London Borough of Ealing (202427554)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427554

London Borough of Ealing

28 August 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the bathroom and kitchen.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has lived in the property as a leaseholder since 2014. The resident lives with her two children who have respiratory problems and autism. The landlord is a council.
4. The resident’s property required decorative works in the kitchen and bathroom. This was needed following a leak. Contractors from the building insurance company began this work in August 2024. The insurer’s contractors identified dry rot and stopped their work shortly after starting.
5. On 17 September 2024, the resident made a stage 1 complaint. The complaint concerned:
   1. damage caused by an ongoing leak that had resulted in the kitchen and bathroom floor and wall being stripped by the insurer’s contractors
   2. the insurer’s contractors saying they could not complete the work as they had found dry rot, which was not an “insured peril”
   3. the resident trying to have this resolved and feeling dismissed by the landlord
   4. the resident feeling that the property posed a danger and wanting repair work to start immediately
6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 4 October 2024. It said that a limited survey was conducted and found dry rot. It concluded that this was caused by the resident, and as such was the resident’s responsibility. The complaint was not upheld.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 October 2024. She said that a private contractor told her that the suspected dry rot was water ingress caused by the guttering, roof and outer walls. On 14 October 2024 the resident sent two quotes from private contractors to the landlord, confirming the above.
8. The landlord had its own in-depth investigation carried out, which confirmed that there was no dry rot. This report was sent to the buildings insurance company on 28 November 2024.
9. The resident emailed the landlord twice during November 2024 to chase up the stage 2 response and query the reasonableness of service charges. The landlord did not respond to these emails.
10. The landlord sent its final response on 10 January 2024. It concluded that:
    1. the property did not have dry rot and apologised for not carrying out an in-depth investigation to establish this. It offered £300 compensation for the distress this had caused.
    2. the resident would need to claim on the buildings insurance for the internal decorative works.
11. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation and referred the complaint to us for investigation on 3 April 2025. The resident wanted the repair work to take place as a matter of urgency and increased compensation offered. The repair work has since been completed in May 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the actions of contractors acting on behalf of an insurance company. We cannot consider whether the insurer’s actions or decisions were appropriate, as this may fall within the scope of the Financial Ombudsman Service. We will focus on the landlord’s responsibilities, the actions taken and how it communicated with the resident throughout the complaints process.
13. The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on health and loss of earnings. While we can consider the impact the situation has on the resident and on her family and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health or loss of earnings. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance.
14. The resident has also raised points about the fairness of service charges being paid in full while repairs were outstanding. As this aspect did not form part of the stage 1 or stage 2 complaint for this investigation, we are unable to comment on the landlord’s handling of it. If the resident wishes to pursue this, they should first direct this through their landlord’s complaints process.
     

