Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202325283)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325283

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

31 July 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of an ongoing bed bug infestation.
    2. Reports of repairs, including damp and mould.
    3. Management transfer request.
  2. This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the first floor of a block of flats. She had lived at the property since December 2014 and shared her home with her son and daughter. The landlord is a local authority, and it rehoused the resident in May 2024. The resident is dyslexic and has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Her daughter has ADHD and is autistic.
  2. The resident raised a disrepair claim with the landlord in April 2021. A survey report completed in June 2021 identified mould growth within the bathroom, together with a lack of ventilation in the bathroom and kitchen. It recorded repairs needed to the property both internally and externally. It also noted that the resident had experienced a range of pest infestations. At the time of the report, it said that there was no evidence of a bedbug infestation. The landlord completed works to the bathroom and kitchen in May 2021. Its records note that it completed flooring works in June 2022. It raised repairs to the balcony and further internal works in early 2023.
  3. The landlord made an offer to settle the resident’s disrepair claim in October 2022. It noted that a solicitor no longer represented the resident on 5 May 2023. Its disrepair team kept oversight for the repairs to her home.
  4. The landlord accepted the resident’s application for a management transfer on 19 May 2022. Its records show that it made an initial offer of temporary accommodation. The resident declined this offer due to the location and her concern that the move would be disruptive to her children’s schooling. The landlord registered the resident on its bidding system for a transfer.
  5. On 6 July 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She said that despite her previous disrepair case, repairs to her home were outstanding. This included the replacement of her kitchen door and the removal of mould to her bedroom walls. Further, there was still an infestation of bed bugs. She said that this had been ongoing for 8 years. She wanted the landlord to resolve these issues. She said that she had replaced several items of furniture. These were all affected by bed bugs. She wanted the landlord to compensate her for this.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 July 2023. It said that she had an active legal disrepair case. It advised that as this remained ongoing, she should raise all enquiries about the repairs through her solicitor. It confirmed that, in agreement with her, its contractor would be attending to complete the works between 11 and 15 September 2023. This was following her children’s return to school. The landlord recorded this as a reply to her stage 1 complaint. The resident replied directly to say that she did not have a disrepair case. She asked it to investigate her complaint.
  7. The landlord’s internal communication records show that it confirmed on 21 July 2023 that a solicitor no longer represented the resident. Its disrepair team were continuing to manage the repairs to her home. It reopened her stage 1 complaint on this date.
  8. The landlord has provided a copy of the consent order made in the county court on 6 October 2022. By way of settlement of the resident’s complaint the landlord agreed an award of £3000 compensation. Further it was to complete the outstanding repairs within 90 days.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 August 2023. It set out the basis of the resident’s complaint and the steps that it had taken to investigate her concerns. In this it:
    1. set out the list of repairs identified by its disrepair surveyor on 2 June 2021. It further noted that she had raised the issues of damp and mould previously in 2019 and 2020. It apologised that these issues had reoccurred. It confirmed that its contractor would now complete the repairs between 11 and 15 September 2023.
    2. apologised that the bed bugs had returned. It included information from its pest control team that it would have given to her following treatment. It said that it could not guarantee the success of any insect treatment as several factors were outside of its control. It said that its pest controller had attended on 18 August 2023. It told the resident that she would need to arrange for treatment on a 3 week period until no further visits were needed.
    3. said that she could make a claim for the damage to her personal belongings through the landlord’s liability insurance. It provided her with the necessary contact details.
    4. upheld her complaint given the length of time taken to complete the repairs to her home and the impact of this delay. It offered the resident a total of £2000 compensation which it broke down as:
      1. £1000 for the delay in it completing the works in her home.
      2. £500 for the inconvenience this caused.
      3. £500 for the impact on the resident and her children.
  10. On 6 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the dates it had attended her property to treat for bedbugs during 2023. It recorded 4 visits monthly from June 2023.
  11. On 8 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She provided background detail to her complaint. The 3 main issues of her complaint were that:
    1. The bed bug infestation had been ongoing for 8 years.
    2. She had been on the management transfer list for 2 years.
    3. The landlord had not completed the repairs identified through her disrepair case.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 October 2023 following a telephone conversation with her. It confirmed that it had extended the target response time for her complaint by a further 10 working days. It said that it was liaising with its pest control team about the ongoing infestation within her home. It provided a list of the works that it needed to carry out to her home. It needed to arrange an appointment with her. The works listed included:
