From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202321203)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321203

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

29 August 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs at the property.
    2. Appointments.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 9 May 2022. The property is a ninth floor 1 bedroom flat.
  2. Repairs were raised in August 2022 following a surveyor’s inspection of the property.  These were recorded by the landlord as routine repairs. The landlord employed a contractor to complete the repairs at the resident’s property.
  3. On 6 February 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that repairs had not been completed. They also complained that the repairs appointments had been changed or made without telling them.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 24 March 2023. It said the repairs raised had been closed before they were completed and this had caused the delay. The landlord also said it had not followed the correct process for scheduling appointments. It offered £500 compensation as follows:
    1. £150 for the delayed repairs
    2. £250 for the appointments that were missed by the contractors, or where no repairs were carried out
    3. £50 for the lack of communication
    4. £50 for the delayed complaint response
  5. The resident told the landlord they wanted to escalate their complaint to stage 2 on 19 April 2023 as an appointment to complete the repairs work had not been attended.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 August 2023. It apologised for the repair delays and issues with arranging appointments. It said a date for the remaining repair work had been set and offered a further £500 compensation made up of:
    1. £300 for the delayed repairs
    2. £200 for the delayed complaint response
  7. The resident referred their complaint to us on 19 September 2023 as they said the repairs had still not been completed.

Assessment and findings

Repairs at the property

  1. The landlord was responsible under a combination of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement and its policies for resolving all the repair issues included in the resident’s complaint. The records suggest that the repairs identified by the surveyor in August 2022 were for the bathroom and included plastering and decorating, overhauling the pan fitting a unit around the electric meter and fitting shelves/ducts. The landlord’s repair policy says it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. It is unclear why the landlord did not take steps to complete the repairs within a reasonable time after the surveyor’s inspection in August 2022. However, that it did not was a failing.
  3. It is also unclear what happened between August 2022 and January 2023. The landlord’s repair log records the works as completed on 9 January 2023. However, not all the repairs had not been completed. A separate work order for plastering the bathroom was marked as complete on this date but the August 2022 work order had been closed by the contractor due to access issues and was not reraised. We have not seen any evidence of the contractor’s attempts to access the property or evidence that it told the landlord it was having access issues.
  4. After the resident made their complaint, the landlord appropriately arranged for the works to be completed. It told the resident the contractor would contact them directly to arrange further appointments. However, the appointment was then missed by the contractor. This caused the resident to escalate their complaint with the landlord. The landlord then worked with the contractor to find out what repairs were needed and arranged further appointments accordingly. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. From the landlord’s repair log the plastering was completed on 9 January 2023, the fuse box move was completed on 5 April 2023 and the painting of the bathroom on 15 May 2023. The length of time to complete these repairs from the date of the August 2022 work order and the resident’s complaint was outside of the landlord’s repair policy and was unreasonable.
  6. These delays were caused by lengthy communications between the landlord and contractor to establish and arrange the repairs that were needed. While it is noted that arranging repairs can sometimes take time, we would expect the landlord to be proactive in managing its contractor. This is to make sure repairs are completed in the timeframe set out in its policy. It would also be reasonable for any delays to be communicated to the resident.
  7. Due to these delays and missed appointments the resident escalated their complaint on 19 April 2023. The resident also told the landlord on 22 May 2023 that not all of the jobs on the surveyor’s report had been completed. The landlord’s repair log shows that the remaining repair work was raised on 30 June 2023. However, this entry was marked as completed on 11 January 2024. We have not seen any reason as to why the repair took this length of time to complete and is therefore unreasonable.
  8. In its stage 2 response (4 August 2023) the landlord said it would start the plastering and windowsill and internal decoration repairs on 8 August 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm this. However, this confirmation came nearly 4 months after the resident escalated her complaint and the reason for the delay is again unclear.
  9. The contractor then told the resident it would start on 11 August 2023. The contractor told the landlord it attended on 8 August 2023 for the windowsill and decorations and would attend on 11 August 2023 for the plastering. The resident also emailed the landlord on 21 August 2023 and said no work had been carried out just inspections. This shows a lack of communication between the landlord and its contractor, which resulted in the resident receiving conflicting messages. On 19 September 2023 the resident informed the landlord that no further progress that been made.
  10. We have not seen any evidence to show the works listed in the stage 2 response were completed in August 2023 or soon thereafter. Also, we have not seen any reason for the delay in the repairs being completed from the stage 2 response in August 2023 to January 2024. This is not reasonable.
  11. The repair log shows the remaining repairs from the stage 2 complaint response were completed on 11 January 2024 and 28 January 2024. On 20 February 2024 an internal email from the landlord said all the works had been completed. It also arranged for a post-works inspection to be carried out.
  12. While we understand the landlord used a contractor to complete the work it was still responsible for making sure the work was done in a reasonable amount of time. The resident had to complain and escalate their complaint to make sure the work was done. We have also seen evidence of the resident chasing the landlord several times for updates about the work. This was the cause of inconvenience which could reasonably have been avoided if the landlord was monitoring its contractor and/or the repairs appropriately.
  13. When the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it appropriately acknowledged that it had delayed in completing the repairs. It offered a total of £450 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay. We are satisfied that this was a proportionate amount of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays between August 2022 and August 2023. The landlord also advised that a date for the remaining work had been set. This was reasonable. However, following its stage 2 response there was a continued to delay, without reason, for the repair work being completed. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to be proactive and ensure that the repairs were completed without further delay. It did not do so, and as a result, the resident has been caused further distress and inconvenience. It follows that the landlord failed to put things right through its complaints process.
  14. As such, we have found service failure in the handling of the repairs by the landlord. We order the landlord to pay the resident a further £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Appointments

