London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202331963)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331963

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for it to remove items from her previous address.
2. Reports of a flood and resulting damage.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, which began on 2 November 2015. The landlord is a local authority. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, ground-floor flat. The resident has mobility issues and a child with autism, which the landlord is aware of.
On 3 November 2022, the landlord made a referral to move the resident to temporary accommodation while it replaced the bathroom.
The resident moved into temporary accommodation on 25 May 2023.
On 11 September 2023, the resident visited her previous address to check that the landlord had completed the repairs. During the visit, she asked why it had not disposed of bulky items that were mouldy. The landlord said it did not recall agreeing to do this but would check if it was able to remove the items. On 14 September 2023, it advised her to arrange the removal of unwanted items.
On 21 September 2023, the resident reported that flooding from the balcony at her temporary address had damaged a carpet.
On 29 September 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about her previous address and temporary accommodation; the key points were as follows:
1. The landlord had left damp and mouldy furniture in her previous address, which it needed to remove.
2. She reported a build-up of water at her temporary address due to a blocked drain on the balcony, which no one followed up. Then, on 20 September 2023, she reported out of hours that the flat would flood within 90 minutes. The flat then flooded.
3. The landlord said it would clean the carpet following the flood but could not find a record for this job. When it attended at 5pm on a Friday, it did not have the relevant tools and left. The resident reported this, but the landlord refused to provide her and her children with temporary accommodation for the weekend despite saying no one would attend.
4. She said the carpet smelled worse after she had it cleaned, likely due to sewage water. Her son is autistic and eats off the floor but did not understand that he was not allowed into the living room, which she could not close off due to being open plan. Her son developed a rash on his face due to the damp and dirty carpet.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 October 2023 and issued a stage 1 complaint response on 23 October 2023; the key points were as follows:
1. It apologised for its delayed reply.
2. It had asked its repairs team to respond to an email received from one of the resident’s representatives on 10 October 2023.
3. It was waiting for a different representative to respond to an email it had sent on 12 October 2023 before it could take any further action, as it needed to visit to assess the flood damage to decide whether new flooring was required.
4. It apologised for the confusion caused when raising the carpet cleaning job. It would reimburse the cost of this once the resident provided a receipt.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 23 October 2023; the key points were as follows:
1. Mouldy items remained at her previous address, which the landlord had initially agreed to move but later refused due to this not being in writing.
2. There was mould in the living room in the temporary property, including on the skirting boards and under the sofa. The mould had spread to her son’s toys, which she had to throw away. She wanted the landlord to replace the carpet and provide reimbursement for the toys as well as towels and bedding used to soak up water due to the flood.
3. She provided a copy of the carpet cleaning receipt.
4. She asked why the landlord had not offered alternative accommodation. She was concerned that the water might have been contaminated when it flooded the property. She said the repairs team should attend as a matter of urgency.
5. It was upsetting and stressful to have moved out of her previous address due to damp and mould and then experience this at the temporary address.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 6 November 2023 and issued a stage 2 response on 24 November 2023; the key points were as follows:
1. It would contact the resident to arrange moving her remaining items into storage from her previous address, which she had left due to disrepair works and would not be returning to.
2. The resident reported that her temporary property had flooded on 21 September 2023. Its repairs team had advised that it would send a contractor to help with the clean-up.
3. On 16 November 2023, it had authorised reimbursement of £100 for carpet cleaning.
4. The resident had since reported damp and mould, which a surveyor would visit to assess on 30 November 2023.
5. It had offered the resident a property, but this did not suit her family’s needs. It had since granted her a management transfer, which meant it would house her once a suitable property became available. The resident had band 1 priority and could bid for a 3-bedroom property.
6. It apologised for the stress caused due to moving to a property where it had not sufficiently addressed repairs, which had caused damp and mould and was not in line with the level of service it wanted to provide.
7. It was undertaking significant work in its repairs service, including more robust contract management. It was reviewing how it handled repairs complaints, with a focus on keeping residents informed and following up outstanding issues.
8. It offered £350 compensation, comprised of £100 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience, and £250 for failing to address repairs in a timely manner.
9. The resident could contact this Service if she remained unhappy.

