London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202342767)

Background

1. The resident has lived in her flat, which is in a tower block, since 1990. The resident complained about how the landlord dealt with a leak. The landlord repaired the leak and the damage caused.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with reports of a leak and the follow-up repairs.
3. We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was service failure by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of a leak and the follow–up repairs.
5. We have found there was no maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord took 3 months to fix the leak and because of this did not meet the timescales in its repairs policy. While it offered an apology, learning, and reasonable compensation for this failure, it then took a further 11 months to repair the damage caused by the leak.
8. The landlord met its timescales with the stage 1 complaint response. Although it did not meet the timescales at stage 2, it did give regular updates to the resident about the delay in responding.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. The occupancy agreement confirms the landlord’s responsibility for keeping the installations for the supply of water and sanitation in good repair.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy gives timescales on how quickly it will deal with repairs. It says it will attend “urgent emergency” repairs within 4 hours, “emergency” repairs within 24 hours, and “routine” repairs within 20 working days.
11. After a concierge reported a leak on 4 October 2023, the landlord tried to contact the resident the same day but was unable to get in touch with her. Although we have not seen a record of the appointment, it appears the landlord’s contractor attended on 5 October 2023. This was reasonable as it was within 24 hours and in line with the timescale for an emergency appointment.
12. The resident said the contractor told her the leak was from a faulty seal around the kitchen sink, and it needed to replace the kitchen worktop. However, on 6 October 2023 the resident reported water coming from under a kitchen unit. A contractor attended that evening and isolated the leak. It said the leak was coming from pipes behind the kitchen units and it needed to remove them to gain access.
13. It is unclear why the first contractor did not find the cause of the leak. When there was a report of water coming from under the kitchen units, the landlord again attended in line with its repairs policy. However, it is not clear from the information we have seen, what action the landlord took after the appointment on 6 October 2023.
14. In its complaint response, the landlord said it made an appointment for 12 October 2023 to replace the worktop, but it said its notes showed the resident cancelled the appointment, as the leak had stopped. We have not seen a copy of these notes. Because of this, we cannot comment on what the resident may have said. The landlord also referred to a missed appointment on 14 November 2023 in its complaint response.
15. In her complaint on 15 November 2023, the resident referred to appointments on 31 October, 8 November, and 14 November 2023, when she said the contractor did not turn up. She said she had an infestation of flies and had paid for pest control, which told her standing water had attracted the flies. She said although the leak had reduced, she did not know if there was still a problem. She said her kitchen was “like a bomb site” as she emptied the cupboards in preparation for the appointments. She said the situation had upset her and she was not sleeping. She wanted the landlord to fix the leak.
16. We have seen no records relating to a leak between 12 October and 14 November 2023. Because of this, it is unclear what caused the landlord to arrange an appointment for 14 November 2023. However, based on the outcome of the appointment on 6 October 2023 and the content of the resident’s complaint, it is our view that the leak continued after the report on 6 October 2023. There is a suggestion the resident told the landlord the leak had stopped, but we have not seen evidence of this. Because of this, we have found the landlord did not deal with the leak in line with its repairs policy at this time, as it did not follow up the appointment on 6 October 2023.
17. In its stage 1 complaint response on 29 November 2023, the landlord said it did not have a record of appointments for 31 October or 8 November 2023. It accepted that it did not attend an appointment on 14 November 2023, as the operative was unwell. It apologised for this and said it had arranged an appointment for 1 December 2023. It offered the resident £150 compensation, which included £50 for the delay, £50 for the inconvenience caused, and £50 for the missed appointment on 14 November 2023.
18. We have not seen records of appointments for 31 October or 8 November 2023, and because of this cannot comment on whether the landlord missed them. The compensation of £50 for the missed appointment on 14 November 2023 was reasonable, as it was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy on missed appointments. However, it is our view that the £100 compensation for the delay and inconvenience was insufficient, as 2 months had passed since the first report, and the landlord had not fixed the leak. We have seen that the landlord also apologised and made an appointment. However, in the circumstances of a leak, it is unclear why it did not make an appointment before 1 December 2023.
19. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 4 December 2023. She said the contractor attended on 1 December 2023 as arranged. However, it told her it needed to access a communal shaft, and it could not do the work until it had confirmation that there was no asbestos. She said she did not understand why this information was not already available. She said she now had to wait for another appointment and was facing a third month of upset.
20. Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, landlords must find, record, and manage asbestos. Because of this, the landlord should have information available to it on whether suspected asbestos was present. However, we accept the landlord may have needed to do investigations before undertaking intrusive works to an area with suspected asbestos. We accept this could cause a delay but would expect the landlord to minimise any delay.
21. It is our understanding that the landlord’s contractor repaired the leak on 19 January 2024. This was over 3 months after the first report. The contractor found water damage to kitchen worktops and flooring caused by the leak.
22. In its final complaint response on 24 January 2024, the landlord apologised for the time it had taken to resolve the leak and for the water damage. It explained that it was doing work to ensure it had better management of its contractors, so it could deliver repairs on time and to a good standard. It accepted the experience had a negative effect on the resident and caused her inconvenience. It said it would replace the damaged worktops and flooring, and a surveyor would attend on 26 January 2024.
23. The landlord said, based on its repairs compensation policy, it would offer further compensation of £200 for the delay in completing the repairs. This made the total compensation £350, which included £300 for inconvenience and delays and £50 for a missed appointment. It is our view that taken with the apology, this was a reasonable amount as it reflected the level of inconvenience and distress caused by the delays.
24. Following the final complaint response, the landlord’s surveyor attended on 26 January 2024 and then booked in repairs for the damage for 15 February 2024. It appears there were problems with the quality of the work as the landlord told the resident on 30 April 2024 that it needed to renew the silicone in the kitchen and re–lay bubbled flooring. In August 2024, the landlord did a further inspection and told the resident that she could make an insurance claim for damage to the hall floor. In December 2025, the landlord provided us with evidence that it completed repairs to damage caused by the leak in December 2024, including to the hall floor.
25. The resident told us in December 2025 that she had an infestation of flies for over 3 months that “ruined Christmas”. She said she twice paid for pest control to fumigate but the problem with flies continued until the landlord fixed the leak. She said she wanted the landlord to learn from her experience.
26. Overall, we have found there was service failure by the landlord as it did not meet the timescales in its repairs policy. This left the resident living with the effects of a leak for over 3 months, which caused her upset and damaged her home. We accept that the apology and compensation offered in the final complaint response were reasonable in the circumstances. However, the landlord then took a further 11 months to repair the damage caused. The resident had repeat appointments because of the quality of the work done, which caused her inconvenience. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident further compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience for the delay in repairing damage caused by the leak.

27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. It says the timescale at stage 2 can be extended by a further 20 days for complex cases.
28. The resident complained on 15 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 November 2023 and responded 10 working days later, on 29 November 2023. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 4 December 2023. It acknowledged the complaint the same day. The landlord did not send its final response until 24 January 2024, which was 35 working days later. This was within the maximum extended timeframe of 40 working days provided for in its complaints policy.
29. Overall, we have found there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. While it took 35 working days to send its final response, we have seen it kept the resident updated during this time about the delay through emails and phone calls.

Learning

30. It was positive that the landlord accepted it needed to improve the management of its contractors in its final complaint response.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

31. We found the landlord’s record keeping was lacking on several occasions, such as on reports of leaks and details of missed appointments. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help the landlord with this.

Communication

32. Following the final response, there was some confusion in the landlord’s communications with the resident about whether it was responsible for repairs to all damaged caused.