London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202516108)

Decision
Case ID	202516108
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	23 February 2026

Background

1. The resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions to raise concerns about major works that it was carrying out to the roofs and the fabric of the estate. He raised concerns about the landlord’s decision to appoint an external contractor and consultant to carry out and manage the works. He also raised concerns about separate drainage works that the landlord had arranged to the podium deck of the estate. The landlord has confirmed that the resident is medically vulnerable.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about its management of major roof works on the estate and its financial management of the project.
   2. Reports of damage caused to the podium deck during renewal of the drainage.
   3. Concerns that it did not install fire doors in one of the other properties on the estate during the major works programme.
3. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its management of major roof works on the estate and its financial management of the project is outside of our jurisdiction.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to the podium deck during renewal of the drainage.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it did not install fire doors in one of the other properties on the estate during the major works programme.
7. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

8. The resident’s property was not one of those affected by the water ingress which the major roof works were addressing. Therefore, we do not consider the landlord’s management of the works and its financial management of the project caused significant adverse effect to the resident.
9. There was a delay in the landlord advising the resident of its investigation and findings into his concerns about possible damage to the podium deck by the contractor. The landlord also did not provide the resident with timely follow-up information about possible remedial works after advising him that it had referred the matter to its in-house repairs team.
10. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the fire doors given that it could only give general information in relation to matters about another resident and their property.
11. The landlord delayed responding to the stage 1 complaint and acknowledging the stage 2 complaint. However, it offered fair and proportionate compensation to put things right.

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 24 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the time and trouble caused by its response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to the podium deck during renewal of the drainage.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 March 2026
3	Other order The landlord must write to the resident confirming whether it will carry out remedial works to the podium deck and the reasons for its decision.	No later than 24 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should reoffer the resident the £50 offered during the complaint process for complaint handling if this has not already been paid.   Our finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 April 2025	The resident wrote to the landlord and said he had emailed his local councillor on 16 April 2025 and wanted the email treated as a formal complaint. He attached a copy of the email in which he had said: The landlord should not have appointed external companies as the principal contractor and contract administrator (consultant) in 2019 to carry out major works to the estate. As a result of the landlord’s decision to appoint them, the roofs and balconies were still in a state of disrepair and water ingress was affecting residents’ homes and health. The landlord had appointed a drainage contractor who had caused damage to the podium deck and the garage area underneath.
17 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 reply in which it said: It had appointed the external contractors to carry out various major works to the estate, including roof renewal and general improvements to the fabric of the buildings and estate. The initial works were completed, however, further defects were subsequently identified, such as defects to the parapet walls. The principal contractor had agreed to carry out the additional works at no extra cost to the landlord, however, the company had gone into administration on 1 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged there had been problems with the contractor’s performance which had not met the required standards. It was now in the process of producing new tender documents to appoint a new contractor and would update residents when it had done so. The landlord and the drainage contractor had inspected the work carried out to the podium deck and concluded that the drainage problems had been the result of historic maintenance issues, rather than the standard of recent contractor workmanship. It did not uphold the complaint as it said it had not identified any service failures, however, it offered the resident £25 for the delay in replying to his stage 1 complaint.
18 June 2025	The resident wrote to the landlord and asked for his complaint to be escalated. He said his complaint was about the landlord’s management of the capital programme works on the estate. He said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of: The roof works. Its financial management of the project. The drainage works. The fire door installation and subsequent theft of fire doors.
21 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 reply in which it said: It had appointed the contractor and consultant following a comprehensive procurement process. It was currently assessing the impact of the drainage work carried out to ensure appropriate remedial action was taken. It was continuing to liaise with the leaseholder of the property affected by the issues with the fire doors. It was unable to give a clear timescale for the appointment of the new contractor to finish the major works on the estate. It did not uphold the complaint but offered £25 for the delay in replying to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us to say he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 reply and the landlord’s attitude.

