London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202441018)

Decision
Case ID	202441018
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	4 November 2025

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy started on 17 September 2012. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat in a purpose-built block. The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities, including mobility issues.
The landlord carried out property inspections during March and June 2024. It identified a schedule of works which included the shower enclosure in the wet room. On 21 June the resident emailed the landlord to ask to delay works. Works commenced during August. On 23 September the resident moved to temporary accommodation. Works were completed in October 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs.

The landlord failed to consider the resident’s individual needs in its response.
It failed to proactively monitor and manage the repairs and temporary accommodation process.
It failed to communicate effectively with the resident.
There were record keeping failures which impacted on our assessment of the landlord’s response.

Handling of the complaint.

The landlord failed to comply with all the requirements of the Code.
It failed to provide a response to all points of the complaint.
It failed to demonstrate that it had carried out a thorough investigate of the complaint.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 02 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in it handling of the repairs. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 02 December 2025
3	Take Specific Action order Write to the resident to set out: When works to the shower enclosure commenced. Its understanding of the resident’s position regarding access to showering facilities from that time to 20 September. Its position on whether compensation should be paid for the period in question. It should provide reasons for its decision.	No later than 02 December 2025
4	Case Review order Carry out a review of the failures identified in the report. This should include how it will ensure the outcomes of its knowledge and information management self-assessment are embedded in its day to day culture.	No later than 16 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 August 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint and said: Boxes left around her home meant she was unable to safely move around. She had not been offered help with packing. The works were not what the surveyor had agreed and were not being monitored. The landlord’s communication was inconsistent meaning she had to chase. Operatives were walking into her home without introducing themselves. Her disability and mobility issues had been ignored. She asked to cancel works because they were causing her distress.
9 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response as follows: It would complete works as soon as possible. They were currently on hold as the resident said she was unavailable. Works were delayed several times because the resident had cancelled appointments or requested operatives left. It reminded its contractor of its guidance on how many rooms to work in at once. This was so the resident could store her belongings and move around the flat more freely. It could not assist the resident with packing as this was her responsibility. It aimed to carry out work to a high standard and would take action to address issues with works. It was now attending regularly to monitor completion of works. It noted the resident’s concerns about communication. Its project team had been responding to all communication. It only temporarily rehoused residents in “fairly extreme” circumstances. It did not think it was necessary in the resident’s case. Its project team would provide her with a list of the outstanding works and would monitor them.
17 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord failed to acknowledge all her concerns including: How it responded to her disability and her being a vulnerable adult. She said she’d been left without shower facilities since the job started. Boxes left around her home were a health and safety hazard. Works were not being carried out room by room making the flat “unliveable.” Delays in the job were due to the quality of work, stress caused and a bereavement. 2 operatives walked into her property without knocking or announcing themselves. She said this violated her privacy and safety.
18 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being: It apologised that works were taking longer than anticipated due to the discovery of asbestos. Following their call on 18 September 2024 it updated its contractors about the resident’s circumstances. No further appointments would be scheduled without her prior approval. It requested that all operatives wear identification and did not enter the property without her agreement. It apologised and confirmed the matter had been raised with its management. They would address the issue with its contractors to ensure it did not happen again. They had to leave the property at short notice due to the resident’s need for emergency medical attention. Therefore they could not tidy up the boxes. When the property was deemed uninhabitable on 20 September 3034 it immediately offered emergency temporary accommodation. The resident declined its offer. On 23 September it offered a hotel which included breakfast and a daily £10 meal allowance. It would provide update on bathroom works by the end of the day with a further update to be provided on 21 October 2024. It did not compensate for impact on health. It signposted the resident to make an insurance claim for loss or damage to personal belongings and personal injuries. There was no evidence of service failure following its Stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the issues. It said it would use its learning to ensure changes were made. It offered £225 compensation comprised of: £25 for the delay in its complaint response. £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience. It would monitor works and work closely with the resident until she was satisfied. It would also arrange for them to be post inspected.
21 October 2024	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns including delays and quality of works.

