London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — case 202342558

Decision Case ID 202342558 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 24 February 2026 Background There were several inspections and various repairs carried out at the resident’s property since May 2021. The landlord inspected in January and February 2023 and identified outstanding works. It agreed to complete the required works, but the resident remained dissatisfied with its handling of these, and she made a complaint.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of multiple repairs at the property. We also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress regarding its handling of multiple repairs at the property. This was enough to put things right. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress regarding its complaint handling. This was enough to put things right. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons The landlord did not keep proper oversight of the repairs or adequately communicate with the resident. These failings contributed to significant delays in completing repairs and had a considerable impact on the resident. The landlord recognised this and offered compensation, which was enough to put things right. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and 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 We recommend that the landlord pays the £1,000 compensation it offered to the resident prior to this investigation, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 5 December 2023 The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of repairs.

She was unhappy with its poor communication, several missed appointments, and unannounced visits. She said some repairs were outstanding or not completed to a satisfactory standard. She also indicated there were additional works needed. She sent the complaint by post, and the landlord received it on 12 December 2023. 14 December 2023 The landlord acknowledged the complaint. 3 January 2024 The landlord informed the resident it needed more time to respond to the complaint. 17 January 2024 The landlord provided its stage 1 response.

It recognised that the resident had reported some of the repairs a few years prior to making a complaint. It acknowledged that it had failed to complete repairs in line with its repairs policy. It said that it would inspect her property on 18 January 2024 and confirm the required repairs. It offered to pay £550 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident. It broken down its offer as follows: £300 for the delay in completing the repairs. £100 for the inconvenience caused.

£100 for the cancelled and missed appointments and for showing up unannounced. £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint. 4 March 2024 The resident escalated her complaint. She said that the landlord failed to complete the agreed repairs after it inspected the property. She also explained that she was unhappy with the compensation offered. The resident sent her escalation letter by post, and the landlord received it on 8 March 2024. 15 March 2024 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and said it would respond on 9 April 2024.

19 April 2024 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: In response to her feedback about the contractor, it inspected the property and appointed new contractors. Its newly appointed contractors would complete the repairs, and it provided the resident with a named contact to discuss any issues. It would do repairs to the front external wall, renew the external vents with airbricks, decorate the external windowsill and bottom rail, clear the gutter to the front elevation, renew the expansion joint to the roof at the rear of the property, instal a new fence at the rear, and renew the rear external door.

It would also do remedial repairs in the front bedroom, the living room and the kitchen, install ventilation for the washer dryer, install kitchen tiles, apply mould washes and redecorate areas to make good. It offered an additional £450 compensation to the resident, broken down as follows: £150 for the impact of the delays. £175 for missed and cancelled appointments. £100 for poor communication. £25 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought her complaint to us because the amount of compensation the landlord offered did not adequately reflect the impact of its failings on her.

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 The landlord’s handling of multiple repairs at the property Finding Reasonable redress The focus of our investigation We may not consider events which happened more than 12 months before a resident complained.

In this case, the landlord acknowledged that the resident reported some of these repairs a few years before her complaint. It also provided evidence of its handling of these repairs since 2021. Therefore, our investigation will look at events from May 2021 where they relate to repairs which remained outstanding in December 2022 (12 months prior to the resident’s complaint in December 2023). We will however not consider other repairs that the landlord completed prior to December 2022.

Damp and mould repairs Our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. In this case, the landlord did not show that it acted with a sense of urgency once it was aware of damp and mould issues in the property. On 12 January 2023 the landlord said it would refer the bathroom damp and mould concerns to its specialist team. Despite this commitment, the damp and mould inspection did not occur until 6 March 2023.

This amounted to a delay of 53 days, for which the landlord provided no explanation. A further 36-day delay then followed before the landlord raised the identified repairs. These delays were unreasonable. The landlord should have acted promptly after becoming aware of the problem and identifying the required works. Its actions did not reflect its repairs policy commitments to provide a high-quality reactive repairs service and complete routine repairs within 20 working days.

On 11 April 2023 the landlord raised jobs to complete the remedial works identified during its damp and mould inspection. It said that it would apply mould washes and a fungicidal barrier and paint the living room and kitchen. It also said it would complete repointing works, replace the vents and the renew the membrane between the rear elevation and the boundary wall. Between April and July 2023, the landlord attempted the agreed repairs but recorded 5 no‑access visits and closed the jobs.

Its repairs policy allows closure after 3 no-access appointments and requires the resident to raise the repair again. The resident said she did not know about the appointments. We did not see evidence that the landlord confirmed them with her or left calling cards after its visits. It also failed to show that it investigated the resident’s allegations of unannounced visits with its contractor. There is also no evidence that the resident re‑reported the issues until she made a complaint in December 2023.

