London Borough of Barnet (202410299)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410299

London Borough of Barnet

21 July 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to repairs to the balcony door.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. She has lived at the property, which is a 2 bedroom 1st floor flat since March 2024. The resident lives at the property with her young child.
3. The resident reported on 13 March 2024 that her balcony door handle was broken. The landlord arranged an emergency appointment for the same day, but it cancelled this when it identified the resident’s flat was on the 1st floor. It rearranged the appointment for 2 May 2024.
4. The resident complained on 10 April 2024 about the delay in the landlord fixing her balcony door. She said that she had experienced domestic violence and had a child in the property and as such the repair should be prioritised.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 April 2024. It explained it had cancelled the emergency appointment, as the repair was not classed as an emergency because the resident lived on the first floor. It said it had booked an appointment for 2 May 2024. It apologised for the issues she had experienced.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 May 2024. She detailed the risks she thought were present with the landlord’s failure to complete the repair and the missed appointments that had occurred up to that point. She asked if the landlord could attend at the weekend to conduct the repair.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 June 2024. It acknowledged that it had failed to attend 2 appointments in May 2024. The landlord explained that it could only arrange appointments during the week. It offered compensation totalling £70.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. She requested the landlord reimburse her rent from the time she moved into the property until the date it fixes the door.
9. The landlord told us it considers it resolved the issue with the balcony door during the period July 2024 and February 2025. It said during this date range it replaced the double glazing unit of the balcony door. However, the resident told us that the landlord had still not fixed the issue with her door.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about repairs to the balcony door.

