlord to remove the scaffolding after completing the repairs.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He has lived in the property, a 1-bed first floor flat in a converted street property, since 1999.
The resident is represented in his complaint to the landlord and this Service by a representative. This report will refer to both as ‘the resident’ for clarity.
The landlord has advised that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident except his age. The resident is 88 years old and has told this Service he has lung and heart conditions.
The resident first reported issues with his windows in August 2023. He reported that the wooden sash windows in the bedroom, living room and kitchen were “rotten”.
On 29 November 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. He said:
1. He was 87 years old and had health conditions including issues with his lungs and heart.
2. In August 2023 he reported that the windows were “falling apart”. Operatives had said the windows were “rotten and needed replacing”.
3. The surveyor said the landlord would repair the windows. This was not acceptable as they needed replacing.
4. He had been calling weekly to chase for an update but no one was calling back.
5. The property was “freezing” even with the heating set to 30 degrees.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 29 November 2023. It provided its stage 1 response on 8 December 2023. It said:
1. The contractor would only carry out repairs deemed “necessary” by the surveyor.
2. It would replace the top sash window and the windowsill in the bedroom. It would repair the bathroom window frame and replace the cracked glass.
3. The work would take place on 14 December 2023.
4. It acknowledged its communication had been “poor” and offered £100 compensation.
On 3 January 2024 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. He said:
1. An operative had attended on 14 December 2023. They left saying they would return but did not. He called to chase this up and the landlord said he had refused to allow the operative to do the repair. This was not true.
2. The compensation offered at stage 1 was unsatisfactory.
3. It had not raised works for the living room or kitchen windows. It had raised works for the bathroom window which he had not reported issues with.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 5 January 2024. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 1 February 2024. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 response.
2. The resident had requested that it replace the windows but understood that the landlord would carry out repairs first if possible.
3. Its surveyor would reinspect the living room and kitchen windows.
4. The operative who attended in December 2023 reported that the glass had been installed from the outside so scaffolding was therefore required. It was sorry the operative had not informed him of this.
5. A specialist glazer would attend on 15 January 2024. It would monitor the repairs and arrange an inspection when they were complete.
6. It increased its offer of compensation to £200 which comprised:
  1. £100 for poor communication.
  2. £75 for the impact of the continued delays.
  3. £25 for the delay in the stage 2 complaint response.
It is not clear when the landlord completed the window repairs. However, it carried out a post-inspection of the repairs on 8 August 2024.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and his complaint. He escalated his complaint to this Service. We mediated between the resident and landlord during November 2024. This resulted in the landlord increasing its offer of compensation to £750. The resident rejected this offer. As there was a disparity between the landlord’s offer and the amount the resident felt was reasonable, we decided that mediation was not appropriate in this case.
The case therefore became one we could formally investigate in November 2024.

Legal and policy framework

The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the structure of the property in good repair. This includes the windows.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will carry out routine repairs within 20 working days and planned repairs within 60 working days.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The time taken by the landlord to remove the scaffolding after completing the repairs.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that we will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the issue of the time taken by the landlord to remove the scaffolding after it repaired the windows did not arise until after it had provided its final complaint response. The resident has not therefore raised the issue as a complaint and consequently the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond.
Should the resident remain concerned about this matter, he may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord. If the complaint exhausts the landlord’s complaints procedure and the resident remains unhappy, he may refer the matter to this Service as a new complaint.

Scope of the investigation

This Service acknowledges that within his stage 1 complaint the resident stated that his property was “freezing” despite him having the heating set to 30 degrees. The landlord did not respond to this aspect of the complaint.
As the landlord has not responded to this issue there is not sufficient evidence to thoroughly investigate it separately. We have however considered the issue within our assessment of the landlord’s response to the window repairs and its complaint handling.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns about the impact of the repair issues on his health and wellbeing. However, this Service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of health issues and the actions or inactions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint.
While this Service is unable to draw conclusions regarding the impact the situation had on the resident’s health, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports that his windows needed replacing.

