London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — case 202415935

Decision Case ID 202415935 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 27 May 2026 Background From 2022 to 2025 the resident raised and settled several disrepair claims with the landlord. In April 2024 she complained it had delayed in addressing outstanding works in the property and asked it to prioritise her household for a housing transfer. In its final response the landlord explained it had scheduled various works.

It also explained that she did not qualify for priority banding. The resident remained unsatisfied with this as she considered the landlord had failed to complete outstanding works as promised and unfairly declined her housing transfer request. The resident’s partner is immunocompromised. What the complaint is about The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of: Leaks. Overcrowding. Mould in the bathroom. Pest infestation. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination) We found that: The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the following issues are not within our jurisdiction to investigate: Leaks. Overcrowding. Mould in the bathroom. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Our Scheme does not allow us to investigate matters which have not been addressed at both stages of a landlord’s complaints process.

The resident has not raised concerns about leaks as a formal complaint at any stage. For this reason, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate. The resident’s complaint about overcrowding relates to the actions of the Local Authority (LA) in its assessment of her banding priority for housing transfer. Therefore, this complaint is most suitably assessed by the LGSCO, who investigate complaints about LAs. Our Scheme does not allow us to investigate complaints which are more appropriately handled by an alternative Ombudsman.

For this reason, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate. The resident’s concerns about mould in the bathroom were addressed via a consent order issued by the country court in March 2025 which paused related legal proceedings. This consent order advised that the resident should resume court proceedings if the landlord did not complete identified works to address mould in the bathroom by June 2025. Our Scheme states we may not investigate matters which we consider would be more reasonably addressed via the courts.

Therefore, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate. The landlord failed to take appropriate action in response to the resident’s report of a pest infestation. Despite commitments it made at stage 2, there is no evidence to show it identified and treated an infestation at any stage. This is not in line with the obligations set out on its website or its repairs timescales. The landlord exceeded the timescales set out in its complaints policy by 5 working days in issuing a stage 1 response.

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. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350, made up of: £300 for distress caused by its delays in addressing her reports of pest infestation £50 for distress caused by its delay in issuing a stage 1 response This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 24 June 2026 2 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 24 June 2026 3 Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection.

It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the property for pest infestation the surveyor must also produce a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether there is a pest infestation within the property whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue(s) together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue(s) (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work No later than 24 June 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 25 April 2024 The resident complained that: no progress had been made in rehousing her due to overcrowding and disrepair despite the medical evidence she submitted the landlord had not completed outstanding repairs the property was infested by mice She asked the landlord to rehouse her and her family.

20 May 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained that: the panel which considered her medical evidence determined she did not qualify for priority transfer the resident submitted further evidence to show her partner had lived in the area from 2017 the local authority (LA) subsequently put the resident on the housing register due to overcrowding the repair work to address “poor condition” of the property was being managed by its senior surveyor 3 June 2024 The resident requested a stage 2 escalation.

She complained that the landlord had failed to properly consider her feedback or complete outstanding works. 1 July 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that: it had inspected the bathroom for condensation and pest infestation it had raised works to replace the bathroom and bedroom windows it would not comment on live disrepair cases it could not waive the housing criteria as the resident had not evidenced exceptional circumstances it should have provided repairs timescales Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of the following outstanding issues: leaks mould in the bathroom pest infestation She also reiterated that she wanted the landlord to prioritise her for a housing transfer due to overcrowding and her partner’s medical conditions.

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 How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of leaks. Finding Outside jurisdiction Our Scheme states we may not consider complaints which have not been addressed at both stages of a landlord’s complaints handling process, unless we can see evidence of a relevant complaint handling failure.

We can see that works to address leaks from the hallway ceiling were agreed as part of a disrepair settlement in April 2024. However, we can see no evidence the resident has raised this issue as a formal complaint. As such, the landlord has not addressed either concern via its complaint procedure. The legal disrepair process is separate to the complaints process, and we do not typically investigate matters which have only been addressed via the former. Therefore, these concerns are not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

Complaint How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of mould in the bathroom. Finding Outside jurisdiction Our Scheme states we may not investigate matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. On 6 March 2025 a county court issued a consent order instructing the landlord to complete the works outlined in an inspection report from 11 January 2023. This report identified mould in the bathroom and set out works to remedy it.