    1. Install a fire door to the kitchen.
    2. Damp and mould in all rooms, including the bathroom.
    3. Works to the balcony, to fill cracks in the coping stones and to repair pigeon netting.
    4. Reseal around bath and basin.
    5. Install an extractor fan.
  13. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 October 2023. It apologised for the distress and frustration felt by the resident and the negative impact of these issues on her and her children. It acknowledged that she had felt overwhelmed at times due to her ADHD and dyslexia. Further, on 8 October 2023, it had made a referral to the mental health team. It had also been in contact with the family support service currently working with the resident. It confirmed the compensation offered at stage 1 and had arranged for it to pay this to her. It noted that this was in addition to the award of £5000 at the conclusion of her disrepair case in May 2022. In response to the issues raised within her complaint it said:
    1. It had offered her temporary accommodation on 4 October 2023. She had declined this and was currently staying with a family member due to the stress of the bed bug infestation. Having spoken with her about her complaint it had agreed with her to make a further offer of long term temporary accommodation.
    2. It had set up a video call with the resident. This included its head of environmental health, its pest control officer, and her family support practitioner. This was an opportunity for the resident to raise her concerns. Its pest control officer had last visited on 9 October 2023. He had explained his findings and that while he did not dispute the resident’s reports of an ongoing infestation, he had found no live bed bugs at the time. It had agreed to undertake 2 further treatments on 30 October and 6 November 2023.
    3. Following its discussions with the resident, it had hand delivered letters to other residents providing information about bed bugs. This included details of how to book a pest control appointment. It also enclosed an insect monitor with instructions on its use.
    4. It had checked the records it held of pest control visits to her home. This included historical information from 2016 and 2017. It noted that it had not attended her home between 20 March 2017 and 14 June 2023. Since June 2023 it had treated her property on 6 separate occasions.
    5. It had accepted her application for a management transfer on 19 May 2022. It had placed her in band 1. It allocated its homes through a bidding system. As the resident had found this difficult to use due to her dyslexia, it had now registered her for automatic bids to make the process easier. It noted the outcome of her bids to date. Further it gave her the name of the officer acting as her point of contact.
    6. In its stage 1 response it had said that it would carry out the repairs to her home between 11 and 15 September 2023. It had rearranged these at her request to 9 to 13 October 2023, as she had been unwell.
    7. She had told it that she had not received the detail of the works the landlord would do. It sent these to her on 6 October 2023, having previously provided these to her solicitor. Further it set out the detail of the repairs within the letter. It was now due to do the work between 11 and 19 December 2023. It asked her to confirm that this was convenient.
    8. She could make a claim through its insurance for her damaged personal belongings. It included a link to its website.
    9. It considered that the compensation it had offered at stage 1 was reasonable and in line with its compensation and complaints policy. It acknowledged that this may not be the outcome that she wanted. It said that it was a way forward, providing a planned approach that it could monitor.
  14. The resident contacted this service on 22 October 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlords reply. She asked the service to investigate her complaint. She said that she felt that the landlord was “not hearing what she is saying as she had to constantly repeat herself”. That it had “dismissed her suffering”, despite the situation going on for years. She had to constantly chase and that there had been no solution. The approach of pest control was always the same. She said that the issue of bed bugs and mould in her home had affected the health of her family. She had thrown away personal and sentimental items because of the effect of the pest control. She felt the situation was not acceptable.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation on 24 October 2023. As this was some distance from her current home she refused the offer. On 27 October 2023 her housing officer completed a request for temporary accommodation. This said that she needed to stay within her current locality and set out the reasons for this. The resident told the landlord that she was staying with a relative. She did not wish to stay at the property due to the bed bugs.
  2. The landlord put a hold on the repair works to the resident’s home while it continued to treat the property for bed bugs. The landlord’s email communication shows that the works remained on hold through early 2024. The landlord removed the property from its disrepair list when the resident moved to her new home.
  3. The landlord’s head of environmental health wrote to the resident on 19 December 2023 following contact from the resident. It again provided advice to her about the action that she should take ahead of its treatment of areas within her home. It said that it had treated the property on 13 December 2023 and that this would remain for around 3 to 4 weeks. It asked her to contact it again after this time if the bed bugs remained. It further detailed the action it had taken in offering her temporary accommodation and the current position with her bids for a permanent move. It confirmed that she was still the tenant of the property.
  4. During January and March 2024, the landlord continued to communicate with the resident about treatment of the property for bed bugs. It wrote to her on 1 March 2024 advising that its treatments were not as effective “if you do not sleep in the beds after our visits”. It said that the next step would be to carry out antigen tests and place monitors in the property to show if bed bugs remained.
  5. The resident was permanently rehoused in May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: c. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request.