On 4 August 2023 the resident reported that his bedroom, living room and kitchen windows required replacing as the wooden frames were rotten.
The landlord subsequently raised a job to repair the bathroom, living room and kitchen windows. It closed the repair on 23 October 2023 and raised a new job to replace the top sash window in the bedroom, and to replace cracked glass and repair the frame on the bathroom window.
It is not clear why the windows mentioned in the repairs raised by the landlord are not the same as those reported by the resident. While this may have been a decision made following an inspection of the windows, there is no evidence of this. This indicates issues with the quality of the information recorded by the landlord.
In his stage 1 complaint the resident said he was unhappy that the landlord had decided to repair rather than replace the windows. He said its operatives had told him on 2 occasions that the windows were rotten and needed to be replaced.
This Service understands that the landlord’s decision to repair rather than replace the windows was disappointing to the resident. It is also understandable that he accepted the opinion of the operatives who had previously attended.
The obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement, is to repair and maintain the windows, it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to choose to carry out repairs. Installing new windows would amount to an improvement or upgrade, and there is no obligation on the landlord to carry out such works. We acknowledge that landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly. Generally, landlords are not obliged to offer improvements or upgrades except where this is the only reasonable means of making a full and effective repair.
The landlord’s records indicate that a surveyor made the decision that the windows were repairable and that replacement was therefore not required. The landlord is within its rights to act on the advice of its qualified staff. We would however reasonably expect to see some form of assessment of the condition of the windows to support the surveyor’s decision. That there is no evidence that it carried out such an assessment until July 2024, almost a year after the resident’s report, is unreasonable.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing. It advises that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category 1 under the HHSRS, be in a reasonable state of repair, and provide reasonable thermal comfort.
The resident reported that the property was “freezing”. The landlord’s contractor also reported that they could feel a “breeze” from the closed windows. It is reasonable therefore to conclude that this would have increased the costs to the resident of heating the property.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord took any actions to satisfy itself that it was meeting its obligations in relation to ensuring the repair and thermal comfort of the property. This was inappropriate. We have ordered the landlord to carry out a thermal efficiency survey. We have also ordered it to reimburse the resident for any increase in his energy bills due to the poor thermal comfort of the property.
Communications between the landlord and the resident show that its contractor attended in December 2023 but left without completing any repairs. The repair logs provided by the landlord are silent in relation to this. Nor is there evidence of the telephone call with the resident following the visit. We would reasonably expect there to be a record of all visits to the property and contact with the resident. This is a further example of poor record keeping.
When the resident made the landlord aware that it had not raised repairs for the windows he had reported, it contacted its surveyor and asked them to confirm the works required. The records show the landlord requested this information several times before the surveyor responded. This Service would reasonably expect the landlord’s departments to cooperate to promptly resolve repairs and complaints.
The surveyor agreed to carry out a further inspection on 7 February 2024. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous record of this inspection nor is it recorded in its repair logs. This indicates further issues with its record keeping.
While the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response refers to a specialist glazer’s appointment in January 2024, the records do not evidence that this took place. It is not clear whether this was due to a failed appointment or further record keeping issues. Either way, this was unreasonable.
In March 2024 the landlord reallocated the works to a different contractor. Communications show this was due to poor performance by the original contractor. On 15 May 2024 the second contractor inspected the windows and reported back that the windows were “beyond repair” and needed to be replaced. It said that the resident was an “elderly tenant with health conditions” and that he could feel the breeze coming from the windows.
Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the comments made by the contractor, we would reasonably expect to see evidence that the landlord gave serious consideration to its assessment. We have not seen such evidence and this is a serious failing.
In June 2024 the landlord reallocated the works to a third contractor. It is not clear from the records why it decided to do so. It carried out an inspection with the contractor in July 2024 and raised a new works order to repair the windows. The landlord said it did not agree with the second contractor’s recommendation that it should replace the windows.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord was entitled to get a second opinion if it did not agree with the assessment of the previous contractor. We would however reasonably expect it to evaluate both recommendations to determine which was reasonable and proportionate. We have not seen evidence that it did so in this case.
While it is not clear from the records exactly when the works were carried out the landlord carried out a post-inspection on 8 August 2024. We therefore consider the works to be completed on that date. The landlord’s records should reasonably detail what works were carried out and when. That they do not is a failing.
It took the landlord 1 year to complete the repairs to the resident’s windows. This is more than 4 times as long as the timeframe for planned repairs outlined in its policy. This was particularly inappropriate as the landlord was aware that the resident was elderly and had physical health conditions.
Overall, the landlord unreasonably delayed in completing repairs to the windows. Inadequacies in its record keeping mean it has not demonstrated when it carried out an assessment of the windows. Nor has it shown that it evidenced why it was reasonable to repair rather than replace the windows. The landlord has not shown that it had regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities in its handling of the repairs. Therefore we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that his windows needed replacing.

