London Borough of Barnet (202403095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403095

London Borough of Barnet

28 April 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:
1. the resident’s communications with the housing options team.
2. repairs to the boiler.
3. repairs to the radiator.
4. a leak resulting in damp and mould.
5. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling.

Background

The landlord, a local authority, accepted a homelessness duty towards him in 2015. It placed him and his family in temporary accommodation with a licence agreement commencing 29 November 2017. The property is a 3-bedroom flat which is managed by Barnet Homes, which is an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO). We have referred to both parties as “the landlord” for the purpose of this report.
On or around 24 April 2023 the landlord became aware that the resident’s boiler was losing pressure. It attended and found the boiler was not filling up. The operative recommended a heating engineer inspect the boiler. The landlord attended again on 27 April 2023 and found “no issues” with it. The operative also provided advice to the resident about “hot water cycles”.
The resident reported a loss of heating and hot water again on or around 2 May 2023. The landlord attended the next day and adjusted the filling loop on the boiler to the correct position. The operative also recommended that a new programmer be fitted. The landlord returned in or around 5 May 2023, but the operative said the control system was “outside of [their] expertise” and suggested a specialist engineer attend. They also said the heating and hot water were working and explained to the resident how to “use the controls”. The resident says he went on to pay for a private contractor to fix the boiler.
Around 17 January 2024 the resident reported a leak coming through the kitchen wall. On 6 February 2024 the resident reported an uncontainable leak from the bathroom radiator into the kitchen. The landlord arranged for the radiators to be drained, and the pressure was topped up on 7 February 2024. The operative recommended installing a new radiator in the bathroom. The landlord also arranged for a plumber to attend on or around 9 February 2024 to inspect the leak. They noted a leak to the kitchen radiator and recommended that the gas team attend urgently. It replaced the radiator in the bathroom on 5 April 2024.
The resident made a complaint on 20 April 2024. He said:
1. he had been reporting a leak, but the landlord had not attended. This was causing mould and impacting his wife’s respiratory conditions.
2. it took the landlord a year to replace the radiator.
3. he had been living without heating and hot water “for months”. Although operatives had attended, the issue was not resolved. This meant he had incurred costs when he paid a private contractor to fix it.
4. he was concerned about safety issues around the property because his son was being bullied and there had been an attempted theft.
5. all of these issues had affected his quality of life, and he wanted to be rehoused “immediately” because the property was not habitable.
The resident reported mould in the property on or around 23 April 2024. He also said it was affecting the kitchen and balcony. The resident reported the leak in the kitchen again to the landlord’s out of hours service on 2 May 2024. It arranged for an operative to attend. It found the water heater cylinder was old and needed replacing, and a leak from the bathroom was penetrating through the wall to the outside balcony. It recommended a surveyor attend. When the surveyor attended, they found the resident’s neighbour had fitted a bathroom suite, and this was causing the leak.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 May 2024. It said:
1. it had attended to try to resolve the boiler and provided a list of its attendances to date. It noted that the programmer needed to be replaced, and although this was within its “capability”, there had been poor communication between the repairs and gas team.
2. it acknowledged there were delays in resolving issues with the boiler. It said this was because it was an electric boiler, which required specialist electrical engineers. And this presented a “maintenance problem”.
3. it recognised the resident had repaired the boiler at his own expense and agreed to reimburse him for the cost of this.
4. it considered it had attended in a timely manner to complete repairs to the bathroom radiator. And it set out a list of jobs it had raised and completed.
5. it would raise a further inspection to check the neighbour’s flat to check for a leak, replaster the cracks in the kitchen and bathroom, and install a hot water tap to the downstairs toilet.
6. it offered compensation as follows:
  1. £678 reimbursement for the incurred cost of the boiler repair.
  2. £36.82 for the loss of heating and hot water between 24 April 2023 and 30 April 2023.
  3. £35 towards electrical heating costs (at £5 per day for 7 days).
  4. £100 as a goodwill gesture for the delays in service.
7. it confirmed the resident had an active homelessness application with the council. And that it had accepted a main housing duty in November 2017. It also confirmed his standing on the housing register and signposted him to the council’s housing options team if he felt the property was no longer suitable or safe to occupy.
The resident escalated his complaint on 10 May 2024 because:
1. he felt “fobbed off” by the call centre, and nobody wanted to help”.
2. he wanted to be rehoused.
3. the leak was ongoing, and the cracks to the bathroom and kitchen wall had not been repaired.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 June 2024, which said:
1. it had acknowledged and offered compensation for the delays in resolving the problem with the heating and hot water in its previous response. But it also accepted the process took “longer than it should have” and apologised again for this.
2. the initial appointment to repair the cracks and flaking paint in the kitchen and bathroom had been cancelled due to staff resources. It tried to contact the resident the day before the appointment, but it could not get through. It had arranged a new appointment for 2 August 2024.
3. it had attended again on 31 May 2024 to trace the leak but could not find one. But it would be attending with a plumber and a supervisor to reinspect the property and would book this directly with the resident.
4. it apologised for not providing timely updates about the work it was carrying out.
5. it had not found any contact from the resident to its housing options department concerning rehousing since 2014. It explained how the resident could report a change of circumstances and make an application to the social housing register.

