London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202340356)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340356

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

18 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to reconsider the external communal area arrangements.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor of the building (the property).
At the front of the property, there are walls and plant beds on either side of the path that leads to the communal entrance. The first floor of the property has raised planter beds.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 May 2023. He told the landlord he had asked his neighbour to remove the bushes they planted at the front of the property, but the neighbour refused. The landlord told him the ground floor flats had priority in maintaining the plant beds and the first floor flats had priority in maintaining the planters.
On 13 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord as he was unhappy with its response about the plant beds. He asked the landlord to:
1. remove items placed or planted by residents on the ground floor
2. reinstate the grass
3. remove the items on the walls at the front of the property
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 June 2023. It said that:
1. it had met with the resident to discuss his concerns
2. the block and surrounding estate were inspected on 5 June 2023
3. residents of his and other blocks had adopted an informal arrangement that ground floor flats had priority over the upkeep of the plant beds
4. as a standard had been set, it would be unreasonable for it to ask the neighbours to stop maintaining the area
5. if there were a change in circumstances, it would review the arrangement
The resident escalated his complaint on 26 July 2023. He asked it to review its decision because he felt the landlord did not consider the relations between residents in the block. After he contacted the landlord 3 times, it acknowledged his escalation on 26 September 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 October 2023. It apologised for its delay in responding and would provide a refresher trainer to staff on its complaints handling process. It said:
1. the informal arrangement worked well among the blocks and was not dependant on resident relations
2. arrangements may change if residents move out of the property
3. if the resident wanted to maintain one side of the plant bed, he could speak to the Housing Officer
4. the items in the plant beds and on the wall did not pose a health and safety risk
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 February 2024. He told this Service the landlord gave his neighbours permission to maintain the plant bed without a consultation.

Assessment and findings

Scoping

Plant beds

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that residents must not keep any items in communal areas that could cause a health and safety risk. Under Section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, landlords are responsible for ensuring shared spaces are in a safe condition.
The landlord has a handbook called the resident support pack. Residents receive a copy of the handbook when they move into a property. The handbook sets out that:
1. the landlord inspects estates on a quarterly basis
2. in the absence of a grounds maintenance service, residents are responsible for ensuring the maintenance of the front of their property
3. if residents pay the landlord a service charge for grounds maintenance, the landlord will undertake:
  1. cutting the grass
  2. pruning of bushes and trees
  3. general gardening
After the resident spoke with the landlord on 16 May 2023, he contacted it again on 28 May 2023. He asked the landlord to reconsider its decision about who had priority in maintaining the plant beds. To better understand the situation, the landlord arranged a visit to the block and wider estate on 5 June 2023. This was organised in a timely manner. The visit also enabled it to make a fair and informed decision before it responded to the resident and was reasonable in the circumstance.
The landlord communicated its findings to the resident on 5 June 2023. It set out that blocks across the estate had adopted the approach that ground floor residents maintained the front area. It reminded the resident it had provided planters for first floor residents who had an interest in gardening. The landlord also offered to find the resident a space in the plant bed if he was interested in maintaining a section.
It was reasonable and fair for the landlord to assess the other blocks and ensure a consistent approach had been applied. Additionally, the landlord had installed planters within the blocks so residents on the first floor were not disadvantaged. Its offer to find a patch in the plant bed demonstrated its willingness to accommodate the resident, while respecting the existing arrangement that worked well for others.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 June 2023. It said a standard had been set among the blocks and that it “was not unreasonable to ask your neighbours to stop.” The landlord did not uphold the complaint. The use of the word ‘not’ appears to be an error. This implied it would be reasonable for it to ask residents to stop maintaining the front area. It is likely this would have caused the resident confusion and left him unclear on the landlord’s decision and was a shortcoming. However, either party does not dispute that the landlord was not going to ask the neighbours to stop maintaining the front area.
In its response, the landlord also agreed to review the arrangement again if the resident had any concerns in the future. This was reasonable and showed the landlord would not dismiss future issues if they arose.
On 4 July 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that his neighbour had put lights up along a wall. The landlord confirmed with the resident that the lights were not shining into his home. It said if they were, it would address this. This demonstrated the landlord was prepared to act if there was an impact and was reasonable in the circumstance.
After the resident escalated his complaint on 26 July 2023, he spoke with the landlord on 29 September 2023. While he did not want to maintain the beds, he was unhappy there had not been a consultation about who had priority over it. The landlord told him it encouraged residents to take an interest in communal areas, and it would check its procedure about communal areas.
An internal email sent on 9 October 2023 showed the landlord considered whether to undertake a small consultation at the block. However, there is no further evidence showing what, if any, actions were later taken. This shortcoming can make it difficult for landlords to demonstrate how or why it made a decision.
There is no evidence that the plant beds were causing nuisance or health and safety issues. The landlord honoured its legal obligations, inspecting the plant beds regularly to ensure they posed no health and safety concerns. Further, there is no obligation on the landlord to consult with residents about these specific arrangements. Considering the arrangement had been established for some time, and balancing the wellbeing of all its residents, it was proportionate for it not to undertake a consultation.
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 20 October 2023, explained there were insufficient grounds to change the arrangement due to the reasons it had previously provided. It wanted to promote residents’ interest in communal areas. Considering the needs of all its residents, and ensuring there were no health and safety issues, this was a reasonable response.
The landlord also clarified that the items on the wall did not pose a health and safety risk and would not be removed. This aligns with its tenancy agreement that says items in communal areas must not pose a risk. Given the landlord conducts quarterly inspections, it was reasonable for it to allow items as it was able to monitor the block for any changes or risks.
In response to the resident’s interest to maintain an area of the plant beds, the landlord signposted the resident to the Housing Officer. Although this was reasonable, it could have gone further and provided the resident with a meeting date.
This Service does not dismiss the resident’s distress about the situation. However, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. This included inspecting the property and wider estate to ensure a consistent and fair approach. Balancing the needs of all its residents, the landlord provided planters on the first floor. This gave residents the opportunity to also take part in gardening. It fulfilled its legal obligations by ensuring the communal areas were safe.
Although the landlord’s stage 1 response was confusing, there was no disagreement about what it meant and did not cause the resident additional distress. It clarified its position in its stage 2 response and offered to find a patch in the plant beds for the resident, demonstrating flexibility in its approach. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration.

