London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202306618)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306618

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

31 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

The resident has complained to the Ombudsman about:
1. The condition of the previous property upon letting.
2. The condition of the balcony in the previous property.
3. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the previous property.
4. The landlord’s handling of the transfer to the new property.
The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lived in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat under secure tenancy agreement dated March 2020 (the previous property). The landlord which is a local authority moved her into a 2-bedroom flat (the new property) in June 2023 due to the condition of the previous property. The landlord records that the resident’s son has breathing difficulties.
The Ombudsman referred a complaint to the landlord on 12 July 2023 about mould in the previous property, repair delays, and poor communication about its offer of alternative accommodation. The landlord responded to the resident promptly on 26 July 2023. It said:
1. Its surveyor had inspected the property on 6 December 2022 and it had arranged damp and mould repairs at the property on 15 February 2023.
2. It had agreed to rehouse her, but it had taken longer than expected to complete repairs works in the property it had offered her.
3. It had previously offered her £500 in December 2022 for damaged goods. It later agreed to a further £750 compensation – totalling 1,250 for mould damage caused to her belongings. It also offered her £250 for further mould damage while waiting for rehousing, and £150 for any time and trouble seeking updates about her rehousing had caused her. The total compensation was £1,650.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 7 August 2023. By this point, she had moved to the new property. She explained the landlord had not addressed her complaint in full. Specifically she reiterated her concerns about issues at the previous property, her insurance claim for damaged goods, rehousing delays, and the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. However, the resident included new issues, relating to the handling of her move from temporary accommodation and staff training around support and guidance. Due to the new issues, the landlord registered a new stage 1 complaint on 15 August 2023.
The landlord sent a further stage 1 response to the resident on 4 September 2023. It said:
1. It did not furnish properties and who she should contact about obtaining furniture, repairs, and benefits.
2. It also said that the new property met its lettable standards.
3. It advised the resident to claim on its insurance for any damage to her personal property, and it provided an email address and advice about the claim.
4. It said it had already awarded her compensation for its rehousing delays in its previous stage 1 response. It confirmed that its surveyor had not found a leak in the new property, and that it had not received her independent surveyor’s report as it had requested.
5. It said that her previous move from temporary accommodation was not something it could address as it did not manage those repairs. Further that these matters had taken place 3 years previously which was outside its complaint procedures.
The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 27 September 2023. She clarified that her complaint had been about the condition of the previous property prior to her moving in and not the new property. She said:
1. It had not responded to her reports that some repairs did not meet its lettable standards.
2. It had not provided her with help or advice with submitting an insurance claim correctly.
3. The landlord had not explained its delays in rehousing her after she had accepted its offer of a new property.
4. She had not accepted the landlord’s previous offers of compensation about damp and mould. Instead, she had raised the matter again because it had not responded to her compensation requests for damaged personal belongings.
5. The landlord had blamed the mould on the resident’s lifestyle but her own surveyor had used monitoring equipment that evidenced a leak.
6. The landlord’s damp and mould treatments would only cover up the issues.
7. The landlord had not explained why she had been rehoused from an earlier property in which she had experienced difficult living situations.
8. The landlord had not replied to her complaint about the cleanliness of the balcony and use of netting due prevent nesting pigeons.
9. She had not felt listened to and that mould mites had impacted her son’s respiratory issues.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and replied on 27 October 2023. The response can be summarised as follows:
1. It apologised for its poor communication and for any unnecessary stress caused to the resident when chasing repairs.
2. It confirmed that her current property had met its lettable standards, and it restated that residents were responsible for minor repairs and internal decorations.
3. It said sorry that it had not kept the resident up to date about the delay between viewing and letting the property, and for any distress and inconvenience this may have caused her.
4. It explained it had authorised a move to a 2-bed property because its planned repairs reduced her living space.
5. It apologised for any medical impact her time in a previous temporary accommodation property had caused. It restated that it could not comment on this.
6. It said it would arrange further suitable repair appointments, and it restated its previous advice about submitting an insurance claim. It said it had previously offered her £1,250 as compensation for damaged items and mould in the property.
7. It offered her a further £750 for delays and distress related to its repairs handling, and £100 for its delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint.
8. It said that it could not reimburse her for any damage to personal belongings, but she could claim on her personal contents insurance or submit a liability claim to the landlord.
9. It upheld her complaint, and said it was introducing service improvements, and it would relay its learning from the complaint to the relevant managers.
For convenience, it is appropriate to set out the total compensation awarded to the resident. This was £2,500, made up as follows:

