London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202346836)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346836

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

17 April 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:
1. snags following her move into the property.
2. concerns that there was no electricity in the property.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has lived in her 1 bedroom fourth floor flat since 26 February 2024.
Around 27 February 2024 the resident reported that there were outstanding snags to the property to the landlord. Among other issues, they included a “mouldy” external cupboard and disused pipe that was sticking out of the floorboard under the boiler. The resident said that she was unable to use the space for her washing machine because of the pipe.
On 1 March 2024 in internal communication, the landlord stated that the outstanding works to the pipes formed part of the void works. It queried whether its voids team needed to reattend to resolve the matter. It is unclear what action it took following this communication.
On 30 May 2024 the resident made a formal complaint. She said she was unable to move into the property when her tenancy started due to the outstanding snags. She said that she had contacted several officers and departments about the issues, but she did not receive any help.
In early July 2024 the resident told the landlord that her flat did not have electricity. She explained that her utility company’s engineer needed access to the landlord’s electric cupboard to resolve the issue.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 July 2024. It said the resident’s housing officer (Officer A) was on leave when the resident had contacted her about issues with the electricity. It said that Officer A’s email and phone messages advised contacting the duty housing officer while she was on leave. It explained that Officer A would contact the resident to arrange access to the electric cupboard. It offered the resident £25 for its delayed complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 July 2024. She said:
1. she was unable to move into the property because there was no electricity.
2. she called Officer A on 8 July 2024 to discuss the issues with the electricity. When she was unable to reach her, she contacted the housing office. She said that she explained the situation to a staff member and was told that it was Officer A’s responsibility to oversee the matter and said that they would pass a message onto her.
3. the snags in the property that she had previously reported remained outstanding. She asked the landlord to inspect the property.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 August 2024. It said:
1. Officer A had advised that she had attempted to contact the resident by email and telephone on several occasions. It had been informed that “none of the issues raised would have stopped” the resident from moving in when she signed her tenancy in February 2024.
2. the electricity supply was on and working. However, the resident did not want to use the meter as she was in dispute with the supplier about a debt left by the previous tenant. Officer A had now arranged access for the electric cupboard and the utility engineer had attended.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said:
1. her reported snags remained outstanding, including the mouldy external cupboard.
2. when she informed the landlord that there was an “electrical power cut” in her flat, it told her that she had to wait until Officer A returned from leave.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is acknowledged that the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her reported repairs to her front door and bathroom in her stage 1 complaint. However, we have not seen evidence that she escalated this element of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The resident has also told the Ombudsman of issues that did not form part of her complaint, such as repairs to the communal balcony and porch.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. In other words, those issues which the landlord considered at stage 2. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to fully investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns. If the resident wishes to escalate or raise a new complaint about any of the above issues, she should contact the landlord directly.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported snags

The landlord’s repair policy stated that it would:
1. carry out routine repairs within 20 working days.
2. contact residents up to 3 times to reschedule missed appointments before closing the job due to no access/no contact.
At the end of February 2024, when the resident moved into the property, she reported several snags to the landlord. On 1 March 2024, in internal correspondence, the landlord queried whether its voids team or day to day repairs team needed to attend to resolve the repairs. It is unclear whether the landlord came to a decision on the matter. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that it progressed the repairs at this time. This was inappropriate.
The resident chased the landlord by email for an update on 5 March 2024. There is no evidence that it responded. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as its lack of response meant that she was left without knowing whether the landlord was taking steps to resolver her concerns.
While the landlord forwarded the resident’s email onto internal departments, there is no evidence that it took any further action to resolve the issues. For example, there is no evidence that it raised any work orders or booked any appointments to investigate the resident’s reported repairs. Not doing so meant that it missed another opportunity to resolve the issues. The repeated failure to progress the repairs is indicative of poor repairs management
It is unclear what transpired over the following month. However, the evidence suggests during this period the resident sought support from an external agency to progress the repairs with the landlord. This would have caused her time and trouble which may have been avoidable if the landlord responded to her concerns and appropriately progressed the repairs.
Subsequently, the evidence provided shows that the landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s flat on 17 April 2024. However, we have not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence relating to the inspection. It is unclear if the landlord failed to keep a record, or if it failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation is unclear. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing. As a result, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to resolve issues at this time.
In internal correspondence about this case, the landlord explained that it had attempted to contact the resident on or around 30 April 2024 and hand delivered a letter to her on 13 May 2024. It said that as the resident did not respond to these contacts it closed the case. While these actions would have been reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy, we do not have contemporaneous records of these events, nor a copy of the letter. This a further record keeping failure. Failing to provide these records has meant that the landlord has not been able to satisfactorily demonstrate to the Ombudsman that it took reasonable steps to progress the repairs at that time.
In her July 2024 escalated complaint, the resident reminded the landlord that there were snags outstanding. However, the landlord failed to address these concerns in its stage 2 complaint response. That was unreasonable. Furthermore we do not have contemporaneous evidence that it resolved issues at the time that it issued its response. We would expect the landlord to provide the Ombudsman with evidence, such as the outcome of its visits and repair records to demonstrate that it had resolved the matters. In addition, the resident told the Ombudsman in December 2024 that the landlord had not yet attended to inspect the external cupboard which she had reported in February 2024.
Overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to contact the resident, progress and complete the snags in a timely manner. These failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported snags and in its record keeping.
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. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that she did not have electricity in her flat

