We are aware of a third-party IT security incident that has impacted our case management system.

Whilst we investigate this and get our systems back online, you will be unable to submit a new complaint, view an existing complaint, or use our web chat or webform.

If you need to raise a new complaint, please email info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk or call us on 03001113000.

We’re working to restore our services as quickly as possible and will share updates when we can.

Thank you for your patience. We apologise for the inconvenience.

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202439976)

Back to Top

 

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439976

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

5 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. outstanding repairs to the property.
    2. allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and the resident’s subsequent request for support applying for alternative accommodation.
    3. the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
    4. reports of repairs to the estate/communal areas.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 2017. The landlord is also the local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a high-rise block. The landlord has recorded a number of vulnerabilities for the resident. During his complaint the resident set out that he has a terminal illness, compromised immunity and other health issues.
  2. The resident’s disrepair claim in respect of the property was settled by agreement, by way of a Tomlin order in January 2024. This stated that the landlord should:
    1. pay the resident £3,500 in full and final settlement of the disrepair claim.
    2. carry out a schedule of works within 90 days.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 July 2024. He outlined concerns including:
    1. the handling of ASB reports about him, and support offered after he expressed an interest in moving to alternative housing.
    2. the conduct of building reception staff towards his visitors.
    3. repairs in the communal areas and the facilities for his “assistance dog”.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 August 2024. It said:
    1. its investigation of ASB issues was as a result of concerns raised by other residents.
    2. it had previously discussed housing options with the resident, such as sheltered accommodation. It said it had tried to call him about this and had also sent him a transfer application.
    3. it had discussed the concerns the resident raised about the conduct of reception staff with the officer who matched the description he provided. It said the officer had no recollection of issues and denied all allegations of harassment and discrimination.
    4. it had sent communal repairs the resident raised to its repairs team to investigate and action within the next 10 working days.
    5. it had identified a delay in its complaints response and awarded the resident £25 in recognition of this.
  5. Following further correspondence from the resident the landlord sent further communication to him on 13 September 2024. It increased its previous award in recognition of its delayed complaint response to £50.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 26 September 2024. Following this, he summarised his outstanding concerns on 21 October 2024. Among other things he said:
    1. information the landlord had relied on regarding the ASB allegation was unreliable.
    2. the officers who contacted him in June 2024 about a second ASB report failed to understand his vulnerabilities.
    3. he had outstanding communal repair concerns, including about the intercom system and the fire exit door.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 November 2024. It said:
    1. it had found no evidence of bullying, harassment or discrimination by its officers and action it had taken following ASB reports was focused on helping the resident maintain his tenancy.
    2. its officers had followed standard procedures when addressing ASB reports in June 2024, and it found no grounds to support the concerns the resident had raised about staff conduct.
  8. The resident brought his concerns to the Ombudsman as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He said that some of his concerns remained unresolved and estate and communal issues remained outstanding. He told us that he has recently completed the housing application process and his banding has been assessed.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme).
  2. During his complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns that it had failed to complete repairs ordered by the court in January 2024. The Tomlin order set out that the resident had permission to apply to the court should the other party breach the terms set out in the schedule. The resident has told us that he has subsequently taken further court action in respect of this matter which has resulted in an increased award.
  3. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. After carefully considering the evidence, we have decided that the resident’s complaint about the outstanding repairs to the property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. Any outstanding concerns the resident has would be appropriately addressed through the court.
  4. In his complaint, the resident raised concerns about the support he received from the landlord in applying for alternative accommodation such as sheltered accommodation. It is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to determine any application for alternative accommodation as this would be appropriately decided by the landlord under its allocations policy. However, we have considered whether, after contact with him in April 2024 about ASB allegations, the landlord took reasonable steps to provide him with information and support in respect of applying for alternative accommodation.
  5. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns about the level of support he was receiving from adult social care. The Housing Ombudsman Service cannot consider social care provision.  This is provided by the landlord in its capacity as the local authority. Should the resident have ongoing concerns, he may wish to consider referring these to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
  6. The resident expressed concerns about recent specific incidents of unknown visitors accessing his block and property. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that have completed the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The resident may refer the matter to the Ombudsman once his complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. However, we have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss his concerns and take appropriate action in line with its policies and procedures, and with regard to his vulnerabilities.
  7. The resident raised concerns that issues had negatively impacted on his health. We acknowledge his comments about this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter which is more appropriately decided by a court. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer. The resident may wish to seek legal advice around this

