London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202418615)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418615

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

20 August 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 resident 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of pests in the property.
2. Concerns raised in relation to the condition of the:
  1. Internal doors.
  2. Flooring.
  3. Kitchen.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. She has a number of mental and physical health conditions and lives at the property with her 2 young children. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a block.
The resident complained to the landlord on 9 September 2024. She said:
1. Mice were entering the property through the back of the kitchen cupboards.
2. She had no internal doors because of previous domestic violence, and this was a fire hazard.
3. The flooring should have been removed 6 years earlier when she moved in.
4. She had asked for a new kitchen but only had cupboards repaired.
5. She did not understand why she had not been shortlisted for another property as there were other problems including:
  1. Drug users in communal areas.
  2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  3. Noise transference from the property above.
The landlord called the resident on 23 September 2024 and said it needed more time to review the complaint. It wrote the next day and said its response was due on 7 October 2024. However, it then called the resident on 8 October 2024 but noted the resident was in hospital and unable to talk.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 17 October 2024, in which it said:
1. It had requested for the pest control team to attend.
2. It had requested for a surveyor to attend to inspect:
  1. Where mice may be entering the property.
  2. The internal doors.
  3. The flooring condition.
  4. The kitchen condition.
3. It had requested for the law enforcement team to inspect the grounds in and around the property.
4. It apologised for the late complaint response and offered £100 compensation for the delay and any inconvenience caused.

The resident escalated the complaint the same day and said she would contact local MP’s and the media. She emailed again the following day and said staying at the property was detrimental to her health.

On 21 October 2024 the landlord:
1. Acknowledged the complaint escalation.
2. Arranged an appointment with the resident for its surveyor to visit the property on 28 October 2024.
After there was no access to the property on 28 October 2024, the surveyor attended on 5 November 2024 a week later. The following week, the surveyor raised a number of repairs and emailed the resident to say the internal doors would not be renewed.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 14 November 2024 but noted she refused kitchen cupboard repairs as she wanted a new kitchen. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response the following day. It said:
1. It apologised for the ongoing distress and inconvenience.
2. The pest control team inspect for obvious entry points during treatments. And it provided contact details for the resident to book a pest control appointment.
3. Its surveyor had attended and raised repairs which its contractor would manage. However, it was unable to replace internal doors as it fell outside of its standard repair discretion.
4. Due to the fact the resident had expressed how her mental health was being impacted, it:
  1. Tried to attend on multiple occasions to complete welfare checks but she was not in.
  2. Would proceed with a safeguarding referral to ensure appropriate support was available to the resident.
5. The compensation offered in the stage 1 response was reasonable. And the resident should email if she wished to accept.
After the resident agreed to the repairs, the landlord’s contractor attended on the 29 November 2024, 9 and 10 December 2024 and completed repairs to the bathroom flooring and kitchen which included some pest proofing work.
It was unclear exactly when, but the resident raised another complaint largely in relation to the same issues as previously investigated. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 December 2024. It said:
1. Pest control attended on 15 November 2024. Further repairs were raised to stop mice accessing the property.
2. In relation to the flooring:
  1. It had installed flooring in the bathroom.
  2. It had previously advised the remaining flooring would be her responsibility.
3. She was not eligible for a new kitchen, but repairs had been completed.
4. It offered £25 for delays responding to the second complaint.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

There was no evidence the second complaint was raised to stage 2. But the resident emailed the landlord on 31 January 2025 and said:
1. Mice were still present in the property.
2. The flooring was only done in the bathroom and not the bedroom or hallway.
3. The kitchen cupboards were broken again after only being fixed in December.
The landlord booked further kitchen repairs to block mice entry points for 10 February 2025; however, the resident was not in. The landlord completed the repairs on 9 May 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident had requested to be rehoused as a resolution to her complaint. However, it is beyond our remit to order her local authority to offer immediate rehousing to the resident, or to prioritise her over other applicants or tenants that need rehousing and who may be in a similar or greater need. The resident can contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if she wishes to pursue this point further.
The resident also told us about the impact the condition of the property had on her health. We empathise with her situation. But we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
The resident did not specifically escalate the kitchen part of her complaint to stage 2 in the first complaint. However, she mentioned it again in the second complaint, which was also not escalated to stage 2, and in her referral to our service. We will therefore comment on the landlord’s handling of concerns raised in relation to the kitchen condition from when she raised her first complaint up to the second stage 1 response dated 18 December 2024.
The resident raised concerns and complaints about other issues with the property. The landlord addressed some of these issues at various stages of its complaints process. However, there was no evidence of all the issues being raised consistently through the full complaints process. As a result, the landlord has not had a proper opportunity to investigate and resolve them. Therefore, they are not considered in this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of any other matters, she may wish to raise a new complaint and refer it to us in due course if necessary. This would then be dealt with as a separate complaint under a new reference number.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property

