London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202319025)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319025

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

10 July 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:
1. Request for the landlord to fit bifold doors in the property’s bathroom.
2. Request for bathroom adaptation works.
3. Reports of multiple outstanding repairs to the property when the resident moved in.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a local council and freeholder of the property. The landlord recognises the resident’s physical health vulnerabilities.
On 23 December 2022 the landlord approved a temporary move for the resident. Upon assessment of the repairs required to the resident’s principal home, the landlord agreed to make the move permanent. The resident’s new tenancy started in January 2023.
Between January 2023 to August 2023 the resident raised multiple repairs for the new property. She considered the landlord should have remedied them during its void repair process and prior to her moving in. The repairs reported by the resident included damage to the front door, issues with a bathroom fan and window, poor decoration, rotten skirting board, asbestos floor tiles (damaged by debris left under a carpet), rusted radiator valves, and blockages to her bathroom sink and toilet.
On 1 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. The resident said the landlord had completed void repair work poorly. The resident said multiple outstanding repairs and the condition of the property had affected her health.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day and sent its stage 1 response on 15 September 2023. The landlord apologised for the level of service the resident had received and arranged for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The landlord also said it had arranged a welfare check based on the feelings the resident expressed in her complaint. The landlord apologised for the poor repair service received by the resident and offered her £700 compensation.
On 24 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. The resident said she did not feel supported by the landlord. The resident also said her furniture suffered damage during the move and she had injured her knee moving items to accommodate the repairs. The resident says these issues would not have happened if the landlord completed all repairs before she moved in.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the next day. It sent a stage 2 response on 4 October 2023. The landlord apologised for ongoing repair delays and increased its offer of compensation by £500. Therefore, raising its total offer to £1,200. The landlord also gave the resident information about how to make an insurance claim for damages and said it would learn from her complaint. It said this would include implementing regular meetings with its contractors to monitor outstanding work.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us in October 2023. She said the landlord and council should have completed all repairs and bathroom adaptation works before she moved in. The resident said stress and anxiety caused by the move had increased the frequency of her seizures.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Scheme governs what we can and cannot consider and what is within our jurisdiction. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we cannot investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42.a. and 42.j. of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction – The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for the landlord to fit bifold doors in the property’s bathroom.
2. Request for bathroom adaptation works.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
The resident asked the landlord in January 2024 to fit an alternative bathroom door to accommodate her disabilities. In April 2024 the resident complained about this issue to the landlord.
While we recognise the distress new complaints can cause, the resident made the complaint 6 months after the landlord’s stage 2 final response in October 2023. As such, this matter will not form part of this investigation. The landlord should have a fair opportunity to investigate the issues raised and provide a response to the resident in line with its internal complaints process (ICP).
If the resident makes a formal complaint, progresses it through the landlord’s ICP, and remains dissatisfied with the outcome, she may then be able to refer the complaint to us.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
In October 2023 we informed the resident her dissatisfaction regarding bathroom adaptation delays may be outside our jurisdiction. During a telephone call with the resident on 13 June 2025 we confirmed this. The resident informed us she was unhappy with the delay caused by an adult services Occupational Therapist (OT) to complete a needs assessment. She was also unhappy with the council’s adaptation team’s delays to commence work when it had the OT’s bathroom adaptation report.
The resident has acknowledged that her dissatisfaction relates to the actions of external parties and not the housing functions of the landlord. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about the actions of council’s and adult social services. Therefore, as discussed with the resident, these matters are outside of our jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

In contact with us the resident said she experienced stress and anxiety due to the condition of the property when she moved in. She said this affected her financially, physically, and mentally.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor can we award damages for personal injury or financial loss. Such matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.