Post complaint procedure

On 11 June 2024, the landlord traced the leak to the neighbour’s bathroom suite and replaced the silicone in their bathroom. On 6 December 2024, the resident reported a further leak from the kitchen coming from the flat above.
The resident referred his complaint to us on 16 December 2024 because he was seeking:
1. a replacement carpet because of the damp and mould issues.
2. the damp and mould issues to be resolved.
3. the boiler to be fixed to “an acceptable standard”.
4. to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The resident raised concerns about how his communications had been handled with the housing options team as part of his formal complaint. He said he had emailed that team in May 2024, but they had not responded to him.
The Scheme states at paragraph 41.d.:

“The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.”

This department falls under the arm of the council that deals with its wider executive functions. The communications of this department, therefore, do not fall under the responsibility of the landlord, nor do they concern its provision of social housing. Therefore, this issue is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate. However, the resident may refer this element of his complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, who may investigate this matter.

Scope of the investigation

The resident explained that his wife suffers from respiratory conditions. And the damp and mould combined with the lack of heating and hot water had exacerbated her condition.
While this service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Policies, procedures, and legal framework

The resident’s licence agreement is provided under the council’s homelessness functions and is a non-secure tenancy. The minimum statutory repairs due under s.11 of the Housing Act 1985 do not apply to licence agreements. This means the landlord’s repairing obligations are set out in the licence agreement and not by statute.
The landlord is contractually liable to keep in repair and proper working order the “installations for supplying water” and the “installations for room and water heating supplied by the council”. This includes the electric boiler and radiators. The landlord is also responsible for a leak caused by these installations and/or the structure and exterior of the property.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it applies to all properties it manages. It states:
1. it would not normally deal with complaints of ASB where the person accused of ASB is not a resident of the landlord. However, where appropriate it will give advice to customers about reporting ASB to Barnet Council’s Community Safety Team through the Citizen’s Portal, or about other agencies who may be able to help them in these circumstances.
2. where ASB is the result of criminal activity, it expects residents to report criminal behaviour to the police, and it expects the police and other statutory agencies to take action where they have sufficient evidence to do so.
3. it will investigate ASB reports as soon as possible and prioritise serious incidents. Following a report of ASB, an initial triage assessment will be completed, which includes an initial vulnerability assessment.
Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Our approach to record keeping is set out in our Spotlight Report ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM).
Throughout this report we frequently refer to the landlord’s poor record keeping. Good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. It further states that a landlord’s failure to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The landlord’s records in this case failed to capture important information, including:
1. when the resident made reports, when it carried out inspections and remedial work and details about what they were.
2. the reason for its delays.
3. advice provided to the resident during visits.
This contributed to the landlord’s poor management of repairs. And its failure to respond to the resident’s reports in a timely manner and complete the required outstanding repairs within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord must conduct a review of its record keeping in this case. This is to ensure its management of repairs and associated communications are robust and up to date. It must identify what went wrong, why, and how it can prevent this from happening in future. We strongly recommend that the landlord consider the recommendations in our KIM report when it completes its review.