Events Post Internal Complaints Process

The resident referred her complaint to us on 11 December 2023.
In February 2024 and March 2024, the resident told us that she had concerns about anti-social behaviour relating to drug taking and noise, as well as concerns about her son’s safety due to a hard floor in the property.
The resident has confirmed that the landlord replaced the carpet in March 2024.
The complaint became one that we could consider on 10 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We are unable to consider complaints about matters that have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. For this reason, we have not considered the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour or concerns about her son’s safety due to a hard floor in the property after the landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 24 November 2023. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to more recent reports, she can raise these as a new complaint to the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied with its final response to her new complaint, she may be able to refer the matter for us to investigate as a separate complaint.
The resident says this complaint has impacted her mental health as well as the physical health of the household. Personal injury claims are more appropriate for a court because they can obtain independent medical evidence. The resident has the choice to seek legal advice if she wishes. This Service is an informal alternative to the courts. It is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove items from her previous address

On 30 March 2023, the resident accepted a move to temporary accommodation. The evidence shows that both parties discussed this by phone and during home visits. On 4 April 2023, the landlord said it expected the resident to take as many possessions as possible when she moved and that it would support her if there was anything broken or damaged that she could not take. However, it is unclear what support it intended to provide. The landlord’s lack of clarity likely caused the resident confusion.
On 24 May 2023, the landlord confirmed it would move some of the resident’s outdoor items into storage from her previous address. This was reasonable action to take in response to her concerns about the security of items that would otherwise have been in the garden while no one lived in the property.
The resident moved out of her previous address and into temporary accommodation on 25 May 2023. She signed a document on 10 July 2023 to confirm that she had moved most of the items that she wanted from the property and listed the items that would remain during the disrepair works. However, the document did not state that the landlord would dispose of any items that the resident did not want.
When the resident visited the property on 11 September 2023 to check that the landlord had completed the repairs, she asked why it had not disposed of bulky items that were mouldy. The landlord said it did not recall agreeing to this but would check its notes and whether it was able to remove the items. We do not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate these events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
On 14 September 2023, the landlord advised the resident to arrange the removal of unwanted items from her previous address. Its unwillingness to do this on her behalf prompted the resident to raise the issue as part of a formal complaint on 29 September 2023.
On 12 October 2023, the landlord emailed the resident’s representative regarding its last home visit. It said it had provided details for the resident to apply for it to remove damaged items from her previous address but did not explain that it would not do this unless it received the relevant details. The landlord’s records do not include notes from the visit, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. However, its email to the resident’s representative offered to help dispose of furniture as long as the resident provided access to the property and a detailed list of items for disposal. Although we consider the landlord’s offer reasonable, there is no evidence that the resident was aware of this or that her representative replied to the email. This meant the landlord took no further action.
When responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 23 October 2023, the landlord did not include its offer to remove unwanted items from her previous address. Its failure to address the issue likely confused the resident and prompted her to re-raise this when she escalated her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 November 2023 offered to move items into storage that remained at the resident’s previous address, as she would not be returning to live there due to an unrelated issue. Although the landlord said it was awaiting a reply to an email it had sent the resident’s representative, it, again, did not specify its offer to help dispose of unwanted items from the resident’s previous address. This showed a lack of attention to detail regarding whether the resident was aware of its offer, particularly as she had escalated her complaint due to the landlord’s failure to address this issue at stage 1.
A lack of effective communication caused the resident confusion due to believing that the landlord had agreed to remove damaged furniture from her previous address following her move to temporary accommodation. Despite there being no written agreement, the landlord later reasonably offered to remove such items when writing to the resident’s representative. However, it failed to include its offer when responding to the resident at each stage of its complaints process. The landlord’s failings represent maladministration, and an order has been made for remedy.

