London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202308348)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308348

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

7 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 reports of:
1. Noise and pigeon nuisance.
2. A back surge of sewage in his bathroom.
3. Black mould in the bedrooms of his property.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a joint secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 28 March 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat. When the resident made the complaint, he lived at the property with his partner and son. His partner and son have since left the property.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 March 2023. He said the neighbour upstairs was causing noise nuisance on a daily basis. He said, despite many complaints, the issue had only been resolved as the neighbour had since moved out. He also said there were outstanding repairs following a sewage leak in January 2023. He told the landlord that there was black mould growing on his son’s bedroom window and in the master bedroom. He also said the downstairs neighbours had been feeding pigeons when the landlord had asked them not to do so.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 14 March 2023. It offered the resident £500 compensation for delays in carrying out the work following the sewage leak. However, it did not find any failings in the way it had dealt with the reports of ASB or mould.
Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 23 August 2023. It said it upheld the complaint as it did not provide a response to the reports of pigeon nuisance at stage 1. It also upheld the complaint relating to the sewage back surge as there had been a 6 month delay in repairing the floors. It confirmed the decision made at stage 1 in relation to the reports of ASB and mould. It offered increased compensation of £950 broken down as:
1. £500 for the distress and negative impact the resident experienced whilst waiting for the landlord to approve the cleaning and repairs.
2. £250 for delays to repairs and delays in providing updates between January 2023 and July.
3. £200 for complaint handling failures.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the situation has had on his health and the health of his family. We are unable to draw conclusions relating to impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are matters for a court to decide, as the court can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we may consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Noise and pigeon nuisance

