London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202335961)

Decision
Case ID	202335961
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	24 March 2026

Background

1. The property is a top-floor flat within a communal block. At the time of the complaint, the resident lived there with her 5 children. She has complained about delays to repairs and internal remedial works following her reports of a leak upon moving into the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak

4. The landlord delayed arranging an internal inspection despite the resident reporting that the condition of the property was deteriorating due to water damage. It also failed to progress the recommended external repairs in a timely manner when the leak re‑occurred. As a result, it took 18 months to achieve a lasting repair. Poor record keeping also contributed to the landlord’s failures.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response one day late and its stage 2 response, 3 working days later than it had communicated. However, these delays were minimal, and there is no evidence that they caused any detriment to the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 21 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her reports of a leak.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.   The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 21 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that she moved into the property on 16 October 2023 and noticed a leak through the ceiling the following day. She explained that she reported the leak to the repairs team and later chased this but was informed that the repair had been sent to the wrong department and that she would need to wait a further 7 days. She also reported internal damage caused by the leak.
14 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained that a roofing contractor was now handling the repair and that works were scheduled to take place within 60 working days. The landlord apologised for the delays and for not clearly communicating its process for managing roofing repairs. It also offered £114.55 in compensation for poor communication and for the partial loss of use of the resident’s living room.
20 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said that she had been unable to settle since moving in due to the outstanding repairs and said the issue was taking “so long” to resolve. She reported that the internal damage caused by the leak was affecting all areas of the property and was worsening each day.
5 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience the resident had experienced since moving in. It explained that poor weather had affected progress and that contractors were inspecting the roof, but it could not provide a completion timescale because the work remained weather dependent. It confirmed that once the external works were completed, a surveyor would assess the internal remedial repairs, and its complaints monitoring team would provide updates. It also increased its overall compensation offer to £375 for distress, inconvenience, delays, poor customer service, and complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, as she said that the leak had affected every room in the property, making it “damp, cold and uninviting”. She said the leak had caused internal damage, and that constant drips of water in her children’s bedrooms had disrupted their sleep and caused them distress. She also reported that the leak had created a wet and slippery environment, which she felt was unsafe, particularly for her children.
17 March 2026	During her contact with us, the resident said that the leak had now been resolved and that the internal remedial works had been completed. As an outcome, she asked us to consider the length of time the repair took, as she felt there had been a prolonged delay in the landlord addressing the matter.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident first reported a leak affecting her property on 19 October 2023, 3 days after she moved in. On the same day, the landlord noted that the repair needed to go back to its voids team, but gaps in its records prevent us from confirming whether this happened. The landlord did not progress the repair or update the resident, leading her to chase it on 20 and 27 October 2023. This lack of early action and communication likely contributed to her decision to escalate the matter through the complaints process.
7. In her initial complaint on 30 October 2023, the resident reported that the leak was causing water damage to multiple rooms and said this was not acceptable for her or her children’s health. In its stage 1 response on 14 November 2023, the landlord said it had referred the repair to its specialist roofing contractor who would complete the works within 60 working days. However, the landlord’s repair records contain no evidence of this referral, highlighting further shortcomings in its record keeping.
8. Although the timescale given for the roof repair aligned with the landlord’s repairs policy for “unplanned planned works,” it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the inside of the property and consider whether any temporary repairs were appropriate at this stage. Instead, it simply stated in its stage 1 response that that it would carry out an internal inspection once the external works were complete, which was inappropriate given the concerns the resident had raised and the number of children in the household. The landlord’s approach likely caused the resident distress and undermined her confidence in its handling of the issue.
9. In her escalation request on 20 November 2023, the resident reported that the internal damage from the leak was worsening each day. This should have further prompted the landlord to arrange an internal inspection. However, it did not do so until 15 January 2024, 3 months after the resident’s initial report. This delay was unreasonable, as the landlord was aware that the condition of the property was deteriorating and that the resident had raised concerns about the potential impact on her family’s wellbeing.
10. On 18 January 2024, the landlord told the resident that it had completed the external works. However, its records do not show what work it carried out or when it completed those works. This lack of detail limits our ability to fully assess how the landlord handled the repair and highlights further weaknesses in its record keeping.
11. It is unclear what the outcome of the inspection on 15 January 2024 was, due to gaps in the landlord’s records. However, on 25 January 2024, the landlord raised a routine repair for its contractor to address the internal damage caused by the leak. The landlord chased the contractor 3 times between 5 February and 16 February 2024, asking it to progress the internal repairs. Despite these follow‑ups, a timeline provided by the landlord shows that the contractor did not attend until 6 March 2024, which exceeded the landlord’s 20‑working‑day timescale for routine repairs. Although the landlord made efforts to prompt its contractor, the delay meant the resident waited longer than expected for the work to begin.
