London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202347459)

Background

1. The resident has reported to the landlord ongoing issues with her bedroom window over several years. She was unhappy with the landlord’s delays to replace the window. When the window was replaced, she said there were further delays in completing the works.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the bedroom window.
3. The associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the bedroom window.
5. We have found service failure in the associated complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Replacement of the bedroom window

6. The resident experienced significant delay and uncertainty during the replacement of her bedroom window. The landlord did not tell her when it cancelled appointments, and contractors attended without notice, which failed to meet the landlord’s communication standards. The landlord did not coordinate the handovers effectively, causing avoidable confusion and distress. Although the window was installed in January 2024, the finishing works were not completed until October 2024, showing the landlord did not progress the works in a timely or well‑managed way.

Associated complaint handling

7. The landlord did not provide timely or complete responses at stage 2. It did not address all points raised in the resident’s escalation, meaning its complaint handling did not meet the standard of providing a thorough and fully reasoned investigation.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we have not looked at

8. There is long history of issues with the window dating back to 2019 and the resident had raised previous complaints with the landlord. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from May 2023 that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to bring complaints to us with in reasonable time period while evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
9. The landlord committed to installing the window, but the installation was not fully completed until the finishing works were done in October 2024. It was therefore reasonable for our investigation to look beyond the stage 2 response to assess how the landlord managed the outstanding works after January 2024.
10. The resident told us the situation had a detrimental impact on her mental health. It would be fairer and more effective for her to pursue a personal injury claim for any injury caused, because the courts can rely on independent medical evidence to assess the cause and duration of any harm. We have not investigated this further, but we have considered any distress or inconvenience as part of this complaint.

What we have looked at

11. The resident raised a complaint on 12 September 2023 about delays to replace her bedroom window. She said the landlord had approved the replacement in May 2023. She said scaffolding was due on 25 August and installation on 6 September 2023, but no one attended or told her the job had been cancelled. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook says contractors must tell residents if an appointment needs to be changed or rescheduled. There is no evidence the landlord or its contractors informed her of the cancellation, so the landlord did not meet its communication standards.
12. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 September 2023 and offered £100 for the delay. Although the delay at that point was around 20 days, the resident had already experienced uncertainty caused by a contractor change and a missed appointment without notice. Under the landlord’s Compensation Policy, higher awards may be appropriate where poor communication or repeated disruption has caused inconvenience.
13. The new contractor attended on 28 September 2023 without notice to take measurements. Unscheduled visits do not meet the landlord’s service expectations, which require contractors to give residents advance notice of appointments. There is no evidence the landlord arranged or confirmed this visit.
14. On 29 September 2023 the original subcontractor contacted the resident to fit the windows. She had to explain that the work had moved to a new contractor. The landlord changed contractors several times, and the records show uncertainty about responsibility at different points. The resident should not have been required to manage conflicting information. This indicates the landlord did not coordinate handovers effectively.
15. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 October 2023. Although the landlord said at stage 1 that it would oversee the work, the records show continued uncertainty about responsibility. The Repairs Policy says planned works should be completed within 60 working days of approval. The landlord approved the job in May 2023, so the work should have been completed by August 2023. By the escalation date, this timescale had already been exceeded. This shows the landlord had not exercised effective oversight.
16. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 November 2023. It apologised for an administrative error during the transfer between contractors and confirmed installation dates for 8 and 9 January 2024. It offered £250. While it set out a clear plan, the resident had already experienced missed appointments, unclear communication, and repeated contractor changes. The landlord’s policies confirm it remains responsible for subcontractor performance, but the stage 2 response did not address these coordination issues.
17. The resident told the landlord that the delays were difficult to manage because of her disability, and the landlord’s records show it knew she was a vulnerable resident. Its Compensation Policy requires it to consider vulnerability when providing services and assessing redress, but there is no evidence it did so. The landlord did not adapt its communication, prioritise updates, or take additional steps to support her during prolonged delays. It also did not explore or respond to her concerns about the impact of the situation on her health during the complaint process. This meant it missed opportunities to manage the repair more sensitively and reduce the avoidable distress caused.
18. The window installation took place on 8 and 9 January 2024, followed by an inspection on 10 January 2024. Although this progress was positive, the installation was not complete until the finishing works were done.
19. The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the appearance of the windows after installation. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to review the finishing works, provide a clear plan, and update her.
20. After the January inspection, the records do not show how the landlord monitored or progressed the finishing works. We asked for evidence of its actions between January and October 2024 but the landlord did not provide this. We therefore could not confirm whether it managed the works effectively during this period.
21. On 23 April 2024 the resident told the landlord that work had started but was not completed, and that she could not open her windows. She asked for a call back. The records do not show that the landlord responded promptly. Given its duty to ensure windows are safe and usable, this lack of follow‑up was not reasonable.
22. On 3 May 2024 the contractor told the landlord the resident did not want them to complete the work because she was unhappy with the plastic trims and asked the landlord to contact her. As the landlord remained responsible for subcontractor performance, it should have intervened to resolve the issue. The records do not show prompt action, and this contributed to further delay.
23. The landlord renewed the trims on 14 August 2024 and completed additional finishing works, including repainting sills and filling gaps, on 31 October 2024. These works resolved the issues but took place several months after installation. This shows prolonged delay in making the windows fully usable and finished.
24. The period from the landlord’s approval of the job in May 2023 to the installation in January 2024 was 162 working days, meaning the landlord did not meet its own 60 working‑day target for planned works. The period from installation in January 2024 to the completion of the finishing works in October 2024 was 189 working days, during which the resident repeatedly asked for updates and reported unresolved issues.
25. The landlord offered £350 in total at stages 1 and 2. Under its Compensation Policy, cases involving repeated contractor changes, poor coordination, missed appointments, and prolonged delay may fall within the band of £300–£1,000, particularly where a resident has had to chase for updates or where the landlord has not taken responsibility for subcontracted work. Given the total length of delay and the impact on the resident, this was insufficient.
26. We have made an order to pay further compensation. This reflects the landlord’s delay of 162 days to install the window and a further 189 day delay to complete the finishing works. Both periods involved poor contractor management, weak oversight, and avoidable disruption. The amount is consistent with the landlord’s Compensation Policy.

27. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It says stage 1 responses should be issued within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. It may extend these timescales if the complaint is complex. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which requires the landlord to explain any delay and give a clear new date.
28. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 9 working days which was within its timescale.
29. The landlord’s response did not provide clear timescales or next steps, despite the resident already experiencing delays. The Complaint Policy requires clear communication to manage expectations. The lack of a defined plan meant the complaint response did not fully meet this standard.
30. The landlord extended the case twice before sending its response within 31 working days. Extensions are permitted for complex cases, but the landlord did not provide clear reasons for the delays or regular updates.
31. The stage 2 response did not fully address the earlier communication failures or the contractor‑management issues that led to the escalation. It also did not respond to all points raised by the resident, including her references to the impact of the delays on her disability. The landlord’s complaints policy requires thorough investigation and clear responses to all issues raised, so this fell short of that standard and the Code.

Learning

32. The landlord’s oversight of contractor handovers meant the resident did not receive consistent or timely information.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. Record keeping did not clearly show appointment changes, contractor instructions, or contacts with the resident, which limited the landlord’s ability to manage the repair effectively.

Communication

34. Communication processes did not ensure the resident was told promptly about cancellations, new appointments, or changes in responsibility.