London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202335928)

Decision
Case ID	202335928
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	10 November 2025

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a high-rise block. The resident lives there with her adult daughter.
2. At times, an advocate acted as the resident’s representative. For the purposes of this report, unless we need to specify, all communications from the resident and her advocate are referred to as coming from the resident.

What the complaint is about

3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of sewage flooding the property.
   2. Associated temporary move.
4. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. The landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her:
   1. Reports of sewage flooding the property.
   2. Associated temporary move.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
7. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

8. The landlord delayed in permanently resolving the blockage that caused sewage to flood the property, and adequately cleaning the property. However, it has taken reasonable action to put things right for these failures.
9. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in it offering to pay the resident costs associated with the temporary move, and offered reasonable redress for this.
10. There was a minor communication failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, which did not affect the overall outcome.

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 communication failure in its complaint handling.	No later than 08 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence it has paid the resident £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the communication failure in its complaint handling.	No later than 08 December 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
Review this case to identify why full repair records were not provided and implement any learning, to ensure the landlord can provide full, detailed records to us for future investigations.
Pay the resident: The £1,400 compensation already offered for its handling of her reports of sewage flooding the property. The £100 compensation already offered for its handling of the associated temporary move. The reasonable redress findings are made on the basis of these sums being paid, as they recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.
Pay the resident the £410 temporary move costs, if not done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 August 2023	The resident reported the toilet was overflowing with raw sewage. The landlord attended and identified this was caused by a blockage in the communal stack pipe.
5 September 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had been told a specialist machine was needed to clear the blockage, but this had not been done. She said her daughter was heavily pregnant and had been unable to come home since the problem began. She said she had been left to clean up raw sewage, and this had affected her mental and physical health.   The toilet blockage was permanently resolved.
19 September 2023	The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged there had been delays in it resolving the blockage and adequately cleaning the property. It apologised, and offered £950 compensation, to redecorate affected areas and to replace flooring.
16 October 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the stage 1 response was not good enough and the compensation was insufficient. She asked to be moved permanently.
14 November 2023	The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged there had been failure in its handling of the matter. This included a failure to pay her costs of £410 associated with a temporary move between 5 and 18 September 2023. It apologised and offered £1,500 compensation (£1,400 for its handling of the blocked pipe and resulting flood and £100 for the delay in paying her costs associated with the temporary move). It had considered her request for a move, but this had been denied as the issue had been repaired and the property was habitable.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had not paid her the correct amount for the temporary move. She asked for compensation for loss of earnings, damage to property, and the impact on her health.

 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 resident’s reports of sewage flooding the property
Finding	Reasonable redress

11. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the communal stack pipe in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says, in flats, it will keep communal amenities in reasonable repair and condition, which includes communal pipework.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend repairs that need an urgent emergency response within 4 hours. When the resident reported the toilet was overflowing with raw sewage, the landlord should have prioritised this as an emergency. Raw sewage flooding into a property is a health and safety concern, so the landlord should attend in the quickest time possible. From the records we have seen, the landlord raised this job as an emergency response repair, with a target timescale of 24 hours. This was an incorrect categorisation of the repair.
13. Despite raising this job with a 24 hour response time, the resident has told us the landlord attended within 3 hours of her making the initial report. This was within the 4 hour target timescale for repairs that need an urgent emergency response.
14. The landlord has not provided records to show when it attended on 30 August 2023. Our assessment is based on detailed information provided by the resident. While we have been able to make an assessment of the landlord’s actions in this case using the resident’s information; this may not be the same in other cases. It is vital that the landlord ensures it has detailed records of all attendances, and provides these to us when requested so we can properly assess its handling of repairs.
15. It is not clear if the absence of records is because they do not exist or were not provided to us. Regardless, this is a concern. We recommend the landlord reviews this case to identify why full repair records were not provided and implement any learning, to ensure it can provide full, detailed records to us for future investigations.
16. When the landlord attended on 30 August 2023, the resident said it unblocked the toilet. However, a short while later, she reported sewage started back surging from the toilet again. The landlord attended the following day and identified that a specialist machine was needed to clear the blockage and descale the pipe.
17. Despite the landlord identifying this on 31 August 2023, it did not attend with this machine until 5 days later, on 5 September 2023. Considering the reason this was needed, it should have attended within 24 hours. Had it done so, it could have permanently resolved the matter sooner. While this was only a short delay of 4 days, as there was raw sewage flooding the property, this delay was unreasonable. The resident has said this had a significant impact on her, as she had to clean up the sewage for hours at a time.
18. During the period of delay, the landlord had attended and taken action to temporarily resolve the blockage, on 1 September 2023. While positive that it did this, it should still have attended with the recommended machinery to ensure it had fully resolved the issue. Its failure to do so meant the back surging started again on 4 September 2023. The resident then took time and effort to report it again and raise a formal complaint, before the landlord attended with the required equipment. The landlord’s delay in achieving a permanent resolution was upsetting for the resident, particularly as it had been told what it needed to do to achieve this. This made her feel the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
19. Once the landlord addressed the cause of the blockage, it arranged an environmental clean. This was appropriate considering there had been raw sewage flooding into the property on multiple occasions over several days. This was particularly important in this case, as the resident had told the landlord her daughter was heavily pregnant and so was at increased risk.
20. The landlord offered the resident a temporary move on 6 September 2023, the same day it raised the job for the environmental clean. Because of this, it was reasonable that the landlord did not progress the clean as an emergency repair, as the resident was not living there. However, considering the circumstances of what had happened, it was appropriate to progress this quickly.
21. The landlord attended on 7 September 2023 to clean the property, which was timely. However, it subsequently identified this clean was not completed to the required standard. It reattended on 13 September 2023 to complete a further clean. Again, it identified this was not done to the required standard, following a report from the resident. This was disappointing for her and caused her to lose faith in the landlord.
22. The landlord reattended a third time on 15 September 2023 and arranged to inspect with the resident on completion. This was appropriate to check the clean had been done to a satisfactory standard and confirm the resident was happy. Overall, it took 9 days to clean the property to a satisfactory standard. While this was a reasonable timescale, the fact the landlord had to attend 3 times was unreasonable. This meant the resident spent time and effort reporting that the clean had not been done properly, and had to attend on multiple occasions to allow access. This was time consuming and frustrating for her.
23. Following the third clean, the landlord deemed the property habitable for the resident to return. She disputed this, via her daughter, on 18 September 2023, and said no testing had been done to ensure the property was safe for them to return. In response, the landlord inspected on 21 September 2023 with the resident and her daughter. It agreed to complete a chemical test via a third party company. This was a reasonable suggestion to reassure the resident that the property was safe to return to.
24. The landlord arranged for the third party company to attend on 22 September 2023, in agreement with the resident. However, this did not go ahead as the resident did not give access. This was not a failure by the landlord, as it did all it could to facilitate this test in a timely manner. Following the missed appointment, it told the resident it could reattend within 24 hours, once she confirmed her availability. This was reasonable and showed it was committed to reassuring her that the property was safe.
25. The landlord offered to redecorate affected areas and replace flooring as part of its offer to put things right. This was appropriate to address the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property and showed it was taking them seriously. The landlord arranged to complete the redecoration works on 18 September 2023. These did not go ahead as the resident cancelled the appointment. As the cancellation was at the resident’s request, this was not a failure by the landlord.
26. The landlord did not complete these works until 6 months later, in May 2024. While this was a delay, this was not attributable to the landlord as the resident did not agree to go ahead with the works until February 2024. Due to the length of time that had passed, the landlord reinspected the property in March 2024. This was reasonable to confirm the scope of the works had not changed. It subsequently arranged to start the works on 18 April 2024, and completed them the following month. This was a reasonable timeframe considering it had already concluded the property was habitable.
27. In late October 2023, the resident asked the landlord for a permanent move because of the impact on her mental health. In response, the landlord submitted a ‘director’s discretion decision request’ the same month. The form said this was a request for rehousing due to exceptional circumstances, where the only way an exceptional housing need could be resolved was by using discretion. It is not clear if this is the same as a management transfer, which the council’s allocations policy says are for situations where there is a serious risk for the household if they remain in the property, and an immediate move is needed. Based on the evidence we have seen, it appears these are 2 separate processes and so we have considered them as such.
28. As there was no evidence of risk to the household, it was reasonable that the landlord did not progress a management transfer application. However, based on the information provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to progress a director’s discretion decision request. It had acknowledged failure in its handling of the matter, and it was important to show it was taking the resident’s request seriously. The landlord declined the request. While disappointing for the resident, the landlord’s reasons for doing so were reasonable. The property was considered habitable and the landlord had offered to take additional actions to address and resolve any ongoing concerns about this.
29. When the resident submitted supporting medical evidence for her application in December 2023, the landlord agreed to resubmit it to its panel for consideration. This was reasonable and showed it was taking the application seriously. There was a delay in it doing this and the resident spent time and effort chasing this up on 2 occasions in January 2024, before t was resubmitted in March 2024.
30. Ultimately, the landlord reached the same conclusion and declined the request for the same reasons. While frustrating for the resident, this was again reasonable. A move on medical grounds is something that falls under the council’s allocations policy. Therefore, it would not be considered an exceptional housing need that can only be resolved by the landlord using its discretion.
31. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered £1,400 compensation. It also offered to complete additional works that fell outside its repair responsibilities (redecoration and flooring replacement). In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
32. The resident has said she is dissatisfied with the compensation offered as it does not cover loss of earnings and damage to belongings. The landlord told her it would not pay compensation for loss of earnings, but had considered the distress and inconvenience caused. This was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance and therefore, we have done the same. Similarly, the landlord said the resident could make a claim via its insurer for damage to belongings and provided a link for her to do this, rather than paying compensation. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy, which says insurance claims are not covered by its compensation policy.
33. The resident also asked for compensation to address the impact on her health. The landlord explained it could not pay compensation for this as she needed to submit a claim via its insurer, and provided a link to do so. This was in line with its compensation policy, which says public liability insurance claims are not covered by its compensation policy. For the same reasons, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. What we have considered is the general the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s failures, and whether the compensation offered was sufficient to address this.
34. We have considered the full circumstances of the case, including the impact on the resident, alongside our remedies guidance. The landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £1,400 compensation already offered, if not done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Complaint	The associated temporary move
Finding	Reasonable redress