Reports of multiple outstanding repairs to the property

The landlord’s lettable standard states what a resident can expect when they move into their property. This includes:
1. The property will be in good repair, free from damp, mould, wet and dry rot, timber decay or infestation.
2. The property will be clean and clear of all previous residents’ belongings.
3. All bathroom fittings will be clean, in good condition and free from leaks and blockages.
4. The removal of asbestos if required or left in a safe condition.
5. All heating systems will be controllable by the resident.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will respond to repairs based on priority. This is within 4 hours for an urgent emergency repair, within 24 hours for an emergency repair, and within 20 working days for routine repairs.
The social housing lettable standard requires the landlord to ensure that a property is safe, secure, and habitable. The landlord’s void records show works completed by the landlord which confirmed completion of statutory checks. It also confirmed the completion of repairs and cleaning of the property. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its staff that the property was ready for the resident to move in to.
However, the landlord does not dispute the need to complete the reported repairs after the resident moved in. This does not necessarily mean the property did not meet the expectations of the landlord’s lettable standard. However, there is no evidence how the landlord communicated with the resident about these needs before her move. This caused the resident avoidable time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience raising repairs to resolve each matter.
The landlord’s records show between January 2023 to September 2023 the resident experienced disruption caused by repair delays. In particular, the evidence shows the landlord did not achieve at least 6 repairs within its repair response times. These included repairs to the resident’s radiator valves, toilet repairs, and front door work. While there are occasions when repairs do require extended times to resolve, we have not seen how the landlord communicated this for these matters. Therefore, this was not appropriate and not consistent with the response times set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
Evidence also shows the resident had need to recall the landlord for repeat issues opening and closing her bathroom window. This was due to the position of an extractor fan. It was appropriate for the landlord to attend on each of the 3 occasions within its routine repair response time.
That said, we note on 1 occasion the landlord’s records state “lack of effort by the resident.” This was not appropriate. Particularly given there is evidence the landlord only correctly repositioned the fan during its final visit, fully resolving things for the resident. The landlord’s comments were clumsy and dismissive of the resident’s concerns. Therefore, we recommend the landlord reminds its staff of the importance of maintaining professional communication at all times.
The landlord’s void repairs team dispute leaving the property incomplete. The evidence shows the landlord completed void works between 10 November 2022 and 1 December 2022. And the resident moved in approximately 2 weeks later on 16 January 2023.
However, the voids team identified 3 repairs raised by the resident between 21 January 2023 to 23 February 2023 which it did not receive notification about. This demonstrates an internal communication and record keeping failure by the landlord as it did not correctly inform the void team of the resident’s concerns at the time.
Our investigation also identified evidence of communication failings which may have added to the poor service experienced by the resident. Examples include:
1. On 1 February, 8 March, and 6 June 2023 the landlord recorded no access to the property and rearranged repair appointments. However, we have not identified how the landlord arranged the missed appointments with the resident.
2. On 4 March 2023 the landlord inspected the damaged front door. Its records state “poor job description” and identified the need for a carpenter rather than a groundworker. Therefore, causing further delays to complete the repair.
3. On 24 April 2024 there is evidence a contractor delivered kitchen worksurfaces to the resident’s property on the wrong day. This caused avoidable distress to the vulnerable resident as she had not expected the materials that day.
4. On 8 July 2023 the resident believed the landlord would provide her with replacement carpet after completing the removal of old asbestos tiles and screeding floors. The landlord recorded “the complaints officer should have managed the resident’s expectations” as it did not offer this service. This caused further distress to the resident trying to resolve matters.
5. In September 2023 the resident informed the landlord her move was supposed to be an ‘assisted move.’ However, she said the landlord had not provided any assistance. While the landlord’s policies are silent regarding assisted moves, we have identified no evidence where the landlord’s supported moves team demonstrated its engagement with the resident.
Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, and her request for repairs from January 2023, the above examples do not demonstrate effective monitoring or communication by the landlord. This caused the resident avoidable time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to progress matters.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 15 September 2023 apologised and acknowledged it had not provided an acceptable level of service. It also recognised excessive delays to complete the resident’s repairs. The landlord offered £700 compensation. Its offer included consideration of the property condition when the resident moved in, repair delays, and recognised the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. This was consistent with our remedies guide for maladministration and demonstrated the landlord’s steps to put things right.
Furthermore, the landlord said it would learn from the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged it needed to ensure homes were suitable for a resident’s needs. As such, it had fed back its findings to its void team and supported moves team and it would continue to monitor the resident’s case. This was a reasonable step to take to prevent any further distress or inconvenience.
However, the resident had need to escalate her complaint in September 2023 due to ongoing repair recalls and delays. In particular, blockages experienced with her toilet and wash basin. Therefore, the landlord’s stage 1 response did not demonstrate achieving an effective resolution for the resident.
It was however appropriate for the landlord to recognise this in its stage 2 response. The landlord apologised again for the poor service the resident had received, and it offered an additional £500 compensation. The total sum of £1,200 was to recognise how the repair delays had caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It was appropriate for the landlord to use its complaints process to recognise it had not gone far enough to put things right.
The landlord also said its learning would be to arrange regular meetings with its contractors. It considered this important to ensure all involved were aware of how repair delays had affected the resident. This was a reasonable step to ensure improved communication and to address the service failures managing the resident’s repairs.
We also note the landlord arranged to lay new floor coverings for the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord using its discretion to offer the resident support following work to her floors. There is no evidence within the landlord’s policies which indicates the landlord had an obligation to offer this.
In contact with the resident in June 2025, she informed us that she continues to experience toilet blockages. While she confirmed the landlord did reattend and repaired the issue in October 2023, she says the issue has remained ongoing. The resident described unblocking the toilet herself due to a loss in confidence that the landlord will provide a lasting remedy.
The landlord’s records demonstrate it resolved the toilet repair at the time within its routine repair response time. However, given the evidence of recurring issues and the resident’s comments, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact her to investigate this issue.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
In this case, the landlord apologised for its poor service delivery and communication failures. It was appropriate for it to recognise how these repeat issues affected the resident’s confidence in its service. The landlord also recognised its repair delays had affected the vulnerable resident and took steps to put things right within its offers of redress and identified learning. The landlord’s total offer of £1,200 is consistent with our remedies guide when there has been maladministration which has adversely affected the resident.
Therefore, based on our findings we find the landlord offered reasonable redress. We may have found maladministration but for the landlord’s efforts to recognise its failings and its efforts to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the landlord to fit bifold doors in her bathroom, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for bathroom adaptation works, is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple outstanding repairs to the property when she moved in.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Reoffers the resident the total sum of £1,200 compensation, if not already paid.
2. Contact the resident to investigate her reports of ongoing toilet and sink blockages.
3. Reminds its staff of the importance of maintaining professional communication at all times.