Amount	Awarded for	When awarded
£500	Damage to goods caused by the damp and mould	Prior to the stage 1 complaint response
£750	Damage to goods caused by the damp and mould	Landlord’s July 2023 stage 1 complaint response
£150	Distress and inconvenience for the delays in moving home	Landlord’s July 2023 stage 1 complaint response
£250	Additional compensation for damage to belongings whilst waiting to move home	Landlord’s July 2023 stage 1 complaint response
£750	Distress and inconvenience caused by the repairs at the previous property	Landlord’s final response
£100	For the landlord’s complaint handling	Landlord’s final response
£2,500	Total compensation

The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for independent investigation. She told us the previous property has been left in unsanitary conditions. She said the landlord had failed her and her son and she did not think any lessons had been learned.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

After carefully considering the information provided, the complaint about the previous property upon letting as specified at paragraph 1(a) above is outside our jurisdiction and has not been investigated. This is because:
1. Paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”
2. The resident’s complaint relates to the time of letting in 2020. She also complained about her housing circumstances when residing at temporary accommodation in 2019 and 2020. The resident did not submit this as a complaint until 7 August 2023 – which was more than 12 months of the matters arising. There is no evidence that the resident was prevented from raising her complaints sooner and so they will not be investigated.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has said that the landlord’s handling of the situation has affected the health and wellbeing of her family. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts can give evidence. They have a duty to the court to give unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. The Ombudsman cannot decide on causation based on a review of the housing file.

The condition of the balcony in the previous property

The resident sent text messages to the landlord about the condition of the balcony on 22 February and 23 March 2022. She also raised the matter with the landlord during discussions about her complaint on 15 August 2023, and 27 September 2023. She explained that the landlord had not responded to her reports about the risks the balcony posed to her, and it had previously advised her to install netting at her own cost. The landlord did not respond to the matter in its complaint response.
Since the landlord issued its final response, it has advised the Ombudsman that the resident was responsible for cleaning her private balcony. It also said that the addition of netting would not fall within its repairing obligations but it might have addressed this as a block improvement. Furthermore it said that its failure to address the matters had been a poor outcome for the resident. This was therefore a failure by the landlord to respond to the issue in a timely way via its complaint procedure.
However, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have addressed her concerns by clarifying the resident’s (and its own) obligations. It should also have considered any time, trouble, distress, or inconvenience the matter may have caused her while she was in occupation. Consequently, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the balcony in her previous property.
The landlord’s handling of the balcony may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. However, we have ordered it to pay the resident £50 as compensation given it should have responded to the matter. This award is proportionate and in keeping with our remedies guidance. We have also identified complaint handling failures (set out below) on how it handled this.

