From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202405556)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405556

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

18 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 leaseholder 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak effecting the leaseholder’s property.

Background

  1. The complainant has been the leaseholder of a second floor flat in an apartment complex since 2002. The landlord is the property freeholder. The leaseholder rents the property to tenants.
  2. On 30 June 2023 the leaseholder reported a leak coming into the property from the flat above.
  3. The leaseholder complained to the landlord on 6 November 2023 and said there had been a leak into the flat for several months. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the leaseholder on 20 November 2023. It apologised and offered £350 compensation for not addressing the leak and said it would carry out repairs that week.
  5. The leaseholder told the landlord on 24 January 2024 the leak had not been repaired. The leaseholder escalated the complaint on 1 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 4 March 2024.
  6. On 2 April 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the leaseholder. It apologised and offered a further £150 compensation for not resolving the leak. It said the leak would be repaired by 5 April 2024.
  7. The leaseholder contacted us on 10 May 2024 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. The leaseholder told us during this investigation his tenants became ill following a leak in the property. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a tenant’s health. Matters relating to personal injury or damage to health are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we will consider any general distress and inconvenience caused where there has been a failing by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak effecting the leaseholder’s property

  1. The leaseholder reported a leak into his property from the flat above on 30 June 2023. He said the leak was causing damage to the hallway, living room and kitchen ceilings. The landlord raised a work order to investigate the cause of the leak the following day. Although the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 10 July 2023, they did not resolve the leak.
  2. Little action was taken to address the issue until the landlord decided on 12 September 2023 to replace bathroom tiles in the flat above the leaseholder’s property. This was because it said the leak was caused by water leaking behind the tiles in the bathroom above and into the leaseholder’s property. However, on 10 October 2023 the landlord’s operative attended the flat above and said the leak was coming from a faulty tap instead. The landlord scheduled to replace the neighbours tap on 17 November 2023.
  3. The lease agreement for the property states the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure of the property, including ceilings.
  4. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the property above the resident’s flat. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for maintaining water and plumbing in its properties and managing hazards that may present a risk to health. The policy adds it should respond to leaks within 24 hours.
  5. The evidence shows the landlord did not adhere to its responsibility as per the lease agreement, or its repairs policy in response to the leaseholder’s reports of a leak into his property. The evidence shows it took several weeks to diagnose the source of the leak.
  6. On 6 November 2023 the leaseholder complained to the landlord. He said the leak had been ongoing for several months and it was damaging the ceilings in his property. He said the leak had caused damp and mould and he was concerned about the safety of his tenants, who had a 9-month-old baby.
  7. The landlord raised a new work order on 10 November 2023 to replace the tiles in the flat above the leaseholder’s property.
  8. The landlord sent a response to the leaseholder at stage 1 of its complaints process on 20 November 2023. The landlord said the repair delays were due to it having issues with its contractor and it being given conflicting reasons for the leak when it was inspected. It said it expected the leak to be repaired that week, depending on the results of further inspections.
  9. The landlord apologised to the leaseholder for the delayed repairs and offered £350 compensation:
    1. £250 for failing to diagnose the repair effectively.
    2. £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
  10. A review of the landlord’s complaint response shows it accepted it had taken too long to that point to fix the leak which was affecting the leaseholder’s property. The landlord apologised and offered compensation for its failings and arranged to take action to address the outstanding issue.
  11. The landlord recorded on 28 November 2023 its operative had attempted to replace the bathroom tiles in the flat above, but this did not happen as they encountered issues with the occupants. The landlord also recorded that it had not replaced the tap which was suspected to be the source of the leak. This was due to staffing issues.
  12. On 13 December 2023 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the flat above the leaseholder’s property. The surveyor identified several issues which could have caused the leak. The landlord recorded on 18 December 2023 it would arrange for a different contractor to replace the bathroom tiles. It is not recorded when the tiles were replaced, or if the tap was changed, but the landlord told the leaseholder on 10 January 2024 the repairs had been completed.
  13. The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 24 January 2024 and said the leak had stopped for 10 days however, it had since started again.