Nonetheless, the landlord did not show adequate communication with the resident on these matters. The evidence shows that the landlord inspected the property again in November 2023. It did not find mould in the home but identified damp related issues. For example, it said the guttering and rendering needed repair, air bricks needed fitting, and some internal walls needed skimming. We found no evidence that the landlord scheduled appointments for these repairs. This caused inconvenience to the resident as she had to make a complaint for the landlord to address the issues.

Following the resident’s December 2023 complaint, the landlord applied a mould wash to affected areas and inspected the property on 18 January 2024. It then re‑raised the repairs it had committed to in February and March 2023. However, there were repeated issues with missed and cancelled appointments which further delayed progress. The landlord’s repeated failings further damaged its relationship with the resident and reduced her trust in its ability to complete the works. In April 2024 the landlord appointed new contractors to complete works.

These included repairs to the living room, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom and external works. While appointing new contractors would inevitably have caused additional delays due to the need to obtain quotes and schedule the repairs, this was an appropriate and necessary step. This demonstrated the landlord’s intention to resolve the issues, improve its service delivery, and rebuild trust with the resident. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it had raised the remedial repairs with its newly appointed contractors.

The evidence shows the contractors completed the works 33 working days later. This exceeded the landlord’s 20‑working day timeframe for routine repairs. However, the works involved multiple repairs across several trades, which reasonably extended the duration. The landlord also maintained regular contact with the resident about the progress of the repairs in this period. The evidence shows that the landlord completed all the internal and external repairs it committed to do in its stage 2 response.

It also did additional works, including replacing the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. Overall, the landlord’s actions from April 2024 onwards were reasonable and showed a clear effort to progress and resolve the outstanding matters. It was nonetheless unreasonable that the damp and mould remedial repairs took almost18 months to complete. This was not in line with the landlord’s expected timeframes for such works. Garden fence On 18 October 2023 the landlord inspected the fence and agreed to repair it on 5 December 2023.

It said it attempted to contact the resident on that day to cancel the repair because the operative was unwell. The resident said that she did not receive the cancellation call. Although the landlord said it rescheduled the fence repair for 24 January 2024, it did not show that it completed or cancelled this repair appointment. Instead, the evidence shows that it raised the repair again in April 2024, when it inspected outstanding works. We understand that the landlord had then appointed a new contractor to complete the work.

However, it should have ensured its previous contractor completed the January 2024 repair as scheduled. The landlord’s lack of oversight caused avoidable delays. Its new contractor completed the repair in June 2024, exceeding its repairs policy timeframe by 141 days, which was an unreasonable delay. Back door The landlord raised a job on 17 May 2022, to repair the back door. We did not see evidence that it completed these repairs. Instead, on 12 January 2023 it raised a new job to repair the back door.

It did not explain the delay of 8 months to finalise the repairs to the back door. Its repairs log shows that it carried out remedial works on 20 July 2023, exceeding its repairs policy timeframe of 20 working days for such repairs. This was unreasonable and we have not seen evidence that the landlord communicated or updated the resident on the delays. On 23 October 2023 the landlord raised a job for further repairs to the back door because the low‑level timber was rotten and allowed pest entry.

The landlord attended on 13 December 2023, but the appointment did not proceed. Its repairs log says that it completed the works on 14 December 2023. There is no evidence that the resident later reported the repairs as outstanding. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord returned and completed the remedial works. Nonetheless, the landlord exceeded its expected timeframe for such repairs. It also did not show that it kept the resident updated or explained the reasons for the delay.

Additionally, although the landlord raised jobs to repair the back door, it is evident from the resident’s communications that she expected it to replace the door. In her stage 1 complaint, she said that it had measured the door several times, but operatives returned without a replacement door. The landlord did not show that it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations or explain why it thought it could repair the door. Following its inspection on 9 April 2024, the landlord agreed to replace the back door.

It appointed a new contractor, who replaced the door by 7 June 2024. This exceeded the landlord’s timeframe for such repairs. However, as explained above, appointing the new contractor contributed to the later delays and these were not excessive in the circumstances. The drainpipe to the front of the property In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said the landlord repaired the drainpipe on 9 October 2023, but she was unhappy with the quality of the repair. We saw no evidence that the landlord raised a job or inspected the issue before 9 April 2024.

Although the landlord completed the repair by 7 June 2024, and installed new drainage, this was 5 months after the resident reported the problem. This was unreasonable and not in line with its expected timeframe for completing such repairs. Kitchen tiling In June and September 2022, the landlord raised a job to finish the tiling of a small area in the resident’s kitchen, which it had started in May 2021. It attended in November 2022 but did not finish the work as it said it needed more time.

