London Borough of Enfield (202405358)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405358

London Borough of Enfield

23 May 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 report of a leak in the property.
2. the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. the resident’s request to repair and replace the boiler.
4. the resident’s request for an investigation and action plan to address outstanding repairs.
5. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom maisonette with their family since 24 July 2017. The landlord is a local authority. The resident told the landlord their daughter has asthma and had been referred to mental health services.
On 20 July 2023, our Service had sent a determination to the resident and landlord about its handling of works in response to reports of damp and mould (reference: 202122007). Amongst other things, we recommended the landlord provide the resident a plan of action. The action plan should have included an investigation to complete repairs. We also recommended the landlord contact the resident about their request to move property.
On 9 October 2023, the landlord requested a quote from a contractor to repair the resident’s boiler as part of its planned programme of works. The landlord received a quote on 1 November 2023 to replace the boiler. On 4 December 2023, the contractor visited the property and found it needed to complete additional pipework before it could finish the boiler installation.
On 12 December 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. On the same day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it was about:
1. lack of heating in the property.
2. leaks from the property above them.
3. their request to move to a more suitable property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 28 December 2023. It said the contractor found insufficient water pressure to the boiler. To fix this, it had to reroute the water source and rearrange the boiler installation. The resident disagreed with the outcome on 28 December 2023. The resident was unhappy with the delay fitting the new boiler, and that it had not been operating properly due to low water pressure.
On 5 January 2024, the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord about a leak in the property and subsequent damage to the ceiling. On 16 January 2024, a surveyor found the leak was due to a blocked gutter.
On 19 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s second complaint about a leak in the property. It said it arranged for a contractor to repair the gutter, and it would then repair the ceiling.
On 26 January 2024, the landlord told the resident its previous response on 28 December 2023 had not fully answered the resident’s complaints. It made the decision to send a new stage 1 response on 26 January 2024, and said:
1. the boiler replacement was part of its planned programme of works that it aimed to complete within 90 days, although it had taken longer due to issues found when the contractor attempted to install the boiler. It apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused due to the delay.
2. it had responded appropriately to the resident’s report of lack of hot water and heating on 7 December 2023.
3. it may have prevented the breakdown of the boiler if it had identified the issue with the water pressure sooner.

The landlord apologised and offered £600 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident for the delay replacing the boiler.

On 31 January 2024, the resident told the landlord they disagreed with its stage 1 responses. The resident said:
1. the landlord had not resolved the emergency repair for hot water on 7 December 2023, as the resident asked the contractor to reattend the property and manually pump the system.
2. the landlord had not provided an action plan to complete repairs, following this Service’s recommendation on 20 July 2023 (reference: 202122007).
3. their daughter had been in the emergency room due to respiratory concerns and the resident wanted the landlord to reconsider their priority for a property move.
On 1 March 2024, the landlord provided its final response to the resident. The landlord said:
1. it introduced a new system in January 2024 to improve its record keeping.
2. it failed to provide an action plan following our Services determination on 20 July 2023. The landlord said it would arrange a survey and send a report to the resident within 6 weeks from 1 March 2024.
3. the resident could contact a First Response Officer to provide advice and assistance for their application to move property.
4. it apologised for its failings and increased compensation to £1200 for the impact caused due to the delay fixing and replacing the boiler, and because it had not provided an action plan for repairs in the property.

Events since the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

The resident contacted our Service on 9 May 2024. The resident said that the landlord failed to complete outstanding repairs, and they had not heard back about their request to move property. They said they had not received compensation since they provided their bank details on 2 March 2024.
The landlord said it repaired the blocked gutter on 15 March 2024, and arranged a surveyor to inspect damage to the ceiling on 1 October 2024. It also connected the resident direct to a Housing Officer on 4 October 2024 about their request to move property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is called our jurisdiction and is set out under the Scheme. Paragraph 42.a and 42.j of the Scheme states:

“the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale;

j. fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body”

As set out above, the landlord provided the stage 1 response to the resident about the leak in the property on 19 January 2024. There is no evidence that this complaint was escalated to stage 2 for the landlord to provide its final response.
It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the complaint about the leak in the property had not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. As such, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint under paragraph 42.a of the Scheme.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord that it reconsiders their priority to be rehoused. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that fall outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). Amongst other things, Part 6 refers to how a landlord prioritises rehousing applications under its allocation scheme.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing, and the assessment of such applications. Since the resident’s rehousing application falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), the Housing Ombudsman cannot review the complaint about it. The complaint is better suited to the LGSCO.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the resident’s complaint about their request to be rehoused falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. As such, the Housing Ombudsman will not investigate complaint under paragraph 42.j of the Scheme.