  14. The landlord inspected the leaseholder’s property on 6 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the leak from the flat above was coming from the shower and it was causing damage to the leaseholder’s property. The landlord told the leaseholder on 9 February 2024 it would keep him updated on repairs to resolve the leak.
  15. On 1 March 2024 the leaseholder told the landlord he wanted to escalate his complaint. This was because no further action had been taken by the landlord to resolve the leak.
  16. The landlord recorded on 12 March 2024 the leak was coming from the bath in the flat above. A new bath was installed on 14 March 2024.
  17. On 2 April 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the leaseholder. It said it had completed repairs to the bath in the flat above the leaseholder’s flat. The landlord apologised for the delays to carry out the repairs and it increased its compensation offer to £500. This was broken down as follows:
    1. £250 for its failure to diagnose the repair effectively.
    2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder.
    3. £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
  18. The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 7 April 2024 and said there was still a leak coming from the flat above. Throughout April and May 2024, the landlord carried out further inspections of both flats. The landlord’s contractor told it on 9 May 2024 the property was dry and there was no leak. The landlord contacted the leaseholder on 13 May 2024 and said the leak had been resolved.
  19. Following the leaseholder’s complaint to us, on 2 June 2025 the landlord reviewed its handling of the matters he raised. The landlord offered a further £300 compensation to the leaseholder for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of a leak. The leaseholder has told us he accepted the increased compensation.
  20. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the leaseholder’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  21. The evidence shows the landlord failed to fix the source of a leak from one of its properties in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This delay caused the leaseholder’s property to incur the effects of the water ingress for a longer timeframe than that which it would be reasonably expected for the landlord to have resolved the situation. The evidence shows there were multiple visits to the flat above, which was at times caused by a failure to have the appropriate staff attend. This resulted in a number of potential sources of the leak being diagnosed and failed attempts to resolve the issues. This was indicative of poor management of the repair by the landlord.
  22. The redress offered during its complaints process was not proportionate to its failures to resolve the leak within its repairs policy timescale, and the resulting distress and inconvenience this caused the leaseholder over 10 months. Following the leaseholder’s complaint to us, the landlord increased the compensation offer to £800, which he accepted.
  23. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to take resolution focussed action, irrespective of the stage at which a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should always be to ensure that a case in dispute progresses to a fair resolution during its internal complaints process. It was not until the leaseholder referred his complaint to us that the landlord conducted a further review of the case and increased its offer of compensation. Although this did indicate a willingness to learn, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, appropriate redress is something which should have been considered as part of the internal complaint’s procedure. A referral to us should not be seen as another opportunity for the landlord to consider its handling of the complaint.
  24. When considering our guidance on remedies, the landlord’s revised compensation offer £800 was fair. This offer acknowledged there was a failure which adversely affected the leaseholder. In making the offer the landlord accepted its failings, and the compensation offered was proportionate to those failings.
  25. However, although it is positive the landlord offered a reasonable compensation amount to the leaseholder, this was not until after the stage 2 response and was only when he took the time and trouble to complain to us. Therefore, the landlord failed to effectively put things right and provide a resolution during its internal complaints process. If it had, it could have reasonably avoided the additional impact, and time and trouble caused to the leaseholder. As such, this leads to determination of service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  26. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation in addition to the sum of £800 that has previously been offered. The additional amount has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance which advises it to be suitable compensation in situations where there has been a minor failing by the landlord which it did not put right during its complaints process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of a leak effecting the leaseholder’s property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the leaseholder for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £850 compensation to the leaseholder for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak at the property. The landlord may deduct the sum of £800 already offered to the leaseholder if already paid. The balance should be paid directly to the leaseholder.
  2. The landlord should provide us with evidence of its compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date if this report.