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	Handling of the repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord carried out a pre inspection of the property on 4 March 2024. The works it identified included the entrance hall, bedroom, and shower enclosure.
In an email to the resident’s councillor dated 23 March 2024 the landlord set out a list of works to be completed. It said it’d chased the contractor for an update on timescales. It also said the resident had asked for works to be carried out during May 2024 while she was on holiday.
There’s no evidence that there was any further communication between any parties about starting works in May. This was inappropriate because the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request.
The landlord’s response to us says its surveyor attended for the first time on 12 June 2024. It referred to a pre inspection report that we’ve not seen which is a record keeping failure. Furthermore it’s unclear why it did not consider its visit of 4 March 2024.
The landlord’s repair logs show that it raised works orders on 13 June 2024. On 21 June the resident emailed the landlord to say that her personal circumstances meant she would not be able to go ahead with works as planned. She said she would update the landlord in due course.
An internal email of 26 June 2024 said the landlord was in “regular contact” with the resident. Work was planned for 24 June but was postponed at the resident’s request. Its response was reasonable. However, we’ve not seen evidence of the landlord’s contact with the resident which is a record keeping failure.
An internal email dated 2 August 2024 advised the resident had returned home and had suggested a start date of 12 August. We’ve not seen any evidence setting out the landlord’s discussions with the resident which is a record keeping failure.
On 8 August 2024 the landlord emailed a request for 36 boxes and packing materials to be delivered to the resident. There’s no evidence that the landlord considered whether she may need assistance given her mobility. However, it’s also noted that there’s no evidence that the resident requested support at the time.
The landlord’s response to us says that the resident emailed on 21 August 2024 to ask it to inspect mid works. She was concerned that works were being carried out in all rooms at once. She was also concerned about the quality of workmanship.
We’ve not seen any records of discussions with the resident about the start date, arrangements during works and her concerns about workmanship. This is a record keeping failure which has impacted on our ability to assess the landlord’s response.
In her email to the landlord of 23 August 2024 the resident said she was dissatisfied that it had not followed through with its offer of temporary hotel accommodation. While we do not doubt the resident’s account there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
An internal email dated 9 September 2024 said the resident asked for works to be put on hold because she was not available. We’ve not seen evidence of this request. However, when the landlord referred to it in its complaint response the resident did not object.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 9 September 2024 said it took appropriate steps to address concerns regarding the standard of works. While this was positive it would have been appropriate to monitor progress from the outset.
It said it did not consider that temporary accommodation was necessary in the resident’s case. We’ve have not seen any records relating to its decision making which is a record keeping failure. Therefore there’s no evidence that it considered the resident’s mobility issues which would have been appropriate.
It said its project team would provide the resident with a list of outstanding works but there’s no evidence that it did so. This was particularly inappropriate because it was part of its complaint resolution.
In her request to escalate her complaint dated 17 September 2024 the resident said she’d been without a shower since the start of works. While we do not doubt the resident’s account. We have not seen any evidence which sets out what works were carried out to the shower enclosure and when.
However, it’s noted that by the time of the landlord’s final scoping inspection on 19 September 2024 the splash back and vinyl flooring had been removed. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude the resident would’ve been unable to use it before then. An order has been made to clarify this point.
The resident also raised additional concerns about its contractors. She said they made inappropriate comments to her about the level of service she should expect as a council tenant. This made her feel like a “second class citizen.” She said she was also concerned about the lack of care because dust sheets were not used to protect her flooring. The landlord’s response is considered further below.
The landlord completed a decant form on 19 September 2024 for an “urgent” request. It said the resident had been using family and friends to “manage her needs” but this was no longer an option. Ongoing works to the bathroom meant the resident would be without use of a shower or toilet. It noted she had limited mobility and would need ground floor accommodation or use of a lift.
We have not seen any records of discussions between the landlord and resident about her remaining in the property during works to the wet room. This has impacted on our assessment of the landlord’s response. It’s reasonable to conclude the landlord should have anticipated this earlier in the process. However, it’s also acknowledged that it asserted the resident had made alternative arrangements.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 September 2024 to begin the decant process. The intention was for her to move that day. However, a file note dated 23 September says it offered the resident 2 properties on 20 September. She declined the offers because they were outside the borough.
There’s no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s individual needs. Therefore it failed to adhere to its decant policy to identify temporary accommodation which meets resident’s housing needs.
A further file note dated 23 September 2024 said the landlord contacted the resident to confirm it was searching for hotels near her area of choice as agreed. While this was positive it came late in the process.
On 23 September 2024 the landlord emailed the resident with a further offer of temporary hotel accommodation to start that day until 7 October. The landlord’s response to us confirmed the booking was extended on 7 October to the 14 October 2024.
On 9 October 2024 the landlord’s contractor emailed it to advise that works would be more extensive than planned. Therefore it would not be able to complete them by 14 October and 23 October 2024 was more likely. There’s no evidence that the landlord provided an update to the resident or that it extended the hotel booking which was inappropriate.
A file note dated 14 October 2024 noted the hotel booking would need to be extended for a further week due to the discovery of asbestos. An internal email dated 15 October said the resident had contacted the landlord the day before to seek an update. She said she was due to move out the hotel that day and had been unable to contact the relevant team to discuss it. A file note recorded that it tried to call the resident but did not get an answer. It emailed the team for an update.