We did not see evidence that it returned to complete the work, which was unreasonable. The landlord failed to complete the repair within 20 working days as per its repairs policy. In February 2023 the landlord noted that the tiling was outstanding. At this point, the resident asked the landlord to delay the repair until it completed the damp and mould works. As a result of the delays in completing the damp and mould remedial works, the landlord did not replace the kitchen tiles in June 2024.

This was nearly 3 years after it started the job, significantly exceeding its timeframe for such repairs. Cracks to walls On 12 January 2023 the landlord said that it would monitor cracks to the living room and bedroom walls and would return on 12 April 2023 to check them. However, there is no evidence that the landlord attended on that date, which was unreasonable. Although there is no indication that the resident chased the repair, the landlord was still responsible for following up as promised.

It would have been reasonable for it to either have raised the necessary repair or explained why it would not be taking further action. On 9 April 2024 the landlord raised a job to repair the cracks in the living room, kitchen and bedroom. Its newly appointed contractor completed these works on 7 June 2024. This indicates that the landlord may have raised a repair earlier had it monitored the cracks as it had previously committed to doing. The delay of 1 year before returning to inspect the issue was unreasonable.

Window repairs and painting The landlord raised a job on 17 May 2022 to repair the front window and the bedroom window. In September 2022, the landlord started the works but did not explain the delay of 4 months in doing so. This was an unreasonable delay which significantly exceeded its expected timeframe for completing such repairs. In addition, it is unclear from the landlord’s repairs log how much of the works it completed. This raises concerns about its record keeping. However, after reviewing the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord failed to complete the agreed repairs in September 2022.

This is because the landlord identified unfinished works to the windows when it inspected the property on 12 January 2023. It made good around the windows on 17 January 2023 and repainted them 15 working days later. We recognise that it completed those repairs within its 20‑working day timeframe once it knew that the works were outstanding. However, it originally raised the works in May 2022 and did not complete the repairs and repainting until 7 February 2023, significantly exceeding its published timeframe for such repairs.

Summary Gaps in the landlord’s repairs log raises concerns about its record keeping. The log did not show details of the contractors’ actions or any missed appointments or no‑access visits. It also does not show the inspections carried out at the property or their outcomes. The landlord should keep full records of all repairs, including whether it completed the repairs or why it closed a job before its completion. Its failure to do this likely contributed to its poor oversight of the repairs and the delays in completing the works.

There were significant delays in completed the repairs reported by the resident. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that poor oversight of the repairs and poor communication contributed to these delays. It acted appropriately by recognising what had gone wrong. However, it did not show that it carried out a thorough investigation into the missed appointments and unannounced visits reported by the resident in her stage 1 complaint. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to address the issues sooner and improve its oversight of repairs earlier and prevent further inconvenience to the resident.

We recognise that after the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, the landlord quickly cancelled the works with its usual contractor and appointed 2 new contractors to complete the repairs. It also gave the resident a named contact and kept her updated about the progress of the repairs, which was reasonable. It showed that it had learned from the resident’s complaint and put measures in place to prevent similar failings from reoccurring. For instance, it introduced new monitoring to ensure it keeps oversight of repairs.

It also said it meets with contractors to manage work schedules and ensure repairs are completed in line with its agreed timeframe. The landlord’s failings caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, who had to take time off work to accommodate the repairs and inspections. She also explained that she had to take time away from providing end‑of‑life care for her mother, which was understandably distressing for her. The landlord offered £925 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her.

This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which had a significant impact on a resident. We determine that the level of compensation the landlord offered was sufficient alongside lessons it said it took from the case and the steps it took to complete works within a couple of months of the stage 2 response. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, and its complaint policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive formal responses to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgements. If it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will inform the resident and agree a new timeframe. In such cases, it would explain the reasons for the delay. The resident made a complaint on 5 December 2023, which she sent by post.

The landlord received it on 12 December 2023 and appropriately acknowledged the complaint 2 days later. On 3 January 2024 it contacted the resident to explain that it needed more time to respond but was unable to reach her and sent a letter. It provided its stage 1 response 10 working days later. This was reasonable and in keeping with the Code. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 March 2024, and the landlord received it by post on 8 March 2024. It acknowledged the complaint 5 working days later.

It provided its stage 2 response 4 working days outside its published timeframe. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to extend the complaint in line with the Code and its complaint policy. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged delays in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages. It offered £75 compensation in line with its compensation policy and our own remedies guidance for failings of a short term duration. We therefore conclude that this compensation was sufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s repairs log was incomplete. This made it difficult to assess the timeline of events and likely contributed to its lack of oversight of the repairs. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability. Communication The landlord showed learning from the complaint and put in place measures to improve communication with its contractor and keep oversight of repairs.

It also provided a named contact to the resident to discuss any issues with the repairs. This was good practice.