London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202418398)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418398

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to an infestation of bedbugs at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a block of flats. The landlord is a local council.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 June 2024. He:
1. Said the bedbug infestation began in April 2023.
2. Explained the treatments provided by the landlord, powdering and spraying had been ineffective.
3. Said the bedbugs “frequently disturb” his sleep and the bites leave blood on the bed linen.
4. Stated he thought the property was not habitable due to the extent of the infestation.
5. Requested to be moved into temporary accommodation while the property was treated.
6. Said there was also an ongoing issue with his boiler which meant he regularly lost heating and hot water.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on the same day, 3 June 2024. It said:
1. It uses the best available product to treat bedbugs.
2. It was “not equipped” to offer other methods.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 1 July 2024. He said:
1. The level of infestation was increasing.
2. The bedroom remained unusable.
3. He was “doing all he can”, such as using a bedbug spray and covering items of furniture with plastic sheets.
4. He suspected the bugs were in the carpets and requested the carpets were treated or lifted as part of the treatment.
On 8 August 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It:
1. Said it had attended the property on 15 occasions to administer treatment.
2. Stated it was not responsible for lifting or replacing carpets or deep cleaning and signposted the resident to “local support payments” for possible funding of carpet replacement.
3. Said there were no plans for the resident to be decanted and it was “not able to refer this to an alternative contractor at present”.
4. Stated it needed the resident’s “cooperation with preparation for the next visit”. It sent a list of instructions to prepare for pest control visits.
5. Awarded £75 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £25 for miscommunication and managing expectations.
  2. £50 for the delayed response at stage 2.
6. Provided the resident with an application form for floating support services.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

Between 9 August 2024 and 17 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord 6 times via email and phone. He:
1. Accepted the compensation.
2. Explained he was unable to comply with the instructions it had sent because he did not have access to the equipment listed, such as a high suction vacuum cleaner, tumble dryer and freezer.
3. Requested support to obtain the required items from the landlord and asked for the landlord to visit him.
4. Told the landlord he was only able to occupy the kitchen in the property as this was the only uncarpeted area.
5. Said the bedbugs had infested the kitchen where he was sleeping.
On 12 August 2024 the landlord responded to the resident. It told him it would forward his request for support to the Housing Officer. It said it was unable to provide financial assistance and provided details of the local support allowance.
The resident escalated his complaint to us in September 2024. He:
1. Said he was elderly and his health and well-being had been significantly affected by the infestation because he was unable to have rest or peace at home.
2. Told us his body was sore due to the amount of bites.
3. Sent photos of the infestation in books and furniture.
4. Said he continued to use only the kitchen in the property.
5. Said he thought the infestation was made worse because he had to leave the heating on permanently due to unresolved issues with the boiler.
6. Stated he was not a ‘troublesome tenant’ but he cannot ‘eradicate the infestation by himself’. However he would “readily cooperate” with measures where possible.
On 17 June 2025 the resident told us the issue is not resolved. He said:
1. He was continuing to sleep in the kitchen wearing gloves and thick socks.
2. He has tried to spray the infestation as often as possible but this is costly and has caused him eye irritation.
3. He has been prescribed sleeping tablets by his doctor to support his sleep.
4. The landlord last treated the infestation on 6 February 2024.
5. The boiler is “being okay at the moment” and he hopes this continues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The resident has told us his health and wellbeing has been impacted by the infestation in the property. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord issued its final complaint response in August 2024. At the time of its response the substantive issues in the case were outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the final complaint response to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the issues raised.
This investigation has not included the issues regarding the boiler which the resident raised in his original complaint, on the 3 June 2024. This is because the landlord did not acknowledge this part of the complaint at stage 1 and it was not escalated by the resident to stage 2. Therefore the issue has not been through the landlord’s complete complaints procedure and cannot be investigated by us. However, we have considered it with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling and an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident regarding the boiler.

