London Borough of Hounslow (202410799)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410799

London Borough of Hounslow

25 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:
1. Adaptation of the property, including lack of communication and delays to the works.
2. Storage of the resident’s possessions, including her request for reimbursement of removal costs.
3. The resident’s reports of damage to her crockery and glassware.
4. The resident’s request to be decanted during the works.
5. Repairs to the driveway, front and rear gardens, and drainage system.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a council. The resident’s daughter is disabled, and the landlord has recorded this. The resident also has a medical condition, but the landlord has not recorded this.
On 24 May 2023 the Ombudsman issued a report regarding a complaint the resident asked this Service to investigate. In case 202214239 we determined that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of adaptations required to the property. In compliance with the Ombudsman’s orders, the landlord wrote to the resident on 21 June 2023 to apologise, and said the adaptations work “will commence on Monday 18 September 2023”. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she did not receive any further communication from the landlord, and so on 12 September 2023 she made a stage 1 complaint, which was about works not having started on 4 September 2023. The landlord and the resident exchanged emails between 12 and 21 September 2023, when it told her it had appointed contractors.
The contractors secured the site on 10 October 2023, and started work on 16 October 2023. However, on 1 November 2023 the resident tried to contact the landlord as the contractors had not been on site for 3 days. The resident has told the Ombudsman that on 6 November 2023 the landlord told her it planned to store her possessions in a shipping container to be placed on her driveway. She said this was not what had previously been agreed. She called it the same day and asked to escalate her complaint as it had not provided a response. It emailed her on 8 November 2023 to acknowledge her complaint and apologised that it had initially logged it as a service request.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that works restarted on 16 November 2023, but that her possessions were still in the property and the contractors did not take any precautions to protect them. She said the shipping container was delivered on 20 November 2023, but it was not suitable, and the landlord agreed to reimburse her if she found alternative storage. It called and emailed her on 30 November 2023 to apologise it had missed its complaint response deadline, and to introduce a new project manager for the works. After a site visit on 6 December 2023, the landlord sent the resident a revised schedule of works 2 days later. It provided its stage 1 response that day, in which it:
1. Apologised for initially treating the complaint as a service request, and for not responding.
2. Confirmed it had sent the resident a letter with a start date for the works of 18 September 2023, but that it had missed this date. It apologised for the delay.
3. Explained the contractors had left site due to delays in the landlord paying them, which had caused an additional 2-week delay. It apologised and said it had put in place measures to prevent future delays in payments.
4. Upheld the complaint and apologised.
5. Set out target dates for works and said all should be completed by 31 January 2024.
6. Offered £300 compensation for its delays in completing the works.
On 12 December 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord had taken too long to respond at stage 1. She also said it had not contacted her before missing the works start date or explained why it had been missed. She said its communication remained poor and it had not informed her when the issues with the contractors’ payment happened, or about decisions regarding the works. She said she did not feel properly consulted on the works. She explained that due to the delays her family holiday plans would be disrupted at financial loss to her. She also said her kitchen cupboard had fallen and broke her crockery and glasses, as the contractors had moved it around multiple times. The landlord acknowledged escalation the following day.
Between 14 December 2023 and 4 January 2024 the resident and the landlord exchanged emails about reimbursing her, as she had arranged her own removals and return of possessions. She also told this Service that when retrieving possessions from the shipping container a number of glass items were broken. She said works started on 8 January 2024, following the Christmas break, and she was told the contractor needed to decorate the whole ground floor at the same time. The landlord sent her a new schedule of works with dates on 11 January 2024. She reported an attempted break in on 14 January 2024 and chased it again for her reimbursement on 17 January 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 January 2024, in which it:
1. Explained “public sector procurement regulations” and legal documentation caused the delayed start to the works. It also accepted it did not pay the contractors which caused further delays.
2. Said an unexpected issue with a sub-floor caused additional work, however, it had completed works “in advance of the original programme”.
3. Confirmed it would consider any additional holiday expenses she had incurred if she provided confirmation.
4. Said the resident had agreed to use of a shipping container for storage on 6 November 2023. It then agreed for her to source her own storage.
5. Explained it had tried to minimise disruption during the works and had provided kitchen facilities. It said it was not able to determine what caused her cupboard to fall.
6. Confirmed the resident had agreed the ground floor layout in November 2022 and provided a copy which she had signed.
7. Did not uphold the complaint, as it had continued to keep her informed of progress and had completed works within its timeframe.
8. Increased its stage 1 offer to £400 compensation for inconvenience.
The landlord reimbursed the resident for her storage and removal costs on 24 January 2024. It completed a ‘snagging’ or finishing repairs list on 31 January 2024, but she emailed it on 12 February 2024 and said she had not been given a finish date for the works. The contractor issued a certificate of practical completion of the works on 25 March 2024. However, the landlord completed a further snagging list on 15 April 2024, and the resident made her own list on 27 June 2024. She chased the landlord in September 2024 about snagging, and it exchanged emails with her in November 2024 to arrange a date for final snagging works.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that at the date of this report the works are still not completed. She disputes that she signed off the works plan to agree it, but instead to acknowledge that she had seen it. She said she asked the landlord multiple questions during the meeting in 2022 but did not receive any answers. She explained she was not kept updated with day to day works plans, and did not know what was happening one day to the next. She was not offered any choice and said the contractors left the property insecure many times, did not use dust sheets or protect her possessions or makeshift kitchen space. She said the contractors dragged cupboards about which caused one to collapse. She explained that she did not sleep during the period, and that the overall experience caused her significant stress.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering its decisions. However, some matters fall outside of what the Ombudsman can make a determination on.
The resident did not include within her stage 1 complaint, or escalation request to the landlord, a complaint about its handling of her request to be decanted during the works. She also did not make a complaint to the landlord about repairs to the driveway, front and rear gardens, or drainage system at that time. Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, these complaint elements are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of adaptation of the property, including lack of communication and delays to the works