Landlord’s handling of reports of a flood and resulting damage

On 21 September 2023, the resident reported that flooding from the balcony at her temporary address had damaged a carpet and asked the landlord to replace this. This is the first evidence that the resident raised any concerns about flooding. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency appointments within 24 hours and complete routine repairs within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord said it would consider the issue and contact her back. We would have expected the landlord to consider whether it needed to provide any temporary solutions due to the flood, such as dehumidifiers to dry out the carpet or a temporary move. However, there is no evidence that it did this, which showed a lack of empathy for the resident’s situation. It also failed to manage her expectations regarding how soon she could expect a response in line with its repairs process.
The next contact took place by phone on 27 September 2023. It is unclear who made the call or what was discussed during the call as the landlord has not provided any details, which indicates an issue with its record keeping.
However, the landlord emailed the resident following the call. The content of its email indicates that the resident did not believe the property was suitable to live in. The landlord said it would not provide alternative accommodation unless its repairs team said the property was not habitable. This was in line with its temporary accommodation policy. Although the landlord said it would ask its repairs team to phone the resident, it did not say when she could expect a call. It provided contact details for its supported moves team and out of hours service in case the resident felt she could not remain in the property. However, its lack of any substantive action in response to the resident’s concerns showed disregard for her situation and likely prompted her to formally complain.
In her stage 1 complaint on 29 September 2023, the resident said she had arranged to have the carpet cleaned due to the landlord failing to do this and refusing to provide temporary accommodation. She expressed concern about the cleanliness of the carpet, which she could not block off due to the property being open plan. She said her young son, who was autistic and did not understand that he was not allowed on the carpet, had developed a rash on his face. However, it was not until 2 October 2023 that the landlord identified it had incorrectly raised a carpet cleaning job for the resident’s previous address, which showed a lack of attention to her temporary living arrangements. Its failure to check the progress of this job sooner showed disregard for the resident’s situation. The landlord has also not provided any evidence of the carpet cleaning job that it raised, which indicates an issue with its record keeping.
On 4 October 2023, the landlord said contractors had unblocked a drain that had then caused the damage to the carpet. It said this would usually fall under the resident’s responsibility but, due to her being in temporary accommodation, it offered to either refund the cost of cleaning the carpet upon receiving a receipt or fit a new carpet. Although the landlord’s offer was reasonable, due to the concerns that the resident raised in her formal complaint, it should have considered visiting to assess the condition of the carpet to determine whether it needed to replace this as well as refunding the carpet cleaning cost.
On 12 October 2023, the landlord replied to an email from the resident’s representative. However, it has not provided a copy of her representative’s email, which further indicates an issue with its record keeping. The landlord repeated its request for a receipt before it would refund the cost of carpet cleaning. It also said a surveyor needed to inspect the damage before it would fit new flooring. Although it was appropriate for a surveyor to visit, instead of arranging this or offering appointments, the landlord asked how the resident wanted to proceed. This further delayed any assessment of the carpet and showed a further lack of empathy for the resident’s situation.
In its stage 1 response on 23 October 2023, the landlord appropriately apologised for the confusion caused when raising a carpet cleaning job and again offered to reimburse the cost that the resident had incurred for this. Although it reiterated that it needed to visit to assess the flooring before deciding whether to replace this, it is a failing that the landlord, again, did not offer any appointments. Nor was the landlord proactive in pursuing this during the previous 11 days. This was not reasonable and, again, showed a lack of empathy for the resident’s situation.
When the resident escalated the complaint on 23 October 2023, she said there was damp and mould and expressed concern that the water that had flooded the property might have been contaminated. The landlord’s review of its response to this Service’s damp and mould recommendations on 15 December 2022 said it triaged reports and escalated more serious issues for a specialist surveyor to visit to complete an in-depth inspection. In this case, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it triaged the resident’s report of damp and mould, which again indicate an issue with its record keeping. However, it confirmed on 27 October 2023 that a surveyor would visit on 30 October 2023. As this was not suitable for the resident, it confirmed on 2 November 2023 that it had rescheduled the appointment for the end of that month. It is unclear why the new appointment was not sooner, particularly as the resident had reported her son’s vulnerability approximately one month prior.
On 9 November 2023, the resident’s representative also reported damp and mould and requested an inspection. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this, which was not appropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm the scheduled appointment and consider whether it was able to visit sooner due to this further report.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 November 2023 said it had authorised a refund for the cost of carpet cleaning and reconfirmed the damp and mould surveyor visit for 30 November 2023, which was appropriate. However, we would have expected it to explain the next steps it would take depending on the outcome of the visit. The landlord said it had offered the resident a permanent home move, but this was unrelated to her request for temporary accommodation due to the flood and showed a lack of understanding of her complaint.
We are aware that the landlord has since clarified its position regarding the resident’s request for reimbursement for toys damaged by mould due to the flood or for towels and bedding used to soak up water from the flood. However, it was not reasonable that it did not do this at stage 2. If the landlord was willing to consider the resident’s request, it should have confirmed this and the next steps that it would take; if it was unwilling to provide reimbursement, it should have explained why.
The resident experienced a flood due to a contractor unblocking a drain, which impacted her enjoyment of the property. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the household’s vulnerabilities or that it considered providing any temporary measures such as dehumidifiers to help dry out the carpet, which was not reasonable. The landlord apologised for the stress caused due to not sufficiently addressing repairs that caused damp and mould, and for the time taken to address these. It said this was not the level of service it wanted to provide and offered compensation totalling £350. However, the failings identified have not prevented a finding of maladministration and an order has been made for remedy.
Although we were able to determine this case using the information that was available, the lack of information provided by the landlord hampered us in our investigation. It is vital that landlords keep clear and accurate records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. A further order has therefore been made that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for any repairs and communication with residents.
The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy at the time of this complaint, but it has since implemented one. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make a further order on this issue.