The boiler

It is unclear when the resident first reported that the boiler was not working. However, the landlord raised an emergency job on 24 April 2023 because the resident had no heating or hot water. It is also unclear when the landlord attended because of the lack of detail in the records. However, it said when it attended, it found there was no sound of water flowing through the pipes, and the boiler was not filling up. The operative recommended a specialist inspect the boiler because it was electric, and the filling loop needed to be replaced.
We would have expected the landlord to have demonstrated it urgently responded to a report of no heating or hot water. The landlord was unable to do this due to its poor record keeping. As such, we could not be satisfied it acted reasonably to the resident’s report.
The landlord raised a job for a heating engineer to inspect the boiler. This specified the need for an engineer qualified to deal with electric boilers. Internally, this job was referred to the repairs team. When the resident chased the work on 25 April 2024, the landlord found that this team did not have a suitably qualified engineer. It then referred the job to the gas team.
While it may have been reasonable to refer the work to a more suitable department to ensure it sourced the required expertise, it should not have taken the resident’s intervention for it to be ascertained whether this had been done correctly. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the work to an appropriately skilled team. However, it should not have been left for the resident to prompt it before it did so. This was evidence of a failure to effectively co-ordinate and progress the repair. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to explain its approach, the reasons behind its delay to the resident. This caused frustration and uncertainty at a time when the resident said he was without heating and hot water. It also caused avoidable time and trouble to the resident pursuing the repairs.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it raised a job on 27 April 2023 for a gas engineer to visit on 27 April 2023. It said it had visited and “tried to fix the boiler”. Based on the repair records, this appears to be in response to the resident chasing the landlord the previous day because he said he had no heating or hot water. The operative found the heating cylinder was on the floor, and there were no issues with the pressure bar. Further, it provided the resident with “hot water recovery cycles advice”.
The evidence does not detail when the landlord attended. This was a failure to demonstrate that it acted in a timely manner to the report. Further, the landlord was aware that it needed to diagnose and rectify a fault with the boiler. However, the evidence was unclear about the landlord’s conclusions concerning the cause of the issues or how it had “tried to fix” the boiler at its appointment in April 2023. That it did not create a detailed record of the inspection was a missed opportunity to document what action it had taken to investigate the heating and hot water, and what action it intended to take to resolve this.
The landlord went on to raise another job on 2 May 2023 because of “no heating or hot water [it needed to] diagnose and rectify [the] faults or breakdown on the boiler”. It is unclear what prompted this. The stage 1 response said this was assigned to a third-party contractor. When it visited, it found a filling loop “left on” by the resident and adjusted this. It also suspected a fault with the programmer and recommended an inspection by an electrical boiler engineer. It completed this job on 9 May 2023. This was 15 calendar days after the landlord was first on notice that the boiler was not working.
Overall, the landlord missed opportunities to co-ordinate and progress the repair appropriately as well as communicate with the resident about what it intended to do and when. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience because he was in a property without heating and hot water. The resident went on to pay for a private contractor to resolve the boiler issue. It is unclear when this happened. Given that the landlord was responsible for repairing the boiler, this was an avoidable inconvenience to the resident.
Given the nature of the repair and the landlord’s approach adversely impacted the resident (as set out above), we have made a finding of service failure.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
The landlord recognised in its formal responses that it had delayed, and this had adversely impacted the resident. It made an offer of redress set out earlier in this report. However, the compensation awarded for loss of heating and hot water and additional electricity costs was for a period of 7 days. Given that the landlord’s records were poor and indicated the loss of amenities was for 15 days, we could not be satisfied that the landlord’s offer of compensation fully addressed the detriment to the resident. Therefore, the landlord must reassess its calculation and provide evidence that it has compensated the resident for the full period of loss.
The landlord offered to reimburse the resident for the costs he incurred engaging a private contractor to fix the boiler. It recognised in its stage 1 response that this was avoidable, given that it could have replaced the programmer. It also offered the resident £100 as a gesture of goodwill for its delays. We consider this was appropriate in the circumstances, and in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for what we may have also ordered the landlord to do to put things right.