  3. The resident’s application for a management transfer and how the landlord processed this is covered within the landlord’s housing allocation scheme. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has jurisdiction over complaints about social housing applications for local authority landlords. The resident pursued her complaint about a transfer, questioning her priority to bid for properties and presenting medical evidence to support her need to move.
  4. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
  5. Given the above, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has told us that the ongoing bed bug infestation, together with the outstanding repairs to her home have had a negative effect on the health and wellbeing of her and her children. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.

Reports of an ongoing bed bug infestation

  1. The resident has said that there was an ongoing infestation of bedbugs within her home over several years. She said that she also experienced infestations of mice, fleas, carpet beetles and biscuit beetles through the time that she lived in the property. We understand that the longstanding nature of this issue was a cause of frustration. However, we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable timeframe, usually within 12 months of an issue first occurring. Where there had been a significant delay in a resident raising a complaint, it is possible that contemporaneous evidence may not be available given the time that has elapsed. As such this investigation has focused on the complaint raised by the resident in July 2023 and the action of the landlord in addressing the issues of bed bugs and other pests in the months preceding it.
  2. The landlord responded to reports from the resident of bed bugs and treated her home on 23 June 2023. The landlord’s pest controller used insecticide to treat the affected rooms. It returned to carry out further treatments in July, August, September and October. In responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint the landlord arranged a video call with the resident, its pest control officer and head of environmental health. This was at the request of the resident and took place on 19 October 2023. This was a positive step, giving an opportunity for the resident to express her concerns about the continuing infestation. It then arranged further treatment of the property.
  3. The landlord’s pest control service gave the resident information about the steps that she should take ahead of any treatments for bed bugs and those she should take afterwards. It included this information in its complaint responses. The information sets out how rooms should be prepared for treatment, with bed linen removed from beds, along with any items surrounding the beds. This also says that rooms should be vacuumed before treatment, with the contents of the vacuum emptied and contained within a sealed bag. It says that items should be washed and dried at high temperatures. This advice said that “treated rooms should be reoccupied as soon after treatment as possible” and that residents “should be ready to re-use infested beds as soon as possible after treatment, ideally the same night”.
  4. In its communication with the resident the landlord has acted on the best advice of its pest controllers. It is reasonable for the landlord to have relied on their expertise in dealing with an ongoing infestation.
  5. After the meeting with the resident, it arranged to drop leaflets to neighbouring properties about bed bugs. Given the time over which the resident said that the issue was ongoing, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered whether there was a benefit to wider treatments within the block and could have circulated information to neighbours at an earlier stage.
  6. The resident found the continued presence of pests within her home distressing, and she was particularly concerned about the impact of this on her children. In October 2023 she went to stay with family. The landlord agreed to offer her temporary accommodation while it continued to treat the property. The landlord offered the resident a temporary move in late October 2023. She declined this due to its location and the distance from her current home. Its internal records note that it asked that it make a further offer of a temporary move within the same locality as the resident’s current home. There is no evidence that it did so. Having committed to providing her with temporary accommodation in its stage 2 complaint response, it would have been reasonable for this further offer to have been made. That this did not happen was a failure by the landlord.
  7. The landlord’s records show that it continued to treat her home in the following months. It recorded that as the resident was no longer living in the property this was proving difficult, and its pest controller restated the benefit of treating an occupied property. There is no evidence that the landlord considered alternative treatments, knowing that the resident was not living in the property. In March 2024 the landlord said it would carry out antigen tests to show whether bed bugs were still in the property. The landlord has not provided information as to the outcome of these tests.
  8. The landlord’s actions in dealing with the resident’s reports of bed bugs in her home were based on the best advice of its pest control service. While this was not unreasonable, it could have acted sooner in looking to the potential of a wider issue within the resident’s block and contacted neighbours. It was aware that the resident had chosen to vacate her home due to her ongoing concerns but did not change its approach to treating her home. It continued to tell her that its treatment was most effective where the property was lived in. Having acknowledged that she had moved out this was not appropriate. It agreed to an offer of temporary accommodation but did not follow this through. It could have made a further offer within the area that the resident lived. That it did not do so was a failure by the landlord.
  9. The resident reported to the landlord that her personal items had been damaged by the beg bugs, both because of the infestation and the treatment. The landlord provided information to the resident about making a claim against its liability insurance at both stages of her complaint. This was an appropriate response. However, as it had acknowledged the difficulties the resident had experienced in dealing with the issues due to her dyslexia, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided her with some help or as a minimum to have checked with her that she had been able to access the links that it provided.
  10. We have found that these items amount to maladministration by the landlord in the handling of this issue for the resident. Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies an order has been made for compensation for the identified failures and the associated distress caused to the resident.