Complaint handling

The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 29 September 2023.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 2 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. If this could not be met, it should have agreed an extension of up to a further 10 working days with the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 September 2023 and 2 October 2023, which was within the timeframe set out in its complaints process. On 3 October 2023, the resident asked for an independent team to review her complaint as she said the team she was complaining about was self-investigating. The landlord noted a call back request but did not make this. We would have expected the landlord to contact the resident to address her concern before it reviewed the complaint. That it did not do so likely caused her distress and inconvenience. It is also a failing that a senior member of the voids and supported moves team that the resident was complaining about then issued the stage 1 response.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 October 2023, but there is no evidence that it agreed an extension with the resident. Its response was 5 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy and likely caused the resident inconvenience.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 23 October 2023.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation within 2 working days and issued a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 6 November 2023, which was 8 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy and likely caused the resident further inconvenience. Its acknowledgement incorrectly stated it had received the request on the date that it issued the acknowledgement. It then issued a stage 2 response on 24 November 2023, which was within the timeframe specified in its complaints policy.
Although it is positive that the landlord committed to a review of its handling of repairs complaints in its stage 2 response, its complaint handling delays, failure to respond to the resident’s concerns regarding who would investigate her complaint, and a senior member of the team being complained about then issuing the stage 1 response represent maladministration and an order has been made for remedy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove items from her previous address.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of reports of a flood and resulting damage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has:
1. Issued a written apology for the distress caused by the failings identified in this report.
2. Contacted the resident to help dispose of furniture that she does not want from her previous address, in line with its email dated 12 October 2023.
3. Paid the resident compensation totalling £800, comprised as follows:
  1. £100 for the distress caused by the failings identified regarding its handling of the resident’s request to remove items from her previous address.
  2. The £100 offered for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience.
  3. The £250 offered for failing to address repairs in a timely manner.
  4. A further £200 for the distress caused by the failings identified regarding its handling of reports of a flood and resulting damage.
  5. £150 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has carried out a review of this case to identify what went wrong and what it will do differently to prevent a recurrence of the failings identified.