London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202325833)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325833

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

11 June 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 handling of front door repairs.

Background

2. The resident had a secure tenancy on a flat with the landlord until she moved in February 2024. The landlord had recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, including depression and that she had an assigned social worker.
3. On 4 July 2023, following a report from its housing officer, the landlord raised work to make safe the resident’s front door. Its contractor attended that day and completed work to install a new lock on the door. On 8 July 2023, the landlord raised follow on work to renew the front door and door frame.
4. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property again on 18 August 2023 to complete the follow-on work. It recorded that it could not gain access. The same day the resident complained to the landlord. She said she had been at home, and the contractor had left a no access card without ringing her doorbell.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 September 2023. It said it had told its contractor to be “more persistent” when ringing the resident’s doorbell. It also acknowledged its contractor had failed to follow procedure as it should also have tried to contact the resident by telephone. It apologised for this and awarded the resident £100 for the delay completing work and the miscommunication. It said the operative had ordered parts and a new appointment was booked for 13 September 2023.
6. The resident made further contact with the landlord on 13 September 2023. She said the contractor had attended that day but left without completing the work. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 October 2023. It acknowledged the contractor had not returned to complete work on 13 September 2023 due to being called to an emergency job. It said it had now made an appointment for work to be completed on 27 October 2023. It increased its compensation award to the resident to £250 in recognition of the delays in it completing the work and the inconvenience caused.
8. Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint, its contractor attended again on 27 October 2023 and fitted a sliding bolt to the resident’s door. It noted then that an operative still needed to attend to complete work to the front door and door frame.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

9. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines its aim to attend urgent emergency repairs within 4 hours and emergency repairs within 24 hours. It aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
10. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Front door repairs

11. The landlord was notified on 4 July 2023 that the resident’s door needed to be made secure. Following this, it acted appropriately by arranging for emergency work to be completed the same day. At this time, the contractor noted it had added a new lock to the door.
12. Subsequently, the resident complained to the landlord about the follow-on work appointment of 18 August 2023. While the resident said she had been at home for this, she was left a no access card by its contractor. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint was timely. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration about being left a no access card. It also acted to direct its contractor be more persistent when ringing the resident’s doorbell in future. That these actions were appropriate.
13. The landlord said its contractor had failed to follow the correct no access process as it should also have telephoned the resident after being unable to gain access. It was appropriate that it identified and apologised for this. Had it followed this process, the failed appointment could have been avoided. The landlord has not provided us with details of where it sets out this aspect of its no access process. As such, we have recommended it review whether this process is clearly outlined in its procedure/guidance to its staff/contractors. This is to avoid similar failings being repeated.
14. The landlord awarded £100 to the resident in recognition of delays, miscommunication and the inconvenience to her. That was reasonable. While not outlined in its complaint response, its contractor detailed that on 22 August 2023 it attended to complete work to the resident’s door after arranging an appointment with her following a request by the landlord. The contractor later told the landlord that it could not gain access for this appointment despite attempts to contact the resident. While this appointment was unsuccessful, it is clear the landlord attempted early reattendance to complete work. That was reasonable.
15. The resident requested escalation of her complaint after the contractor who attended on 13 September 2023 left without completing work. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 was timely. It acknowledged that its contractor had attended early for the appointment on 13 September 2023 but left after inspecting the door and taking pictures. It noted that, while the contractor told the resident he would return later that day to complete the work, he did not do so after being called to an emergency job.
16. It was unfortunate that the contractor was unable to return to complete repairs after being called to an emergency. This may have been unavoidable. Nonetheless, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused, and the continued delays to the door repairs. Its increased offer of £250 in recognition of this was reasonable.
17. The landlord’s contractor attended again at the end of October 2023, as agreed in the stage 2 complaint response. However, it did not complete repairs to the door and door frame at this time. Instead, the contractor recorded it had fitted a sliding bolt to the door for the resident’s “peace of mind”. It noted work was still required for the work to the door and door frame.
18. It is unclear why the landlord’s contractor could not complete the work that had been booked to the door and door frame. However, it is evidence of poor planning, particularly as the resident had already waited so long for this work. It further delayed the repair, causing her additional inconvenience as another appointment needed to be booked. The repair work was subsequently further delayed due to no access and rescheduled appointments by the resident between December 2023 and February 2024. However, this was beyond the landlord’s control.
19. Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of front door repairs. We have ordered that the landlord make an increased award to the resident in recognition of the impact of failings we have identified.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of front door repairs.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

21. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. write to the resident to apologise for failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £350. This includes the £250 previously awarded, which should be deducted from the total if already paid.

Recommendations

22. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review whether its no access process is clearly outlined in procedure/guidance available to its staff/contractors.