The landlord’s response to reports of an infestation of bed bugs at the property

The resident’s tenancy agreement does not refer to pest infestations. The landlord told us it did not have a pest control property at the time of the complaint. It directed us to its website which states council tenants do not have to pay for pest control services for bedbugs and provides a link to book a free treatment.
The resident said the infestation began in April 2023. The landlord’s notes stated between 20 April 2023 and 6 February 2024 it treated the property for the infestation 12 times, using powder and sprays. When the resident complained to the landlord on 3 June 2024 he stated the treatments had been ineffective and asked for a different approach. Given the number of times the treatment had not worked this was a reasonable request and one which would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
There was no evidence to suggest the landlord reflected on the treatment options or considered different methods. Its complaint responses at both stage 1 and 2 dismissed the resident’s request with no explanation or reason for the decision to not explore other options. This was a significant failing and one which has contributed to the delays endured by the resident. The Ombudsman’s Pest Guidance for Landlords says landlords should be careful to “not repeat the same actions that are not working”. This guidance was published in July 2024 during the landlord’s complaints process so it is reasonable the landlord may not have been aware of it. However, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider this guidance against its policies.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 says that rented properties must be “fit for human habitation” on the day of letting and throughout the tenancy. This means they must be safe, healthy and free from defects that could cause harm.
The resident raised concerns regarding whether the property was habitable in his original complaint in June 2024. He subsequently emailed the landlord on multiple occasions between June 2024 and September 2024 to tell it he was only able to occupy the kitchen and was sleeping on the kitchen floor due to it being the only room without a carpet. In his stage 2 complaint, the resident requested the landlord considered moving him into alternative accommodation (decanting) while the property was treated.
It is unclear whether the landlord has a Decant Policy. However, it should have acknowledged the resident’s concerns, fully considered his request and provided an explanation for its decision. Our Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Rights and Respect refers to the importance of landlord’s taking resident’s individual circumstances into account. There was no evidence the landlord considered these. The Ombudsman’s published Pest Guidance for Landlords states “the landlord should conduct a risk assessment of the situation to assess whether it is appropriate to decant the resident”.
It is not for us to determine whether or not the property was habitable or whether the resident should have been moved. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. The landlord provided no evidence a risk assessment of the property or the resident’s circumstances was considered or took place. The landlord told the resident there were “no plans to decant him” without any explanation. Furthermore, it made this decision without any communication with the resident. The landlord was unsympathetic to the residents circumstances. This was a serious failing which had a significant detrimental impact on the resident. He told us that he has been unable to have rest or peace at home as he has only been able to use the kitchen and bathroom.
The landlord’s internal communications state the resident could not be moved due to the risk of spreading the bedbugs. While this is a reasonable consideration, there was no evidence the landlord considered how to problem solve this situation in order to resolve the issues or support the resident. This was unreasonable and demonstrated a lack of empathy.
The landlord’s internal communications in August 2024 show a Complaint Handler tried to organise a welfare check, and requested support for the resident on a number of occasions. It appears a Housing Officer attempted a visit but the resident was not in. Other than one failed visit, the landlord has provided no evidence it visited the property apart from for the treatments it did between April 2023 and February 2024. This was despite the resident requesting support and a visit via email in September 2024. The lack of communication from the landlord was unreasonable and a further failing.
The landlord’s failure to take appropriate action following the Complaint Handler’s requests demonstrates a communication failure between the landlord’s different departments. The evidence showed some of the landlord’s staff recognised the severity of the resident’s situation but were not heard. An order has been made for the landlord to review this.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, on 8 August 2024 provided the resident with a list of instructions he must complete prior to booking a pest control treatment. This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the resident emailed the landlord on multiple occasions and said he was unable to comply with these directions as he did not own a tumble dryer, freezer or high suction hoover. It was not fair for the landlord to assume the resident could access these items.
The resident asked the landlord for support to temporarily obtain the equipment mentioned above. Although it was reasonable the landlord provided the resident with links to apply for support payments, there was no evidence it provided any other support or recognised the need for a different approach. The landlord’s Supporting Resident’s Policy says it provides “accessible and inclusive landlord services and makes reasonable adjustments where required”. However, in this instance there was no evidence to suggest the landlord took account of the resident’s individual circumstances or considered reasonable adjustments. This was not in line with its policy and was heavy–handed and inappropriate.
The resident told us, in June 2025, that his inability to source the items above has meant the property had not been treated for the infestation since 6 February 2024, over 18 months ago. The landlord has not provided evidence to suggest it has visited the property since this date or that the issue has been resolved.
The resident said his mental health has been affected and he has “given up reporting the issue to the landlord”. The resident had a responsibility to continue to report the issues he was facing. However, it was understandable the landlord’s lack of communication, and resistance to considering alternative solutions, left the resident in a position where he was trying to solve the problem himself. The landlord has not provided evidence beyond September 2024, though has been given opportunity to do so. As there has been no evidence of any further interventions from the landlord it is likely that this reflects it has not made any. This is despite it knowing the impact the situation was having on the resident and that the matter remained unresolved. This was unsympathetic and not appropriate.
Throughout the case there are examples of the landlord placing the onus on the resident to sort the problem. The evidence provided by the landlord, showed the resident was proactive in attempting to treat and minimise the infestation. His emails to the landlord repeatedly stated he covered furniture in plastic sheets, removed belongings and bought bedbug spray to use. In August 2024 the resident also emailed the landlord to tell it he had organised carpet cleaning and paid the deposit but that the company had arrived and were unable to get the equipment up the stairs to the fourth floor and therefore terminated the job. In his email the resident told the landlord he had lost his deposit from the company and asked the landlord if it could recommend another company or provide support. There was no evidence the landlord responded to this request.
In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated it needed the resident’s ‘cooperation’. The wording used here, and in subsequent internal emails seen by the Ombudsman, could be read as the landlord inferring blame on the resident. This is not in line with the landlord’s “Six Principles”, particularly “Creating a Compassionate Council,” which are published on its website. An order has been made for the landlord to conduct a review of this case and include a focus on how it communicates with residents.
The landlord’s failings have had a significant and long-term detrimental impact on the resident. He has experienced prolonged and unexplained delays over a period of over 2 years while continuing to tell the landlord he had limited use of the property. As mentioned above, he told the landlord he was sleeping in the kitchen and raised concerns regarding whether the property was habitable. These combined factors have resulted in a severe lack of amenity and enjoyment of his home.
Prior to the complaint the landlord was proactive in visiting and treating the property. It also provided some useful signposting for the resident. However. overall, there were a series of significant failings by the landlord. It demonstrated a lack of empathy for the resident and his circumstances. It also showed a lack of ownership of the resident’s case and a lack of urgency to resolve his complaint. Considering the above, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a bedbug infestation.
The landlord awarded £75 compensation to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. This included £25 for miscommunication and managing expectations. It is unclear which miscommunication the landlord is referring to or how it was calculated. We do not consider this to be an appropriate amount of compensation given the failings on the case. It is also not in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy or our Remedies Guidance.
In deciding an appropriate level of redress in this complaint, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s failures and the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident. The evidence from the landlord showed the resident asked it for support and said he was sleeping in the kitchen on multiple occasions. There was no evidence the landlord visited the property or acted on this information. The lack of empathy shown by the landlord in this case caused the resident significant distress. We have also considered the prolonged period of time the resident has been affected by these issues. The resident has told us the infestation is continuing and the landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest it has provided the resident support since October 2024 or visited the property since February 2024.
Therefore, landlord must pay the resident £1,800 in compensation to recognise the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the loss and enjoyment of his home and the severe failings identified in this report. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which says its awards of £1,000 and above “are used in recognition of maladministration/severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant”.

