London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202335312)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335312

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

10 September 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s report of a leak into the bathroom.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began in April 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom, 2nd floor flat. The resident lives with her son in the property.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 12 September 2023, using its website. This was not actioned or responded to by the landlord.
The resident re-made her complaint to the landlord on 10 October 2023. She told the landlord that:
1. She had not had a response to her complaint made on 12 September 2023.
2. There was a leak coming through her bathroom ceiling that was getting worse by the day. She said that there was water pouring through her ceiling multiple times a day.
3. She had no light in her bathroom and that she and her son were having to shower in the dark. She said that this was dangerous.
4. She had reported this issue again to the landlord that morning but that the earliest appointment that it could offer her was in 3 weeks time. She said that it had told her that this appointment would not be to fix the problem, only to inspect it again.
The landlord’s records say that it then located the resident’s initial complaint a month later, on 12 October 2023. The resident told the landlord in this correspondence that:
1. She had had a major leak that was flooding her bathroom since February 2023. She said that she reported this on the landlord’s website in February 2023, but it had not responded.
2. It had come to her property dozens of times in the period between March 2023 and September 2023 but that the leak was still ongoing.
3. She worked full time but had to take unpaid leave to be home for these appointments.
4. Her bathroom was unusable and “disgustingly unhygienic”. She said she did not have a light in her bathroom because of water pouring through it. She said that every time her neighbour showered, she had dirty water coming through her ceiling for hours afterward.
5. Her ceiling was bowed and looked like it would fall through. She said she was worried that she would come home to a fallen-through ceiling.
6. Her and her son were travelling to family and friends houses to be able to wash because they could not use their own bathroom.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 October 2023. It said that it would arrange an inspection of both her property and the property above. It said that the repairs would then be completed and post-inspected. It said that it had had difficulty accessing the property above but that it would involve the housing officer if this carried on. It said it would monitor these works until they were finished. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said it was sorry that the leak was still ongoing. It offered her £250 in compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £100 for its handling of the repair and the “unreasonable delay” it had taken to resolve the leak;
2. £50 for her having to chase repairs and it not keeping her up to date with progress;
3. £100 for the impact that the situation had on her and family.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 19 December 2023. She said that the leak still had not been resolved. She said that she did not know who to contact for more information about why it was taking so long to fix. She asked it for advice on what to do because her bathroom was damp and mouldy, with no light or ventilation. She said she was desperate for the leak to be fixed.
On 24 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It told the resident that:
1. After it had sent its stage 1 complaint response, it had visited the property but it still needed to access the property above to trace the leak.
2. It could not reinstate her bathroom light because the ceiling was still damp, and this would be a risk for its operatives.
3. It acknowledged it had not given her any follow-up information about the leak after its stage 1 complaint response.
4. It had not found any service failures and so would not be upholding her complaint. However, it said that it acknowledged that she had experienced stress and inconvenience and said it was sorry for this.
5. It would wait for her to contact it to arrange a suitable appointment for it to inspect her property.
6. She could contact the maintenance surveyor for the property if she needed an update on works.
The resident escalated her complaint to this service on 8 February 2024. She said that her bathroom was unusable because she could not use her shower and there was no light. She said that her bathroom was in a dangerous state. She said that had been chasing the landlord for an update but that the leak still had not been fixed. She said that she was stressed about the situation and wanted the landlord to fix the leak.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s report of a leak into the bathroom

The landlord’s repair policy says that it aims to provide a high-quality repairs service to maintain resident’s homes as safe places to live. It says it aims to ensure that repairs reported by residents are repaired to a “good standard” in a reasonable timeframe. Its policy defines the following timeframes for it to respond to reports of disrepair:
1. “Urgent emergency response” repairs within 4 hours.
2. “Emergency response” repairs within 24 hours.
3. Routine works within 20 working days.
The landlord’s “emergency and major works decant policy” says that the landlord has a duty to provide temporary accommodation to tenants where their accommodation has become unsuitable to live in. For example, when the property becomes uninhabitable because of serious disrepair or structural failings. This policy says that a supervisor will visit the property to inspect its condition and decide whether a temporary move to alternative accommodation is needed. This can then be authorised by an appropriate employee and temporary accommodation arranged.
The resident first reported the leak to the landlord in February 2023. Whilethe landlord eventually did complete works to stop the leak, these were not carried out until over a year later on 21 February 2024. The landlord did not complete the remaining works to the lighting, extractor fan, decorations, and tiles until October 2024. This was unreasonable by the landlord. The landlord did not adhere to their repairs policy when handling the resident’s reports of a leak, which is a failing.
The landlord acknowledges within its complaint responses that its record keeping was not up to standard. This would have been a contributory factor to the delays that the resident experienced. Contractors expressed their frustrations with the landlord within internal emails and said that the landlord was not providing them with the works orders that they needed when jobs were raised. This was a failing by the landlord that added to the delays experienced by the resident.
The landlord also did not continue to monitor works or raise follow-up jobs once contractors had attended and reported back to it what they thought the problem was. This meant that incorrect contractors were sent to jobs and as a result repairs were not moved forward with any efficiency. An example is on 16 June 2023, when a tiler was sent to the property. The tiler told the landlord that it could not complete any works to the bathroom because re-tiling it would not help. This resulted in extensive delays for the resident of 12 months with the leak and 20 months before her bathroom was returned to its original condition.
The landlord has since told this service that the resident has not made any more reports of the leak since the leak was resolved in February 2024. Whilst this shows that the works that it completed were eventually effective, this cannot justify the amount of time that the resident was left without a working bathroom. This is therefore a failing by the landlord.
The delays in repairs also led to the stress and inconvenience of having what the resident described as dozens of attendances from contractors but the problem still not being resolved. The resident told the landlord that she had taken a number of days of unpaid leave so that she could facilitate these appointments. This would have added to her distress and the inconvenience that she experienced.
In its complaint responses, the landlord says that a reason for the delay in its repair of the leak was because it could not gain access to the property above to trace and repair the leak. The landlord’s records suggest that access attempts were often made to the property above without having made an appointment beforehand. The landlord told the resident that there were issues in gaining access to the neighbouring property to resolve the leak into her bathroom. It is the landlord’s role to arrange access for works. The landlord took no responsibility for this in its complaint responses.
Another source of distress for the resident was that the landlord did not keep her updated with the progress of works to her property. The landlord’s records show that the resident was often left chasing the landlord for updates. The landlord therefore acted unreasonably by not keeping the resident updated and not communicating effectively with her. It did not follow its repair policy and therefore missed an opportunity to manage her expectations in this regard. This lack of communication would have been both distressing and frustrating for the resident.
The resident told the landlord on several occasions that herself and her son were having to go to wash at family and friend’s houses because her bathroom was unusable and unhygienic. She also told the landlord that they were without a light that made their bathroom unsafe to use in the dark. She also told the landlord that she was frightened that their bathroom ceiling would cave in. The landlord acknowledged in January 2024 that there had been “indications of potential collapse observed on multiple occasions”. Despite this, the Service has been provided with no evidence that the landlord followed its “emergency and major works decant policy”. This was unreasonable by the landlord as they were aware of the safety risk that the resident’s bathroom posed to her and her son.
A finding of maladministration has therefore been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the subsequent repairs? that the resident experienced as a result.