Handling of ASB and the resident’s subsequent request for support apply for sheltered accommodation

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out its approach to responding to reports of ASB. It says it will grade ASB reports and complete an action plan and risk assessment. It also outlines that it will work closely with the police and other partners when responding to reports. Further, it says it should take account of vulnerabilities, including those of the alleged perpetrator, and consider appropriate referrals for support.
  2. The landlord sent a warning letter to the resident on 5 April 2024 about reports it had received about visitors to his property and of unknown visitors causing a nuisance in the communal area. It stated that it was monitoring the reports and would be reviewing CCTV and speaking to the community to investigate the reports.
  3. In line with its ASB policy, and its obligations, it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate issues following an incident reported to it on 13 March 2024. Records at this time note concerns about visitors to the resident’s flat. It took reasonable and appropriate steps to establish whether its staff had recorded other incidents involving the resident’s property. This was also in line with its ASB policy.
  4. In its complaint response to the resident, the landlord said it had taken no tenancy action against him during its investigation of ASB. It said its involvement had been to ensure his safety and that he was provided with support. Records show that it communicated with him during April 2024 to arrange to meet with him. At this time, it said it wanted to do so to ensure he was receiving support he needed to manage his property. Prior to this, it had internally noted his vulnerabilities. The actions the landlord took to meet and discuss issues with the resident, were reasonable, proportionate, and in line with its policy. We have also seen evidence that it took appropriate and timely steps to grade the report and complete a risk assessment and an action plan.
  5. Subsequently the landlord received a further report on 16 June 2024 of concerns about visitors to the resident’s property. The original ASB officer reviewed the reported issues but noted they had directed these to a housing officer to address.  The landlord’s housing officer then took appropriate steps to write to the resident to arrange to discuss the report it had received and obtain further information. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord took any steps to grade the report or complete any risk assessment or action plan at this time. Given the previous reports, concerns it had identified in March and April 2024 and the resident’s vulnerability, it would have been reasonable for it to do so. This would have allowed it to appropriately evaluate the risks of the situation. That it did not do so was a failing.
  6. Subsequently, the landlord spoke with the resident on 24 June 2024, and it noted he had maintained that those who visited him were carers and friends. It subsequently wrote to the resident outlining that it would not take any further action but would continue to monitor the situation. We acknowledge the resident later raised concerns that the landlord’s officer’s actions, in contacting him about the reports, were discriminatory and harassment. However, it was appropriate and in line with its responsibilities and ASB policy that it acted to respond to reports it received. Action it took to obtain further information from him about the report and remind him of his tenancy responsibilities were reasonable and proportionate.
  7. When the landlord met with the resident on 17 April 2024 about the ASB report it had received, it discussed support he was accessing. It noted at this time the concerns the resident had raised about feeling isolated and that “friends” had stolen from in him the past. It agreed it would make a referral for a floating support worker. Further, it made appropriate arrangements to visit him at home with the police later in April 2024.  Following this, the landlord noted that it and the police did not have concerns about the way in which the property was being used, and that no concerns had been raised by the resident.
  8. In his complaint the resident said the landlord had not “followed up” with its offer to refer him to a charity for support.  In line with its ASB policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider referrals for support. The landlord agreed with the resident on 17 April 2024 action it would take to refer him for floating housing support. Later, it told him on 29 May 2024 that floating support had been declined by its housing support team as he did not meet the criteria for this. However, it said it would now make a referral for him to a charity and would update him about this.
