London Borough of Newham (202232963)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232963

London Borough of Newham

20 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 the:
1. resident’s reports of repairs
2. associated complaint
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s Knowledge and Information management (KIM).

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a Local Authority. She lives in a 3-bedroom house with her partner and children.
In August 2021 the resident reported several repairs to the landlord. These repairs were reported again in September 2021. On 27 April 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about repairs that remained outstanding and missed appointments. These repairs were for:
1. a back door
2. the kitchen mixer taps
3. the back fence
4. the front garden wall
5. electrical issues within the bathroom and hallway.
On 10 May 2023, the resident referred her complaint to us, and we contacted the landlord requesting a stage 2 complaint response be sent. The landlord acknowledged this on 15 June 2023 and issued its response on 8 September 2023. The landlord said it:
1. upheld the resident’s complaint
2. had cancelled the jobs raised in August and September 2021 as it was agreed a surveyor would attend to assess works that were needed
3. had failed to arrange the survey for the resident, but there were no missed appointment records
4. inspected the resident’s back door on 9 December 2021 and mixer taps on 16 March 2022 – it found that new taps were needed and follow on work was booked
5. could not establish what happened following these inspections
6. conducted a joint inspection with its contractor on 28 April 2022 and remedial works started on 29 June 2022 – these were completed on 28 July 2022.
7. did not receive any further contact after 28 July 2022 about the repairs until it was contacted by the Service on 10 May 2023
8. installed a new boiler on 11 May 2023
9. conducted a post inspection on 13 July 2023 and found further repairs which were started on 24 July 2023 – these were completed on 1 August 2023
10. was not aware of any reports of damaged flooring, but if this was the case the resident should let them know
11. would replace a step ladder that had been taken by its contractors
12. would offer compensation totalling £650 broken down as:
  1. £200 for not responding to the stage 2 complaint within its policy timeframes
  2. £150 for not following up repairs reported in August and September 2021
  3. £150 for the time taken to complete the back door repair reported in December 2021
  4. £100 for the delay in carrying out repairs raised
  5. £50 for the delay in repairing the kitchen tap reported in December 2021.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 1 December 2023 after receiving the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. She challenged some of the details in the complaint response saying that they were incorrect. As a remedy, she wanted an independent surveyor to conduct a survey to outline all outstanding repairs. For the landlord to arrange the repairs following the survey and once completed, arrange a post inspection.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The landlord has provided a link to its current repairs policy which says:
1. routine repairs are ones that are not urgent, but may cause inconvenience to the resident – it will respond within 20 working days to these repairs
2. planned repairs are ones which are do not need to be conducted straight away, but are needed for the long term good of the property – it will respond within 42 working days to these repairs
3. in such cases where an inspection is needed, it will usually take place within 7 days.
The resident first contacted the landlord about 8 different repairs on 10 August 2021. Six repairs were booked for 25 August 2021, with the other 2 booked for 5 October 2021. These repairs were booked within the timescales set out in its policy which was reasonable.
The landlord did not attend any of the repairs booked for 25 August 2021, this led to the resident contacting the landlord on 20 September 2021 to chase the outstanding jobs. The landlord’s failure to attend the appointments booked by the resident was unreasonable and caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
The resident listed 7 repairs that remained outstanding on 20 September. She asked the landlord to check its system and confirm that the repairs would take place.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it contacted the resident on 22 September 2021 to discuss and arrange a visit. The resident said she was feeling unwell, so the repairs were cancelled with the agreement that a survey for the outstanding work would be arranged when her health improved. However, it did not follow this up and no survey was arranged.
Although the landlord has not provided evidence of its contact with the resident, she does not dispute that this happened. While its contact was timely, its failure to fulfil promised actions was unreasonable. This resulted in an undue delay in addressing the resident’s repairs, causing her distress and inconvenience.
On 27 April 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord that listed the outstanding repairs and asked for the work to be completed quickly. Following this, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to conduct a joint inspection with its contractor on 28 April 2022. This survey recommended the installation of a new kitchen and bathroom, along with remedial work in the hallway, lounge, front and back bedrooms, and electrical system. The landlord arranged the survey within its 7-day policy timeframe and started the work 41 working days after the survey. This was consistent with its timescale for planned work and was reasonable. The evidence shows that the work was completed on 28 July 2022, with the resident signing a ‘sign-off’ sheet to confirm she was happy with the works.
Despite the evidence supporting works were finished in July 2022, the resident has provided text messages to show that she was in contact with the contractor after this date about outstanding repairs to her doors and windows. It is difficult to assess what happened between July 2022 and March 2023, as the landlord has provided no records for this period. However, based on the evidence we are satisfied some repairs remained outstanding. Considering the complaint was about outstanding repairs, it is a concern that this indicates a lack of oversight and management of the resident’s case by the landlord. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
