London Borough of Croydon (202331071)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331071

London Borough of Croydon

9 June 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 the resident’s reports of repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord told us it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for her. The information available shows the resident reported her household members had disabilities, during her complaint.
The landlord completed works to renew the resident’s kitchen, and did works to the bathroom, in June 2022. The resident contacted the landlord in August 2022 and reported a concern about the quality of works it completed. She also raised a concern that holes left in the walls following the kitchen works caused a “serious breach” of a pest infestation. She said the contractor left cracked tiles in the bathroom and the shower rail fell off the wall. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time.
The landlord inspected the resident’s kitchen in relation to pests in April 2023. The notes from its inspection stated the lower base units of the kitchen needed removing to deal up the holes. It does not appear the repair went ahead.
The resident made a complaint in June 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 7 July 2023. It said:
1. It finished the kitchen refurbishment on 23 June 2023 and the works were “found to be satisfactory” following the final inspection.
2. A pest control officer had attended her property and identified proofing works. In order to progress it asked her to complete a “management form”.
3. The resident had also requested new base units, a new kitchen sink and separate washing machine pipe.
4. She also asked it to install a missing bath panel, shower curtain and inspect the “pipe encasement” by the bathroom radiator.
5. It could not “address any of the outstanding works” without the resident completing the “tenancy management form”.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 13 July 2023. She said there were no “final inspections” and it was left in a “dismal state”. She had never been asked to complete the tenancy management form. She said it was avoiding “accountability” for the poor work of its contractor.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 20 October 2023. It said:
1. Its capital delivery team had inspected the works prior to handover.
2. The requested works to the kitchen related were “outside” its decent homes standard.
3. The pest control works can only be completed after the “further works to the kitchen are considered”.
4. The completion of the tenancy management form was the “current impediment” to the work in the kitchen and pest proofing works.

Events after the complaints process

The resident contacted us on 5 December 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she wanted the landlord to refit the kitchen due to the poor standard of works.
The landlord completed repairs to the bathroom panel and bath overflow on 7 December 2023.
The resident contacted us in May 2025 and said the landlord had not progressed with any of the kitchen repairs, or pest proofing works.
We asked the landlord for its latest position on the repairs in May 2025. It did not respond to our request.

Assessment and findings

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
The landlord’s repairs guide for tenant states it will attend to non urgent repairs within 15 working days.
When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint she said she wanted the landlord to rip out the kitchen it installed in 2022 and install a new one, due to the poor workmanship. It is not within our remit to say whether the kitchen needed replacing or not. Our role is to consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen.
The resident raised concerns about the quality of the kitchen and bathroom works in August 2022. She claimed the quality of the works was poor, and a kitchen unit was damaged by a leak shortly after the works were done. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord inspected at the time to address her concerns. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed at the condition of the kitchen in particular. The landlord’s failure to take any action at the time may have increased the distress she experienced.
We acknowledge the kitchen and bathroom works were signed off as being in a satisfactory condition on their completion. However, poor workmanship may not be immediately apparent on completion. Considering the resident reported concerns 2 months after it finished the works, it is concerning it did not seek to inspect at the time. The landlord’s approach was dismissive of the resident’s concerns.
The evidence shows the landlord did inspect the kitchen in relation to pest control issues in April 2023. This was 8 months after the resident raised concerns, and an unreasonable delay. We have seen no evidence the landlord sought to progress with the recommended proofing works following the inspection. This was unreasonable and further inconvenienced the resident.
An internal email we have seen from June 2023 shows the landlord said it has “no record” of repairs raised. This is concerning and evidence it failed to appropriately follow up on the works the resident raised. The landlord’s failure to progress with this matter may have further increased the distress the resident experienced.
The tone of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate. It said it had asked the resident to fill in a form in order to progress with the pest proofing works. This was inappropriate. The landlord’s repairs guide is silent on the need for a form to be completed in order for it to carry out repairs.
It is unclear why the landlord put the onus on the resident to complete a form before it would carry out routine repairs. We acknowledge the installation of a non standard sink and other request may be classed as an improvement and would need to be considered by another team. However, the resident had asked it to block potential access holes for pests and replace a unit damaged by a leak. It was unreasonable to require the resident to complete a form before it progressed with repairs.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also emphasised the resident’s failure to complete a form as an “impediment” to it completing the works. Again, we have seen no evidence the landlord has inspected the quality of the works after the resident raised concerns in August 2022. We acknowledge it did identify some proofing works in April 2023. We also acknowledge it is of the position some of the works requested are classed as beyond the decent home standard. However, its position on the concerns about damage and possible repairs were inappropriate. The landlord must inspect the kitchen now and identify any remedial works needed.
The landlord completed the repair to the bath panel in December 2023. This was 4 months after the resident asked it to. This was an unreasonable delay that was well outside of its target timeframes. The delay inconvenienced the resident. We have seen no evidence the landlord inspected the bathroom in relation to the resident’s concerns about cracked tiles and the shower rail. It must inspect the bathroom now to identify any repairs needed.
The landlord told us it did not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but was aware of a managed health condition. However, we have seen evidence the resident raised concerns about the impact of the repairs and she had household members with disabilities. It was a failing in its record keeping the landlord did not appropriately record this vulnerability when the resident declared it. This may have impacted on the service it delivered the resident. It must meet with the resident to discuss her and her household member’s vulnerabilities to ensure it has accurate records.
The resident contacted us in May 2025 and said the landlord had not progressed with any of the kitchen repairs, or pest proofing works. We asked the landlord for its latest position on the repairs in May 2025. It did not respond to our request. Considering the lack of response from the landlord, and the lack of available evidence, it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s claim is accurate and the landlord has not progressed with the repairs.
Considering the failing identified above we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. Considering, the failings identified above we have determined an order of £600 in compensation is appropriate.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlord must send stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue in this complaint in August 2022. It was unreasonable the landlord did not open a complaint at that time. This was a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and does not need to include the word complaint.
That it did not open a complaint investigation at that time is evidence the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident, and she experienced further time and trouble of needed to raise her concerns again in June 2023 in order for it to investigate her complaint.
It was inappropriate the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation did not identify the failings in its complaint handling up to that point. This lacked transparency and supports the conclusion it did not appropriately consider the concerns the resident raised, and for how long she had been raising them. This was a further failing in its complaint handling.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 3 months after the resident made her stage 2 complaint. We welcome the fact it apologised and offered compensation for the delay. Considering the failings in its complaint handling at stage 1 and 2 we do not consider it an appropriate offer of compensation to put things right for the resident. The stage 2 complaint response also lacked the appropriate learning about the errors in its complaint handling. We have therefore determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for a further £150 in compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident. This is in addition to the £50 it has already offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £800 in compensation. It should deduct its offer of £50 in compensation if already paid, the compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the repairs.
  2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by errors in its complaint handling.
3. Meet with the resident to:
  1. Discuss her concerns about repairs within her property. It must write to the resident after its visit outlining what repairs it will complete, and when it plans to do them.
  2. Discuss her and her household member’s vulnerabilities to ensure it has accurate records.