The radiator

The landlord raised a job on 6 February 2024 for “an uncontainable leak”. It is unclear what prompted this. It is also unclear what the source of the leak was. A further job was raised on 7 February 2024 to drain the bathroom radiator and top up the pressure. The records show that when the landlord attended to this it found that a new radiator was required. The repair records note the job was completed on 14 February 2024. However, it is unclear when the works took place.
Given the lack of clarity in the dates captured in the repair records, we could not be satisfied that the landlord responded in a timely manner to a report of an uncontained leak. We would have expected the landlord’s repair records to have explicitly documented when the report was made and when it attended. That it did not was a missed opportunity to demonstrate when it had acted, and that this job was appropriately considered urgent in nature.
The landlord arranged an appointment for the new radiator to be fitted for 18 March 2024. There is evidence that it called the resident the same day as the appointment to explain that the part was not available for collection, and it needed to rebook the appointment. The evidence is unclear about whether this was the earliest opportunity that it could have notified the resident of this. However, we would have expected the landlord to have given the resident as much notice as possible for a cancelled appointment to minimise the inconvenience and disruption caused to him.
The records said the contractor would contact the resident directly to make an appointment “that week”. However, there is no indication it did so. The resident contacted it on 28 March 2024 to explain he had not been contacted. The landlord appropriately asked the contractor to schedule an appointment with the resident. The contractor then arranged an appointment for 2 April 2024.
The landlord said the contractor was unable to gain access at this appointment. The resident called the same day and said he had “waited in all day” and the contractor had not attended, but he had found a calling card in the post. The landlord appropriately chased the contractor and asked it to reschedule the appointment. The contractor did this, however, the landlord missed an opportunity to discuss what had happened with its contractor and to provide assurances to the resident that it was taking his concerns seriously.

Conclusion

The landlord’s contractor installed the radiator on 5 April 2024. This was almost 3 months after the landlord was first made aware of the fault with the radiator. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it acted reasonably by raising jobs and attending in a reasonable timeframe. While we note the landlord raised jobs, the records did not contain other important information, such as reporting dates and response dates.
Therefore, we found the landlord’s response was not proportionate because it ought to have been reasonably aware that its repair records did not evidence its initial response time. Further, it cancelled the initial appointment for the radiator install at short notice. This would have caused inconvenience to the resident. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the radiator. To put things right, the landlord must acknowledge its failure and put things right by offering the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of finding.