The associated complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaint policy says that it will:
1. acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days
2. respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it acknowledging the complaint
3. respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables it to resolve disputes, improve the quality of services, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement.
The Code says that if a landlord cannot respond within 20 working days, it must contact the resident and provide a timescale. Extensions cannot exceed 20 working days.
The resident complained to the landlord on 13 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 June 2023 and responded fully on 30 June 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord’s policy says that residents have 20 working days to escalate their complaints. However, when the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 26 July 2023, the landlord refused, saying he had exceeded the time limit. This was inappropriate given the resident escalated his complaint 18 working days after he received the landlord’s stage 1 response. Therefore, the landlord failed to follow its own policy which would have caused the resident frustration.
As the resident was unsure whether the landlord had escalated his complaint, he chased it on 28 July and 3 August 2023. When the landlord acknowledged his request on 26 September 2023, 44 working days after his initial request, it apologised for the issues the resident experienced.
While the landlord’s apology was reasonable in the circumstance, there is no evidence that it communicated its delays to the resident during this period. This would have left the resident uncertain as to whether his complaint had been escalated and caused him understandable frustration.
Following its acknowledgement on 26 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 October 2023, 18 working days later. This was appropriate and in line with its policy and the Code’s time frame. Its response went some way in putting things right, including providing training on complaint handling to its staff. This demonstrated accountability as the landlord apologised and admitted it had wrongly refused to escalate the resident’s complaint.
Although the landlord took some positive steps, including an apology and refresher training, it did not go far enough in putting things right. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have also offered compensation in line with its compensation policy. Its policy says awards of £50 to £300 are made where there have been delays or where it failed to meet service standards.
Considering the landlord’s refusal to escalate the complaint, lack of communication, and delays in responding to the resident, this would normally amount to maladministration. However, the landlord demonstrated it had learnt from the complaint and took steps to improve its complaint handling. Therefore, a finding of service failure is appropriate.
To put things right, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance, which suggests a payment of £50 to £100 for service failure. An order has been made to reflect this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to reconsider the external communal area arrangements
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £100 for its poor communication and delays in responding to the resident’s complaint
2. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report
3. Provide evidence of compliance to this Service