Damp and mould in the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out that the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house and complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The tenancy agreement also says the landlord will keep the installations, services, fittings, fixtures, and the structure of the property in good repair.
The resident first reported concerns about damp and mould in the property on 5 March 2021. This followed a flood that had taken place on an undisclosed date beforehand. The landlord replied to the resident on the same day to ask if its repairs team had provided advice or dehumidifying equipment to dry out the property. It also directed her to its insurance company to apply for compensation for any damaged personal belongings. However, it did not follow up on these matters until she contacted it again on 25 November 2021. This was unreasonable.
The landlord advised the resident on 25 November 2021 that the repairs she had raised would require a surveyor’s inspection. However, there is no evidence that it raised a works order for this until 19 February 2022, despite the resident raising concerns about damp and mould with it on 2 further occasions.
The landlord has a responsibility under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure the property was fit for human habitation. This meant that it was free from a prescribed hazard, which includes damp and mould. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. It must decide if the home is safe and fit to live in. The landlord’s failure to respond to the reported damp and mould matters for 11 months was a significant failing.
The landlord inspected the property, repaired the extractor fan, and completed mould wash and stain blocking works in the property between March 2022 and November 2022. It also advised the resident to ventilate the property. These are common responses to treating condensation-related damp and mould. Whilst it may have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken these steps to remedy the presence of mould in the property, they were delayed. Moreover, the resident explained the problem was caused by a leak and not condensation-related. The resident stated her own surveyor concluded there was a leak. The resident was asked to provide her own surveyor’s report in the complaint responses. However, it was for the landlord to inspect and determine whether there was a leak.
There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude there was a leak. That is not to say there was not one, just that we cannot say. So within this in mind, the works it completed were not unreasonable, albeit unreasonably delayed. Its delay in responding to the matters was likely to have increased the extent of the damp and mould as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
On 4 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to take a different approach as its previous treatment did not work. She reported that mould was growing on bookshelves, walls, and wood work, and destroying her furniture. She also said that her son was breathing this in, and he had been sick. The landlord advised the resident once again to submit an insurance claim and for her to contact its repairs team about the matters. This was inappropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord again about the damp and mould on 23 November 2022, 20 months after she had taken up occupation and reported a flood in the property. The landlord left voicemail messages for the resident to call it back about her application before arranging a surveyor’s inspection to take place on 6 December 2022. This was appropriate under the circumstances, but its inspection of the previous property should have happened sooner.
The landlord identified further repairs in the property which it proceeded to arrange during December 2022. Additionally, it made arrangements to register the resident as a priority transfer following a review of her case in January 2023. The landlord’s discretionary decision to rehouse the resident was fair and reasonable. However, the landlord then failed to move the resident from the property until 2 June 2023, a further 5 months after it had offered the resident a suitable alternative property. We have addressed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing separately below.
The evidence suggests during this time, the landlord considered if there was a leak in March and May 2023. The records indicate the resident needed to be moved into temporary alternative accommodation. There is no evidence that the landlord positively ruled out a leak or completed an inspection of the previous property.
In response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould the landlord directed her to its insurance team to claim for her damaged personal belongings. However, it provided vague information about submitting a claim and incorrectly directed her to its leaseholder insurance team. This caused time and trouble to the resident seeking the correct information and asking the landlord to support her with submitting a claim. This was unreasonable.
The landlord apologised for the delays and the distress its handling of damp and mould may have caused her. The total compensation offered to the resident for this element was £1,250 for damaged belongings and £750 for distress and inconvenience (totalling £2,000). This compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where we have identified failings that have adversely affected the resident.
Above and beyond the compensation was the landlord agreeing to move the resident to a new home. There is a chronic shortage of social housing and so the landlord’s offer to move the resident will have been of significant benefit to her ahead of others who may have been in the same or worse conditions.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its damp and mould failings satisfactorily. The complaint handling, however, was not appropriate and has been considered below.

