London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202325010)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325010

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

20 August 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:
1. Concerns with planning permission for the ground floor flats within the communal block.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Concerns with grounds maintenance.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a leaseholder of a flat on the seventh floor of a purpose-built block.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 23 August 2023. He said:
1. It had not followed the planning permission when building 3 ground floor flats in the block. He said this caused issues, including an allotment garden at the front of the block.
2. There were syringes left around from drug users and rough sleepers slept in the corridors of the block.
3. The block had issues with safety and the maintenance and management was “shocking.”
4. He was unhappy that he had raised these concerns the month before, but it had not responded to him.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 7 September 2023. It said:
1. It had repurposed the existing space into ground floor flats in line with planning permission. It said it was not aware of a breach in doing so.
2. It was sorry for the impact caused by the ASB and rough sleeping. It was working with relevant agencies to help resolve the issues. This included the police and the local authority’s homeless prevention and law enforcement teams.
3. The resident could report any rough sleepers to the local authority and report any ASB to his housing officer or the law enforcement team.
4. It repaired the gates to the bin areas to stop access from unknown persons. It also did not complete any garden maintenance in May 2023 due to a “no mow” initiative to help the wildlife. It advised him to report any issues with grounds maintenance or caretaking.
The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 19 January 2024. He said the issues impacted his health and his ability to sell his property. He said the allotment garden was not part of the planning permission and this impacted the appearance of the block. He also said the number of homeless people sleeping in and outside the block posed a safety risk to the residents. He asked the landlord for further information about what the relevant agencies would do to resolve the ASB. He also asked it to install a fence and keypad entry gates for better security for the block.
On 8 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It said:
1. It would address the allotment garden with the resident responsible for this as it was a housing management issue. It also explained how he could raise a breach of planning permission.
2. It had received periodic complaints of ASB over the last few years. It said the local authority’s homeless prevention team offered support to those rough sleeping to try to reduce the issues.
3. It explained it was difficult to identify those causing ASB because they were not residents. It advised him to report any issues to the police as they were happening, and it would continue to work with the agencies to resolve the issues.
4. It advised how to make a request for information about how the local authority’s departments responded to the ASB issues.
5. It said it had continued to provide a grounds maintenance service after the “no mow May” initiative. It advised him of how to report any issues to the caretaking and grounds maintenance team so it could address this.
6. It apologised for its delayed response and for not escalating his complaint sooner.
7. It offered him £600 compensation. This included:
  1. £250 for its poor complaint handling.
  2. £350 for the time and trouble he experienced in chasing these issues.
8. It said it could not compensate him for a potential loss of the sale value. It gave him information of how to submit a claim to its insurers for any impact caused to his health.
The resident escalated his complaint to us. He remained unhappy with the ongoing ASB issues, grounds maintenance and the appearance of the block. The complaint became one we could investigate on 3 July 2024.
The resident has since told us that he no longer lives at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident wants compensation for the property’s reduced value due to the various issues. We cannot make liability decisions and ascertain whether the landlord was responsible for such losses. Such decisions may be better suited to the courts. We therefore cannot consider whether the landlord should compensate him for any depreciation of the property value. However, we have assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns raised.
Similarly, the resident said that the issues impacted his health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused.
After the complaints process ended, the resident said the ASB issues continued, and he no longer lives at the property. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. He can progress this as a new formal complaint if required.
We cannot consider or assess the actions and decisions made by the local authority’s homeless prevention team or the law enforcement team. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) are more likely to consider these complaints. Before bringing a complaint to the LGSCO, the resident will likely need to have made a complaint to the local authority first.

Concerns with planning permission for the ground floor flats within the communal block

The resident said that the landlord had not followed the planning permission correctly when it built 3 ground floor flats in the block. It is not for us to assess whether the landlord breached any planning permission. However, we have assessed how the landlord handled the concerns and whether its response was appropriate.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord explained that it had built these in accordance with the plans approved in 2012. While it was satisfied of this, it also provided advice about how to report a potential breach of planning permission. It explained that the resident may be out of time to report a breach but that it could discuss this further if he planned to do so. It was good practice for the landlord to advise the resident of how to escalate his concerns further. As such, the landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord also said it would address the unkempt allotment garden with the relevant neighbour. It was good practice for it to do this to resolve the issues with the appearance of the block. It also added general cleaning and landscaping to the major works planned for the block to improve the general appearance. By doing so, it showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously. Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns with the ground floor flats within the block.

