London Borough of Hillingdon (202415289)
|
Case ID |
202415289 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London Borough of Hillingdon |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
28 November 2025 |
- The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a block of flats, with a shared communal entrance and hallway.
- The resident told the landlord his neighbour’s property was uninhabitable and was a fire hazard given she left packages, food and other possessions in the communal area. He noted unpleasant smells came from the flat and the decaying food left in the communal area caused a pest infestation. He said he had been reporting concerns for 5 years. He asked the landlord to inspect the flat and find a permanent solution.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about:
- The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety and the condition of a neighbouring property.
- The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about a neighbouring property, including concerns regarding fire safety, a pest infestation and odours.
- There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord failed to act with any sense of urgency regarding a potential fire safety concern. It also failed to update the resident.
- The landlord did not follow its complaints procedure. It did not acknowledged the resident’s complaint or confirmed if it was treating his concerns as a service request. There was also a delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint 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 |
The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 06 January 2026 |
|
2 |
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
|
06 January 2026
|
|
3 |
The landlord must carry out an inspection of the communal area and neighbour’s property to determine if the situation represents a potential hazard. If a hazard is identified the landlord must develop an action plan to mitigate against the identified risks and ensure effective monitoring arrangements are put in place. A copy of the action plan must be shared with this Service. As part of the action plan, the landlord should consider whether a building specific fire risk assessment needs to be developed to address the potential risks posed by the neighbour’s actions. If so, the landlord must arrange for this to be undertaken. If it is not felt that this would be beneficial, it should outline the rationale for this in the action plan. |
06 January 2026
|
|
4 |
The landlord is ordered to undertake a management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. This review must include:
|
20 January 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord considers its approach to carrying out inspections of communal areas in blocks of flats, taking into account the fire safety guidance issued by the London Fire Brigade (copy, linked below): Fire Safety Guidance Note GN84 – Fires in Communal Areas – Information for External Partners |
|
The landlord carries out an assessment of this case against the principles set out in its draft hoarding policy, pending its approval. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
1 July 2024 |
The resident made a complaint. He said a neighbouring property was uninhabitable and was a fire hazard given the resident left packages, food and other possessions in the communal area. He noted unpleasant smells came from the flat and the decaying food left in the communal area attracted flies. The resident asked the landlord to inspect the flat and find a permanent solution. |
|
19 August 2024 |
The resident asked the landlord for an update on his complaint. He said no one had checked his neighbour’s property despite it being in a dangerous condition. |
|
4 September 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said:
|
|
12 September 2024 |
The resident escalated his complaint. He said there was a pile of shopping and inflammable materials outside his neighbour’s front door. He noted the items were not included in the report provided by the landlord and they represented a fire hazard. |
|
1 October 2024 |
The landlord issued its final complaint response and said:
|
|
24 November 2025 |
The landlord told this Service it did not carry out formal block inspections and had not completed a risk assessment of the neighbour’s home due to being unable to gain access. It said it acted promptly when it received reports of items being left in the communal area and gave the resident’s neighbour 24 hours to remove them. It also said its caretaking team disposed of items that had not been removed and the resident was engaging with a social worker. The landlord noted it was waiting for its hoarding policy to be approved. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident told this Service on 17 November 2025 that his neighbour continues to leave items in the communal area and the situation had deteriorated further. He also noted rubbish was building up inside his neighbour’s flat. The resident said the situation was a health and fire safety issue. |
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 |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety and the condition of a neighbouring property. |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- It is noted that the resident said he had been reporting concerns about fire safety and the condition of his neighbour’s property for several years. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
- Taking account of the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events leading up to when the resident made a complaint in July 2024, up to October 2024, when the landlord issued its final complaint response.
- It is noted the resident is concerned about his and other residents’ safety. Whilst this Service can take a view on this, it is not within our jurisdiction or expertise to make decisions about building safety or to decide whether a landlord has been negligent of this. The fire service enforces landlords’ legal fire safety obligations, while the Regulator for Social Housing may consider how well it meets regulatory standards. We can assess whether the landlord responded in keeping with its policies, procedures and relevant legislation, but we cannot tell the landlord to act against the resident’s neighbour.
- We recognise that this has been a challenging case for the landlord to manage. It needed to balance its obligations to ensure the residents’ fire safety with its obligations to support his neighbour. The landlord also had to respect the confidentiality of the neighbour’s personal data. As such, this affected the extent of information it was able to provide to the resident.
- The resident told the landlord on 1 July 2024 that his neighbour’s property was uninhabitable and a fire risk. He said this was because she left packages, food and other possessions in the communal area. He noted unpleasant smells came from the flat and the decaying food left in the communal area caused an infestation of flies. The resident said the landlord was aware of the situation but had done nothing. He asked the landlord to inspect the property and arrange for it to be cleaned.
- There is no evidence the landlord took any action or responded to the resident’s concerns. This was a failure. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acted with a sense of urgency and taken appropriate and proportionate action to assess and mitigate against any potential risks associated with fire safety in the building. This is because the hoarding of combustible materials increases the risk of a fire and the clutter can block the escape route in the event of a fire. The landlord should have also investigated the resident’s reports of a fly infestation and carried out any necessary decontamination to ensure the area was free from any infestation hazards.