  9. Records we have seen do not include the referral the landlord sent to the charity. For this reason, it is unclear when it was made. It subsequently told the resident on 13 August 2024 that he did not meet the charity’s criteria for the service due to his age. The charity’s access requirements were not within the landlord’s control, but it should reasonably have kept the resident updated in the intervening period about the referral it had made. This could have avoided him feeling its offer to refer him to a charity had not been followed up. That there is no evidence it provided him with updates about action it had taken to progress this referral is a failing.
  10. The resident raised concerns in his complaint about support the landlord provided to him in applying for sheltered accommodation. The landlord’s ASB officer noted when they wrote to the resident on 11 April 2024 that he may benefit from “supported housing”.  It said its housing team could look into this. Given this, and vulnerabilities it had recorded for him, it should reasonably have recorded clearly what it was doing about this. Instead, records we have seen do not detail what steps if any the landlord took following this. Its notes of its subsequent meeting with the resident later in April 2024 do not record what it discussed with him about possible alternative accommodation. It should reasonably have done so, given the concerns it had identified.
  11. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2024 providing him with a housing application and medical priority form so he could apply for supported housing. There is no evidence or record of any contact or discussion with him about applying for alternative accommodation in the intervening period since April 2024. It is therefore unclear what had prompted the landlord’s actions at this time, although it had by then received his complaint. In its stage 1 response later in August 2024, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the delay in sending him the housing application. It told the resident in August 2024 that it could assist him if he required support completing the application, and that was appropriate.
  12. The landlord again offered the resident support in completing the housing application in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses and provided him with details for a housing manager and its housing team. But there was more it could reasonably have considered at this time.
  13. The landlord is a public body and has obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It must have due regard to its obligations to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations. It must also consider how its decision may impact on a person with a protected characteristic, such as disability.  Its additional support needs policy outlines it will take account of the Equality Act 2010. It says that it will tailor its service to meet the needs of a vulnerable or disabled resident. However, there is no evidence the landlord considered or explored with the resident any reasonable adjustments that may be appropriate. That was despite being aware of his terminal illness and other health issues.
  14. The landlord had set out in its stage 2 complaint response of November 2024 that an independent living worker from adult social care had now contacted the resident to arrange to meet with him. Subsequently, records show the landlord began arrangements at the end of January 2025 to visit the resident jointly along with the independent living worker. But it should reasonably have explored and considered how it could work with adult social care at an earlier stage to provide a cohesive response to the resident’s support needs. In his complaint the resident said the landlord had shown no “enthusiasm” for helping him despite him “obviously needing the help”.  The landlord should have explored with him ways it could support him, such as by offering to visit him at an earlier stage rather than repeatedly directing him to make contact if he needed assistance. That it did not do so was a failing which means it cannot demonstrate it did all it reasonably could to support the resident.
  15. Overall, we have found failings in the landlord’s handling of ASB and the resident’s subsequent request for support applying for alternative accommodation. These failings amount to maladministration. While it took some action to refer the resident for support and to provide him with information about applying for supported living, we found delays, inadequate communication and a failure to explore appropriate reasonable adjustments to assist the resident. Further, we have found failings to complete appropriate grading, risk assessments and an action plan. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord pay compensation to the resident of £350 in recognition of the impact of the failings we have identified. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Staff conduct