Complaint handling

The landlord lost the resident’s initial stage 1 complaint made on 12 September 2023. This meant that the resident had to re-make her complaint on 10 October 2023. The landlord eventually found her original complaint made a month later 12 October 2023. This was poor record keeping by the landlord and a complaint handling failure. This would have been frustrating for the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord is apologetic and acknowledges its failings. It accepted that it could have been better at arranging repairs. It apologised for the level of service that the resident received. It accepted that its record keeping had been poor and that contractors had not attended when they said they would. However, the landlord took limited responsibility for the delays in completion of works. It said that the delays were because of difficulty gaining access to the property above to fix the leak. As set out above, it was the responsibility of the landlord to gain access to the property above where required. The landlord should have therefore taken responsibility for it not having gained access to the property sooner and reflected this in its compensation award made to the resident.
The landlord awarded the resident £250 in compensation, which is in the band of compensation in the landlord’s complaints policy for instances where “there has been a short period of a service failure for the resident but that this did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident”. This is despite the landlord acknowledging its considerable failings and the fact that, at that time, the leak had been ongoing for a period of 8 months. It would have therefore been more appropriate for the landlord to categorise the resident’s circumstances as falling into their second tier of compensation for “where there had been considerable service failure or maladministration”. This was a complaint handling failure by the landlord. The landlord has since told this service that it recognises that the amount of compensation it offered the resident at this stage was not proportionate.
The landlord did not keep the promises it made in its stage 1 complaint response. It said it would arrange a joint inspection of the resident’s and her neighbour’s homes, assess the damage caused and issue the repairs out to their contractors for completion. It also said it would pay the resident £250 in compensation. This was a complaint handling failure by the landlord because it has not provided evidence to show that it did the things that it had promised at stage 1.
Despite not having made things right, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s stage 2 complaint. At the time that it issued its stage 2 complaint response, the leak had been ongoing for 11 months and her bathroom had been unusable for much of this time. The landlord also acknowledged that it did not give the resident follow-up information about how it would be handling the leak. This was a complaint handling failure by the landlord as it should have considered a suitable offer of redress at this stage. The stage 2 complaint response was confusing because the landlord accepted its failings but then did not uphold the resident’s complaint. This would have been frustrating for the resident because it acknowledged its failings but did not do anything to put things right for her.
Again, the landlord has not provided this Service with evidence that it has done what it said it would do in its stage 2 complaint response. This was a complaint handling failure by the landlord as its complaint response did not make things right for the resident.
The landlord told us on 18 June 2025 that it had paid the resident an additional £800 in compensation as its “revised compensation offer”. This means that the resident was paid a total of £1,005.00 in compensation. The landlord told this Service that this revised offer was made “in light of the continuing delays in works” after its stage 2 complaint response. However, as this payment was made a long time after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process, this cannot be considered reasonable redress. A finding of service failure has therefore been made. An order for further compensation to be paid to the resident is made below.
The landlord has told this Service about the review that it conducted in April 2024 into how it managed and responded to reports of leaks. It said that this case formed part of its review. It said that this review resulted in it implementing a number of changes to better manage leaks from above. It said that these changes include using a dedicated contractor for leak from above and using a better monitoring and reporting system for leaks. It said that these changes have been in place since June 2024. This is an attempt to make things right by the landlord which is positive.
The landlord has also said that it has given its staff training on how to better investigate complaints. It said it has also introduced a new quality assurance process for complaint responses. It said that it has changed its compensation procedure meaning that if there are delays in works after the stage 2 response like happened in this case, it will automatically reassess the amount of compensation it offers to the resident. This removes the burden on the resident to raise a new complaint if they are still not satisfied. It has also said it has improved its monitoring process for what it has agreed in its stage 2 complaint responses. This is another attempt to make things right by the landlord which is positive.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect to its response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the bathroom of her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the unnecessary distress and inconvenience caused by the service failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £500 in compensation made up of:
  1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failings in responding to her reports of a leak into her property.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failure to properly handle her associated complaint.

This compensation sum is in addition to the £1,005 already paid to the resident by the landlord.

The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.