From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202320568)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320568

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

20 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns in relation to the property layout.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. She signed her tenancy in June 2021. The property is 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a converted terraced house.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord in August 2023. She said:
    1. She was unhappy with the property layout and hallway size.
    2. She believed the layout:
      1. Had been changed after a fire by a previous resident which made the hallway narrower than it had been.
      2. Was different to every other property on the street. 
    3. She had a sofa delivered but it would not fit into the property.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 30 August 2023 where it did not uphold the complaint. It said:
    1. Its voids team had not identified any structural issues within the property.
    2. It had requested for a surveyor to attend. But surveyors would not attend unless it was a major repair referral.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 4 September 2023. She also requested the property floor plans and said she was seeking legal advice. She chased a response on 26 September 2023.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 9 October 2023. It sent the stage 2 response on 24 October 2023. It did not uphold the complaint and said:
    1. Surveyors will inspect properties where there extensive or complex repairs to be assessed.
    2. It did not have the property floor plans.
    3. It could not discuss changes made to the property prior to her moving in.
    4. It had not received any complaints from the resident in relation to the property layout in the previous 2 years she had lived there.
    5. The resident could bid to transfer to another property via mutual exchange.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. On 26 October 2023 the resident said:
    1. She worked for a housing association and her housing association would have sent a surveyor to look at the hallway.
    2. She had been told there were structural changes after a fire when she viewed the property.
    3. She would seek legal advice.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns and complaints about other issues with the property. These included with damp and the windows. The landlord addressed these issues at various stages of its complaints process. However, there was no evidence of all issues being raised consistently through the full complaints process. As a result, the landlord has not had a proper opportunity to investigate and resolve them. Therefore, they are not considered in this investigation. If the resident wishes to raise a further complaint, she is free to do so.
  2. The resident also told us about the impact the situation had on her mental health. We do not doubt these comments and empathise with her situation. But we also cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her mental health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns in relation to the property layout.

  1. No evidence has been provided to show if the resident raised concerns over the property layout or size of the hallway prior to August 2023. Following the complaint, the evidence showed the landlord contacted its voids team and repairs team to try and arrange for a surveyor to attend. This was positive and showed it took the complaint seriously.
  2. The voids team said:
    1. The property had been a “minor void [where there is minimal repairs and maintenance to complete]” , and it did not do any changes to the property layout.
    2. Work following the fire were completed by general repairs.
    3. At most, a repairs surveyor should attend and assess the hallway.

The evidence showed the landlord then requested a repairs surveyor to attend.

However, the repairs surveyor said:

  1. Issues with the property layout were “not a repair issue.”
  2. Its surveyors were “incredibly over-booked” and would not visit unless it was a major repair referral.
  3. The resident should have checked the sofa measurements and should be referred to her housing officer.

The landlord tried to arrange a surveyor to attend. It then used its complaints process to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to a surveyor attending, which was reasonable.

  1. An internal note dated 16 October 2023 showed the landlord again requested a surveyor visit after the complaint was escalated. It also tried to obtain floor plans for the resident. This was reasonable and showed it continued to take the complaint seriously. However, the surveyor request was declined again as a surveyor would not be sent unless the issue related to a repair.
  2. We acknowledge the situation has been frustrating for the resident. However, the landlord was not under any obligation to send a surveyor to assess the property layout. Even if a surveyor did attend, there is no requirement for recommendations to be made in relation to the layout given no repairs are required. The evidence showed it requested a surveyor to attend twice, which was reasonable. There was therefore no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns in relation to the property layout.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the resident’s complaint says a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days of a complaint, and a stage two response will be provided within 20 working days of an escalation request.
  2. The resident initially expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 1 September 2023 before she confirmed she wished to escalate 3 days later. There was no evidence the landlord responded to her request to escalate. This meant she had to chase on 26 September 2023 which caused her inconvenience. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 9 October 2023, over a month after the resident had escalated the complaint. The delay in acknowledging the complaint escalation was unreasonable.
  3. The evidence the complaint was then passed between departments which contributed to delays with no one taking responsibility. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 October 2023. While this was only 11 working days after the escalation, it was 36 working days after the resident said she wanted the complaint escalated. This did not meet the timescale in the landlord’s complaint policy, which was a failing. While the landlord apologised for the delay escalating the complaint, it did not offer any compensation for the delay or inconvenience caused to the resident.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling took too long and did not follow the complaints policy. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. A total amount of £100 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance where a failure as adversely affected a resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns in relation to the property layout.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed £100 compensation.