This included renewing the bathroom window. The order instructed the landlord to complete the works by 4 June 2025. It set out that, if the landlord failed to do so, the resident could return to court and resume proceedings. Therefore, there are paused court proceedings which the resident can promptly resume to resolve this aspect of her complaint. Therefore, it is more appropriate for the resident pursue a resolution via this legal process. For this reason, it is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

Complaint How the landlord handled the resident’s request for a housing transfer due to overcrowding. Finding Outside jurisdiction The resident complained that her 2-bed property is too small for her 5-person household. She complained that, despite this and her partner’s medical condition, she was not prioritised for a housing transfer. This complaint relates to the actions of the Local Authority in its assessment of the resident’s banding priority for housing transfer. Therefore, this complaint is most suitably assessed by the LGSCO, who investigate complaints about local authorities.

Our Scheme rules do not allow us to investigate complaints which are more appropriately handled by an alternative Ombudsman. For this reason, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate. Complaint How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of pest infestation. Finding Maladministration What we have not considered The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of a pest infestation since 2022. Our Scheme states that we may only investigate matters which were brought to a landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe, typically 12 months.

The resident first complained about this on 25 April 2024. Therefore, we have only considered the landlord’s actions from 25 April 2023 onwards, since events which preceded this did not take place within 12 months of the complaint. What we have considered The landlord’s website explains that it will identify pest infestations within its tenants’ properties and provide the most effective way to treat them. Its repairs policy set out that it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.

We can see the resident first reported an infestation on 6 January 2024. The landlord noted that it emailed its pest control number to her. However, there is no record of this email. This is a record keeping failure. In the absence of this evidence, we do not consider the landlord appropriately addressed the resident’s report as per the commitments set out on its website. The resident raised her concerns about an infestation again on 25 April 2024. The landlord noted her concerns in its stage 2 response.

It also scheduled a pest control appointment for 3 July 2024. However, we cannot see any evidence that it followed through on this appointment. In the absence of this evidence, we do not consider the landlord took any action to diagnose and treat the pest infestation from January 2024 until July 2024. This was not in line with the obligations set out on its website or its repairs timescales. The resident has explained that the problem is still ongoing, and so we have ordered the landlord to complete a new inspection and set out a treatment plan.

The landlord has not acknowledged these failures. We consider these omissions likely caused the resident distress, and so we have also ordered the landlord pays compensation to put this right. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are typically appropriate to put right failures which have caused residents adverse but not permanent impacts. In calculating the appropriate sum, we have considered that the resident’s distress was likely more severe than it would have been in other circumstances given her partner’s vulnerabilities.

We have considered the inconvenience she incurred in chasing the landlord to take action. However, we have also considered that the resident did not follow up on this following the landlord’s stage 2 response for over 12 months. With this in mind, we have ordered the landlord to pay a sum at the mid-range of our scale. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days of this.

It will then acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 20 working days. This in line with the timescales set out in our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint the day after she raised it. It then issued its response 5 working days beyond its timescales on 20 May 2024. It acknowledged her stage 2 escalation within its timescales on 7 June 2024. It then issued its stage 2 response 16 working days later, which was within its timescales.

The landlord has not acknowledged its slight delay in issuing its stage 1 response, and we consider this omission likely caused the resident some minor distress. To put this right, we have ordered it to pay compensation at the low end of our compensation scale. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s record keeping of its pest control actions has room for improvement. It failed to record the email it noted it had sent the resident in January 2024.

We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of good record keeping, and how this might have improved its handling of the pest issue. Communication The landlord’s communication around the resident’s reports of pest infestation has room for improvement. For instance, it failed to acknowledge her April 2024 reports until July 2024. It then failed to follow through on an appointment it scheduled for 3 July 2024 but did not update the resident about this. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of prompt and proactive communication, and how it might have mitigated the impact of any delays on the resident by doing so here.