London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202403177)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403177

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

23 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

1. Reports that her doors and windows had been affected by subsidence issues at the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy which began in November 1999. The property is a 4-bedroom house, and she lives there with her husband. The landlord had recorded that the resident’s husband is disabled and uses a wheelchair.
3. The resident reported to the landlord that subsidence issues to the property had caused the external doors and windows to shift out of place. She said this was causing issues with heating the property and being able to properly close the doors.
4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 25 January 2024 about the windows and doors. She said the landlord:
   1. had replaced the back door twice with “unsuitable” doors. It had agreed to replace it again, but it had not arranged this replacement.
   2. did not send a specialist door fitter to look at the front door.
   3. fitted draught excluders and raised the metal bar which made the door difficult to close. She added that she had injured herself on the external draught excluder. She asked the landlord to remove this but as it did not respond, she removed it herself.
   4. the landlord had not complied with the previous determination made by the Ombudsman.
   5. had agreed for a door manufacturer to attend the property to review options, but this was not arranged.

The resident advised that she also wanted a metal window specialist to advise on a solution for the heat loss from the windows.

5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 9 February 2024. It said it would instruct a door manufacturer to attend and review options for the front door. In addition, it said it would arrange a post inspection of the back doors and windows. It also acknowledged its delay in responding to the stage 1 response and offered the resident £50 compensation.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2024. She said she was unhappy with the stage 1 response. She disagreed with the landlord’s position that the issues were not related to subsidence. She felt nothing had been done since the previous Ombudsman determination from September 2023. She stated that the landlord also failed to address her concerns about poor communication. The resident did not receive a response to her escalation request, so she re-sent it on 20 February 2024.
7. On 18 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said the structural survey had not highlighted structural issues, only hairline cracks. It acknowledged it had agreed to carry out an inspection on the doors, door frames and windows, but it had not done so. A meeting with the resident was arranged for 25 March 2024, where it was hoped an agreement about the repairs could be reached.
8. The resident escalated her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the external doors and windows. She said the issue was still not resolved and it had not yet completed the repairs. The complaint became one we could investigate on 10 September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

9. In communication with us, the resident expressed concerns about other historical issues. This included cracks in the walls due to subsidence, a collapsed drain, outstanding decoration work, unfinished electrical work and the replacement of flooring in the dining room. While it is understood that the resident raised separate complaints about these issues, they will not form part of this investigation. Our remit for this investigation is limited to matters that exhausted the complaints procedure and were referred to us accordingly. If the resident remains unhappy about any of the issues listed above, she may wish to contact the landlord accordingly.
10. Given the above, it is important to be clear regarding the parameters of this investigation. As well as clarifying what aspects the current investigation will consider, this will also help to set boundaries for any future investigations. This investigation will focus on the issues raised in relation to the repairs concerning the external doors and windows.
11. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the issues relating to the windows and the doors impacted her health and that of her family. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.

Reports of ongoing subsidence and structural issues at the property.

12. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house.” The landlord’s tenancy agreement and repairs policy outline the same.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy explains it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 days.
14. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident first reported the issue relating to the external doors and windows. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 28 November 2022 to say she was unhappy that it had not fixed the front door. This suggests the issue relating to the front door was reported before and that a repair may have been scheduled, or attempted. There are no other emails or inspection reports from this time, so it is not possible to understand the full context behind the resident’s email. Therefore, it is not possible to establish if or when the landlord responded to this report, or whether its response was in line with its repairs policy.
15. The resident chased the landlord in relation to both the windows and the doors on 3 occasions in December 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord raised a work order on 16 December 2022. This was to inspect and adjust any windows and doors for draughts. The repairs log confirmed on 19 December 2022 that draft excluders were fitted to the external part of the front door. The log also confirmed that the back door lock and keeps had been adjusted. The time taken to complete this repair from the report in early December 2022 was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy. However, as noted above, from the evidence we have been provided with, it has not been possible to ascertain when the issues were first reported and therefore whether the landlord’s overall handling of this matter was appropriate and timely.
16. The absence of evidence to confirm when the issue was first reported, demonstrates a failing with the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman’s 2023 “Knowledge and Information Management” Spotlight report highlights issues that can arise from record keeping failures such as this. It said, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action.”
17. The resident informed the landlord the same day, that she was unhappy with its repair. The landlord responded to this concern with a stage 2 letter that was issued in relation to a separate matter. It said it would inspect the windows, door, door frame, and moving threshold. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange this, because it would allow it to assess the condition of the windows and door further. It also demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. However, the inspection was not arranged as promised and this caused the resident further distress.
18. The resident contacted the landlord in January and March 2023 as she was unhappy with its previous attempt to address the draughts by installing a draught excluder. She explained the draught excluders made the door harder to open and close. It was also causing her injuries when she tried to open the door. She informed the landlord that she would make arrangements to remove the draft excluder on 18 March 2023 if the issue was not fixed by 16 March 2023. The landlord did not respond to this, and she informed it on 20 March 2023 that she had removed the draught excluder.
19. It is unclear why the landlord did not respond to the resident. However, it was unreasonable that it did not do so. It should have responded to the resident’s concerns in a timely manner and by not doing so, it understandably caused the resident frustration. If the landlord was not prepared to do this for the resident, it should have contacted her to explain this. The lack of a response from the landlord would have likely left the resident feeling ignored and increased her distress and inconvenience.
20. Following a meeting on 24 July 2023, the landlord said it would arrange for a door manufacturer to attend the property and review options for the front door. No evidence has been provided to show that this was arranged. There is also no reasonable explanation for why it was not arranged. However, by making such an assurance the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations and the subsequent lack of progress further frustrated her.
21. According to the landlord’s email of 6 February 2024, it carried out structural inspections visually on 3 October 2023 and 6 November 2023. No details of the results of these inspections have been provided to us. It is therefore unclear what was identified on inspection and what remedial work, if any, was deemed to be required.
22. On 6 November 2023, the landlord arranged a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment in relation to the resident’s concerns about the property temperature in the winter. However, the resident contacted the landlord following the visit to ask for an update about the repairs to the windows and the doors as she said it was not considered during the visit. Because a copy of this inspection has not been provided to us, it is not possible to establish what happened. The resident again chased the landlord for a response, but there is no evidence that the landlord responded. Due to a lack of evidence and the quality of the records provided, it is not clear what happened on 6 November 2023. The landlord’s lack of communication left the resident wondering what was happening. This also inconvenienced her in having to chase it for a response.
23. The landlord completed a structural survey and review on 18 December 2023. There was no recommendation made within this report regarding the windows or external doors.
24. At this stage it had almost been a year since the first attempt to resolve the issue. The landlord had been made aware that it had not worked on several occasions by the resident. However, very little progress was made during that year to investigate the reported draughts until December 2023. This was when the structural survey was carried out. The length of time it took was unreasonable and it understandably caused the resident frustration as evidenced by her making a formal complaint in January 2024.
25. While the structural survey made no reference to the draughts with the windows and doors, the landlord informed the resident it would instruct a door manufacturer to attend the property to review options for the front door. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the operation of the doors due to potential structural movement. It said that despite not being raised in the report, it would ask for an assessment and repair of the existing doors. This was reiterated in the landlord’s stage 1 response.
26. This approach was reasonable, because it demonstrated that it was prepared to investigate the issues even though it was not raised in the survey. It showed that it was treating the resident’s concerns seriously, despite the previous delays. However, despite making this promise it was not done. This was a failing.
27. The resident continued to chase the landlord about this in March 2024. The landlord in its stage 2 response acknowledged that it had previously agreed to carry out an inspection of the doors, door frames and windows, but had not done so. Shortly after, a decent homes survey was carried out on 22 March 2024. The home was found to be fully compliant with the relevant standard at the time of the inspection. The landlord therefore did not carry out any repairs as none were recommended. It was reasonable for it to rely on the findings in this report to advise it on what it should do.
28. However, the landlord also met with the resident on 25 March 2024 and she said that during this meeting, the landlord agreed to replace the back door. It is unclear why the landlord advised the resident as such, before the findings of the decent homes survey were revealed. However, as such an assurance was made, it would be appropriate for the landlord to follow through with this accordingly. The evidence we have been provided with does not suggest that the landlord has taken steps to replace the back door.
29. It is of concern that the landlord had continued to provide the resident with an expectation that certain actions would be taken to resolve the issues she had reported. The landlord went from delivering assurances that a door manufacturer would attend, to stating that it would replace doors. This approach caused the resident to believe this was the agreed resolution and it failed to manage her expectations appropriately. The delay that followed understandably led the resident to feel further frustration from having to chase the landlord for updates. 
30. The landlord in its stage 2 response explained it would complete the repairs and review the compensation for ongoing failures at a later date, however it did not do so. This was a further failing.
31. Given the failings identified, the landlord should pay £300 to acknowledge the avoidable distress and inconvenience cause by its delays and response to the reports made by the resident. This also takes into account the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to properly manage the resident’s expectations. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which had an adverse effect on the resident.
32. Furthermore, because of the assurances the landlord made at the meeting of 25 March 2024 to replace the back door, the Ombudsman will order that the landlord should confirm when the resident’s back door will be replaced.
33. Overall, the landlord’s delay in inspecting the windows and doors, lack of communication in relation to these repairs and failure to keep to its promises to send a door manufacturer have resulted in a finding of maladministration.

The associated complaint.

34. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days. A stage 1 must be provided within a further 10 working days. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the Code.
35. The resident complained on 21 January 2024. It was acknowledged by the landlord the following day. The stage 1 response was issued 14 days later. This was not in accordance with the Code or its policy. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged it had not acted in line with its policy. It offered the resident £50 compensation to address its delayed response. The landlord’s offer was in line with our remedies guidance. The offer was an appropriate award for a failing which had no long-term or adverse impact on the resident.
36. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2024. She informed the landlord on 19 February 2024 that she did not receive a response to her request. She re–sent her request the following day. This was acknowledged on 21 February 2024. This was 1 day outside of the 5-day target for acknowledging complaints and came after the resident had to chase the landlord for it. While it is noted that the resident was inconvenienced in having to chase the matter, we are satisfied that the impact was minor overall in the circumstances. The stage 2 response was issued on 18 March 2024, which was 18 days after it was escalated and in accordance with the code.
37. Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with its policy and the Code in responding to the stage 1 complaint. However, the landlord acknowledged this and made an offer of compensation which was proportionate to the failing identified. We therefore have found the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports that the doors and windows had been affected by subsidence issues at the property.
39. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress that in the Ombudsman’s view satisfactorily puts right the complaint handling failures in this case.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failings identified by this investigation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
    2. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the doors and windows at the property. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account.
41. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord should confirm the date on which the resident’s back door will be replaced. If the door cannot be replaced, the landlord should write to both the resident and us to confirm the reasons why. The landlord should also ensure that it considers what other solutions may be available to resolve the problems reported by the resident.
42. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the period set out above.

Recommendations

43. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered to her in its stage 1 response.
44. It is recommended that the landlord considers whether a resolution other than draught excluders could be offered to the resident.