  11. Further it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss with her making a claim against its liability insurance for the damaged items of furniture that she has reported.

Reports of repairs, including damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its statutory responsibilities to repair its homes. This says that it has a responsibility for “maintaining in a good state of repair the building and its components”. It gives examples of common landlord responsibilities including “managing hazards that may present a risk to health”. This policy covers unplanned and reactive repairs. It sets a time frame for the completion of repairs that fall under 4 headings: with 20 working days for routine repairs and 60 working days for planned works.
  2. 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. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord must consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  3. The repairs reported by the resident formed part of the disrepair claim raised in April 2021. The Ombudsman’s Scheme says that we cannot investigate matters that are the subject of court proceedings. From the evidence provided the landlord settled the resident’s claim in October 2022. As an outcome to the resident’s claim the landlord agreed to complete the outstanding repairs within 90 days. The resident could reasonably have expected the landlord to have completed all the repairs to her home by end January 2023. We have therefore considered the action of the landlord in dealing with repairs in the context of the resident’s formal complaint.
  4. There were a range of repairs that remained outstanding to the resident’s home including the replacement of her kitchen door with a fire door and the treatment of damp and mould within areas of the property. The landlord also listed repairs externally to the balcony, internal electrical works including the installation of extra ventilation. Many of these repairs had been part of the disrepair claim. There is a lack of evidence as to why the landlord did not complete these works within the time scales agreed as an outcome to the resident’s disrepair claim. It acknowledged this failure in its stage 1 complaint response. In this it made an award of £2000 compensation for the delay in completing the repairs, the inconvenience caused and the impact on the resident and her family. This was appropriate and offered a level of readdress that was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. It agreed with the resident that it would carry out these repairs in September 2023. It did not however detail within its stage 1 response the works that it would do. At the request of the resident, it cancelled the appointment in September and rearranged this to October 2023. The resident asked the landlord to detail the works that it would be carrying out. The landlord declined to provide this information. It said that it had agreed this with her solicitor and that she should refer to them. As the landlord had concluded the disrepair case in October 2022 and was aware that a solicitor no longer represented the resident this advice was inappropriate. This led to the inevitable frustration of the resident who declined to allow access to the contractors. This led to a further delay in the progression of the repairs to her home.
  6. The landlord provided these details through its stage 2 complaint response and set out a new time for completing the repairs. There was a failure in the landlord’s handling of its communication with the resident about the outstanding repairs. Its own records led to a confusion around the status of her disrepair claim. The landlord should have provided clear information within its stage 1 of the repairs that it acknowledged were outstanding. Further when asked to provide the information by the resident it should have done so. This was a service failure which caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident.
  7. We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy and made an order for an added amount of compensation in line with this. It says that where there is a service failure that has impacted on a resident its offer of compensation will be between £50 and £300.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. This sets out that it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Having received the resident’s complaint on 6 July 2023 it declined to accept it for investigation. It did not however write to her until 20 July 2023 to inform her of this. This was based on a belief that she had an open disrepair claim. While this would have been a reasonable basis on which to decline to handle a complaint, it was incorrect. This shows a failure in the landlord’s record keeping ensuring that it has up to date information about disrepair claims and the stages that these are at. Further it was unreasonable of it to have delayed in notifying the resident that it was not investigating her complaint.
  2. It provided its stage 1 response on 25 August 2023, 25 days after it accepted the resident’s complaint on 21 July 2023 and 36 days after she first raised her complaint. This delay was unreasonable and would have caused the resident significant frustration and inconvenience, particularly as this meant that her repairs remained outstanding through this delay.
  3. The landlord accepted escalation of the resident’s complaint on 8 September 2023. It contacted her on 6 October 2023 to agree an extension and provided its final response on 20 October 2023. This was within its published and agreed timescales.
  4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s initial complaint causing a significant delay in her receiving a reply and being able to access its formal complaint process. In line with our guidance on remedies an award of compensation has been made in respect of the inconvenience caused to the resident by this delay.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing bed bug infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, including damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her management transfer is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £500 compensation. This is calculated as follows:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the ongoing bed bug infestation and the identified failures by the landlord in addressing this.
      2. £150 for its failures in the handling of repairs to the resident’s home and its communication with her about this.
      3. £150 for the delays identified in its complaint handling.
    3. This is in addition to the £2000 awarded by the landlord as an outcome in its stage 1 complaint response. It should ensure that this has been paid to the resident and provide evidence of this to this service.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should help the resident in making a claim against its liability insurance for the damage to her personal possessions through the ongoing pest infestation.