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	The landlord’s management of major roof works on the estate and its financial management of the project
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

12. The resident advised us that he had made his complaint on behalf of other residents on the estate and he was acting on behalf of a residents’ group. We cannot accept a complaint from a residents’ association as such a group or organisation cannot bring a complaint to us in its own right. In certain circumstances, however, we may accept an individual complaint as a lead case so that any decisions made in connection with it may also apply to others in the same circumstances. We call this a ‘group complaint’.
13. In this case, having considered all the evidence, we have concluded that the circumstances are not the same for all the residents. For example, the evidence shows that some residents may have experienced leaks into their homes but this did not apply to all residents on the estate. Furthermore, any leaks may have had a different impact on the residents affected based on their individual circumstances. Therefore, as we have not seen sufficient evidence to show that the facts and circumstances are the same for all residents on the estate, we have concluded that we should not deal with the resident’s complaint as a group complaint.
14. We have also considered whether the resident’s complaint is within our jurisdiction. The evidence shows that the resident’s property was not affected by the roof leaks that the landlord was addressing as part of the major roof works. We have therefore concluded that the landlord’s management of the major roof works on the estate and its financial management of the project did not cause significant adverse effect or detriment to the resident. Consequently, we have found that the resident’s complaint is outside of our jurisdiction.
15. Residents who were directly affected by the roof leaks have the option of referring their complaints to us if they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response when they have been through its complaints process.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to the podium deck during renewal of the drainage
Finding	Service failure

16. The landlord’s records show that the resident phoned the landlord in September 2024 to report a leak into the garage area under the podium deck. He said a contractor who had been replacing the channel drainage on the podium deck had caused damage by drilling into the structure. The records show that the landlord’s senior manager overseeing the work spoke to the resident. He explained that the contractor was increasing the depth and capacity of the channel drainage on the podium and therefore the work involved drilling. It was reasonable that the landlord had sought to reassure the resident that it had authorised the work the contractor was carrying out.
17. During October 2024 the landlord exchanged emails with the contractor and agreed that the contractor would apply waterproof bonding around the new drainage channels it was fitting. The contractor confirmed that, after it had applied the bonding, there were no leaks around the new sections of drainage channels it had fitted. It was reasonable that the landlord had investigated the reported leaks into the garage area with the contractor and as a result the landlord had agreed that the contractor would carry out additional works to seal around the new drainage channels.
18. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 January 2025 and asked what action the landlord intended to take regarding his reports of damage caused by the drainage contractor while carrying out works to the podium deck. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated to the resident that it had investigated the reported damage and the action it had taken. Given that the resident had raised his concerns in September 2024, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not communicated to the resident the action it had taken in response.
19. The resident raised the issue again as part of his stage 1 complaint in April 2025. In its stage 1 reply on 17 June 2025, the landlord said that its inspection teams and the contractor had assessed the reported leaks from the podium deck. As a result, it had concluded that any current issues with the podium deck were “the result of historic maintenance problems rather than recent contractor workmanship”. It said it had therefore escalated the matter to its in-house repair team for “rectification works.
20. It was reasonable that the landlord’s inspection team and the contractor had investigated the resident’s concerns. It was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its inspection team that the drainage contractor had not caused damage to the podium deck.
21. As part of his stage 2 complaint, the resident raised his concerns again about the work that had been carried out to the podium deck. He asked who would be responsible for repairing the damage to the podium deck and paying for the work. In its stage 2 reply dated 21 July 2025, the landlord confirmed it had commissioned the drainage works to address ongoing issues. It said it was now liaising with its Head of Mechanical and Electrical Services to assess the impacts of the work carried out to ensure appropriate remedial action was taken where necessary.
22. In our view, the landlord’s response at stage 2 was unsatisfactory because it had already advised the resident in its stage 1 reply that the matter had been referred to its in-house repairs team to carry out remedial works. We would therefore have expected the landlord to be more specific in its stage 2 reply about its plans for carrying out any remedial works. It was unreasonable that more than a month after its stage 1 reply, it did not provide a more meaningful update regarding any plans for remedial work to the podium deck. The landlord was aware that the resident had been raising his concerns about water ingress into the garage area since September 2024.
23. In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to the podium deck during renewal of the drainage:
    1. The landlord did not write to the resident to advise him it had investigated his concerns and reached a conclusion until it sent its stage 1 response.
    2. Despite saying in its stage 1 response that it had referred the matter to its in-house team for remedial works, by the time of its stage 2 response the landlord had not communicated any plans for carrying out possible repairs.
24. Although the leak did not affect the resident’s property, the evidence seen shows that he used the garage area and was therefore affected by the water ingress when using this area. Therefore, he was entitled to expect better communication from the landlord as he had raised his concerns on various occasions. For example, he had contacted the landlord in September 2024 and on 7 January, 29 May and 17 June 2025.
25. Based on the failings identified, we have found there was service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50 to the resident to reflect the additional time and trouble experienced by him in pursuing the matter with the landlord. The amount is in line with our Remedies Guidance for a service failure where the landlord has not acknowledged the failure or taken action to put it right.
26. The landlord advised us in February 2026 that it would not be carrying out remedial works to the podium deck. However, it is unclear whether the landlord has communicated this to the resident. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to write to the resident setting out its position regarding remedial works to the podium deck and the reasons for its decision.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it did not install fire doors in one of the other properties on the estate during the major works programme
Finding	No maladministration

