London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — case 202226285

Decision Case ID 202226285 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 30 January 2026 Background The resident lives in a ground‑floor bedsit. She reported damp and mould in the bathroom, living room, and cupboards. She explained that a damp patch was coming through the external wall. The landlord identified that works to the gully, downpipe, and repointing brickwork were required to address the issue.

She was unhappy with how the landlord handled the repairs. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of damp and mould and subsequent repairs. Associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and subsequent repairs. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons Damp and mould and subsequent repairs The landlord responded to the reports of damp and mould and determined the likely cause. While there was a significant delay in completing the required repairs, it apologised, acknowledged its failings and offered proportionate compensation. Associated complaint The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing its complaint response, recognised its failings and apologised. It also offered proportionate compensation. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should consider reinspecting the property and repairs completed to ensure they are complete and remain in good condition, preventing damp and mould reoccurring in the property. The landlord should also consider reinspecting the property for damp and mould in the affected areas.

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1,400 as agreed in the final complaint response and reviewed compensation. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, subsequent repairs and associated complaint is made on the basis that this compensation is paid. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 27 February 2023 The resident complained to the landlord. She reported damp and mould in the property, which she said had damaged her personal belongings.

She explained that the conditions were detrimental to her health as she had asthma. To resolve the complaint, she requested a mould wash of the affected areas and compensation. She also wanted an investigation to identify the cause of the damp and mould. 27 February 2023 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. 13 March 2023 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said a specialist damp and mould surveyor completed a full inspection and advised how to reduce damp and mould in the home.

Following the inspection, it raised works to address the issue, including a mould wash, which it completed on 2 February 2023. The surveyor recommended repointing and gully works, but it raised these jobs to the wrong contractor, so they were not completed. It confirmed that it re‑raised and prioritised these works. The landlord stated that once it completed the recommended works and the resident followed the surveyor’s advice, the issue should be resolved. It apologised for the impact the issues had on her health and said it wanted to arrange an in‑person discussion.

It offered £500 for the delays and the impact. It added that it would provide a breakdown and review of compensation once the issues were fully resolved. 3 April 2023 The resident escalated her complaint. She said there had been little progress in addressing her concerns. She said the tiles in the bathroom had been painted over rather than cleaned with a mould wash. She said the exterior works had not started and she had not received any information about when they would begin.

16 May 2023 The landlord requested an extension for the stage 2 complaint response. It said it was waiting for a date from the contractor and would provide a response by 9 June 2023. 16 June 2023 The resident chased the landlord for a stage 2 complaint response. It replied on 19 June 2023, advising that it was still waiting for an update on the external works. It said that once it received this information, it would provide a response and review compensation by 30 June 2023.

15 August 2023 The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay and explained it had been waiting for necessary information. It said the repointing and gully works were initially raised incorrectly but had since been actioned. It confirmed that it cleaned, sanded, and fibreglass‑sealed the roof, and repointed the affected areas in April 2023. It said it completed a mould wash in the bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen on 2 February 2023. The landlord added that it had learned from this and would hold weekly meetings with contractors to manage work schedules and prevent delays.

It increased its compensation offer to £1,100 to recognise the resident’s distress, the negative impact, delays, poor customer service, and poor complaint handling. 7 November 2024 The landlord responded to the resident’s request to review the original compensation. The issues had not been resolved following the stage 2 complaint response. She contacted the landlord multiple times to request updates on when the works would be carried out. She asked on several occasions for a review of the compensation.

It increased its compensation offer to £1,400 to recognise the delays in both reviewing the compensation and completing the repairs. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought the complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She said although it had completed multiple mould washes, the issue persisted. She added that the repointing works were not completed effectively. She said there was a damp patch coming through the external wall and a broken downpipe in the same location.

She wants the works completed in full to prevent the issue from reoccurring. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint Reports of damp and mould and subsequent repairs Finding Reasonable redress What we have not considered The resident raised concerns about the impact of the situation on her health.

The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience in line with our remedies guidance.

What we have considered It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and subsequent repairs. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 12 June 2022. The landlord attempted to attend on 5 July 2022, which fell within the 20-working day timeframe set out in its repairs policy. However, the operative recorded no access because they could not identify which property the job related to. The evidence does not show that it attempted to contact her or make 3 access attempts in line with its repairs policy. It later identified that the contact details on its system related to the previous tenant.

She said she had updated staff with her correct details multiple times. This indicates a failure in the landlord’s record keeping. Further delays occurred in scheduling an appointment when the landlord redirected the resident to its damp and mould triage teams. The evidence indicates that it expected her to re‑establish contact and does not show that it followed up on the initial report. Good practice would have required it to follow up to ensure completion of the relevant forms and arrangement of appointments in line with its damp and mould process.