  1. The landlord’s code of conduct sets out the framework and expected standards of behaviour for its employees. In his complaint, the resident raised his concerns about “bullying, harassment and discrimination” by the landlord’s staff.  He said he had witnessed reception staff at the building being “overtly rude” and “unwelcoming” to his visitors. The landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the concerns he raised by obtaining comments from staff concerned. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord’s actions when investigating the issues he raised about staff conduct were reasonable and appropriate. We have found no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about this matter.

Repairs to the estate/communal areas

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its aim to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, and complete routine repairs within 20 working days. While we have been provided with no estate management policy, the landlord’s website sets out that it will undertake grounds maintenance of its estates. It also states that it will complete 4 estate inspections per year to help it identify communal repairs and improvements.
  2. In his complaint the resident raised concerns about communal repairs, including intercom issues, and a damaged fire exit door. He explained how these issues impacted on security. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 19 August 2024 responded to the resident’s concerns about the intercom. It noted that its repairs team had resolved issues with his intercom handset on 1 August 2024, and we have seen attendance records relating to this. The landlord also said that its repairs team would action other communal repairs, such as the fire exit door, within 10 working days. In subsequent correspondence with the residence in mid-September 2024, the landlord also explained what action it had taken/would take to address issues he raised about the condition of the dog exercise area on the estate.
  3. Repair records show that work was raised to overhaul the fire exit door on 22 July 2024 and that this was completed on 8 August 2024. This was within the 20-working day target timescale for the repair. However, the resident set out his outstanding communal repair issues in his complaint correspondence of 21 October 2024. He said at this time that the fire exit door had been vandalised again. Further, he said the intercom system was not “fit for purpose”. He said the video and audio of the intercom was of poor quality and the camera was angled so that some visitors were not caught within range. Further, while the resident acknowledged the work the landlord had completed to address his concerns about the dog exercise area, he raised some outstanding maintenance issues about this.
  4. The landlord should reasonably have responded to the resident’s outstanding concerns to confirm any action it would take. It failed to address these issues at all in its stage 2 complaint response, This meant it missed the opportunity to confirm what it had/would do to resolve any outstanding issues. That was a failing, particularly as it was aware from its contact with the resident during its ASB investigation of the concerns he had about security within the building.
  5. Records we have seen show a number of repairs had been completed to the fire exit door between August and October 2024. Records also show it raised an emergency repair on 12 October 2024 in respect of a smashed window in the fire exit door. It later noted work was completed on 15 October 2024 to board the window and, on 28 October 2024, to replace the glass. The landlord should reasonably have set this work out in its stage 2 complaint response. It would also have been appropriate for it to acknowledge it has missed the emergency repair target response timeframe when initially attending the repair.
  6. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to the estate/communal areas.  The resident told us that he remains concerned that repair issues to the fire door allows entrance to the building without security. We have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to understand outstanding concerns he has about estate/communal repairs and the intercom system. It should then provide him with a clear plan, with timescales, of any action it will take to address issues. With consideration to the circumstances and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident of £250 in respect of failings we have identified.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages of their complaint process. It says they should respond within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2 of the complaints process. Timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy aligns with those in the Code.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 July 2024. It appropriately told him in advance that its stage 1 response was delayed. However, while it said it would provide its response by 12 August 2024, it did not do so until 19 August 2024. It wrote to him on 12 August 2024 querying repair issues he had raised in his complaint, but it did not explain that its response would be delayed while it awaited a response. It should reasonably have done so. Its award of £50 in respect of this delayed response was appropriate.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also delayed. While the resident made his escalation request on 26 September 2024, it did not provide its response until 14 November 2024. However, it appropriately communicated with him during this time to seek clarification of his complaint concerns. It also explained that it would provide its response within 20 working days of receiving further clarification, and it did so. That was reasonable. However, as noted earlier, the landlord failed to respond to issues the resident raised about estate/communal repair. That is contrary to the Code which sets out that the landlord must respond to all points of complaint. It was a complaint handling failure and amounted to maladministration.  We have already ordered award, under our consideration of repair issues, which appropriately recognises the impact of this failure on the resident. However, we have further ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failure we have identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about outstanding repairs to the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB and the resident’s subsequent request for support applying for alternative accommodation.
    2. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
    3. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to the estate/communal areas.
    4. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings we have identified.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £600, made up of:
      1. £350 for failings in ASB and the resident’s subsequent request for support applying for alternative accommodation.
      2. £250 for failings in its handling of reports of repairs to the estate/communal areas.
    3. contact the resident to understand his outstanding concerns about estate/communal repairs and the intercom system. Within the same timeframe, it should then provide him with a clear plan, with timescales, of any action it will take to address issues.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. review whether its officers have appropriate training/guidance in respect of the importance of grading, risk assessing and completing action plans in respect of ASB reports.
    2. remind complaint handling staff of the importance of ensuring all points of complaint are addressed.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to discuss his concerns of recent incidents of unknown visitors accessing the block/his property. It should then take appropriate action in line with its policies and procedures and with regard to his vulnerabilities.
  2. We recommend that within 16 weeks of the date of this report the landlord consider implementing an estate management policy to provide greater clarity to residents and its staff.