The landlord’s pest control team operate within the environmental health department of the local authority. They sit outside of the landlord’s housing function. Therefore, actions and decisions made by pest control fall under the LGSCO’s jurisdiction and not the Housing Ombudsman. Therefore, we cannot draw conclusions on the action, or lack of action, by pest control.
The landlord’s repairs policy (October 2022) in use when the resident complained about the pest issue says:
1. It is responsible to maintain the building.
2. It is responsible for managing hazards that may present a risk to health.
3. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
The evidence showed the pest control team had visited the resident’s property on 14 August 2024 prior to the complaint. After the complaint was raised:
1. Pest control returned on 18 September 2024 and 15 October 2024 and noted it removed dead mice on both occasions.
2. The landlord took reasonable steps by arranging its surveyor to attend and asking pest control to contact the resident.

However, the evidence showed it did not contact pest control until the day of the stage 1 complaint response. It was unclear whether this was because it was aware pest control was already attending. But this was over a month after the resident raised her complaint, which was slow.

The day after the complaint escalation, the resident emailed the landlord and said she continued “living with mice and dead ones and the smell.” Internal emails showed the landlord chased pest control the same day, which was reasonable. It also contacted the resident to arrange the surveyor appointment 4 days later. The landlord chased pest control again on 30 October 2024. These steps showed the landlord was taking action to try and address the pest issue, which was positive.
The surveyor’s report dated 5 November 2024 identified some pest proofing work to be completed. It was reasonable for the surveyor to check for pest entry points, but the repairs were not raised until 7 days after his visit. Further to this, no repairs were raised for the back of the kitchen cupboards. This was despite the resident saying this was how mice were accessing the property in her initial complaint. It would have been reasonable for the surveyor to raise the pest proofing repairs in a timelier manner. Particularly given the resident lived at the property with her young children. However, the landlord still completed the kitchen proofing work on 10 December 2024, which was within its routine repair timescale.
The landlord attended again on 17 December 2024 to inspect the work raised was completed. It noted the back was loose to the one of the kitchen units. This was a second missed opportunity to raise a repair for the back of the kitchen units, which was a failing.
The evidence showed pest control attended after the first surveyor visit on 15 November 2024. They removed 2 more dead mice and recommended further pest proofing measures. An internal landlord email 3 days later sent to both its repairs team and pest control said to “proof [the] partition wall at bathroom and behind fridge freezer.” However, there was no evidence the repair was raised which was a failing.
The second stage 1 response sent on 18 December 2024 said the landlord had requested for the work identified by pest control to be carried out. However, this was over a month after a proofing work had been identified. The evidence also showed some confusion as to exactly what work was required, which caused further delays. The work was eventually arranged for 9 January 2025, 35 working days after pest control had identified the work. This was over double the landlord’s timeframe for a routine repair. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the proofing work to try and resolve the pest issue for the resident. There was no evidence it did so, which was a failing.
It was unclear what happened to the proofing work scheduled for 9 January 2025. However, the landlord emailed the resident on 31 January 2025 to follow-up. The resident said no work had been completed and she “still had mice.” Internal emails 3 days later show the landlord promptly rearranged the pest proofing work, which was positive. The evidence showed the resident agreed to a repair appointment scheduled for 10 February 2023. However, she was not in when the landlord attended. After this failed appointment, the repairs were left with nobody taking responsibility. This caused the resident to chase for an update on 19 March 2025. It was unclear whether the landlord responded, but the resident contacted us 4 days later.
Pest control visited again on 8 April 2025 and noted “light mice droppings.” The landlord attended on 9 May 2025 and completed the repairs to the back of the kitchen base unit. However, this was nearly 5 months after the repair had been identified on 17 December 2024, and 8 months after the resident had said this was where mice were accessing the property. This was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to live with mice. It caused her significant distress and inconvenience and affected her enjoyment of the property.
After it received the pest reports, the landlord had a responsibility to conduct inspections and investigate any issues that would allow mice to enter the property. It initially took reasonable steps to try and address the pest issue. However, its overall handling of the resident’s pest reports has been poor. The evidence:
1. Showed communication issues between the repairs, complaints, and pest control departments with no one taking responsibility. The evidence suggests the landlord was also unaware pest control were already attending when the resident first complained.
2. Also showed communication issues with the resident. The landlord failed to act on her report of where mice were accessing the property in the initial complaint. And failed to keep her updated.
3. Showed the landlord was slow to:
  1. Contact pest control in the first instance.
  2. Raise repairs identified by the surveyor on 5 November 2025.
  3. Raise repairs identified by pest control on 18 November 2025.
  4. Raise repairs following the visit on 17 December 2025.
  5. Follow up on the pest proofing work booked for 9 January 2025.
  6. Follow up on the pest proofing work rescheduled for 10 February 2025.
  7. Complete pest proofing repairs to the kitchen first identified on 17 December 2025.
The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is responsible for repairs. It should have been aware what action pest control had taken to try and address the pest issue, and it should have proactively raised and followed-up on repairs identified. We acknowledge the landlord was not solely responsible for delays completing repairs to try and address the pest issue. However, the failures outlined above meant the resident lived with mice until at least April 2025, over 7 months after her complaint was raised. It was a further month until the proofing work to the back of the kitchen cupboard was completed. This was an unreasonable length of time, particularly given the resident’s health vulnerabilities, and the fact she lived at the property with young children. A finding of maladministration is therefore made. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord should pay the resident £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified.