  1. When the resident made their complaint, they expressed concern about the handling of appointments. In particular that while they had shared their availability, appointments were still being scheduled at a time that clashed with the school run. The resident was also concerned that the contractor had recorded some appointments as “no access” when they had not been told about them, and that it had failed to attend other agreed appointments.
  2. When the landlord responded to the complaint it appropriately acknowledged that there had been issues with its appointment scheduling. However, the resident escalated their complaint when another appointment was missed. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged again that there had been missed appointments and that there had been a “lack of commitment with getting repairs completed in a timely manner”. It apologised for the inconvenience that had been caused by this. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. We would expect a landlord to manage its contractor to schedule the necessary appointments and communicate these or any changes to the resident. Furthermore, we would expect the landlord to take into consideration any information given to them by the resident about their availability to help with arranging any appointments with the contractor. We have seen that the landlord did try to accommodate the resident’s request and did share this information with the contractor. This was reasonable. However, appointments were still missed or not communicated to the resident and this was unreasonable.
  4. The landlord did appropriately acknowledge the failings and the associated inconvenience to the resident. It also offered a total of £300 compensation. We consider that the landlord’s offer was proportionate in the circumstances and is in keeping with what we would award. For that reason, we have found that the landlord offered the resident redress prior to our investigation that satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

The associated complaint

  1. The resident made their complaint on 6 February 2023. The landlord said it would send its response by 20 February 2023. The landlord then told the resident it needed more time and would send its response by 6 March and then 13 March 2023. The landlord did not issue its response by the revised date, and so the resident then chased the landlord for its response on 21 March 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 24 March 2023. It appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation.
  2. The resident escalated their complaint on 19 April 2023. The landlord said it would respond by 19 May 2023. The resident chased the landlord for its response on 6 occasions between 22 May and 12 July 2023. The landlord replied on 17 July 2023 to apologise for the delay and offered £200 compensation for the delayed response. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 4 August 2023.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will give its stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Complaint Handling Code. While the landlord’s stage 1 response was slightly delayed it initially kept the resident informed about this. However, the landlord did not keep the resident updated about its stage 2 response and as a result the resident chased several times for a response.
  4. However, we have found the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling. This is because it acknowledged and apologised for the delay and offered the resident a total of £250 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  5. This is in line with our remedies guidance and is likely the amount we would award for this delay and inconvenience caused to the resident having to chase the landlord for a response. The landlord also appropriately found that its staff needed to complete refresher and development training on the handling of complaints.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to the complaints about:
    1. appointments.
    2. the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order that the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings found by our investigation. Specifically, its failure to put things right during its complaints process and ensure that the repairs were completed within a reasonable timescale.
    2. Pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings we have found. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by us should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.
    3. review this case, particularly its management of contractors and missed appointments, with reference to the findings and recommendations in our Spotlight report ‘Repairing Trust’.