Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202426557)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426557

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

24 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is an 11th floor 2-bedroom flat in a high-rise block and the resident lives there with his partner and 4 children. The resident has told us he is asthmatic but it is not clear whether he has made the landlord aware of this.
  2. On 6 February 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that one of the windows had come off its hinges. On 18 March he raised a complaint, saying that urgent repairs had been ignored for over a month.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 1 May 2024, in which it said:
    1. during its initial inspection, its contractor had made the window safe but was unable to repair it
    2. a job was raised to replace the hinges and an appointment scheduled for 19 February, however its contractor was unable to gain access
    3. a new job was raised and assigned to a new contractor who would contact the resident directly to schedule an appointment
    4. it offered the resident compensation of £300 to recognise the trouble and inconvenience caused by the delayed repair
    5. it also offered £25 compensation to recognise its delay in responding to the complaint
  4. On 22 August 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say that he had requested escalation of the complaint by post. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 30 September, in which it said:
    1. a contractor attended and carried out repairs on 19 September – the windows were now safe and most could be opened
    2. the windows were due to be replaced as part of major works, expected to be carried out in 2026 – the resident will be informed when plans are in place
    3. it acknowledged issues were not managed to its expected standard but it believed its stage 1 offer of compensation was fair
  5. The resident responded to the landlord on 2 October 2024, saying:
    1. it was incorrect that most of the windows could be opened – most of them were sealed and out of use
    2. the landlord’s contractor told him that installing new windows was the only solution
    3. there was wind noise coming through gaps around the windows, causing sleep problems
  6. The resident contacted us on 9 October 2024 and asked us to investigate the complaint. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s actions as he felt the windows needed to be replaced and the property was not safe.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about his family’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. 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.
  2. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  3. The resident raised a previous complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows, which we issued a determination on (202114536). We would not consider matters that the Ombudsman has already decided upon. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the events during 2024, which the landlord considered during its internal complaints process.