The landlord raised an inspection and attended on 4 November 2022. The inspection recommended mould washes in several areas. It suggested required works to the gully, repointing to the external brickwork, and repairs to a broken downpipe. However, it did not raise these jobs until 20 December 2022 and later confirmed an appointment for the mould wash on 2 February 2023. Although the landlord had identified the likely cause of damp and mould, it did not attend to the mould for 61 working days.

This did not align with its repairs policy timescale. The landlord raised the gully works and repointing with the incorrect contractor and did not correct this until it issued its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that it had re‑raised and prioritised the works. This resulted in unnecessary and avoidable delays. It remains responsible for monitoring outstanding repairs, ensuring timely completion, and providing clear updates to the resident. It offered £500 compensation for the delays and the associated impact and said it would review the compensation once it fully resolved the issues.

Its offer was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance and was reasonable at the time of its response. There were further delays in completing the required works to the external wall. Bad weather, scaffolding, and the need to complete additional works first caused some of these delays, which was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy. It is unclear why there were further delays and there is limited information to demonstrate it scheduled the works.

It did complete further mould washes and reattended to address the bathroom grouting. However, as it had not fully resolved the underlying cause of the damp and mould, it did not progress with any internal redecoration works. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it cleaned, sanded, and fibreglass‑sealed the roof, and repointed the affected areas. It offered £1,000 in recognition of the distress, negative impact, delays, and poor customer service. While this was a reasonable offer at the time, it is not clear it completed the repointing works.

It later advised us that it had no record that it carried out the repointing. The resident explained that the repointing was needed at the area where the external wall meets the ground, rather than at roof level. As such, it was unclear whether it completed the required works in full at that stage. The landlord completed subsequent works to the external wall in May 2024. This was almost 2 years after the resident first reported damp and mould and it identified the required works.

This was a considerable delay and did not align with its repairs policy timescales. During this period, she had to chase for updates on multiple occasions, and it relied on her to report when works had been completed. It should have been aware from its own records of the progress of repairs. In its stage 2 complaint response, it identified a learning point stating it would hold weekly meetings with contractors to monitor repairs. The evidence does not show it maintained this approach.

Where it commits to a remedy in its complaint responses, it should ensure that it follows through with the identified actions. The resident confirmed that the landlord completed the works in May 2024 and requested a follow‑up inspection to ensure the issue did not return. It also completed internal redecoration to the affected areas, although it initially missed a section in the cupboard and later returned to address this. It completed post‑inspections in June 2024 and again in August 2024.

At that stage, both parties agreed that the issue had been resolved. The resident said that she does not believe the landlord completed the works properly and that the issue has returned. The evidence shows she reported the issue again in July 2025, and it completed an inspection on 21 July 2025. It conducted further works on 11 August 2025, including damp and mould works, servicing and cleaning of extractor fans, and raking out and repointing. It attempted to contact her to complete a post‑inspection but was unable to do so.

The evidence does not show that she raised the issue again since August 2025. We have made a recommendation in relation to this matter. The resident requested a review of the compensation, as the landlord had suggested. However, she had to make multiple attempts before it provided a full response and review. It increased its compensation offer to £1,150 to reflect the delays in completing the repairs and reviewing the compensation. It also provided insurance information in relation to her damaged belongings.

It is positive it reviewed the complaint, however, it should have been proactive in actioning this due the considerable delays. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the further delay, apology, and revised compensation offer represented reasonable redress for these failings. The amount offered is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where a service failure has adversely affected a resident. Complaint Associated complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process.

It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 response within its policy timeframe. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request, but its response was significantly delayed. Although it requested an extension, it did so 17 working days after the original response was due.

It then failed to provide its response by the extended date, prompting the resident to chase for an update. It provided another date, which it also failed to meet. In total, the stage 2 response was 71 working days late. Although it requested extensions, it did not meet the revised timescales. It also failed to follow its complaint policy when requesting those extensions and did not proactively update the resident. The landlord apologised for the delays in providing its final response and offered £100 compensation.

It later revised its total compensation and offered a further £150 for poor complaint handling and delay in reviewing the compensation, a total of £250. In both responses, it addressed the residents concerns, apologised for delays, and offered and reviewed compensation. This was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance. Learning General learning Good practice requires landlords to identify clear learning points when it recognises failings. In this case, although it recognised some learning, it did not demonstrate applying this following its final response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord should ensure that the correct contact details are held on its system for the respective resident and property to avoid unnecessary delays. The landlord’s records should have demonstrated consistent tracking and oversight of the outstanding works. It should review our spotlight report on knowledge and information management. Communication Communication improved after the internal complaint procedure concluded. However, the landlord relied on the resident to update it on completed repairs.

It should maintain communication with its contractors and be aware about the status of outstanding work.