The leak resulting in damp and mould

On 17 January 2024 the landlord raised a job following the resident’s report of a leak coming through the kitchen wall. The landlord booked an appointment for 8 February 2024. The repair records indicate that the plumber discovered the boiler was not functioning and that there was a leak from the kitchen radiator.
It is unclear if the operative considered the radiator to be responsible for the leak through the wall. The landlord’s stage 1 response said the operative found the leak to be coming from a “completely rusty cylinder”. It is unclear how the landlord came to this conclusion in its formal response, given that its repair records contain no such detail. That the records did not set this out was a missed opportunity to explicitly document the operative’s findings at the appointment. Further, the records did not detail any follow on work that needed to be carried out. This was a missed opportunity to diagnose and progress the necessary repairs to resolve the leak.
The resident chased the landlord on 1 and 21 March 2024 to ask for an update. The evidence does not suggest that the landlord responded. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it was providing the resident with timely updates about what it intended to do and when. The resident said this caused him avoidable time and trouble trying to engage with the landlord about what was required.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it attended on 7 April 2024 and found the neighbour’s bathroom suite was leaking. It was noted that there was also a leak from their bathroom affecting the external wall of the resident’s balcony. It also said it found the water heater cylinder was old and needed to be replaced. The operative recommended a surveyor and supervisor to inspect to see what can be resolved”. This is corroborated by contemporaneous evidence.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it was aware from February 2024 that there was a “rusty cylinder”. Therefore, it is unclear why it had not repaired this while it sought to inspect the neighbour’s property. That it did not was a missed opportunity to resolve this repair at an earlier opportunity.
We recognise that resolving a leak is not always straightforward. And that there can be physical challenges, or it can be a matter of ruling out causes until the source is identified. However, where obstacles are identified or a process of elimination is required, we would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source of a leak is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented.
The landlord said the resident reported mould behind the cupboard in the kitchen. It is unclear when he made this report. However, the landlord acted reasonably to arrange a “healthy homes inspection” for 22 April 2024. It said in contemporaneous notes that “[there was a] leak causing damage [but] no mould seen anywhere else in the property”. We are unclear whether the landlord’s statement meant it had found mould near the location of the leak. Therefore, we could not be certain about whether mould was found and if further action was required. This was a missed opportunity to clearly document its findings. As such, we cannot determine whether the landlord acted appropriately overall.
The resident continued to chase the landlord during towards the end of April 2024. He said he took time off for an inspection to take place, but nobody attended. The repair records do not reflect that an appointment was scheduled during this time to inspect the leak. The landlord’s contemporaneous evidence notes a follow on inspection needed to take place with a surveyor and a supervisor.
Based on the available evidence, we could not be satisfied that the landlord took adequate steps to document that it had arranged a follow on appointment to progress an inspection. That it did not document what steps it had taken to do so was a failure. This led to further contact from the resident trying to progress the work. This caused unnecessary time and trouble for him.
The resident made a call to the landlord’s out of hours service on or around 2 May 2024. He said the leak was ongoing. The contemporaneous evidence indicated that a new cylinder and tank was installed on or around 9 May 2024. This was 4 months after it was aware the cylinder was an issue. The landlord did not explain its delay in completing this repair. And in the absence of evidence to the contrary we could not be satisfied this delay was unavoidable.
There is also evidence of the landlord asking internally on 16 May 2024 if an appointment occurred on 7 April 2024, which team had carried out the appointment, and asking an update on which work needed to be carried out. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord’s records to have been easily accessible and clear about the actions that had already taken in April and May 2024. This contributed to its difficulty in providing an update. This meant it could not provide a meaningful update to the resident, which was a failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it attended on 31 May 2024 and could not find an “active leak”. The repair records show on 5 June 2024 it “reinstated [a work] order [because it was] cancelled in error.” The notes also say that there was “no active leak but because the watermark damage is between both properties, access is required [to the neighbour’s property] to continue the investigation”.
It is unclear where the complaint investigation lifted the attendance date. Given that the landlord said it attended on 31 May 2024, it is unclear why the repair records fail to document this. That it did not was a failure to document what action it had taken in its repair records. Further, the landlord’s record again failed to explain which work it was raising, or which work had been cancelled in error and why. Given the absence of evidence, we are unable to determine if this caused further delay in the landlord’s approach to resolving the leak.
The landlord then raised further “follow on work” on 13 June 2024. This appears to be prompted after its stage 2 response (dated 11 June 2024). However, the repair records did not set out which follow on work it was raising and why, given that the repair records are silent as to whether an inspection had taken place before raising the work. The landlord’s records ought to have detailed why it raised follow on work in June, and what these were. That it did not was another failure to document its approach to the repair.
The repair records noted it had appropriately arranged an appointment for 7 July 2024. This was in line with its stage 2 response, which said it would arrange a further inspection to investigate the leak. However, this was 7 months after the resident’s initial report of a leak and 2 months after it was aware the repairs to the cylinder had not resolved the leak. This was an unreasonable delay. It is also unclear if the landlord went on to trace and resolve the leak following this appointment.