Handling of the complaint.

The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the timeframes outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own policy.
It did not however address all the issues raised in the resident’s complaint. The resident mentioned his vulnerabilities and that the property was “freezing” even with the heating set to 30 degrees.
The Code states that landlord must address all issues raised in the complaint. That it failed to do so was unreasonable.
In its stage 1 complaint the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delays in repairing the resident’s windows. By this time it had been 90 working days since the resident raised the issue. This far exceeds the timeframe in its policy for completing planned repairs. It should therefore have acknowledged this as a failing.
It did however acknowledge that its communication had been “poor” and offered £100 compensation for this. This was reasonable.
It took the landlord 21 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This was a minor delay and the landlord apologised and offered proportionate compensation for this. This was reasonable.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £200. Along with the £100 for poor communication it offered at stage 1 it offered £75 for the impact of the continued delays and £25 for the delay in the stage 2 complaint response. We do not consider that the compensation offered by the landlord at stage 2 was reasonable or proportionate.
The landlord failed to complete the repairs until 6 months after its final complaint response. Its complaint process therefore did not successfully achieve the main aim of such a process as outlined by the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, to “put things right”.
We acknowledge that the landlord did agree to increase its offer of compensation during mediation but that the resident did not accept its offer. As it made this offer outside its internal complaints process, we have not considered its reasonableness. However, it is positive to note that the landlord was engaging in this process and trying to see how it could resolve the matter.
Nevertheless, overall, the landlord failed to consider all the issues raised in the resident’s complaint. It also failed to put things right or offer reasonable and proportionate redress. Given the circumstance of the case, we consider that an award for loss of enjoyment of the property would be appropriate in this case.
The resident has paid approximately £5,218 (taking account of some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s failings. We consider this timeframe to be from 27 October 2023 (60 working days after the resident reported the repair) to 8 August 2024 when the repair was post-inspected.
In the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the 30 weeks that the resident’s enjoyment of the property has been reduced by the outstanding repairs. Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,044 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 20% of the total rent during the period in question.
The landlord is ordered to pay a further £250 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its handling of the issue.
The landlord is also ordered to pay the £100 offered in its complaint responses for poor communication and a further £100 for time and trouble caused by its poor handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that his windows needed replacing.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The time taken by the landlord to remove the scaffolding after completing the repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified by this report.
2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £1,494 comprising:
  1. £1,044 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its response to the resident’s reports that his windows needed replacing.
  2. £250 for distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the window repairs.
  3. £100 previously offered in its final complaint letter for its poor communication.
  4. £100 for its poor complaint handling.
3. The landlord must instruct an independent specialist to carry out a heat loss/thermal efficiency survey on the property. Within 2 weeks of the survey the landlord must provide a copy of the report to this Service along with an action plan detailing how it intends to address any issues identified.
On production of suitable evidence from the resident (eg energy bills showing increased costs) the landlord to consider reimbursing him for the increased cost of heating the property due to delays in completing window repairs. It should demonstrate it has sought suitable evidence from the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report. If the resident is unhappy with its decision he can make a new complaint.