12. In the timeline the landlord provided, it said its contractor attempted to begin the internal repairs during the visit on 6 March 2024 but could not do so because the walls were still damp. It also said the contractor returned on 15 and 19 March 2024 but remained unable to complete the plastering and instead supplied additional dehumidifiers to help the walls dry out. However, none of these visits or actions appear in the landlord’s repair records, which prevents us from verifying what took place.
13. On 26 April 2024, the landlord raised another routine repair for the internal remedial works and issued it to a different contractor. Its records indicate that it took this approach to ensure the work could be completed more quickly, which was appropriate given the delays the resident had already experienced. A report dated 3 May 2024 confirmed that the contractor completed the internal works.
14. The landlord said that a post‑inspection of the remedial works identified an area that remained damp, indicating that the leak had not been effectively resolved. A damp survey on 10 May 2024 confirmed that water was still entering areas where contractors had previously carried out plaster repairs. The survey suggested that the source was likely an external leak and recommended that the landlord investigate and repair it. Despite these clear recommendations, the landlord did not progress the external repair promptly, completing the work on 16 August 2024 – 3 months after the survey. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly as water ingress had first been reported in October 2023 and had already caused significant disruption for the resident.
15. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident reported that the leak had re‑occurred, which highlights further shortcomings in its record keeping. However, on 23 January 2025, a contractor attended to complete a CCTV survey to identify the cause of the leak. The survey found a defective seal in the roof space and recommended repair works, along with a dye test to confirm that no further leaks were present once repairs had been completed. The contractor completed the repair on 1 April 2025, more than 2 months after the survey. The reason for this delay is unclear, but the length of time taken was inappropriate, particularly given the repeated leaks and the delays the resident had already experienced.
16. When the landlord completed the external repair on 1 April 2025, it identified further internal remedial works were required. It completed these works on 15 May 2025, 30 working days later, which exceeded its 20‑working‑day timescale for routine repairs. During a post-inspection on 23 May 2025, the landlord also identified additional water damage and mould in one of the bedrooms, which it said had not previously been reported by the resident. It was positive that the post‑inspection process identified this further issue. The landlord completed the remaining internal works on 24 June 2025.
17. There is no evidence to show that the landlord completed the recommended dye test after the external repair works to assure itself that the leak had been fully resolved. However, during our contact with the resident in March 2026, she confirmed that no further leaks had occurred since the repair was carried out. This suggests that the repair completed in April 2025 resolved the issue on a lasting basis, taking the landlord 18 months to achieve this from the time of the resident’s initial report upon moving into the property. While the weather may have caused some delays, failings in the landlord’s actions throughout the timeline of the case unreasonably prolonged the repair and contributed to the overall delay.
18. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised. It also offered £350 in compensation for distress and inconvenience, poor customer service, and delays. This does not adequately reflect the impact of the failings identified in this investigation. We consider an additional payment of £450 to be appropriate, which brings the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident to £800. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in March 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time did not specify timescales for acknowledging complaints, which did not align with the Code.
20. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy required it to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. However, the policy did not specify any timescales for extensions at stage 2. Under the Code, extensions to complaint response times were allowed, but any extension beyond 10 working days needed to be agreed by both parties.
21. At stage 1, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within 11 working days, resulting in a one-day delay. At stage 2, the landlord notified the resident of an extension on 13 December 2023, which was within the 20-working day response period. It said it expected to provide a response on 2 January 2024, representing a 10-working-day extension. The landlord issued its response on 5 January 2024, 3 working days later than the date it had communicated. These delays were minimal, and there is no evidence that they caused any detriment to the resident. We have not identified any other failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

22. The landlord closed the complaint on 23 May 2025, 16 months after issuing its final response on 5 January 2024. Where a complaint remains open for an extended period, the landlord should consider reviewing the case to assess whether the original compensation still reflects the resident’s experience or whether further redress is appropriate to reflect the impact of any additional delays.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s repair records lack detail and do not show the outcomes or completion dates of appointments, resulting in significant gaps in the information available. Although the landlord provided a timeline for the purposes of our investigation, we were unable to verify the events it described against its repair records. The absence of accurate, contemporaneous records limits the landlord’s ability to demonstrate what action it took and when. The landlord should ensure it has systems in place to accurately record when repairs are reported, attended, completed, and the outcomes of each appointment.

Communication

24. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident following her initial report, which resulted in her having to chase for updates. This highlights the need for the landlord to strengthen its communication processes to ensure residents receive accurate and timely updates.