London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202535597)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202535597 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
27 May 2026 |
Background
- The resident reported to the landlord sink blockages in his bathroom and mice in his property in 2022. On 24 July 2024 we issued a determination on the resident’s concerns over proofing works to block mice entry in the property. He complained again in August 2025 about the proofing works and about a blocked bathroom sink over a 3-year period.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
- A blocked bathroom sink.
- Proofing works connected to a mice infestation.
- The complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found there was:
- Service failure in the landlord’s response to the blocked sink.
- Maladministration in its response to proofing work connected to a mice infestation.
- Service failure in its response to the complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Blocked sink
- While the landlord responded to the reports of a blocked sink in line with its repairs policy it did not investigate the underlying cause. It offered compensation but this was not proportionate to the level of failure found considering its compensation policy.
Proofing work
- We cannot be satisfied it completed effective proofing works and there was a delay in it inspecting. The compensation it offered was not proportionate to the level of failure.
Complaint handling
- The landlord responded to the resident at both stages of its complaint policy in line with the timescales in this policy. However, it closed the complaint early and did not consider his concerns over damage to his personal belongings, contrary to our Code’s requirements.
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 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. It must ensure:
It must provide us with evidence of its apology by the due date. |
No later than 25 June 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £275 made up as follows:
It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 25 June 2026 |
|
3 |
Insurance order The landlord must write to the resident by the due date to explain how he can make a claim against its liability insurer. It must provide us with a copy of its letter by the due date. |
No later than 25 June 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
26 August 2025 |
The resident complained about the effectiveness of the landlord’s proofing works to prevent mice entry into his property. He also complained about a blockage affecting his bathroom sink over the last 3 years. |
|
23 September 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it:
|
|
3 October 2025 |
The resident escalated his complaint and said he still experienced a pest infestation and said proofing work repairs were ineffective. |
|
13 November 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and said it:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident has told us that he moved property in May 2026 but still wants us to investigate. He said he refused the landlord’s offer of £125. He would like more compensation for the distress caused and the damage to his personal belongings. |
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 response to a blocked bathroom sink |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord completed the following jobs relating to bathroom sink blockages on:
- 5 September 2024 (raised 2 September 2024 and completed within 3 working days)
- 15 July 2025 (raised 15 July 2025)
- 28 August 2025 (raised 18 August 2025 and completed within 7 working days)
- These jobs were all completed within the 20-working day target for non-urgent repairs contained within the landlord’s repair policy.
- Although the landlord explained it could not investigate back to 2022 it was aware of a pattern of blockages affecting the bathroom sink since then. Blockages can be caused by several factors, including defects in plumbing systems, which landlords are responsible for. The Decent Homes standard required it to consider the standard of plumbing in the resident’s property.
- Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s 9A and 10, landlords have a duty to ensure properties are fit for human habitation. This includes a consideration of whether the drainage and sanitary conveniences are fit for purpose. There is no evidence the landlord considered its obligations through a specific investigation or assessment. Its failure to consider whether the recurrent blockages were caused by underlying drainage issues likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
- The landlord offered the resident £25 in its stage 1 complaint response as it accepted a “resolution was not put in place”. The offer of £25 was not quite proportionate to the level of failure. This is considering the scale of compensation it can award for service failure in its compensation policy. We have ordered it to pay him £75 which is in line with its compensation policy, where service failure is identified. This is inclusive of its previous offer. This is also in line with our compensation guidance where we have found failure and its offer is not quite proportionate to the failings identified.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to proofing works connected to a mice infestation |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- Under the resident’s tenancy the landlord was not responsible for any mice infestations in his property. However, it was under a duty to complete repairs to the structure of the property, like floors, ceilings, and walls. This duty extended to any proofing works involving a repair to the structure.
- While the landlord said it completed proofing works on 7 August 2025 there is no evidence of what it did. This is a record keeping failure. It said it completed a check and sealed holes at the rear and bottom of the kitchen units on 18 August 2025. This was within 4 working days of it raising the job. However, it raised another job for this on 10 September 2025. Under this circumstance we cannot be satisfied it either sealed the holes or completed the job effectively in August 2025.
- It raised a job to seal gaps around the bathroom pipework and cupboard in the lounge on 19 August 2025. While it sealed around the bathroom and kitchen pipes on 2 September 2025, (9 working days later) it did not seal the cupboard then.
- It recommended the sealing of gaps in the wall/floor junctions in the lounge and storage cupboard on 10 September 2025. While it said it booked follow on work for 26 September 2025 there is no evidence it did this. The landlord and the pest control team of the council discussed who was best placed to complete an inspection in late September 2025. This was to identify all potential mice entry points and repairs.
- While it was reasonable of the landlord to consider an inspection it did not complete this until 28 October 2025. This was an unreasonable length of time to assess what repairs or proofing works were necessary. Following this inspection, it recommended it renew the proofing work around the bath, kitchen, and complete an assessment of the cupboard.
- The landlord asked the resident for access for 4 November 2025 to complete these works. It appropriately asked him for alternative dates in November 2025 when he declined access. It also offered him the 1 December 2025 which he was unable to accept so it offered a start date of 8 January 2026.
- The resident did not confirm this appointment and cancelled the works later as he was moving. Under these circumstances we cannot fault the landlord for not completing the work. However, we cannot be satisfied it completed effective proofing works in August 2025 and September 2025 and there was a delay in it completing an inspection. This likely caused him distress and inconvenience.
- The landlord awarded the resident £50 specifically for not fully resolving the pest issue with a further £25 for overall impact. However this was not proportionate to the level of distress he experienced. We have ordered it to apologise to him and to pay him £200 (inclusive of its offer). This is in line with our compensation guidance where we have found a failure that adversely affected a resident. It is also in line with its compensation policy, where there was service failure.
- The resident told the landlord the mice infestation had caused damage to his personal belongings. He told it he had to change his furniture and throw away toys, carpets, and kitchen supplies. However, we have been unable to assess this because of an absence of evidence. As it did not respond to this, we have assessed this aspect in the context of its complaint handling.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in our Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). The time scales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in line with the timescale in its complaint’s policy. While it took it 20 working days to respond at stage 1 of its complaint process it extended the deadline on 10 September 2025. It issued its stage 1 response on 23 September 2025 in line with its extension and its complaint’s policy.
- It took the landlord 11 working days to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request, against a target of 5 working days. While this was outside its policy timescale this caused him no detriment. It responded at stage 2 of its complaint process in line with the policy timescales (within 18 working days). It said it closed the complaint having acknowledged there was outstanding work, this was not in line with our Code. It ought to have kept the complaint open and monitored the outstanding work to completion.
- The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about damage to his personal belongings, contrary to our Code. This is because he raised this before it issued its stage 1 complaint response and his concerns related to the complaint about proofing works. We have ordered it to apologise to him for these 2 failures. We have also ordered it to write to him to explain how he can make a claim against its liability insurer in line with its compensation policy.
Learning
- Landlords should inspect properties to identify the cause of pests and complete timely repairs where under an obligation to. Our learning from severe maladministration report (December 2024) contains useful learning on managing repairs relating to pest entry (pages 19 to 22). It is also important for landlords to consider completing specialist or more detail investigations where a resident reports reoccurring problems. Our spotlight report on repairing trust (May 2025) discusses a preventative approach to repairs and dealing with complaints (pages 34 and 51).
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- Overall, the landlord could improve its record keeping. Its records relating to repairs did not contain detail of the proofing works it completed and whether they were effective. This could be improved upon by ensuring its repair logs are detailed and set out the findings of its contractors along with what work was completed.
Communication
- Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was good. It contacted him to book appointments.