The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it does not have an aids and adaptations major works policy. It does include information on its website about adaptations, although this Service cannot say whether this information was the same at the time of the complaint. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord’s actions were, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances, under paragraph 43 of the Scheme.
The landlord’s website says if a resident requires adaptations, its Occupational Therapist and a surveyor will work together to plan the work and specifications and will share these with the resident. It will also give the resident choices about tiles, paint colours and kitchen units. It says it will write to the resident with the name of its contractors, who will contact the resident to agree a start date. The website says during the works its contractors will cover floors and furniture where works are taking place.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 June 2023 and said it would start works on 18 September 2023. It did not say it may, or would try to, or aimed to, start works on that date, but that it would. The landlord failed to start works on that date. It did not contact her between June 2023 and the stage 1 complaint, to provide any updates or information, which was a further failing. It told her it had appointed contractors on 21 September 2023, but there is no evidence it, or the contractors, agreed a start date with her. Although she had signed a plan for the works in 2022, the landlord did not provide her with a specification, or more information on the works which would be taking place to the property, until December 2023.
The works were extensive and included the entire ground floor of her home, plus building an extension, and it would have been reasonable to have provided detailed information to the resident prior to starting the works. The resident was not kept updated about what works would take place day to day.
Within it stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the delayed start to the works but failed to explain the reason or why it had not communicated with the resident. At stage 2 it said the delay was due to procurement rules and legal paperwork. Even if this was the case, the landlord should have kept the resident updated about the delays and provided a new anticipated start date. It also failed to explain why it had not done so within its stage 2 response.
After works commenced the contractors withdrew from the property for 2 weeks due to a dispute with the landlord over payment. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident about this, provide any reassurances or keep her updated. Within its stage 1 response it said the issue was due to having not paid the contractor, which was in itself a failing, as it would have been accustomed to paying contractors. However, it correctly apologised for the delays and offered £400 compensation at stage 2 for inconvenience. But it said it did not uphold the stage 2 complaint. It explained that despite an unforeseen setback, it had completed works within its timeframe. It is difficult to understand how the landlord did this, as it was still undertaking works in January 2024, and was still fixing snagging issues 10 months later.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly said it would consider the resident’s financial loss due to having to change her and her son’s holiday plans. It asked the resident to provide evidence but there is no evidence that she did. She has told the Ombudsman she did not know this but has the evidence of her financial loss.
The evidence shows that the resident had to endure substantial upheaval, and inconvenience for the duration of the works. While this might be expected with major works, the landlord’s lack of and poor quality communication meant she had to use considerable effort to gain updates and information, and to point out when things had not gone as expected. Within its stage 2 response it said it had kept her updated on progress, but this is not supported by the evidence.
Additionally, as the resident’s daughter is disabled, the landlord was under a duty to consider how the works, and delays, would have affected her. The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy sets out its duties. As the landlord is a public body it has additional obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It must have due regard to its obligations to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations, and how its decisions may impact a person with a protected characteristic, such as disability.
The Ombudsman cannot make decisions on whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010 like a court can. However, there is no evidence the landlord had due regard in relation to the delayed works, or its handling of the works, in this case considering the adaptations were to support the resident’s daughter to live more independently. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it did not complete a risk assessment, or Equality Impact Assessment, before starting the works.
Equally, there is no evidence the landlord had due regard to the resident’s right to her home, private and family life, as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The resident and her family had to live in the property while extensive works were carried out, without clear information or an end date. In the circumstances, it would have been helpful and more reasonable for the landlord to have carefully considered offering the resident and her family a ‘decant’ or temporary move for the duration of the works.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, as well as our own guidance on remedies. There was severe maladministration due to delays, poor communication, and failing to properly consider the impact on the resident, her daughter, and the rest of her family. To reflect the significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation to the resident. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of storage of the resident’s possessions, including her request for reimbursement of removal costs