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the bathroom and kitchen

15. The landlord’s repair handbook says that any internal repairs are the resident’s responsibility.
16. The landlord’s repairs policy says that the landlord:
    1. will engage in effective, two-way communication with residents regarding repairs. This is to “ensure a customer-focussed service delivery”.
    2. aims to deliver a “safety–first” culture and will ensure that the health and safety of all concerned is at the forefront of what it does.
    3. is obligated to carry out repairs inside the homes of leaseholders if a fault to the structure of the building has caused internal damage.
    4. will respond to routine repairs within 28 days.
17. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will consider the individual circumstances of complaints and the residents making them, such as whether the resident is vulnerable or at risk.
18. In an email to her local MP and the landlord, the resident said that between August 2024 and 17 September 2024, she contacted the landlord daily to report the disrepair. The landlord did not provide any communication records but did not dispute this. The landlord told us that it raised a work order to inspect the property on 5 September 2024, however there is no evidence that the landlord communicated this to the resident or responded to her attempted contact. The resident then raised her stage 1 complaint on 17 September 2024, which the landlord’s stage 1 response said included safety and safeguarding concerns due to having children with vulnerabilities in the property. A limited survey to establish if there was dry rot was arranged by the landlord and took place on 26 September 2024.
19. We have identified two failings in the landlord’s handling of this part of the process:
    1. the resident had raised that there were potential hazards in the property. We understand that the landlord may not have felt responsible to inspect, as it concerned internal damage to a leasehold property. However, it should have, as a minimum, acknowledged the safety and safeguarding concerns. This was poor customer care and not in the spirit of its “safety–first” culture.
    2. we have also assessed that there is no evidence of two-way communication taking place. This led to the resident having to repeatedly contact the landlord about the disrepair. This was not in line with its commitment to customer focused service delivery.
20. In its stage 1 response sent on 4 October 2024, the landlord told the resident she would need to resolve the disrepair herself or through the building insurance company. The landlord did not acknowledge the safety concerns raised in the resident’s complaint. If the landlord believed it was not responsible for inspecting potential hazards, this should have been clarified in its response. This was a failing from the landlord. It did not, in accordance with its complaints policy, appear to consider the individual circumstances, vulnerabilities or risks in its response. The landlord was informed, however, that the insurer’s contractors and its own limited survey found dry rot in the internal walls. In line with its policy, it said that internal repairs were the responsibility of the resident. Based on what the landlord knew at the time, it was appropriate to recommend that the resident discussed the issue with the building insurance company and to take no further action itself.
21. On 9 October 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that a surveyor acting on behalf of the landlord had visited her home. She said that the surveyor had advised her to do the repair work herself and claim it back from the landlord as a reimbursement. The resident was seeking confirmation from the landlord in her email that this was an acceptable way to proceed. The resident said in this email that she had children and safeguarding concerns. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this email.
22. While the landlord believed that the internal repairs were the responsibility of the resident at this time, it was poor service not to clarify to the resident how to proceed when she had been given conflicting advice in her stage 1 response compared to the surveyor who visited. The landlord could have provided a response to this email and acknowledged the safeguarding concerns. The landlord failed to act appropriately.
23. The following day on 10 October 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She wrote that she was seeking assurance that work would be undertaken to safeguard the flat, or that she would be reimbursed for any work completed herself. The resident wrote that a private contractor had told her that the dry rot stemmed from faults to the exterior of the building. She attached evidence of this in her complaint. The resident also said at this stage that she had children with breathing difficulties and felt safeguarding concerns. The landlord’s building surveyor inspected on 23 October 2024.
24. The landlord was notified by the resident about the private contractor’s findings and did not inspect until 2 weeks later. While this was in line with its routine repair timescales, the landlord knew that the disrepair had been present since August 2024. Considering the vulnerabilities, safety and safeguarding concerns being reported, the landlord could have done more for the resident. If a 2-week delay was not avoidable, the landlord could have communicated this to the resident. By not taking a customer centred approach, this part of the complaint process displayed a further failing from the landlord. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to acknowledge the safeguarding concerns, in the spirit of its safety–first culture.
25. On 14 October 2024, the resident emailed the landlord providing evidence from two private contractors that there was no dry rot in her home, and the water ingress was caused by faults to the structure of the building, including the guttering and outer walls. This email reiterated the safeguarding issues she felt were present because of her children. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this. As the landlord is obligated to carry out internal repairs that are caused by faults to the structure of the building, this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to take on a more active role in working towards a resolution. It also missed an opportunity to display commitment to its safety–first culture and consider vulnerabilities in the property.
26. On 18 October 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that a building surveyor would contact her on 21 October 2024 to arrange a property inspection. After 5pm on 21 October 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say that nobody had been in touch. The landlord’s repairs log confirms that on 23 October 2024, the building surveyor attended. The landlord’s communication with the resident in this period was not in line with its commitment to customer focused service delivery.
27. The landlord’s repairs log says that when the building surveyor attended on 23 October 2024, they advised that there were “major issues” in the property. A specialist damp survey was recommended. We have not seen evidence that the landlord followed this advice.
28. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that on 28 November 2024, it made the building insurance company aware that there was no dry rot, and the cause of the water ingress should be covered by the building insurance policy. This was 45 days after the landlord learned this from the resident. It should have done more to engage the insurance company quickly, as the landlord knew that it [the landlord] had contributed to the cause of the water ingress in the property. The landlord also knew that there were “major issues” in the property requiring specialist attention. The landlord played a minimal role in progressing the insurance claim and this was not reasonable in the circumstances.
29. On 10 January 2025 the landlord issued its final response. It admitted fault for not carrying out an in-depth investigation when the disrepair was originally reported. It recognised its failing and offered the resident £300. While it is positive that the landlord recognised this, we do not consider that it acknowledged all its failings and offered appropriate redress.
30. The resident said that her bathroom and kitchen were repaired by the insurer’s contractors in May 2025. We cannot assess actions of the insurance company, including incorrectly identifying dry rot and the overall delays. We also consider that the landlord telling the resident to claim on the building insurance was an acceptable way to respond. However, we have considered that the internal repairs were needed because of faults to the structure of the building. As the landlord is, under its repairs policy, responsible for internal repairs in this circumstance, we have considered that the landlord missed opportunities to better assist with the issues reported. We have considered the landlord’s actions between August 2024, when the disrepair was reported, and November 2024, when the insurance company should have reassumed responsibility for the disrepair.
31. We consider the following to be failings on part of the landlord:
    1. the landlord has a commitment to a safety-first culture and consideration of individual circumstances, such as vulnerabilities or risks when dealing with complaints. It repeatedly failed to investigate or acknowledge safety and safeguarding concerns, when there were children with known vulnerabilities in the property
    2. it repeatedly failed to effectively communicate with the resident and acknowledge her distress
    3. after learning that the water ingress was caused by faults to the structure of the building, it did not, in line with its policy, assume any responsibility for the internal damage
    4. it delayed without reason to complete a further survey in October 2024
    5. it delayed without reason to inform the insurers about the finding of no dry rot
32. Due to these failings, the resident has been significantly impacted. The resident described that she had to repeatedly push for updates and sought help from her local MP when her landlord did not answer her. She told us that she had to put her own safeguarding measures in place in the home. She had the onus to prove that the landlord was at fault and had to source private contractors to evidence this. She was not communicated with regularly, which added to uncertainty in what she had described as already distressing circumstances.
33. While ultimately the extended delay and disrepair to her property is a complaint against the insurance company, the landlord had numerous opportunities to reduce the burden on the resident and provide some level of support.
34. Considering the above, we have made a finding of maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns over disrepair to her bathroom and kitchen. The failings of the landlord were more than minor and not appropriately acknowledged.
35. We have made an order below to pay the resident £600 in compensation. This is inclusive of the compensation already offered in the stage 2 response. The additional compensation is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings listed in this report, with emphasis on the failing to appropriately acknowledge safety concerns and vulnerabilities in the property. We have considered that the insurer’s contractors were responsible for the misdiagnosis of dry rot however, in our view, the landlord should have done more between August 2024 and November 2024 to assist in resolving the issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

