London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (202518785)

Background

1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property. The property is a second-floor flat in a block. The flat is served by an individual water pump.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about issues with the hot water supply in the property.
   2. Reports about the conduct of a contractor during a visit to the property.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about issues with the hot water supply in the property.
   2. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a contractor during a visit to the property.
   3. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of reports about issues with the hot water supply in the property

4. The landlord was not responsible for the repairs needed at the resident’s properly. However, it did not communicate effectively with the resident about what her responsibilities were as a leaseholder for the period between January 2025 and June 2025. This was a service failing by the landlord as it contributed to the resident’s frustration and distress.

Handling of reports about the conduct of an contractor during a visit to the property

5. The landlord apologised to the resident for her experience with one of its contractors that attended her property. It told the resident that it would provide feedback to the contractor directly about the resident’s experience. However, it transpired that the landlord did not do this. This undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord that it was doing something about her complaint and contributed to her frustration and distress.

Handling of the associated complaint

6. The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in keeping with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord apologised and made an offer of compensation; however, this offer of compensation was not reasonable given the excessive delays that the resident experienced.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not consider

7. The resident has told us that the issue with hot water supply in her property has been ongoing for a period of 36 months. This Service has time limits, and we expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of an issue occurring. This would therefore be January 2024. We have scoped our investigation from January 2024 onwards.
8. The resident has raised concerns to us about the landlord’s handling of a Subject Access Request that she made against it. Subject Access Requests fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). For this reason, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of jurisdiction.
9. The resident has told us that she would like a review of whether discriminatory treatment has occurred, in relation to the landlord’s treatment of her as a leaseholder. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, this aspect of the resident’s complaint would be better dealt with by a court or tribunal. For this reason, we have not to investigated this aspect of her complaint further.

10. The resident’s lease says that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of any boilers, heating or hot water systems that service multiple flats in a block. The landlord is not responsible for any heating or hot water equipment installed in an individual flat within the block. The lease says that the leaseholder is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the heating system inside their individual flat, as well as sinks, baths and showers. This is also reiterated in the landlord’s repair guide.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will respond to ‘Immediate Emergency Response’ repairs within 4 hours. It defines these repairs as those that pose a risk of loss of life or a leak affecting multiple properties. The policy says that ‘Emergency Response’ repairs are those where there is a loss of heating or hot water. It will respond to these repairs within 24 hours to complete temporary repairs, but that it might need to return to the property at a later date to complete the rest of the works, either within 7 working days if the repair is urgent or 20 working days if it is a routine repair. It defines routine repairs as those such as minor leaks or dripping taps and says it will respond to these within 20 working days.
12. The resident first reported the problem to the landlord on 20 January 2025. The landlord attended the property the following day, in line with its repairs policy. However, access was not granted by the resident. It rearranged the appointment for 23 January 2025. It is not clear whether this was at the resident’s request or if this was the next available appointment. When it attended on 23 January 2025, it found that the hot water was not working because the resident had turned off the shower pump at the plug socket. It said that the resident told it that she had turned off the shower pump because it would sometimes leak.
13. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 11 February 2025, the landlord says that it told the resident on 24 January 2025 that it would be her responsibility as a leaseholder to complete repairs to the shower pump. This Service has been provided no record of the landlord explaining this responsibility to the resident on this date. It is important for a landlord to keep clear records of its communication with residents.
14. The resident re-reported the issue with her shower pump on 6 March 2025. This would suggest that the landlord’s communication to the resident was not clear because she did not understand at this stage that it was not the landlord’s responsibility to complete the repair. It is important that landlords communicate with residents clearly to avoid confusion like this. The landlord’s records are also unclear as to whether it explained to the resident again on this date about what works would be her responsibility as a leaseholder. This was therefore possibly another missed opportunity for the landlord to clarify its position to the resident.
15. The resident reported the issue again on 10 June 2025. In its repair records, the landlord reported that it had previously advised the resident that the maintenance and repair of the shower pump was her responsibility because she is a leaseholder. However, it did not record that it had re-explained this to the resident on this date. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 10 June 2025 suggests that its own staff were unclear on whether it would be the landlord’s responsibility to fix the pump. This is another example of poor communication with the resident. This was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to have clearly explained to resident on this date what her responsibilities were as a leaseholder. This also suggests a lack of clear understanding within the landlord’s own teams about leaseholder responsibilities.
16. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 23 June 2025, it explained to the resident again that she would need to complete repairs to the shower pump before it was able to investigate the hot water supply issue any further. It then explained this again to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response dated 18 July 2025 and provided a link to resources and more information for the resident about leaseholder responsibilities for repairs. This was good conduct by the landlord because it clearly communicated with the resident to explain her responsibilities to her.
17. We recognise that the landlord did communicate its position in relation to the leaseholder’s repair responsibilities in its complaint response. However, it has failed to evidence that it communicated this point effectively before the leaseholder made her complaint and missed several opportunities to do so. This may have contributed to the resident’s confusion about what works were her responsibility. We have therefore made a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the hot water supply in her property.

