London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202509424)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat owned by the landlord. She reported and complained about leaks, damp, and mould between 2023 and 2025. She said the issues affected her health.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of leaks, damp, and mould

4. There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of leak repairs which affected its ability to address damp and mould in the resident’s property. Its compensation offers were not proportionate to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble it caused the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord’s complaint handling was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It provided late responses, and it did not offer sufficient redress for this.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not look at

6. The resident told us that the situation has had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did look at

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will repair minor leaks within 20 working days of a report. It will not cancel any works to deal with leaks, damp, or mould. If it cannot access a property in these cases, it will work to gain access and seek legal injunctions if needed.
8. From December 2024, the landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will investigate and complete works in line with its repairs policy. It will tell residents about timescales for next steps and communicate delays. In complex cases it may need to complete a process of elimination, and it may need to monitor the outcome of works.
9. In August 2023, the landlord raised works to investigate a leak into the resident’s property. It inspected in September 2023 and found a wet patch on the party wall with a neighbouring property. The landlord completed an inspection in February 2024 and found the issue outstanding. There is no evidence it investigated this further until the resident complained in July 2024. This was not in line with its repairs policy.
10. In the landlord’s July 2024 complaint response, it apologised for delayed works. It offered £150 compensation for its poor communication and time, trouble and inconvenience it caused the resident by the failures in its handling of repairs. This offer was not in line with its policy for the length of time the issues had been ongoing.
11. The landlord said it would monitor the situation to completion. However, it did not raise works to investigate the leak for a further 6 weeks. When it attended, it could not access the neighbour’s property. There is no evidence it tried again before the resident’s second complaint in October 2024.
12. In the landlord’s October 2024 stage 1 response, it said it needed to test for asbestos before completing works in the resident’s property. It listed works it had completed but did not give a plan to repair the ongoing leak. It offered £250 compensation for its failure to resolve the leak and mould and inconvenience it caused the resident. This took its total offer across both stage 1 responses to £400. This was within its policy guidelines for failure to act in accordance with its policy over a “considerable” period of time.
13. The landlord completed a further inspection on 4 November 2024 and found it could not rectify issues in the resident’s property due to the ongoing leak. Its surveyor said it needed emergency attendance at the neighbouring property. It did not attend until 8 November 2024, 4 days later. This was not in line with its repairs policy which says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.
14. On 20 December 2024, the landlord forced entry into the neighbouring property and repaired a leak. However, it still needed further access in January 2025 to find and repair another leak. It inspected and raised works in February 2025. On 18 March2025, it found 2 new leaks and raised repairs. However, it faced issues accessing the property. It asked its housing team to help it gain access. This was positive step and showed good partnership working.
15. In its stage 1 response of April 2025, the landlord explained the access issues it was facing. It told the resident it would attend all properties on 15 April 2025 and repair the leak. It offered £300 compensation for inconvenience and repair delays. This offer was not in line with its policy for the length of time the issue remained ongoing.
16. The landlord attended on 15 April 2025 and could not find a leak anywhere in the previously affected areas of the resident’s property. She escalated her complaint 2 days later due to the time it took the landlord to rectify the leaks, damp, and mould. It completed damp and mould works in her property in May 2025 but had to raise these again as it did not wait for the walls to dry properly before completion. This was poor planning and caused her further disruption.
17. In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience the repair delays caused the resident. It apologised for not considering the impact on her health earlier in the process. It said it was working to resolve the leak, and it would tell her when it was complete. It said it learnt lessons around communication, vulnerabilities and completing repairs. It offered an additional £250 compensation for delays, time, trouble and inconvenience. This brought its total offer to £550 across both its stage 1 and 2 responses in 2025. Its total offer across all responses was £950.
18. The resident told us the mould has not returned since the landlord completed works in June and July 2025. However, there are some decorative works outstanding.
19. Overall, the landlord took 22 months to fully complete repair works. While it recognised learning points from its handling of the case, its £950 total compensation offer was not sufficient for the length of time the issue remained outstanding and the impact this had on the resident. We understand leaks can be complex to find and repair, and we also acknowledge the access issues the landlord. However, it took over a year to first inspect the neighbouring property, and this was not in line with its repairs policy.
20. Considering this, we find maladministration and have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £350 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for when a landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We also ordered it to inspect the property to complete decorative works. It apologised throughout its responses, so we will not order a further apology.

21. The resident made two separate complaints in 2024, before completing the landlord’s full complaints process in 2025. At the time, the landlord treated each as a new stage 1 complaint. This was in line with its policy, which gave residents 20 working days from its response to escalate a complaint to stage 2.
22. However, our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says if a resident is dissatisfied with all or part of the complaint at stage 1, it must move the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. The resident later complained about making 3 separate complaints about the same issue, showing it did not comply with the Code.
23. The landlord updated its complaints policy in December 2024, ahead of the resident’s final stage 1 and 2 complaints. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. It can extend its response time by a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with The Code.
24. When the landlord received the resident’s complaint on 17 March 2025, it said it aimed to respond by 31 March 2025. It then extended its response time twice, giving a final target date of 11 April 2025. Its policy allows this if it agrees the extension with the resident before confirming it in writing. There is no evidence it contacted her to agree the second extension.
25. Despite the extensions, the landlord provided its stage 1 response 9 working days late. This was a minor delay. It offered £25 compensation for the delay. This was lower than its compensation policy guidance for service failures of short duration.
26. The landlord extended its stage 2 response time on 14 May 2025 and issued its response on 10 June 2025. This was within its policy timescale for extensions.
27. The landlord did not offer sufficient redress for its complaint handling delays. It also did not escalate her earlier complaints in line with the Code. As such, we find service failure in its complaint handling. We have ordered it to apologise and pay additional £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when the landlord’s offer is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have not asked it to review its policy as it did so in December 2024.

Learning

28. The landlord identified key learning from the case in its stage 2 response. This was positive and shows willingness to improve practice.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. There were no issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it did not regularly update her. However, there were times it tried to contact her without success. It acknowledged its failings in its complaint responses.