- The landlord’s failure to take action is likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. He chased the landlord up on 8 July 2024 but again, received no reply. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on cladding and fire safety says an absence of information can cause significant distress for residents. Landlords are, therefore, expected to be proactive and update residents regularly, even where there is little or no change.
- The landlord noted on 16 July 2024 that it visited the resident’s neighbour on 12 July 2024 but was unable to gain access. Whilst the member of staff noted that they had spoken to the resident’s neighbour, no record of the conversation was shared with this Service and it is unclear what follow-up action, if any was taken. This was despite the landlord noting that the photographs provided by the resident were of concern given the amount of items that had been left in the communal area could be an obstruction in the event of an emergency.
- The landlord noted on 17 July 2024 that a safeguarding referral had been made. Whilst this was appropriate, details about the referral were not shared with this Service and it is unclear what the outcome was. The landlord also noted that it had advised the resident’s neighbour that it may have to take further action if she failed to engage. No record of the conversation was shared with this Service. This is further evidence of poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
- The resident asked the landlord for a copy of the fire risk assessment for the building on 30 July 2024. He requested an update on 8 August 2024. He noted on 19 August 2024 that no one had visited the property despite him raising concerns that the situation was dangerous.
- A member of the landlord’s staff noted in an internal communication on 20 August 2024 that the resident’s complaint should be treated as vexatious. It said this was because he was complaining on a daily/weekly basis and was encouraging other residents to do the same. The comments were inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of concern towards a potentially serious fire safety risk.
- The resident asked the landlord again on 23 August 2024 for a copy of the fire risk assessment. It is unclear from the housing records when the landlord provided the resident with a copy of the fire risk assessment.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2024.
- When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
- In this case, the landlord noted it was unable to share specific information with the resident because of GDPR. It apologised for the condition of the communal area and for not being able to provide a speedy resolution. This was appropriate and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations. The landlord also confirmed it supported residents to comply with their tenancy conditions and worked in collaboration with others. In addition, the landlord confirmed the communal areas were maintained on a weekly basis, although no evidence was provided to this Service confirming this to be the case. Whilst the complaint was partially upheld, the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation. This was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy.
- The resident escalated his complaint on 12 September 2024. He said he was ‘‘astonished’ ’that the pile of items and food outside his neighbour’s front door were not recorded on the fire risk assessment. This was despite the landlord including a photograph of some of the items in the fire risk assessment. He noted the items were a fire hazard and included inflammable materials such as paper, cardboard and fabric materials. There is no evidence the landlord acted on the resident’s concerns. This was a further failure.
- The landlord noted on 1 October 2024 in its final complaint response that it had contacted the resident’s neighbour and appointments had been arranged with other services to assess what support could be provided. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, details on the discussions it had with the resident’s neighbour and other agencies were not shared with this Service. This demonstrated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
- The landlord confirmed it would not be able to share information with the resident on the steps that would be taken following the appointments. It also said it was pursuing matters as quickly as possible but needed to progress matters in a sensitive way. This was appropriate and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations. The landlord said it did not believe there was a safety risk to the residents living in the block. It is unclear on what basis this conclusion was reached.
- In summary, the landlord failed to act with any sense of urgency regarding a potential fire safety concern. This was despite noting items were left in the communal area and could be an obstruction in the event of an emergency. It also failed to update the resident and suggested his complaint should be treated as vexatious. The situation caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. He told the landlord on numerous occasions he was concerned about his and other residents’ safety. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about a neighbouring property.
- We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation to redress any distress and inconvenience caused to him by the failures found in this report. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance. The issue is ongoing, and it is unclear what action the landlord plans to take to resolve this. We have therefore made an order above to address this, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The resident made a complaint on 1 July 2024. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint or confirmed if it was treating his concerns as a service request. This was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code). The failure to respond to the resident meant he was unclear how the landlord was going to address his concerns.
- The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident led to him chasing the matter up on 8 July 2024 and 30 July 2024. He noted on 19 August 2024 that he had still not received a response to his complaint.
- The landlord noted on 20 August 2024 that it had spoken to the resident a few weeks earlier and advised him why it had not registered his concerns as a formal complaint. No details of the conversation were shared with this Service and it is unclear on what basis this decision was made. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord.
- The landlord agreed to log a formal complaint on 21 August 2024. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2024. This was some 10 weeks after the resident made a complaint.
- The resident escalated his complaint on 12 September 2024. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation request. This was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy and meant the resident was not clear when he would receive a response.
- The landlord issued its final complaint response on 1 October 2024. This was consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
- In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy at times and there were delays in issuing its stage 1 complaint response. The situation caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, for which it is ordered to pay £100 compensation
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The housing records provided by the landlord were limited and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its obligations.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times. Whilst it is acknowledged there were limitations on the information it could share with him, it did not respond to many of his emails or provide general updates.