18. The landlord’s repairs guide says that its contractors will always be professional, polite and courteous to residents. It says that its contractors will respect the resident’s knowledge of their own home.
19. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 11 February 2025, the landlord told the resident that it was sorry that she felt that the standard of service that she received from one of its contractor operatives showed a lack of professionalism. It said that it had “taken steps to provide… feedback to the contractor in question” and that the contractor would address the concerns with the contractor operative. This was positive and an attempt by the landlord to put things right.
20. The landlord reiterated this point in its stage 2 complaint response dated 18 July 2025. It told the resident that it was sorry that she was unhappy with the conduct of the contractor operative that visited her. It said that it understood that the situation had been stressful for the resident and that its contractors should be mindful of this when they communicated with the resident. This apology is positive and a further attempt by the landlord to put things right.
21. We have also not been provided with evidence to show that the landlord did speak with its contractor about the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of the contractor operative that visited her home. Whilst it was appropriate of the landlord to agree to undertake an investigation into the issues raised by the resident, it has provided us with no evidence to show that it has done so.
22. However, where the landlord has made commitments as part of its complaint responses, we will consider subsequent events to establish whether the landlord has put things right in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles. These principles are be fair; learn from outcomes and put things right.
23. The resident told the landlord on 21 November 2025 that the same contractor operative that she had initially complained about had been sent back to her property earlier that day. When the resident refused to allow the contractor operative into her property, he told her that he did not know that a complaint had been made about him. The resident said in her email to the landlord that she felt that it had underplayed the seriousness of her complaint and that it had not spoken to its contractors like it said it would. This is a failing by the landlord because it undermines the resident’s trust that it has taken the actions that it said it would. This would have contributed to the resident’s frustration and distress.
24. On the basis of the above, we have made a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a contractor during a visit to her property. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

25. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. It says that it can extend this complaint response timeframe by up to 10 working days for “complex cases”. Similarly, it says that it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and provide its complaint response within 20 working days. It says that it can extend this response time by up to an additional 20 working days for “complex cases”.
26. The Code says that if a landlord would like to request an extension of time to provide a complaint response, it must consider the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. The reason for the extension request must also be clearly explained to the resident.
27. The Code says that a resident does not need to explain their reasons for requesting a stage 2 consideration. The Code says that a landlord is expected to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 complaint response.
28. The resident made her initial stage 1 complaint on 20 January 2025. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 February 2025, which was in keeping with the requirements of the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code.
29. The resident then made an escalation request on 20 March 2025. The resident did not explain why she was making this escalation request. The landlord responded to her on the same day, asking her to elaborate further. When it did not hear a response from the resident, the landlord took no further steps to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This is a failing by the landlord because it did not take the reasonable efforts required by the Code to understand why the resident was making her stage 2 complaint and respond accordingly.
30. It is appreciated that the landlord’s complaint policy says that if it does not hear from a resident within 20 working days after its stage 1 response, it will close the complaint and assume that the resident is satisfied with its stage 1 response. The resident made her stage 2 escalation request 26 working days after the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It was unreasonable for the landlord to not consider the resident’s escalation request as a stage 2 complaint because the Code does not put any such time constraints on how long a resident has to make a stage 2 complaint. Given that the resident had escalated her complaint just 6 days outside of the timeframe set out in the landlord’s complaint policy, it should have considered escalating her complaint to stage 2. Its decision to raise a new complaint ultimately led to delays in the resident seeking a final resolution to her complaint. Furthermore, even if it did not treat the complaint as a stage 2 escalation request, this is not cause for a landlord to simply ignore a complaint made by a resident.
31. The resident chased the landlord for a response to her escalation request on 27 May 2025. The landlord acknowledged this as a new stage 1 complaint on the same day. The landlord acknowledged within its second stage 1 complaint response dated 23 June 2025 that the resident had previously made a complaint about the exact same issues. This ultimately led to further delays for the resident in obtaining a resolution to her complaint, as she was then required to bring this complaint back to the landlord’s internal complaints procedure as a further stage 2, rather than being able to escalate her complaint to this Service.
32. The landlord delayed in providing its second stage 1 complaint response, taking 19 working days. This exceeds the 10 working days that it says it will take in its complaints policy. This is a failure by the landlord as it further delayed responding to the resident.
33. The landlord did, however, apologise for this delay and offered the resident £25 in compensation. It is appreciated that this was an attempt by the landlord to put things right for the resident.
34. The resident made her second stage 2 complaint on 23 June 2025. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2025. This is within the timeframe set out within its complaints policy.
35. Whilst the landlord has made some attempt to put things right for the resident in providing compensation for its delay in providing its second stage 1 complaint response, it has not addressed its failure to escalate the resident’s stage 2 complaint made on 20 March 2025. We are therefore not satisfied that this represents reasonable redress for the resident.
36. On this basis, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

38. We found communication failures in the way that the landlord explained leaseholder responsibilities to the resident. We also found that some of the landlord’s own staff members were unclear on what were leaseholder responsibilities which contributed to these communication issues. This would suggest a training need for the landlord to ensure that its staff members were aware of leaseholder responsibilities and how to clearly communicate these to residents.