10. The resident reported on 13 March 2024 that her balcony door handle was broken. She said that she could not lock the door, and it could be opened by pushing it. The evidence shows that at the time the resident reported the repair her child was under 12-months old.
11. The landlord arranged an emergency appointment for the same day. It subsequently cancelled the appointment because it realised the resident’s flat was located on the first floor.
12. On 15 March 2024, the landlord re-arranged the appointment to fix the door to take place on 2 May 2024.
13. The landlord’s repair policy states for emergency repairs it aims to make safe within 4 hours and complete repairs within 24 hours. For non-emergency repairs it aims to attend and complete repairs within 15 working days.
14. The evidence shows the landlord initially classified the repair as an emergency but then changed its mind on the basis the property was located on the first floor.
15. Its response was initially within its repair timescales. However, the planned re-arranged appointment was 34 days after the resident first reported the issue. This was significantly outside of the 15 working days allowed for routine appointments by its policy.
16. Its policy also states that where possible, it will carry out repairs with special consideration for tenants who may be considered vulnerable. This may include completing some routine repairs within a faster timescale if a failure to do so may put them at risk. The policy provides examples of residents at risk of being vulnerable. This includes having a child under 12-months old in the property or residents who are at risk of domestic abuse.
17. The evidence shows the landlord was aware the resident was a victim of domestic violence, as this was part of her housing application. The landlord advised us in its response to the complaint that while it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities this was not recorded on its repair system.
18. The failure to be able to draw upon accurate information, such as the resident’s status as a survivor of domestic abuse and that there was an infant child living in the property, was a clear flaw in the landlord’s risk assessment in how it prioritised the repair. The inability to factor these relevant risks undermined its decision making and the service it offered to a vulnerable resident.
19. The resident complained on 10 April 2024 about the delay in the landlord fixing her balcony door. She said that she had experienced domestic violence and had a child in the property and as such the repair should be prioritised.
20. Given the repair issue and the resident’s circumstances, the evidence shows the resident was concerned that there was a risk an intruder could gain access from the balcony or that her child could access the balcony unsupervised. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered trying to complete the repair within a faster timescale, in line with its policy for vulnerable residents. However, there is no evidence it considered this following the resident providing the relevant information.
21. On 26 April 2024, the landlord replied at stage 1 of its complaints process. It explained it had cancelled the emergency appointment, as the repair was not classed as an emergency. It said it had booked an appointment for 2 May 2024.
22. The landlord’s response failed to account for the information the resident had raised as part of her complaint, namely the risks associated with her status as a survivor of domestic abuse and that there was an infant living in the property.
23. The failure to acknowledge this information, or account for why its decision remained appropriate, was a significant failure of the landlord’s response.
24. The landlord failed to attend the appointment arranged for 2 May 2024. This was because its operative was unable to attend due to a previous job. It rearranged the appointment for 7 May 2024 and to take place between 8am and 12pm. However, due to staff shortages it was unable to attend within the appointment slot. It was not possible for the appointment to take place later that day as the resident had informed the landlord she had a hospital appointment.
25. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 May 2024. She said she was living in a property that was not secure. She said she had moved to the property due to domestic violence and that her ex-partner was due to be released from prison. She explained that she could not secure the door, which was a risk to her 1 year old child, who could fall from the balcony.
26. In addition, the resident said she had wasted 3 days annual leave due to missed appointments. She requested compensation for her rent and loss of annual leave. The resident did not provide specific dates for the days she took annual leave.
27. Following her escalation, the resident asked the landlord to arrange a weekend appointment for the repair to take place. The resident told the landlord she could not take any more annual leave during the week. She said she had experienced missed appointments on 13 March, 14 March, 2 May and 7 May 2024.
28. We have not been provided any evidence which suggests that the landlord arranged an appointment for 14 March 2024. Therefore, we could not conclude a missed appointment occurred on this date.
29. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 June 2024. It acknowledged it had missed 2 appointments on 2 and 7 May 2024 and explained the reasons this had happened. It said it had experienced a significant increase in demand, with a higher number of emergency appointments required. It explained that it had introduced a dedicated resource to complete priority works, which would reduce it having to use operatives who already had other jobs scheduled. It considered this would increase the amount of routine repairs it was completing and reduce the number of jobs it needed to rearrange.
30. The landlord apologised for its failings and offered the resident £10 for each missed appointment. It also offered £50, as a gesture of goodwill for the stress caused. It explained it had attempted to arrange a new appointment, but the resident had declined to arrange a weekday appointment. It explained that it could only arrange appointments during the week and asked her to contact it to arrange an appointment during its working hours.
31. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will arrange appointments between 8am and 5pm Monday to Friday. Its compensation policy states that a resident can claim £10 for a missed appointment.
32. The landlord’s rationale for not arranging a weekend appointment was reasonable and in line with its policy on appointments. The landlord’s offer of £10 for each missed appointment was calculated in accordance with its compensation policy.
33. However, the landlord’s response is silent on its inability to recognise the risk present to the resident, and its failure to prioritise its responsibility to make the repair, taking into account the risks that were present. The landlord had sufficient information available to it to recognise there was an infant in the property and special considerations should apply to the resident because of her status as a survivor of domestic abuse. There is no evidence the landlord factored this in regard to how it either handled the complaint or prioritised the response.
34. Given these risk factors, the evidence shows it is arguable that the resident should have met the priority for an emergency repair when it was first reported. The landlord’s failure to attend previous appointments, in conjunction with it stating it is unable to arrange a weekend appointment means the matter remained unsolved for a considerable period after it was first reported.
35. The landlord has told us that it considers it has fixed the door handle on the balcony door. It is not clear from the evidence provided by the landlord when it considers it completed this repair. The records show it attended on 17 July 2024 to remove smashed glass from the balcony door and to board this up. It reattended on 13 August 2024 to remove the damaged glass from the property before replacing the double glazing unit of the door on 12 February 2025.
36. However, the evidence does not specifically show that it completed any repairs to the balcony door handle during these visits. The landlord has not provided evidence that demonstrates that it has repaired the door handle, or explained how the actions it undertook in respect to replacing the double glazing unit fixed the door lock. The resident has told us that the landlord has still not fixed her door handle or lock.
37. As such, the result of the landlord’s inability to demonstrate it resolved the situation has resulted in a vulnerable resident and infant child living in an unsecure property for over 15 months. This is unreasonable.
38. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
39. In its response to us, the landlord explained that it is working on a way for a resident’s vulnerabilities to flag up on its repair system when booking repairs. This is an appropriate action for the landlord to take to address this issue going forward and demonstrates it has gathered learning from the complaint.
40. The landlord has acknowledged it should not have missed 2 previously arranged appointments and explained how it would improve its service going forward.
41. It offered a total of £50 compensation for its failures. This amount falls far below what our remedies guidance recommends for situations where there has been a significant emotional impact caused by a landlord failing. In addition, where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident as its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. If the landlord had already completed the repair, this would be a relevant factor in determining the amount of compensation required to put things right.
42. The landlord’s failure to affect a repair and to offer sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures leads to a determination of maladministration. An order for £800 compensation has been made below.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs to the balcony door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

44. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £800. The landlord may deduct from this any amount already paid to the resident as part of its internal complaints process. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account.
45. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to send the resident a letter of apology for the failures identified within this report.
46. Within 2 weeks, the landlord is ordered to arrange an appointment which is convenient for the resident, to gain access to the property and effect a repair. The landlord should utilise a proactive approach and if necessary, utilise the provisions provided by its emergency response cover to facilitate a convenient appoint for the resident. The repairs should take place (at the resident’s convenience) no later than 4 weeks from the date of this report.
47. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to the Service within the timescales outlined above.