Reports of ASB

The resident first reported issues with ASB on 10 July 2023. He said that homeless people were taking drugs and left needles outside the block. He also said that homeless people were sleeping outside the block. He noted that on one occasion, he saw someone sleeping rough inside in a corridor.
There is no evidence that the landlord opened an ASB case in response to the resident’s concerns. Its ASB policy states that it considers issues where there is no intention to harm or annoy a particular person as a grade 3 ASB case. This includes issues such as syringes left in communal areas. Where leaseholders report such issues, its policy states its housing team will manage the issue. It will then update the leaseholder of any action taken.
Despite not opening an ASB case, the landlord took action to investigate and try to resolve the reported issues. It:
1. Asked the police and the local authority’s law enforcement team to patrol the area to witness and deter the issues.
2. Worked with the police and the local authority’s homeless prevention team to identify and support those rough sleeping.
3. Checked that it had completed repairs to the gates and doors to prevent unauthorised access to the block, which it had.
4. Continued to complete repairs to the gates and doors of the property when needed.
5. Advised the resident to report anyone rough sleeping to the local authority’s homelessness team so it could try to deter any further ASB.
6. Advised the resident to report further ASB incidents to the local authority’s law enforcement team and his housing officer.
The actions taken by the landlord shows that it investigated the resident’s concerns. While it did not open an ASB case, it still responded appropriately to the issues raised. It worked alongside other agencies to identify those causing the issues and ensured they accessed support to try to prevent further ASB.
By doing so, the landlord followed the principles of its ASB policy as it considered community solutions to issues which affected the neighbourhood. It also followed the principles by referring the alleged perpetrators to services that could help, such as the homeless prevention team. As such, it was reasonable in the circumstances for it to manage the issues through more appropriate means than opening an ASB case. It took a balanced approach given the vulnerabilities present in those causing ASB, while resolving the issues for residents too.
While the landlord took appropriate steps as outlined above, its communication with the resident was poor. It took over a month for it to update him of the actions it was taking to resolve the issues. During this time, he understandably would have thought it was not taking his concerns seriously. The resident also noted that its lack of response to his concerns in July 2023 was part of the reason he made his complaint. Additionally, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain why it was not managing the issues through an ASB case as noted above. Therefore, its poor communication was a failing.
The resident told the landlord that residents of the block had reported issues for “years” with homeless people causing ASB. The landlord acknowledged this and said it had responded as necessary when it received such reports. There is no evidence to suggest that it did not act appropriately.
Part of the resident’s concerns was that the grounds had needles and syringes left around due to unknown people using drugs near the block. The landlord responded appropriately to these concerns by asking other agencies to patrol the area to identify any issues. This was good practice as the police and the local authority’s law enforcement team could take appropriate action if it found this. It is unclear if this issue remains a problem or not. As such, we have made a relevant recommendation about this below.
Within the final response, the landlord offered the resident £350 compensation for the time and trouble chasing “the issues”. It is unclear exactly what it meant by this. For the purposes of this investigation, we have considered this as the time and trouble chasing the ASB issues. This was an appropriate amount to reflect the impact caused to the resident by its poor communication as it delayed updating the resident for a month until 25 August 2023. The amount was in line with our remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident.
While the landlord offered the compensation, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for its poor communication. As such, we cannot find that it fully put things right for the resident and that it identified ways to learn from its mistakes. Considering this, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. We have made relevant orders about this below.