The landlord has not provided a policy on removal or storage of resident’s possessions but has a section within its decant policy. This says where a temporary decant is required, for example due to major works, the landlord will arrange collection, storage at a secure place offsite, and return of, the resident’s possessions and pay for this. Although the resident was not decanted, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have followed this approach. It accepted the resident’s possessions needed to be removed and stored to allow for the major works.
There is dispute between the landlord and the resident about storage. The resident said the landlord had initially agreed to remove and store her possessions, but then on 6 November 2023 decided to use a shipping container. It says the resident agreed to this, which she disputes. It is not clear why the landlord had not arranged storage, in which ever form, prior to the start of destructive works on 16 October 2023, and this was a failing. It is also not clear why the landlord considered a shipping container to be suitable storage, which was not in line with its policy.
When the container arrived, it was understandable that the resident did not want to use it. She explained it smelt damp, had signs inside warning of damp, and was dirty. The landlord has not disputed this or that it agreed to her finding her own storage. Due to her legitimate concerns about preventing damage to her possessions, she found what storage space and removals she could at short notice. Within its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it had agreed to this, but it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delays in it reimbursing the resident. While the landlord had to abide by its regulations regarding how it made payments, who to, and the documentation it needed, its communication was poor. The resident had to chase it multiple times and explain the financial hardship she was placed in due to its delays in payment.
The resident had also told this Service that items which she had to leave in the shipping container were damaged, and her furniture was damaged either during the initial destructive works, or during being moved. While the Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damage like a court can, it is reasonable to suggest that damage may not have occurred had the landlord had a clear and suitable removal and storage plan from the start.
There was maladministration. The landlord was aware of the full extent of the major works, which involved the whole ground floor. These works were initially destructive in nature, including removal of a wall, kitchen, and impacted the other rooms. However, it failed to have a clear plan for removals and storage in place before the works began. When its later shipping container plan was not suitable, it did correctly agree to the resident finding an alternative solution, but delayed in repayment and its communication was poor. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her crockery and glassware

Within her escalation request, the resident said that a kitchen cupboard had fallen, and her crockery and glassware inside had broken. Within its stage 2 response the landlord said it was not able to determine what had caused this, and that it had occurred when its contractors were not at the property.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that during the works the contractors moved 2 kitchen cupboards to different locations to supply a kitchen provision. She said the cupboards were supported by plastic legs and that the contractors had “dragged them around”.
The Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damage like a court can and cannot say how or why the cupboard fell but we can consider the landlord’s response. The resident said the landlord, or the contractors, inspected but no information has been provided to this Service. The landlord should have said how it would ensure a safe and stable kitchen provision going forwards but there is no evidence it did. Therefore, there was service failure. To reflect the inconvenience caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £50 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

When the resident made her stage 1 complaint on 12 September 2023 she used the landlord’s online complaints form. It was a clear expression of dissatisfaction about its failure to provide a service and do what it said it would do. This was its definition of a complaint under its complaints policy in use at the time. The landlord failed to record or acknowledge the complaint, in breach of paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. When she asked to escalate on 6 November 2023, it then correctly acknowledged the complaint.
The landlord apologised to the resident when it missed its response deadline, but failed to request an extension of time, as permitted under its policy and the Code. It provided its stage 1 response 63 working days after she made her complaint, and 22 working days after it acknowledged it. This was in breach of its 15 working day response timeframe under its policy. This was also a breach of paragraph 5.1 of the Code which allowed for 10 working days to respond. (Positively the landlord updated its complaints policy in 2024.) Within its stage 1 response the landlord correctly accepted its failings. However, it failed to offer any remedy or say how it would try to prevent such failings in future.
When the resident requested escalation on 12 December 2023 the landlord promptly acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. It provided its response after 25 working days, in breach of its policy and paragraph 5.18 of the Code, which both allowed for 20 working days. It failed to acknowledge, apologise for, or offer a remedy for this within its stage 2 response.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, which caused further frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of adaptation of the property, including lack of communication and delays to the works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of storage of the resident’s possessions, including her request for reimbursement of removal costs.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her crockery and glassware.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the following complaint elements are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be decanted during the works.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the driveway, front and rear gardens, and drainage system.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failings detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £1,550 compensation made up of:
  1. £1,000 for the significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the works.
  2. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling storage of the resident’s possessions.
  3. £50 for the inconvenience caused by its failings in handling reports of damage to crockery and glassware.
  4. £100 for the further frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. Ask the resident to provide proof of, and reimburse her for, the additional costs she had to pay to rearrange and/or cancel her holiday arrangements, providing she can provide proof.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a case review and provide a copy of its review report to this Service. The review is to include but not be limited to:
1. Consideration of creating a policy on how it will carry out major adaptation works. If it decides it should create one, it is to set out its next steps in doing so. If it decides not to create one, it should clearly explain why.
2. Its handling of preparations for the works including its decision not to offer a decant, and its arrangements (or lack of) for removal and storage of the resident’s possessions prior to starting the works.
3. Its delay in providing detailed plans or schedules of work to the resident.
4. Its lack of communication around delays and the works to be completed day-to day.
5. Its difficulties in payment of its contractor.
The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service by the stated deadlines.