The landlord failed to manage the hotel booking process appropriately. The resident’s frustration and distress was evident in her email to the landlord of 16 October 2024. She set out her concerns about ineffective communication and failure to consider her needs. As set out below the landlord identified learning and put measures in place to prevent a reoccurrence. Therefore it has not been necessary to make an order on this point.
A file note dated 17 October 2024 confirmed the landlord contacted the resident that day to advise works would take until 25 October. It also extended the hotel booking. While this was positive as set out above it came late in the process.
An internal email dated 18 October 2024 acknowledged that there had been “multiple delays and extension requests” resulting in an extended stay in temporary accommodation. This included delayed payment of the resident’s meal allowance.
The landlord spoke to the resident and her care worker on 18 October 2024. The resident said she was unable to eat the hotel breakfast due to her dietary requirements. It therefore agreed to pay the full daily allowance. The resident also requested a specific point of contact for the team managing the temporary move.
The landlord sent an internal email the same day requesting action. However, there’s no evidence that the resident was provided with the details of a specific point of contact or confirmation of when her meal allowance would be paid. This was inappropriate and was further evidence of ineffective communication.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 18 October 2024 said the resident “chose” to stay in her property following its offer of accommodation. This was inappropriate because it failed to consider the resident’s needs.
It took appropriate action to ensure that all its operatives wore their identity and did not enter the resident’s home without announcing themselves. It provided an appropriate explanation as to why it was unable to resolve the issue with the boxes on a particular day. However, as set out below it failed to carry out an in depth investigation into the complaint.
It said it would provide an update on works by the end of the day and again on 21 October 2024. There’s no evidence it did so which is particularly inappropriate because it was part of its complaint resolution. However, it contacted the resident to update on the hotel extension and payment of the daily allowance as set out in its response.
It appropriately apologised for its failures in managing the hotel extension. It also signposted to make a claim on its insurance for compensation for damage to personal items and or impact on health. This was in line with its compensation policy which excludes personal injury or other public liability.
The evidence shows that on 18 October 2024 the landlord raised an action to monitor the outstanding works to the bathroom. The landlord’s survey report shows it post inspected works on 29 October 2024.
We expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It’s vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for its records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that it followed its own policies and procedures
In response to our determination of case reference 202327350 the landlord provided a copy of its self-assessment against our Knowledge Information Management spotlight report in June 2023. It’s concerning that following its assessment there are ongoing record keeping failures. We’ve considered this in our orders.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord acknowledged some of its failures, demonstrated some learning and tried to put things right. However, the amount of compensation offered was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
Therefore the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £400. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation which says it will offer between £300 to £1000 compensation where we have found maladministration. The landlord may deduct the £200 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy went beyond the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from receipt of the complaint.
The landlord responded at stage 1 within 11 working days (23 August to 9 September 2024). Its response was 1 working day out of time. However, it’s acknowledged that the detriment caused to the resident was minor.
The Code requires landlords to respond to all points in the complaint. Its stage 1 response failed to address the resident’s concerns about the storage boxes and/or its contractors.
The landlord responded at stage 2 within 23 working days (17 September to 18 October 2024). In its acknowledgement to the resident of 24 September it said it would respond by 14 October 2024.
An internal email confirmed the resident called the landlord on 15 October 2025 to request an extension so she could add issues about the decant. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 October to confirm an extension to 18 October 2024. It said it was continuing to investigate the complaint including the issues that occurred after the decant. It agreed to talk with the resident and her care worker as part of its process.
The decant process was directly linked to the substantive issue. Therefore it was reasonable that the landlord should consider it as part of its stage 2 complaint investigation. It was also reasonable that it would need more time in agreement with the resident.
The Code requires landlords to set out in clear plain language its decision on the complaint. The landlord failed to do so at both stage 1 and stage 2.
The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it conducted a thorough and open minded investigation into aspects of the resident’s complaint. Therefore it failed to demonstrate it took the resident’s complaint seriously. This included:
1. Its stage 1 response acknowledged concerns about communication. However there’s no evidence that it carried out an investigation to make a decision on that point.
2. There’s no evidence that it gathered relevant details, including dates and times, to carry out a meaningful investigation into the resident’s complaint about its contractors. There’s also no evidence that it discussed the concerns about language used with the operatives themselves.
3. Its response about the boxes failed to consider why the issue occurred in the first place and whether there was any detriment to the resident caused by failure of service.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The compensation offered by the landlord is not considered proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation. It may deduct the £25 it offered if this has already been paid.

Learning

In the landlord’s response to us it acknowledged it should’ve been “more proactive” in coordinating the repairs and temporary accommodation when it was due to end on 14 October 2024. It appropriately identified learning from the complaint and demonstrated it’s made changes to prevent a recurrence.