27. As part of his stage 2 complaint, the resident said he was concerned that during the fire door replacement programme, the new fire doors had not been fitted to one of the other properties on the estate. He said the landlord had temporarily stored the new doors for this property as a result of access issues and during this time, they had been stolen. His concerns were firstly whether the absence of fire doors to this property affected the landlord’s fire risk obligations for the estate as a whole and secondly who would pay for the fire doors that were stolen. Although the fire doors in question did not directly affect the resident’s property, we have investigated the resident’s complaint as he had indicated his concerns about the possible implications for the fire safety of the estate as a whole.
28. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it was continuing to engage directly with the other resident to ensure it met its obligations and that fire safety compliance was maintained throughout the estate.
29. As the resident’s questions about the fire doors related to another resident/property on the estate, there were limits in terms of the information the landlord could divulge. It was therefore reasonable that it had responded in general terms by saying it was engaging with the resident in question to meet its fire safety obligations across the estate.
30. The landlord did not address the resident’s question about payment for the stolen doors, however, we have not seen any evidence that this omission caused detriment to the resident. Furthermore, we have taken into account that there were limits to the information the landlord could give out as it affected another resident/property.
31. Overall, we have found that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the fire doors given the constraints in terms of the information it could divulge. We have therefore found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it did not install fire doors in one of the other properties on the estate during the major works programme.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

32. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding by a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 for complex cases. The landlord will agree any extension with the resident and confirm it in writing.
33. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 22 April 2025 and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days on 29 April 2025. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 17 June 2025, which was 33 working days after acknowledging the complaint. Despite the landlord writing to the resident on 13 May 2025 to extend the deadline for replying, the time taken to reply was inappropriate as it was not in line with its policy or with our Complaint Handling Code.
34. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 June 2025 and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 July 2025, which was 9 working days after receiving the complaint. The time taken by the landlord to acknowledge the complaint was therefore not in line with its policy or our Complaint Handling Code and was inappropriate.
35. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 21 July 2025, which was 14 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. It therefore responded within an appropriate timescale from the date it acknowledged the complaint.
36. Overall, we have found there were delays in the landlord responding to the stage 1 complaint and in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint. The landlord offered total compensation of £50 to recognise the delays (£25 at stage 1 and £25 at stage 2). We consider the landlord’s offer to have been fair and proportionate to put things right in terms of the failings in its complaint handling. Consequently, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. We did not identify any specific record keeping issues during our investigation.

Communication

38. Although the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about reported damage to the podium deck, it did not communicate its findings to him until he made a complaint. Where a resident has raised a concern and the landlord has investigated, it is important for the landlord to advise the resident of its findings and any proposed action.