35. The landlord inspected the property on 5 September 2023, after the resident reported sewage had started backing up from the toilet again the day before. It then recommended temporarily moving the resident because of the length of time this had been ongoing. This was appropriate, considering the health and safety implications of raw sewage flooding the property on multiple occasions over the previous 6 days.
36. Prior to 5 September 2023, it was reasonable that the landlord had not considered a move sit had temporarily resolved the problem on 1 September 2023. This meant the back surging had stopped and the health and safety risk was being adequately managed, by arranging an environmental clean. However, when the resident reported it had restarted on 4 September 2023, the health and safety concerns returned. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to progress a temporary move at that time.
37. The landlord’s decant policy says it will generally use bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation for emergency moves. This is reasonable considering the shortage in council accommodation, and that these types of moves generally need to be done quickly. The landlord first offered the resident a bed and breakfast on 5 September 2023. She declined this as being unsuitable as it was not an acceptable standard. While this may not have been the resident’s preference, the landlord offered her alternative accommodation in the local area in accordance with its decant policy. Therefore, this was reasonable.
38. During a follow up visit on 7 September 2023, the resident raised concerns about the suitability of the initial offer and the landlord agreed to find alternative accommodation. This showed it had taken her concerns seriously. This resulted in the resident being temporarily housed in a hotel between 12 and 18 September 2023.
39. The landlord’s decant policy says, where residents make their own housing arrangements on a temporary basis, it will offer £200 per week, where the household is a 2-bedroom property. As the landlord acknowledged a decant was required from 5 September 2023, it subsequently offered the resident £200 for making her own arrangements for the period 5 to 11 September 2023. This was reasonable and in line with is decant policy.
40. The resident has challenged this and said she believes the landlord should have also paid her daughter for making her own arrangements from 30 August 2023 onwards. The landlord’s decant policy gives different amounts it will offer, depending on the size of the property (for larger properties, it will pay more). This indicates it is a per household payment, rather than a payment per individual and so the landlord’s offer was reasonable.
41. The landlord’s decant policy says, where residents are temporarily moved into accommodation with no cooking facilities, it will pay £15 per day per adult for food. The resident was in hotel accommodation for 7 days. It is not clear if her daughter stayed with her during this time. However, it was reasonable that the landlord paid the allowance for her for this period as well as she was not staying at the property and so was likely incurring increased costs. The landlord agreed to pay the resident £210, in line with its policy commitment to pay £15 per day, for the 7 days for her and her daughter.
42. The landlord’s decant policy says it will pay the food allowance upfront for the duration of the booking. It did not do that and we have seen no evidence that it even offered the resident this until 2 months later, when it responded to the stage 2 complaint. This was not in line with its policy.
43. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered £100 compensation. Considering the full circumstances of the matter and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. We recommend it pays her the £100 compensation offered, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. We also recommend it pays her the £410 temporary move costs, if not done so.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

44. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 6 September 2023, and the stage 2 complaint on 17 October 2023. Both were within 1 working day of receiving the complaints, in line with the 5 working day timescale in its complaints policy at the time.
45. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 10 working days, in line with the 10 working day target in its complaints policy at the time. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 21 working days, just 1 day over the 20 working day committed timeframe. The landlord told the resident about this delay on 13 November 2023, and apologised for it. It said it would send the response the following day, which it did. As the landlord told the resident about the delay, apologised and responded in line with the amended deadline, this was not a failure.
46. The resident replied to the stage 2 response on 27 November 2023. She was dissatisfied with it, particularly the compensation and temporary move costs. The landlord agreed to review them and respond by 22 December 2023. As the complaint had completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, it was not obligated to consider the matter further. However, it was entitled to do so at its own discretion.
47. Despite the landlord committing to respond by 22 December 2023, it did not. It was around a month later, on 18 January 2024, that it told the resident it would not offer increased compensation or temporary move costs. This was only after she had spent time and effort chasing it up that day.
48. While the landlord was not obligated to complete this review, as it had committed to do so by 22 December 2023, it should have kept to this commitment. Its failure to do so amounts to service failure. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor failures over a short duration, that did not affect the overall outcome.

Learning

49. The landlord should ensure repairs are correctly categorised, so it responds in line with its committed timescales.
50. If follow on action is recommended to resolve a repair, the landlord should do this in a timely manner to ensure the repair is completed as soon as possible.
51. It is important that cleaning jobs are completed to a satisfactory standard first time. It is appropriate for landlords to inspect the job on completion with the resident to agree if this has met the required standard. This avoids the resident having to spend time and effort reporting any concerns.
52. Where landlords identify failure, they should do all they can to put things right for the resident. This should include resolving the substantive issue, and compensating for distress, inconvenience, time and effort, in line with its compensation policy. The landlord did that in this case.
53. The landlord should adhere to its decant policy and pay food allowance upfront.
54. A landlord should be flexible in its approach and take resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord demonstrated that it did that in this case when the resident raised concerns about the initial offer of temporary accommodation and when she asked for a permanent move. While it did not always deliver the desired outcome, the landlord considered the resident’s requests and gave feedback on these.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

55. The landlord should keep records of all visits for repairs, and provide the full, detailed repair records to us as part of our investigations.

Communication

56. The landlord should respond by deadlines it has given. If it cannot, it should tell the resident so they know when they will receive a response.