London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202406300)

Decision
Case ID	202406300
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 resident’s daughter reported in July 2023 that external disrepair was causing cold and damp in her mother’s home. She said she reported a collapsed stone planter by the bedroom wall and a leaking gutter next to the bathroom. She complained because the repairs remained outstanding. The resident passed away in February 2025, however the landlord was aware of her medical conditions and vulnerability status. The resident’s daughter with Power of Attorney brought the complaint to us on her behalf. For this report, the resident and her daughter are referred to as “the resident,” unless it is necessary to distinguish between them.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leaking gutter, a collapsed stone planter, and the associated cold and damp.
   2. Complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking gutter, a collapsed stone planter, and the associated cold and damp.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

 

Summary of reasons

Leaking gutter, a collapsed stone planter and the associated cold and damp

4. The landlord’s communication with the resident and its record keeping were poor. It did not act on her initial reports in line with its repairs policy and did not take her vulnerability into account. However, its apology and redress were consistent with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance and was proportionate in recognising the impact on the resident.

Complaint

5. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy and the Code.

 

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.

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £400 offered in the complaint responses. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to a leaking gutter and collapsed planter is made on the basis the compensation is paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 December 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had reported a collapsed stone planter that had caused damp to her bedroom wall since July 2023, and a leaking gutter that made her home feel cold. She wanted the landlord to complete the repairs because the issues were affecting her health and safety.
4 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it would repair the planter on 12 January 2024 and confirmed it had inspected the gutter, approved a quote for the work, and arranged scaffolding. The landlord apologised and offered £150 compensation, this comprised of: £50 for poor communication £50 for a delay in completing repairs £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused
31 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint because the planter had not been repaired. She said she continued to experience cold temperatures and damp.
28 February 2024	The landlord provided its final response. It: said it had added the planter to a neighbourhood improvement project, which was due to start in May 2024 confirmed a supervisor had inspected the property and found no defects agreed to instruct a surveyor to complete a further inspection because of the continued concerns confirmed it had repaired the gutter apologised and offered a further £250 compensation, which comprised of: £150 for the impact, distress and inconvenience £50 for a delay to the repairs £50 for poor communication
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the landlord had not completed the repair to the planter. She said her home continued to experience cold and damp, and she wanted the matter resolved. She also sought additional compensation for her time and trouble.

 

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	Reports of a leaking gutter, a collapsed stone planter and the associated cold and damp
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. The resident raised concerns about repairs in her property. For clarity, we address each issue separately below, followed by our findings.

Leaking gutter

7. The landlord’s records do not evidence when the resident first reported the leaking guttering because it is not evidenced in the landlord’s repair system. It was however mentioned in its internal emails, which referred to an inspection on 14 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy requires it to record repairs and assess their impact before raising a works order. Without a record, it was unclear what priority the landlord assigned. Accurate records allow the landlord to monitor and manage repairs. Its absence was a record keeping failure and not in line with its policy.
8. The landlord completed the repair on 23 January 2024.Its repairs policy allows 20-working days for responsive repairs and 60-working days for planned repairs. It was unclear what priority the landlord assigned to the repair, however it took 48-working days from the resident’s report to repair completion. This is considered reasonable and in line with planned repairs, given that scaffolding was required.

Collapsed Planter

9. The resident said she raised concerns about the planter in May 2023. However, the landlord’s repair records do not evidence this until 14 November 2023, when it completed an inspection. The limited information about how or when the repair was first reported makes it difficult for us to determine whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures. This was a record–keeping failure.
10. Following the inspection, the resident said the landlord told her it would schedule the repair. She did not receive any further update, which led her to raise a complaint in December 2023. The lack of communication was a failure by the landlord.
11. The landlord told the resident it would repair the planter on 12 January 2024, however by 31 January 2024 the repair had not been completed. The resident said she had not been updated nor had she been given a reason for the delay. The lack of updates was a communication failure, which left the resident frustrated, disappointed and resulted in her escalating her complaint further.
12. The landlord’s records show by 19 February 2024, it had changed its position on repairing the planter. It said the planter was not part of the building structure and would therefore be replaced under a planned improvement project. Social landlords must use their resources effectively, and a change in approach from repair to replacement can be considered reasonable. However, the landlord should have communicated the change to the resident sooner and provided a clear explanation. Earlier communication would have helped manage her expectations and reduced the risk of further disappointment.
13. Throughout this investigation, the landlord’s repair records were difficult for us to interpret. The landlord raised a repair to the planter on 14 November 2023 and recorded it as completed on 22 November 2023. It then raised the same repair on 20 December 2023 and recorded it as completed on 15 January 2024. However, the landlord did not complete the works, and the repair remained outstanding beyond the internal complaints process. This was a further record–keeping failure.

Cold and damp

14. On 13 December 2023 the resident reported the collapsed planter was causing cold and damp in her home. The landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities but did not act until 26 February 2024, which was a delay of 76 days. Its supporting resident’s policy says it can provide maintenance or repairs sooner for vulnerable residents, and its repairs policy says inspections will be completed in 7 days if required. The delay in responding to the resident’s report of cold and damp was not reasonable and did not comply with either policy.
15. The landlord said the collapsed planter should not contribute to any cold in the resident’s home but agreed to inspect the property for damp. On 26 February 2024, a supervisor inspected the property and confirmed damp was not present. The landlord communicated the outcome to the resident, who remained concerned. As a result, it agreed to instruct a surveyor to carry out a further inspection. This was appropriate and showed the landlord was actively seeking to resolve the matter.
16. On 1 March 2024 a surveyor inspected the property. He identified a draught from open trickle vents on the windows but confirmed, using meter readings, there was no damp. He said external walls can have lower surface temperatures but confirmed there was no defect within the home. The landlord shared the findings with the resident, who continued to disagree. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the information provided by its surveyor, who was an expert on the matter.

Summary

17. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping and communication were poor, and it did not initially act on repair requests in line with its repairs policy or consider her vulnerability. In contrast, it repaired the gutter within a reasonable timeframe and once it reviewed the complaint, it took appropriate steps to investigate the cold and damp. Further when she remained dissatisfied, it arranged a second inspection, which found no defects within the home.
18. The landlord’s complaint response identified failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. It apologised, identified learning, and awarded her £400 for the failures. In doing so, it acted in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s compensation offer was in line with what we would award for maladministration. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress. This aligns with our remedies guidance for failings that had an adverse effect on the resident and where the landlord has taken steps to address the detriment.
19. We have made this finding on the understanding the landlord has already paid the resident £400 it offered during the complaint process.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

20. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
21. The resident complained on 13 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged it the next day and issued its response on 4 January 2024, 13 days later. This was in line with the timescales set out within its complaints policy.
22. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged it 5 days later and issued its final complaint response on 28 February 2024, 17 days later. This was in line with the timescales set out within its complaints policy.
23. We did not identify any complaint handling failures. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint points and provided a response within the appropriate timescales. It also told her she could bring her complaint to us if she remained unhappy with its response. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Learning

24. The landlord identified the resident’s complaint had highlighted areas for improvement. It said it was reviewing the way it handled complaints, and keeping the resident informed. It also said following up on outstanding issues was a priority.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord did not keep accurate or complete repair records. This made it difficult to establish the status of repairs or when they were initially reported. The landlord may find it beneficial to read our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) published in May 2023.

Communication

26. The landlord should have communicated with the resident earlier in the process when it became aware the planter was to be redirected to an improvement project.
27. The landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable and when she reported a concern regarding her health and the repairs, it appeared not to consider this or provide any additional support. The landlord may find it beneficial to read our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights – “A relationship of equals” published in January 2024.