Window repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that replacing windows is its responsibility. The policy sets out the following repair response times:
    1. urgent emergency response – within 4 hours
    2. emergency response – within 24 hours
    3. routine – within 20 working days
    4. planned – within 60 working days
  2. Under the right to repair scheme the repairs policy states that an insecure external window is a qualifying repair with a prescribed period for completion of 1 working day. The policy states that with ‘unplanned planned works’ such as replacement windows it would need to consider why something may need to be replaced before it expects. It may do a temporary repair and then add it to a future planned programme of works.
  3. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Its obligations include ensuring adequate ventilation and properly fitting windows. The HHSRS specifies that there can be a threat to physical and mental health from exposure to noise in the home which can be impacted by the disrepair of windows.
  4. On 6 February 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that a window had come off its hinges on one side and was unsafe. A contractor attended the same day to make the window safe, which was in line with the repairs policy and an appropriate action.
  5. On 7 February 2024, the landlord raised a work order to replace the window hinges. On 19 February, a contractor attended but was unable to gain access to the property. A contractor attended on 6 March and found the window hinges broken, leaving a hole in the frame. A further appointment was booked to release stuck windows, which was completed on 12 March, 22 working days after the issue was raised. This was slightly outside of its policy timescale, however as it was unable to gain access on 19 February, this short delay was not unreasonable.
  6. The resident raised a complaint on 18 March 2024. He said the window had been pulled off its hinges by strong wind and it was a huge risk for his family to stay in the flat. He told the landlord that one of his children is disabled and his wife was pregnant with twins. He said that one of his children had almost fallen out of the 11th floor window when it had come off its hinges in February 2024.
  7. The Ombudsman appreciates that this incident was very concerning for the resident and his family. However, the determination on the resident’s previous case found that repairs had been completed reasonably in 2021, although they were delayed. Given the time that had passed and there being no reported issues with the windows in the meantime, there is no evidence the landlord could have foreseen the incident in February 2024. And, as the landlord attended promptly to make the window safe on this occasion, it took reasonable actions in relation to safety at this time.
  8. In its stage 1 response of 1 May 2024, the landlord said that during its initial inspection its contractor had identified that the window needed new hinges but had temporarily secured it. It said following a no access appointment on 19 February it had changed contractor, which had led to a delay. It offered compensation of £300 to recognise the delay and the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by this. The landlord’s explanation and offer of redress was reasonable at this time.
  9. A note on the landlord’s system from 2 July 2024 said that some parts for the windows were obsolete and replacement windows were needed. On 22 August, the resident emailed the landlord to say he had escalated the complaint in writing in May but had no response. On 9 September, the resident told the landlord during a phone call that its contractor had only carried out temporary repairs and there were still issues with the windows.
  10. The landlord carried out an inspection of the windows on 11 September 2024. This said that many of the windows were screwed shut or bottom pivot only and only 1 worked ok but that one had a loose bottom hinge. Further notes from the landlord’s contractor on 18 September are unclear but appear to say that only 2 windows were working and others were not repairable due to obsolete parts. The notes said that the windows needed to be replaced.
  11. The landlord’s internal communications of 29 September 2024 show that it was not sure it could leave the resident with only 1 fully working window for a year or more. However, it said it would not be financially viable for it to put up scaffolding to change windows in an 11th floor flat outside of a planned programme of works. The communications end with it saying all but 1 room now has a window that can open to some extent. However, the notes from visits on 11 and 18 September make it clear that the windows are not in a reasonable condition. The landlord’s communications indicate it decided not to carry out further work due to cost, without any consideration for alternative solutions, which was not appropriate.
  12. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 30 September 2024 in which it said that the windows were safe and most could be opened. While there is no dispute that windows had been sealed for safety, the landlord’s records do not make it clear that most could be opened. It is not clear what records it is relying on to support this. It said the windows were due to be replaced during major works, which it expected to be carried out in 2026.
  13. The resident responded on 3 October saying it was not true that most of the windows could now be opened. He said the wind noise coming through the gaps was causing sleep deprivation and they were ‘suffocated’ in the summer without fresh air. He said the situation was causing him to suffer with depression and anxiety. The landlord emailed the resident on 31 October 2024 saying that the repairs were ‘make safe’ and that the windows were safe and the property habitable.
  14. The resident told us on 13 January 2025 that rainwater was getting in through gaps in the windows causing mould to grow. In March 2025 he sent video footage demonstrating the noise issue and showing mould around the window recesses.
  15. From the information provided it does not appear the resident raised the issue with noise until after the landlord sent its stage 2 response. And we have not seen any evidence he has raised the mould issue directly with the landlord at any time. However, we have also seen no evidence the landlord carried out a risk assessment to consider the potential impact not replacing the windows could have on the household. As both the noise and mould issues relate to the condition of the windows and the landlord’s decision relating to repair and replacement, a risk assessment could have identified these problems. Therefore, we have considered these issues as part of the complaint.
  16. In its response to the resident on 31 October 2024 the landlord failed to comment on the noise issue, and there is no evidence it has carried out a further inspection to look into this, which was not appropriate. It is appreciated that the immediate concern for the landlord when the issue was reported was ensuring the windows did not present a safety hazard. However, it had the opportunity to investigate the noise issue and did not do so. It has failed to demonstrate that it took this concern seriously and investigated it in line with its obligations under the HHSRS.
  17. Mould is a known potential consequence of issues with ventilation and poorly sealed windows and may be linked to the problems with the windows. However, the inspection report the landlord provided from September 2024 included photos which did not show any mould. There is no evidence the landlord was aware of mould growth, so it is reasonable that no action was taken in relation to this.
  18. The Ombudsman considers there to have been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the windows in the property. The landlord’s internal communications and contractor’s comments state that the windows are beyond repair due to parts being obsolete and require replacement. It has ruled out the possibility of carrying out complete window replacements at this time due to the cost of doing so.
  19. We appreciate the landlord’s need to be fiscally responsible. However, it has failed to demonstrate that it has considered whether the property is in a reasonable condition in line with its obligations under the HHSRS. It has not provided any evidence it has carried out a risk assessment or any investigation into the noise issue.
  20. While the landlord may not deem it feasible to replace the windows at this time, it has not shown that it considered any alternative solutions. Its repairs policy allows for it to carry out temporary repairs and add the permanent repairs to a planned programme of works. However, these temporary repairs should leave the property in a reasonable condition, and the landlord has failed to demonstrate it has done this. This has left the resident worried about his family’s wellbeing.
  21. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £500. This amount has been awarded with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind, to recognise the distress experienced by the resident. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £800.
  22. Orders have also been made for the landlord to carry out further investigations into the living environment in line with the resident’s concerns that the windows are not fully functioning and take action to resolve matters.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It can agree an extension of up to 10 days with the resident and will confirm this in writing.
  2. At stage 2 the landlord says it will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and send its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. It can agree an extension of up to 20 days with the resident and will confirm this in writing.
  3. The resident raised the complaint via the landlord’s webform on 18 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 March and told the resident it aimed to respond by 5 April. On 17 April it wrote to the resident to say it needed to extend the deadline to 1 May. This was not appropriate as it should have agreed the extension before the deadline had passed. It sent its stage 1 response on 1 May, in line with the extended deadline. It acknowledged that its response had been delayed and offered £25 compensation.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 August 2024 saying that he had requested escalation of the complaint on 15 May by post. We have not seen a copy of this letter, so it seems that the landlord did not receive this. Whilst this did delay the complaint, we cannot hold the landlord responsible for not acting on a letter it did not receive.
  5. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request until 9 September 2024. This was 12 working days after it had received his email and outside of its policy timescale. Given that the resident said he had previously written to request the escalation, it was inappropriate for the landlord to delay acknowledging the email request.
  6. The landlord said it would send it stage 2 response by 30 September 2024, and it did send its response on that date. It incorrectly said the resident had requested escalation on 2 September and did not acknowledge its delay in escalating the complaint, which was not appropriate.
  7. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It did not respond or update the resident in line with its complaints policy at either stage. While it did acknowledge a delay at stage 1, it delayed the complaint again at stage 2 and did not recognise this.
  8. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £75 to recognise additional distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling delays. This award has been made with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind and brings the total compensation for this issue to £100.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the windows in the property.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £900, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
    1. £800 in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused by the windows issue.
    2. £100 in relation to complaint handling.
  2. A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified within this report.
  3. The landlord to provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.
  4. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to:
    1. Carry out an inspection of the windows and their impact on the living environment in the property.
    2. Carry out a risk assessment in line with its obligations under the HHSRS, taking into account the needs and vulnerabilities of the household.
    3. Provide us and the resident with copies of the above report and risk assessment.
    4. Consider the options available to it to enable the resident to live hazard free. If repairs are possible the landlord should provide us with a schedule of works setting out timescales for work. If repairs are not possible the landlord should propose in writing an alternative solution.