Concerns with grounds maintenance

The resident told the landlord that the safety, maintenance, and management of the estate was “shocking.” He said that outstanding repairs needed to secure entry to the building made the ASB issues worse.
The landlord’s communal repair records show 5 reports of the bin store gates and vehicle gates not locking between March 2023 and March 2024. Of these, it responded to 2 of the reports within 24 hours. This was in line with its emergency response timescale set out in its repairs policy. However, it took between 12 and 29 working days to respond to the other 3 repairs. It is unclear why the landlord responded to some of the reports as an emergency and others not. This was confusing.
Nevertheless, after being made aware of the ASB issues reported in July 2023, the landlord responded to all further reports as an emergency. This showed it appropriately considered the risks posed by the security issues given the wider ASB issues reported. Additionally, during this time it responded to 2 reports of the communal entrance door not locking. It responded with appropriate urgency to these reports by repairing this in line with its emergency response timescale.
The resident said the landlord had not maintained the garden within the outside communal area, which was overgrown. In response, the landlord explained that it had not cut the hedges or grass in May 2023. It said this was part of a wider initiative to help the wildlife which it had given warning of beforehand. It continued to maintain the garden afterwards. As such, we have found no failing for the lack of garden maintenance during this time.
In the resident’s complaint escalation, he said the communal areas were dirty and had urine in the corridors. The landlord advised the resident to report any issues to its caretaking and maintenance team so it could address this. While it was reasonable to signpost him of how to report issues, the landlord’s records show it was aware of issues with the cleanliness of the block.
The landlord completed block inspections every 3 months. The landlord’s records showed it failed each inspection between March 2023 and March 2024. It noted issues with cleanliness within the stairwells, balconies, and landing areas. It is unclear what steps the landlord took, if any, to improve the issues found. It was therefore not appropriate for it to only advise the resident of how to report issues, when it knew of the issues itself. It also missed an opportunity to explain how it would put things right for the resident. This was a failing.
It is unclear whether the block still experiences issues with cleanliness. As such, we have made a relevant recommendation below about the landlord’s inspection process. This is to benefit residents who may still experience such issues.
Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to some of the resident’s concerns with the grounds maintenance. It explained why it had not maintained the gardening in May 2023. It also completed repairs which compromised the security of the building in line with its emergency response timescales. However, it did not fully address the concerns with the level of cleanliness within the block.
Considering this, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns with the grounds maintenance. The landlord should pay the resident £75 compensation for the time and trouble caused by this. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for minor failings which impacted the resident.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines how landlords must respond to complaints. At stage 1, landlords must respond within 10 working days of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the Code.
The landlord took 11 working days to respond to the complaint at stage 1. While this was 1 day beyond its target timescale, there is no evidence that this minor delay caused any significant detriment to the resident.
The resident told us he had not received the landlord’s stage 1 response. It is unclear whether he said this to the landlord at the time. Nevertheless, he asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 16 and 17 October 2023. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request was confusing. It explained how he could bring the complaint to us rather than escalating the complaint to stage 2 of its procedure.
It is unclear why the landlord advised this, as we can generally only investigate complaints that have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. By doing so, it missed an opportunity to establish the reasons for his escalation request and that he had not received its initial response. Due to this, the resident experienced time and trouble in asking us for help in receiving the stage 1 response. On 20 December 2023, we asked the landlord to provide or resend its initial response by 5 January 2024, which it later did. This was appropriate.
After receiving the stage 1 response, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to the landlord on 19 January 2024. There is no evidence to show it acknowledged his escalation request. He therefore spent further time and trouble chasing the landlord for its response on 12 February 2024. He then asked us for support with his complaint. On 29 February 2024, we asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 response by 8 March 2024.
The landlord provided its final response in line with our request on 8 March 2024. It acknowledged the delay in responding to his complaint. It also noted it had not followed its complaints policy, and it would address this issue internally. This was good practice so that it could learn from its mistakes.
The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation. This was for its poor complaint handling and for not escalating his complaint when he first requested this. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge its mistakes and offer redress to put this right for him. We consider this to be a proportionate amount to offer redress for the time and trouble caused to the resident. It is also in line with our remedies guidance for failings which did not impact the overall outcome for the resident.
The resident raised matters in the complaint that the landlord responded appropriately to. For example:
1. He asked for records of any ASB complaints made to the local authority’s law enforcement team and environmental services. The landlord signposted him and advised how he could request this information through a Subject Access Request. This was appropriate as the landlord could not provide this information itself.
2. He said he could not sell his property due to the issues listed within his complaint. The landlord’s response showed empathy for his situation, but it explained it could not offer compensation for a potential loss of sale value. This was reasonable in the circumstances and helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
3. The landlord explained how to submit a claim to its insurers as he said the issues impacted his health. This was good practice so it could independently investigate his concerns.
4. He raised new issues within his stage 2 escalation request which he had not mentioned in his original complaint. In line with the Code, the landlord can choose not to investigate new issues after it has issued its initial response. Despite this, it provided a response to his new concerns. The concerns included why a shipping container was present at the block, repairs needed to a barrier and his request to install fencing around the perimeter of the block. By providing a response, it showed the landlord wanted to help address the resident’s concerns and took the issues seriously. However, it may be more appropriate to open a new complaint in future instances. This is to ensure the new concerns can be considered at both stages of the complaints process.
Overall, the landlord responded to the complaint appropriately. It acknowledged that it failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s escalation request and of its delayed stage 2 response. It put things right by apologising for the time and trouble this caused to the resident. It also offered compensation that we consider was appropriate to reflect the impact caused. As such, we have found that the landlord offered reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns with planning permission for the ground floor flats within the communal block.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns with grounds maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for its handling of reports of ASB and its handling of concerns with grounds maintenance.
2. Pay the resident £425 compensation. This consists of:
  1. The £350 offered in its complaint responses for its handling of reports of ASB.
  2. A further £75 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of concerns with grounds maintenance.
3. Consider how it can learn from its poor communication as identified in its handling of reports of ASB. This is to prevent similar issues in the future. The landlord should provide a copy of its learning to us.
The landlord should respond to us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation as previously offered for its complaint handling if it has not already done so. This is because we made our finding of reasonable redress on the basis that it pays this.
The landlord should consider arranging an inspection of the communal grounds to check for any needles or drug related matter. It should then arrange a safe removal of anything found to clean the area.
The landlord should consider improving its block inspection process and how to escalate any cleanliness issues it may identify. This is to help improve the appearance of the block and prevent it from repeatedly finding the block had failed its inspections.