36. In line with our Complaint Handling Code, the landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy which states it will acknowledge complaints within 5-working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days. If more time is needed, reasons would be explained to the resident and a new response date agreed. For a stage 2 complaint, this extension would not exceed an additional 20-working days.
37. In considering redress, the landlord is committed to reviewing processes to prevent similar issues reoccurring, and reviewing practice, policy and procedure as appropriate.
38. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 17 September 2024. Positively, the landlord acknowledged and responded to this within its set timescales.
39. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within its set timescales. After 21–working days, the landlord told the resident that it needed more time to provide a response. It told the resident that it would take no longer than an additional 20-working days. When the landlord confirmed the extension, it was already 1 day over its committed response time. It did not provide the resident with reasons why the extension was needed. This was not in line with its complaint handling policy.
40. The landlord sent its final response on 11 January 2025. This was 61-working days from the date of acknowledgement of the complaint and 22-working days after its extension deadline. It did not address the delay in its response. This was not in line with its complaint handling policy which says any extension will not exceed an additional 20-working days.
41. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We have found multiple failings from the landlord in its handling of the stage 2 complaint. In its final response, landlord failed to explain or offer any redress for the 61-working day delay. Since its final response, the landlord has not taken accountability for its failings or evidenced any organisational learning from this case.
42. We have determined that these failings constitute maladministration. In line with our remedies guidance, we have made an order below to pay the resident £150 in compensation to reflect the inconvenience, time and distress to the resident.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over disrepair to the bathroom and kitchen.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

45. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report
    2. Paid £750 to the resident. This is made up of:
       1. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the bathroom and kitchen
       2. £150 to the resident for the complaint handling failure identified at stage 2
       3. This includes the compensation previously offered by the landlord. The landlord may deduct any compensation it has already paid in relation to this complaint.
       4. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt owed.
           

Recommendations

46. We recommend that the landlord considers what practical measures it will take to succeed in promoting its “safety–first” culture.
47. We recommend that the landlord completes staff training on handling complaints. The aim of this would be to ensure it can open better lines of communication with residents and deliver timely responses in line with the Code.