In response to the resident’s reports regarding a lack of electricity, it said that Officer A was on leave at the time the resident had attempted to contact her. It explained that Officer A’s email message and voicemail advised residents to contact the duty housing officer while she was on leave.
In response, the resident explained that she had contacted the housing office and explained the situation when she was unable to contact Officer A. She explained that a staff member told her that it was Officer A’s responsibility to arrange access to the cupboard and that a message would be passed on to her. She was concerned that the landlord did not take any action on the matter until Officer A returned from leave approximately a week later.
The resident’s account suggests that she made reasonable attempts to seek support when Officer A was on leave. When investigating her concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have looked into the matter further to assess whether staff had responded appropriately. This could have included a review of its records. It also could have included discussing the matter with the staff member that took the resident’s call. Such actions would have provided an understanding on how it handled the matter and whether there were any failings in the service provided. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out such actions. This meant that the resident’s concerns went unaddressed. That was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said the resident was in dispute with the utility company over the previous tenant’s debt. It explained that the resident had electricity in her home therefore the matter would not have prevented her from moving in. This may have been the case. However, the landlord has not provided us with contemporaneous records of the conversations and events in relation to this matter that it relied upon for its response. This is particularly important, as the resident’s account of the matter is different. She told the Ombudsman that there was a power cut which had caused the issue. We cannot reconcile the difference. However, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that its response was based on accurate and timely information.
It is noted that the landlord contacted the resident on 18 July 2024 to progress the matter and arrange for access to the cupboard.
Overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s reports and concerns in a fair and reasonable manner. We have therefore concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she did not have electricity in her flat.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident made a formal complaint on 30 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged it the same day and stated that it would respond by 20 June 2024. The landlord’s deadline meant that it would issue the report within 15 working days. The landlord’s policy states that it would issue its stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. There is no information in the acknowledgment correspondence to show the reason that the landlord provided a deadline that was outside of its policy timescales. Therefore, while the reason that its provided response deadline is unclear, it was unreasonable. Furthermore, on 19 June 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it needed to extend its response deadline to 3 July 2024. While it was positive that the landlord informed the resident of its extension, it did so on the day before it stated its response was due. This meant that it did not provide the resident with sufficient notice that she would not receive its response as she expected. That was unreasonable.
The landlord extended its response deadline again on 3 July 2024 to 17 July 2024. Given that its extended response was due on 3 July 2024 the landlord failed again to provide the resident with sufficient notice. As this was the second extension that the landlord issued close to its expected response deadline, this would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
While the landlord told the resident that it was still investigating her complaint, it did not provide a reasonable explanation for why the further extension was required. In addition, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence to demonstrate that it had good reason to extend its response deadlines. Therefore, it has failed to demonstrate that its extensions were for a good reason. That was unreasonable and not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 July 2024, this was approximately 34 working days after the resident had made her complaint. This was a deviation from its policy timescale. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £25 compensation for the delay. This was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that “it had been informed” that none of the issues raised would have stopped the resident from moving in. While this may have been the case, the Code states that complaint handlers must deal with complaints on their merits and act independently. It is not unreasonable that the landlord took into consideration the account of the staff members involved with the substantive matter. However, there is no indication within its response or in the evidence provided that it carried out its own independent investigation into the resident’s concerns. Therefore, its response was unreasonable.
It also stated that Officer A had tried to contact the resident several times. However, we have not been provided with contemporaneous records to demonstrate that its response was based on accurate information.
The landlord also addressed that the resident had raised concerns that it had not connected some of her appliances as it should have done as part of its moving service. It explained that it would arrange for her appliances to be connected. While this was reasonable, it would have been appropriate for it to have asked the resident if she wished to raise a new complaint about the matter.
Overall, the landlord offered reasonable compensation for its delayed stage 1 complaint response. However, it failed to demonstrate that its response to the resident’s complaint was based on an independent investigation and accurate information. It also failed to enquiry whether the resident wished to raise a new complaint of its handling of connecting her appliances. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
On 8 February 2024 the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlord must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported snags following her move into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the electricity supply in the property.
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 maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £450 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reported snags following her move into the property.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s report that she did not have electricity in her flat.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. contact the resident to ascertain whether:
  1. there are any outstanding snags. If there are, the landlord should take steps to resolve them in accordance with its repair policy timescales.
  2. she would like to raise a new complaint about its handling of its connecting her appliances.
4. confirm that it will review its handling of this complaint and consider:
  1. the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.
  2. the findings and recommendations of our Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report.