The purpose of this investigation is for us to decide whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures. We will also look at whether its actions were fair and reasonable. We will not decide whether ASB took place, or which party in the neighbour dispute was responsible.
The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord by email on 27 June 2022 to report incidents of noise nuisance and pigeon nuisance. He said the neighbour above him was deliberately making noise to wake his family. He said the noise had started at 6am that morning and he suspected the neighbour had no carpets. He also said his son had a skin infection that he believed was caused by contact with pigeon droppings. He said the neighbour above was feeding the pigeons and he asked the landlord to put up notices to inform residents not to feed the pigeons. The evidence shows the landlord opened an ASB case on 27 June 2022.
The landlord’s ASB procedure categorises noise nuisance and feeding pigeons as a “grade 3” case. It describes grade 3 cases as “behaviour or acts that are considered breaches of the conditions of the tenancy agreement. This includes anti-social behaviour where there is no intention to harm or annoy any particular neighbour, family or individual, which occurs through a thoughtless or a don’t care attitude”. Its procedure says it will start its investigation and offer an interview within 5 working days of receipt of consent. It says it will update all parties within 15 working days of receipt of consent and it will contact complainants monthly.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord made any attempts to contact the resident to obtain his consent following his report of ASB. The evidence shows that the resident had to contact the landlord again on 9 July 2022 to chase a response. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 July 2022. It completed a risk assessment in line with its ASB process.
The resident received a letter from the council’s noise nuisance team on 20 July 2022. The letter said it had received complaints of loud music from the resident’s address on 15 July 2022. The resident asked the landlord for advice. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident as the neighbour dispute was clearly escalating.
A manager reviewed the ASB case on 28 July 2022 in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure. The manager noted the case had been poorly managed and that the case officer had not added any updates. The manager told the case officer to complete the consent and action plan with the resident and upload it to the case by 2 August 2022.
The case officer sent the action plan, consent form and diary sheets to the resident on 1 August 2022. The case officer offered the resident mediation with the upstairs neighbour (the alleged perpetrator) in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure. However, this appears to be in relation to the noise nuisance allegations only. There is no evidence to suggest that the case officer was also investigating the resident’s allegations of pigeon nuisance.
The landlord visited both the resident and the alleged perpetrator on 2 August 2022 to carry out a noise test. It said the building was poorly insulated and this caused issues with sound travelling between flats. The landlord asked the alleged perpetrator to be mindful of the noise they were making. It offered both parties mediation. However, as the alleged perpetrator did not want to engage in mediation, the landlord said it would close the case. Although this was in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure, it appears unfair to the party willing to engage as they still do not have their issue resolved.
The resident reported further incidents of noise nuisance on 5 September 2022. He told the landlord the council’s noise nuisance team had witnessed a low vibration noise coming from the flat above on 2 September 2022. In response, the landlord re-opened the ASB case and sent the alleged perpetrator a warning letter. It asked that they remove the laminate flooring.
The issues continued with both parties reporting incidents until the alleged perpetrator moved out in January 2023.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 March 2023. He said he had been subjected to noise nuisance from the flat above on a daily basis. He said the issue had only been resolved as the neighbour had moved out. He said the landlord had failed to install noise recording equipment to collect evidence of the noise. He also raised concerns that another neighbour was feeding the pigeons despite being told by the landlord not to do so.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2023. It said it had opened an ASB case in June 2022 and it had carried out a noise transfer test. It said the resident and his neighbour had agreed to be more “mindful of one another”. It said it had given the neighbour 3 months to replace the wooden flooring with carpet and it had informed the resident that loud music was not permitted. It said, as it had continued to receive reports from both parties, the resident was on a waiting list for sound recording equipment. However, the neighbour moved out before the equipment became available. The stage 1 response did not address the resident’s concerns relating to the pigeon nuisance. This issue has been addressed under the complaint handling section of this report below.
The neighbour escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 6 April 2023. He said, even though the neighbour had moved out, he still expected the sound equipment to be installed. He also pointed out the landlord had not addressed the concerns he had raised in relation to pigeon nuisance.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 23 August 2023. It said, after more than 10 visits, the council’s noise nuisance team had decided there was no statutory noise nuisance. It said the neighbour moved out in January 2023. It said, as there were no further reports of noise nuisance, there was no reason for it to install the noise equipment. It also apologised for not addressing the pigeon nuisance at stage 1. It said, following the resident’s complaint, it had sent a general letter to all residents asking them not to feed the pigeons. It said it sent a further letter on 17 August 2023 as the resident had said the issue remained. It said it would continue to monitor the situation and take action if necessary.
Analysis of the landlord’s response shows in these circumstances it was reasonable of the landlord not to install the sound monitoring equipment once the alleged perpetrator had moved out, as the issue had been resolved. The landlord must ensure the best use of such equipment, particularly as it appears to be in high demand. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge that there had been failures in the way it had handled the ASB case.
In summary, while the landlord had investigated the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and it told the alleged perpetrator to remove the laminate flooring, it did not:
1. Adequately address and update the resident on his reports of pigeon nuisance.
2. Act in line with its ASB procedures when it first logged the complaint.
3. Respond to the resident following his correspondence in July 2022.
4. Acknowledge its poor management of the ASB case even though a manager had reviewed the case and found service failure.
As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in this case.