The transfer to a new property

The landlord notified the resident on 7 February 2023 that it had authorised permanent rehousing to a 2-bedroom property because of the condition of the previous property. It subsequently offered her the new property which she accepted on 14 February 2023. This was prompt. However, the resident did not take up occupation at the property until 2 June 2023, due to delays in completing internal repairs prior to letting.
The landlord offered the resident £400 in its stage 1 response on 26 July 2023. This was made up of £150 as compensation for any inconvenience and stress this may have caused her and £250 compensation for any additional damage to belongings whilst she was waiting to move.
The landlord had circulated internal information about its handling of her rehousing on 18 August 2023. It explained that part of the delay had been due to poor contractor performance. Additionally, that it had needed to wait for a utility provider to respond to a series of requests for a replacement gas meter card so that it could complete gas safety checks. Contractor performance would be the landlord’s responsibility. However, the delay in completing gas safety due to the supplier providing a card would not be a landlord’s failure. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of these delays, but the landlord has recognised its own poor repair handling and not disputed this. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have kept the resident updated on its progress with repairing the property.
Consequently, taking all matters into account that would be maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer to a new property. Nevertheless, it did offer some redress, even whilst its complaint response was poor – thereby meaning there should be a finding of service failure.
The repair delays and the landlord’s poor communication were likely to have caused distress, and inconvenience to the resident. Furthermore, its failure to explain the cause of the delays caused her further time and trouble in pursuing a response via the complaint procedure. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay a further £150 as compensation (total £300) for the distress caused its handling of her transfer. This is in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman sent a complaint to the landlord on behalf of the resident on 12 July 2023 which the landlord responded to on 26 July 2023.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 26 July 2023 was poor. Complaints should be used as a tool for learning, and rebuilding trust when things have gone wrong. That means being clear about what has gone wrong and how a landlord has learned from its errors and how it will put things right. For example, the landlord could have explained why the failures with the damp and mould had happened and why the move into the new property had been delayed.
The Complaint Handling Code at the time also explained complaint responses should include the policies and procedures applied. The response did not meet this standard. It simply summarised the complaint issues and offered compensation and confirmed it had agreed to rehouse the resident. Where landlords do not undertake learning, they can be bound to repeat the same failures. The response did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint in line with paragraph 5.8 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of this complaint. There is some evidence that the stage 1 handler recommended internal training – which was positive.
The resident escalated her complaint on 7 August 2023. By this time she had moved home. Within her escalation request she included some new complaint grounds. It appears that the landlord referred this back to stage 1 of its complaint procedure because it believed the complaint related to the new address and because of some of the new issues raised. This was incorrect. It ought to have considered what was new and arranged for a new complaint for the new issues, and what related to the existing complaint and escalated that to stage 2. The landlord’s approach unfairly delayed matters further as it essentially created 3 stages to the complaint procedure.
The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2023. Whilst the landlord offered compensation for damaged goods in its earlier stage 1, it said the resident should refer a letter of claim to its insurer. The landlord asked the resident to provide her own surveyor’s report about the leak, as it found there was no leak present in the property. We have set out above why it was for the landlord to have inspected and determined if there were repair issues.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 27 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 3 October 2023 and called her on 10 October 2023. At this stage, the resident made it clear the damp and mould related to the previous property. Nevertheless, it was positive complaints handling that the landlord called the resident to discuss the matter.
As already set out above, the landlord further failed to respond to the resident’s complaints about the balcony – when raised during the complaint procedure.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling because:
1. The stage 1 response in July 2023 was poor.
2. It incorrectly referred her complaints back to stage 1.
3. It did not issue its response to the correspondence on 7 August 2023 until 4 September 2023. This was 20 working days, which would have been permitted at stage 2, but as the landlord referred it back to stage 1 – this was still outside the timescales in the Code.
4. The landlord did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 27 September 2023 until 27 October 2023. This was 2 working days later than its 20–working–day complaint policy target timescale.
5. Did not create a new stage 1 complaint to address the resident’s complaint about the condition of the balcony in her previous property. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.7 of the Code. Alternatively, it did not fully address the resident’s complaint about the condition of the balcony in its complaint responses contrary to paragraph 5.6 of the Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
6. Sent holding letters to the resident to extend its stage 1 and stage 2 response timescales. However, instead of telling her its revised response target time it should have agreed the extensions with her in keeping with paragraph 5.14 of the Code.
7. The landlord offered the resident compensation for any damage its handling of damp and mould had caused to the resident’s belongings. However, in its stage 2 response it said that it could not reimburse her for any damage to personal belongings. Further, that she could claim on her personal contents insurance or submit a liability claim to the landlord. This contradictory advice was confusing.
The landlord offered the resident £100 as compensation for its poor complaint handling failings. However, this award was not proportionate to the likely detriment to the resident because of the landlord’s failings. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional award of £150 as compensation (totalling £250) in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionately addressed. Additionally, we have asked it to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the complaint.

Our paragraph 49 investigation

The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its practices, processes, and procedures following our investigation under Paragraph 49 of the Scheme. This order addressed the landlord’s handling of (repairs, knowledge and information, vulnerabilities, complaints, and compensation). The landlord provided evidence in October 2024 that demonstrates its compliance with our previous order. It has since changed its processes for complaint handling. Therefore, we have not made any orders as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord – and given the lapse in time since the complaints and changes the landlord has told us it has made.

Equality and discrimination

The resident has raised this as a specific point about the landlord’s general handling the complaint issues. We have considered this in each of the complaint grounds above, and not a separate complaint ground. However, it is important to set out overall what our position is here just for clarity.

Sections 114(1)(a) and (b) of the Equality Act 2010 states it would be for the court to make a decision on whether the landlord’s actions amounted to prohibited conduct. Our role is to consider if the landlord had due regard to its obligations. The landlord did accept the condition of the previous property was not appropriate and completed some works and moved her, albeit delayed. So we cannot say the landlord did not consider its obligations. The landlord is reminded that difficult and elongated repairs or complaints processes can be a provision, criterion or practice – which could put some individuals at a significant disadvantage. However, as set out, we are satisfied the landlord has taken learning since our paragraph 49 investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme the landlord’s response to the condition of the previous property upon letting is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the balcony at the previous property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the previous property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer to a new property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff, such as a head of service or assistant director or director of complaints, to apologise for the poor complaint handling.
2. Pay the resident further and additional compensation of £350 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the balcony at the previous property.
  2. A further £150 compensation for distress likely caused by the delay in moving home.
  3. A further £150 for the likely upset caused by the poor complaint handling.

The landlord must pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Provide documentary evidence of its compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident the £2,500 compensation it offered her in its complaint responses if it has not already. This would be a total payment of £2,850 compensation together with what the Ombudsman has ordered.