Complaint Handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the residents stage 1 complaint within a few hours of it being received. While the Ombudsman considers it to be positive to respond in a timely manner, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states complaint handlers “consider all relevant information and evidence carefully (section 5). The response provided by the landlord at stage 1 was brief and lacked explanation and detail. The inadequacy of this response meant the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right. This was a failing.
The landlord adhered to the timescales set out within its policy at stage 1 of the complaints process. However, at stage 2 of the complaint process the landlord mistakenly recorded the date of escalation as 9 July 2024 instead of the 1 July 2024. This meant it recorded the response deadline as 6 August 2024 which was an error. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 August 2024. Although this was outside its timescales it did contact the resident to tell him there would be a delay.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its mistake with regard to the dates. It awarded £50 compensation in recognition of this delay and the need for the extension. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s Complaints Policy. However, there were other failures.
The Code sets out, under section 6 that landlords are required to address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not include a response regarding the resident’s issues with his boiler. This error was also not recognised during stage 2 of the complaints process. This has led to significant delays in resolving this matter and additional distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The landlord’s final response in August 2024 failed to fully address all the points raised in the resident’s complaint escalation. It did not acknowledge the impact the issues raised were having on the resident and it provided no explanation regarding its decision not to explore alternative treatment options or decant the resident. The landlord’s response was not proportionate to the severity of the impact on the resident which was a significant failing.
Considering the circumstances of the case, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This Service considers a payment of £200 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our Remedies Guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident. This figure is inclusive of the £50 previously awarded for complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of bed bugs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from the Chief Executive for the failings outlined in this report.
2. Conduct a risk assessment to assess whether the property is fit for habitation and consider whether a decant would be appropriate for the resident. If the landlord is unable to move the resident it must provide a written explanation of the reasons why to the resident. A copy must also be provided to this Service.
3. Instruct an independent, qualified pest control contractor to investigate the infestation and set out the steps needed to rectify the issue.
4. Appoint a senior member of staff to oversee the treatment of the infestation and act as the resident’s point of contact until completion. The landlord must provide the resident, and the Ombudsman, with an action plan for completion of the treatment of the infestation. The landlord should provide monthly updates to the resident until the infestation issue is fully resolved.
5. Pay the resident £2,000 compensation. This is broken down as:
  1. £1,800 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble the landlord’s response to the reports of bedbugs caused the resident. This includes the £25 previously awarded.
  2. £200 for complaint handling failures. This includes the £50 previously awarded.
6. Contact the resident in relation to the boiler issues which formed part of his original complaint and adhere with its repair obligations in line with its Repairs Policy.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete a senior management case review of the findings in this report. The review should be conducted by someone independent of the service area. The outcome of the review and any actions should be shared with its governing body. It must include, but is not exclusive, of the following:
1. How the landlord manages reports of pests, including bedbugs, to determine how it can prevent the failings identified in this report from reoccurring.
2. How the landlord assesses, and ensures, properties are fit for habitation in cases of pest infestations and responds to resident requests to be temporarily moved.
3. The landlord should consider other complaints it has received on bed bugs during 2024/25 to the date of the determination, and the response it provided.
The landlord should review its staff’s training needs to ensure its staff:
1. Recognise if an approach is not working or if a resident requires support or reasonable adjustments and act on this information accordingly.
2. Respond to requests for support appropriately and in a sympathetic and timely manner ensuring communication is free from blame or shame.
3. Respond to formal complaints, and requests made by Complaints Officers in relation to complaints, reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures and the Complaint Handling Code.
4. Understand and are able to implement the Council’s Six Principles, particularly “Creating a Compassionate Council.”

Recommendations

The landlord should read and review the Ombudsman’s Pest Guidance for Landlords if it has not done so already.