Conclusion

Overall, the landlord’s repair records made it difficult to ascertain which action it had taken or intended to take and when. The repair records did not always reflect the landlord’s conclusions in its formal responses. As a result, it failed to demonstrate at multiple points that it was taking action to progress inspections and repairs without the resident’s intervention.
It also failed to meaningfully engage with the resident about what it was doing. This was inextricably linked to its poor record keeping, which inhibited its ability to understand and communicate the investigations to date and the required follow on work required to resolve the leak. This caused time and trouble to the resident trying to engage with the landlord to resolve the leak. For these reasons we have made a finding of maladministration for its handling of the leak.
The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response for its failure to provide timely updates about this matter. And upheld this element of the resident’s complaint. However, this is related to the communications immediately after its attendance on 31 May 2024. We do not consider this to be proportionate because it did not account for its consistently poor communications with the resident, its uncoordinated approach to the inspections and repairs or its overall delays. It also did not consider the time, trouble, and distress to the resident over a period of 7 months. It ought to have been reasonably aware of this during its complaint investigation.
To put things right, the landlord must pay the resident £350 to recognise its failures over a protracted period. It must also arrange to contact the resident to confirm whether the leak is outstanding. If it is, then it must carry out a further inspection to trace the leak and follow up with its findings in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman.

ASB

The resident said in his initial complaint that his son was being bullied and that there had been a theft. There is no further information about this report. There is no evidence that the resident raised this concern to the landlord before his formal complaint.
The landlord responded in its stage 1 response and explained that these “safety issues” related to criminal activity and should be reported to the police directly. It also signposted the resident to its customer contact team so it could carry out a questionnaire to decide on whether further action was necessary. This action is in line with the initial assessment set out in its ASB policy. It also said it may be able to offer security methods such as a spy hole, a chain on the door or a security light, depending on the circumstances. Further, it signposted the resident to guidance about what it considered to be ASB.
We consider the landlord’s advice to contact the police was within a range of reasonable responses it could have chosen. And was broadly in line with its policy based on the nature of the behaviour being reported. Further, we note it appropriately signposted the resident to the relevant internal team to investigate the matters further. It was positive that the landlord explained the process and what it might be able to consider in terms of supporting the resident.
While this was a positive action, we also consider there was a shortcoming because it did not refer the matter directly to the relevant team. Had it done so this would have enabled it to have contacted the resident and assessed his reports at the earliest opportunity. This would have been a more resolution-focused approach. We have found no maladministration in this matter. However, we recommend that the complaint team be alert to instances of initial ASB reports being made.

The complaint

We note that there were instances where the complaint investigation ought to have been reasonably aware of certain failures in its handling of the substantive repairs. This has been dealt with earlier in this report, and where applicable, remedies have been applied. Therefore, this section has focused on the procedural elements of the complaint handling.
The resident made a complaint on 20 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 April 2024. It responded on 9 May 2024, which was 10 working days later. This was appropriate and in line with its policy and the timeframes set out in the Code.
The resident escalated his complaint on 10 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 13 May 2024. It issued its stage 2 response on 11 June 2024, which was 20 working days later. This was also in line with its policy and the timeframes set out in the Code.
Overall, the landlord answered all elements of the resident’s complaint and tried to provide a remedy where it had found failures. It also responded in a timely manner. Therefore, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s communications with the housing options team is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the radiator.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the leak resulting in damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £400 compensation, broken down as:
  1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience of its handling of repairs to the radiator.
  2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience of its handling of repairs to the leak, resulting in damp and mould.

This is in addition to the compensation the landlord has already awarded during the complaint procedure. It must pay the compensation it had already offered to the resident if it has not done so already.

reassess its offer of compensation for the loss of heating and hot water from the boiler. In doing so, it must assess whether its offer considers the full period the resident was without heating and hot water. It must write to the resident and us to explain the outcome of its assessment and its calculation.
contact the resident to understand if the leak is still ongoing. If it is, the landlord must:
1. arrange to inspect the property within 5 working days of contacting the resident.
2. write to the resident and us within 5 working days of its inspection with its findings, any remedial work required, and associated timeframes for completion.
3. use its best endeavours to complete any remedial work within 56 calendar days of its inspection. If it is unable to do so, it must write to the Ombudsman and the resident explaining the reasons for its delay.

Within 56 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must assess its record keeping for the repairs investigated in this report. This must include identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded in its repair log, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified. To assist it in doing this, it may wish to consult recommendations 2,3,7, and 8 in our Spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders in line with the timeframes set out above.

Recommendation

We recommend that the complaint team have processes in place to be alert to instances of initial ASB reports being made through the complaint process. This is to prevent a potential delay in activating the provisions of its ASB policy.