Scope of the investigation

The resident previously brought a complaint to us about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould, which we determined on 20 July 2023 (reference: 202122007). Within this report, we recommended that the landlord further investigate damp and mould, to provide an action plan to the resident and aim to complete repair works within a reasonable period.
The recommendations set out in the report were not orders, which means they were not enforceable. Although the recommendations this Service made to the landlord were still an indication of a reasonable approach it could take, and that action was required. The case was subsequently closed. We are unable, therefore, to reconsider this period. However, we can consider events following 20 July 2023 and how the landlord responded.
The resident had informed us that their daughter’s health had been impacted because of the disrepair in the property. We do not assess the cause of health issues or determine liability and award damages in the same way as a court or insurer would do. Therefore, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via personal injury claim. Where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The resident’s requests to repair and replace the boiler

It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The terms of the resident’s tenancy say:
1. the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order the installation for the supply of heating and hot water.
The landlords’ repairs, maintenance, and planned works policy say:
1. within 90 days the landlord will complete repairs as part of a planned programme of works, including heating replacement.
2. it will keep the resident updated about progress of works and if there are likely to be delays.
3. the landlord will ensure works are complete by inspecting the property.
The landlord confirmed the replacement of the resident’s boiler was a part of its planned programme of works set to start in October 2023.
On 9 October 2023 the landlord requested a quote to repair the resident’s boiler. It received a quote from a contractor on 1 November 2023, and this confirmed the landlord needed to install a new boiler in the property.
On 4 December 2023, the contractor found it needed to complete additional pipework to improve the water pressure before it could install a new boiler. The landlord rescheduled the repair for 28 December 2023. It was reasonable and in line with the tenancy agreement that it arranged to install a new boiler as per its obligations, to keep the boiler in good repair for heating and hot water.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 and 6 December 2023 to explain there was a loss of heating and hot water in the property. The landlord recorded this as an emergency repair to fix within 24 hours. It said it sent its operatives on 7 December 2023, who had repressurised the heating system, and that the boiler was left in working order.
The resident disputed the boiler was fixed on 7 December 2023. On 12 December 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the lack of heating in the property.
Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report, explains it’s good practice that the landlord keeps clear records, monitors progress with third parties, as well as update the resident on progress to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale.
There is no evidence of the contractor’s repair notes to confirm when it completed the emergency repair to the boiler. This is a failure of the landlord’s record keeping and is not in line with its policy to keep up to date with repair progress and ensure it completes repairs.
On 28 December 2023, the contractor attended the resident’s property to install the new boiler. During the visit, the contractor found it needed a freeze kit to isolate the mains and install a stopcock before it could continue.
The contractor returned to the resident’s property to complete the boiler repair on 17 January 2024, but the freeze kit did not work. The contractor returned to the property and completed the boiler installation on 24 January 2024.
It was outside of the landlord’s control when the contractor’s equipment failed, and it was unable to fix the boiler. However, there was a lack of planning when the contractor attended the property without the necessary and operational equipment. This contributed to the delay replacing the boiler.
The landlord had taken 107 days to install the boiler. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlords planned repair policy, as it had taken over 90 days to replace the boiler.
Between 28 December 2023 and 1 March 2024 the landlord had provided its complaint responses to the resident. It said:
1. it recognised the delay fixing and replacing the boiler, and that it had not provided an action plan since our determination in July 2023. It apologised for this and offered £1200 for the impact on the household, £600 of which it had previously explained was apportioned for the delay replacing the boiler.
2. it confirmed it had a new system in January 2024 to keep track of repairs.
3. it recommitted to completing a property survey and report within 6 weeks.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress and commitments to remedy issues, have been in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
There is no evidence the landlord kept record of when it completed interim repairs to the boiler, and it had taken more than 90 days to install the new boiler. On that basis the landlord failed to comply with its own repair policies which caused inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s comments and actions from its complaint responses had put things right for the resident. The landlord had recognised lessons learnt, apologised to the resident, offered redress, and changed its systems to better track repairs. Although, the resident told this Service in May 2024 that the landlord had not paid them compensation, and we have not seen evidence of this either.
Considering its overall responses and offer of compensation, as well as our remedies guidance, we find it offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolves the complaint. This is on the basis that the landlord ensures compensation is paid to the resident, if it has not been paid already.