Concerns raised in relation to internal doors

The landlord’s repairs policy says the resident is responsible:
1. To prevent anyone who lives in or visits the home from causing any damage; and where damage is caused, to let the landlord know.
2. For repairs to internal doors (except kitchen doors) as a kitchen door is a fire door.
The tenancy agreement says the resident is “responsible for any damage… caused by anyone living with or visiting you, including the cost of making good any damage.”
From the available evidence ,it was unclear exactly when the internal doors were damaged, or who damaged them. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a surveyor to attend in relation to the internal doors. Photographs taken by the surveyor on 5 November 2024 show there are no internal doors on the bedroom, living room, and bathroom. It is unclear whether there is a kitchen door. The evidence showed the surveyor told the resident the internal doors would not be renewed in an email sent 12 November 2024. The landlord reiterated its position 2 days later in the stage 2 complaint response. This was reasonable and in line with both the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy. There was no evidence to suggest the resident was treated unfavourably. There was, therefore, no maladministration by the landlord in relation to the internal doors.

Concerns raised in relation to flooring

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the resident must “put down a suitable floor covering, with adequate underlay or insulation underneath it.”
The landlord’s repairs policy (December 2024) says the resident is responsible for flooring. Exceptions are the kitchen, bathroom and toilet.
The resident said the flooring had been “unsafe since she moved in.” However, there was no evidence she had previously requested repairs or raised a complaint. Following the September 2024 complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for its surveyor to attend. The surveyor only recommended the bathroom flooring be renewed. The landlord is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its surveyor as to what repairs were required at the property.
After the surveyor raised the repairs, the evidence showed there were delays between 14 and 26 November 2024 as the resident refused the repairs. Further delays were caused by the resident refusing repairs when the landlord attended on 2 December 2024 and a no access appointment on 3 December 2024. The landlord completed the bathroom flooring repairs on 10 December 2024. Despite the delays, this was still within the landlord’s 20 working day routine repair timeframe from when the repairs were raised, which was positive. There was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to the flooring.

Concerns raised in relation to the kitchen condition

The landlord’s repairs policy (October 2022) says it has identified how long it would expect key parts of the property to last before it would need to be replaced. But it acknowledges the expected lifecycle is a guide and it would consider this alongside data gathered through stock condition or other surveys carried out.
The landlord acted reasonably by sending a surveyor following the resident’s complaint. The surveyor recommended a number of repairs to the kitchen. This was a reasonable approach to take given the need for the landlord to make the most effective use of its resources. As above, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its surveyor as to what kitchen repairs were required.
The landlord then used its complaint response of 18 December 2024 to manage the resident’s expectations regarding a new kitchen, which was reasonable. Overall, there was no maladministration in relation the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns in relation to the kitchen condition.

Determinations

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of concerns raised in relation to the condition of the internal doors, flooring, and kitchen.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in relation to reports of pests in the property.
2. Contact the resident to confirm whether the pest proofing work completed in May 2025 has resolved the issue. If the resident reports she still has mice, the landlord should provide an action plan to both the resident and us which sets out the timescales and its next steps as to how it intends to resolve the pest issue.
3. Pay directly to the resident (and not offset against any monies owed) £500 in compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in relation to the resident’s reports of pests.

Recommendation

When the landlord contacts the resident in relation to order b. above, the landlord should clarify whether she has a kitchen door. If she does not have a kitchen door, it should arrange to replace this door in line with its repairs policy.