A back surge of sewage in the resident’s bathroom

The landlord does not dispute that there were failures in the way it handled the back surge of sewage into the resident’s bathroom in January 2023.
In its stage 1 response dated 14 March 2023 it acknowledged there had been a service failure when its operative did not locate and jet the correct drain. This meant that the drainage team had to return. It said it had carried out an environmental clean of the resident’s property on 30 January 2023 and it had since arranged for more cleaning to be carried out. It said it had also raised orders to fit new flooring to the affected areas. It said a flooring company would attend on 15 March 2023 to inspect and measure the floors. It offered the resident £500 compensation. This was made up of £350 for the initial error and delay in carrying out the work, £100 for the distress caused, and £50 for lack of communication.
In its stage 2 response dated 23 August 2023 it acknowledged that the flooring company did not attend the resident’s property on 15 March 2023 as agreed. It said this was due to a delay in it approving the works but also because the resident had continued to smell sewage. It said, because of this, the resident felt that the work could not be carried out whilst he and his son were in the property. However, it had confirmed, after consulting with its contractors, the resident did not need to be decanted.
The landlord said, as the resident was not happy with its decision, it sent a surveyor to inspect the property on 29 June 2023. It said the surveyor approved works for the renewal of the en-suite bathroom flooring. It said the surveyor found no evidence of a sewage smell and concluded that it did not need to decant the resident and his son. It apologised to the resident for the 6 month delay, however, it said it had tried to carry out the work to renew the flooring on 12 July 2023 but the resident refused the work. It asked the resident to contact the repairs team to rebook the appointment. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £750 made up of:
1. £500 for the distress and negative impact caused whilst the resident waited for repairs and cleaning to be carried out.
2. £250 for the delays in the repairs and providing updates between January 2023 and July 2023.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s offer of £750 compensation and its acknowledgement of the delays and distress caused to the resident represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary, although there were delays in completing the repairs following the back surge of sewage, the landlord tried to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord should therefore pay the overall compensation of £750 if it has not already done so.

Black mould in the resident’s bedrooms

The evidence shows that the resident first reported black mould growing on his son’s bedroom window within his formal complaint dated 1 March 2023. He said the mould had built up over a period of 8 months and it had come back after he had cleaned it. The resident also said that he suspected black mould growth underneath the walls in the master bedroom, which he believed needed investigating.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 14 March 2023. It said it had made arrangements to inspect and remove the mould in his property. It said he should receive an appointment within the next 10 working days in line with its damp process. This was a reasonable response as there was no evidence that the resident had previously reported the mould.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 6 April 2023. The landlord contacted the resident by telephone on 12 April 2023 to discuss his escalation request. The resident told the landlord that it had not arranged an appointment to inspect the mould as promised within his stage 1 response.
The landlord raised a works order on 27 April 2023 and made an appointment to inspect the mould on 24 May 2023. This was just over 10 weeks from the stage 1 response and significantly outside of the 10 working days set within the landlord’s damp process.
The landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property on 24 May 2023. They found that there was no visible mould on any of the ceilings or walls in the property. The resident told the operatives that he had cleaned the mould off the windows.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 23 August 2023. It said its contractors had not found any evidence of mould in the resident’s property, so it had closed the job. It did not, however, recognise the delay in arranging the appointment following the stage 1 response. It also did not recognise that the absence of mould could have been because of the time of year the inspection took place.
It would have been significantly warmer in May 2023 than in March 2023, when the resident first reported the mould. Had the landlord visited the resident within the 10 working days set out in the damp process, the outcome may have been different. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delays, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in this case.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 1 March 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 14 March 2023. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaint policy.
However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint about pigeon nuisance. Paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2022) says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The landlord’s response was not in line with the Code. This was inappropriate and unfair to the resident as the pigeon nuisance was clearly causing him concern.
The resident escalated his complaint on 6 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 12 April 2023. It sent the resident a holding letter on 18 July 2023. The letter acknowledged the delay in the stage 2 response.
We wrote to the landlord on 10 August 2023 and asked it to provide a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord did so on 23 August 2023. This was over 4 months from the date the resident escalated his complaint and was significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. This not only delayed a resolution to the resident’s complaint, but it also delayed his ability to escalate the matter to this Service. It did, however, apologise and acknowledge its failure to respond to the pigeon nuisance at stage 1 within the stage 2 response. It also acknowledged the delayed stage 2 decision and it offered the resident £200 compensation.
In the circumstances the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation, its apology and its acknowledgement of its failures represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary, although the landlord did not respond fully at stage 1 and there was a delay at stage 2, it attempted to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord is therefore to pay the overall compensation of £200 if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise and pigeon nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a back surge of sewage in his bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of black mould in the bedrooms of his property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £150. This is made up of:
  1. £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of black mould in the bedrooms of his property.
  2. £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and pigeon nuisance.
3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £950 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions regarding the above recommendation.