The resident’s request for an action plan to address outstanding repairs

As mentioned in this report, the landlord was aware of this Services’ previous recommendation from 20 July 2023, to investigate the property and send the resident an action plan. The recommendations this Service made to the landlord were not enforceable but had set practical actions to remedy outstanding repairs. It was therefore reasonable to conclude that from 20 July 2023, the landlord was on notice that there were repairs to the property.
The landlord failed to complete an inspection of the property and address the repairs following reports of damp and mould. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 December 2023 that repairs were outstanding and escalated the complaint on 31 January 2024. The landlord’s inaction was unreasonable and caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that it had not provided an action plan to complete the outstanding repairs in the property. It made a commitment on 1 March 2024 to survey the property and send the resident a report within 6 weeks. It apologised for its failing and offered £600 to recognise this. This was reasonable to put things right for the resident.
Following the landlord’s complaint responses, the resident explained it had not completed outstanding repairs and had not paid the compensation offered.
Considering our outcome guidance, we may find maladministration where a landlord had not responded to a resident which undermined the landlord and tenant relationship and had failed to demonstrate sufficient learning from previous determinations.
The resident said, “the landlord failed to fix repairs as promised” and this had continued to affect their family’s health. The resident said they had been “constantly chasing” the landlord, which caused “extreme distress”. It is clear the resident was inconvenienced and distressed.
The landlord’s inaction to put things right for the resident caused delay and undermined their confidence in the landlord’s service.
Therefore, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs.
After careful consideration of our remedies guidance and the detriment caused to the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay the £600 it offered to the resident, if it has not done so already. It is also ordered to complete an up-to-date inspection of the property and send the resident an action plan of outstanding repairs as a priority.
The landlord may wish to consider redress to the resident for any further delays since its internal complaint procedure.

The associated complaint

Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in place when the resident raised their complaint, landlords must ensure they had:
1. acknowledged a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days.
2. responded to the complaint within 10 working days.
  1. if an extension was needed, it communicated the timescale to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
3. if the resident requested a stage 2 response, it should provide the final response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
  1. if an extension was needed, it explains this to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. if it needs a longer extension, both parties should agree it.
The landlord’s policy at the time of the complaint was aligned with the Code.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 12 December 2023 about the emergency boiler repair, leaks in the property, and their request to be rehoused. The landlord had until 19 December 2023 to acknowledge it. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 December 2023, in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
The landlord had until 28 December 2023 to provide its stage 1 response. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 December 2023, in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 28 December 2023 did not answer the resident’s complaint about a leak in the property. This was not in line with 5.6 of the Code, to address all points raised in the complaint.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 28 December 2023, where they confirmed they are unhappy with the delay installing the boiler. The landlord had until 26 January 2024 to provide its final response.
The resident raised a further complaint on 5 January 2024 about leaks in the property. The landlord provided a further stage 1 response about this on 19 January 2024. Although this issue was raised previously by the resident and should not have been treated as a new complaint.
The landlord then sent a further stage 1 response to the resident on 26 January 2024 about the boiler, which prolonged the complaints process.
The landlord was already on notice to send the resident its final response following the resident’s complaint escalation on 28 December 2023. Although the landlord instead sent further stage 1 responses. This caused confusion and prolonged the complaints process.
The landlord had until 26 January 2024 to send its final response to the resident. It sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 1 March 2024. This is not in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
The landlord had apologised for the delay responding to the resident and for the confusion, frustration and inconvenience caused by sending different stage 1 responses. But this does not fully recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident due to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In summary, we find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, because it:
1. provided additional stages within the complaint process.
2. delayed the complaint process.
3. had not addressed all points of the complaint.
4. had provided poor communication throughout the complaint process.
After careful consideration and in line with our remedy guidance, a fair level of compensation would be £200. This recognises the distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about a report of a leak in the property is outside of our jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the request to be rehoused is outside of our jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was ‘reasonable redress’ in the landlord’s handling of the request to repair and replace the boiler. It offered reasonable redress to the resident prior to the investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved this complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of this determination, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures outlined in this report and write to the resident to explain how it will prevent these failures happening again.
2. complete a property inspection and write to the resident with a copy of the inspection form and action plan. This action plan should:
  1. include reasonable timescales to remedy outstanding repairs.
  2. set out and explain how the landlord will monitor repairs through to completion.
  3. explain how the landlord will assess the effectiveness of the repairs, once these have been completed.
3. pay the resident a total of £800, broken down as follows:
  1. £600 offered in the landlord’s final response for the delay handling the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs, if it has not already paid this to the resident.
  2. £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord should provide this Service evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of this determination.

Recommendations

Our determination of reasonable redress for the repair and replacement of the boiler, is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £600 is paid to the resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.
It is recommended that the landlord should consider an additional offer of redress to the resident for any further delays since the internal complaint procedure completed on 1 March 2024.