The resident contacted the Service in March 2023 as she had not received a response to her complaint. On 10 May 2023, we contacted the landlord to ask that it investigate the resident complaint about outstanding repairs and issue a stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord conducted an internal investigation and on 13 July 2023, carried out a new inspection. This survey found new repairs and confirmed some repairs remained outstanding, such as repairs to the back fence and back door. The landlord’s decision to conduct a new inspection was reasonable as this enabled it to identify the outstanding repairs. However, the time taken to complete this inspection was unreasonable and exceeded its policy timeframe which says inspections should be completed within 7 days. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The new repair work began on 24 July 2023, which was within the landlord’s 20 working day timescale for routine repairs. The landlord said that it completed the work on 1 August 2023. However, the landlord has been unable to provide any records to show what work was completed, when it was completed, or any post inspections were conducted.
The resident disputes that all work was completed on 1 August 2023 and has told us that several repairs remain outstanding. Such as repairs to her back door, blown windows and painting to the kitchen, bathroom and hallway. Due to the lack of records, it is not clear what repairs were completed and what actions the landlord took to ensure that there were no outstanding issues. The landlord’s limited records in relation to the repairs provides little confidence that it managed the repairs effectively. It is a concern that the landlord has not provided more detailed records or shown proactive management of the repairs.
While we recognise that various contractors attended the property, the landlord’s records do not explain what works were done, whether it tracked the progress of the repairs, or whether anyone had responsibility to ensure all repairs were followed through to completion. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, which aids the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate records show the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of a property to enable outstanding repairs to be monitored. In this case, there has been a significant failure in the landlord’s record keeping which has had an adverse impact on the overall service provided to the resident.
To summarise, the time taken to arrange an inspection after the first report of repairs was unreasonable. There was a failure to follow through with actions that the landlord had promised, and there has been a failure to effectively manage the resident’s repair case. Therefore, we consider that this amounts to maladministration.
The Ombudsman considered whether the landlord’s offer of £450 for the service failures related to repairs was reasonable redress. This figure was broken down as:
1. £150 for not following up repairs reported in August and September 2021
2. £150 for the time taken to complete the back door repair reported in December 2021
3. £100 for the delay in carrying out repairs raised
4. £50 for the delay in repairing the kitchen tap reported in December 2021.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that for low to moderate impacts it would make payments of between £50 to £150. While we recognise that the figures above fall within the categories set out in the landlord’s compensation policy, we do not consider these amounts fully recognise the impact to the resident.
The resident does not consider the issue to be resolved and has told us that there are repairs outstanding. The original repair report was made on 10 August 2021, and the landlord has been unable to show that all repairs were completed due to a lack of records. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been maladministration that has had a significant impact on the resident a payment of between £600 to £1,000 is appropriate. Therefore, in addition to the £450 already offered, the landlord should make a further payment of £450. This would bring the total amount to £900 which would suitably recognise the impact to the resident because of its failings.
In addition to the above, in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it said that it would replace a step ladder that had been taken by its contractors. There is no evidence to show that this was done. The resident has confirmed to us that no replacement was provided and that she replaced this herself at a cost of £60.30. As such, the landlord is ordered to reimburse this cost to the resident.
As part of the remedy to this complaint the resident said she could not use her bedroom for a period of time due to an outstanding repair, she used her own money to buy fence panels for the back garden, and that her flooring had not been replaced as agreed with the landlord. She also said that the landlord had not explained its policy for missed appointments as she was told that she should receive £20 for every missed appointment.
We have looked at whether a remedy should be paid for her use of the bedroom. However, there is limited evidence that supports the residents view that the bedroom was unusable or that she had told the landlord this was a repair that was outstanding.
Regarding the fence panels, as the landlord considered that this repair was completed, and this is disputed by the resident it would not be fair to ask the landlord to reimburse the resident at this time. As part of the orders made, we will ask the landlord to consider the request to reimburse the fence panels in conjunction with a new inspection.
The resident has told us that the landlord said it would replace her flooring, however, there is no evidence that this was ever agreed. Conversely, the landlord has said that the resident told them that no dust sheets would be required as she would be replacing her own flooring when it completed the work. In this case, as we have 2 differing versions of events, we would not ask the landlord to replace the resident’s flooring. We will ask the landlord to contact the resident to discuss this issue and write to her with a clear explanation of its decision.
Finally, in terms of missed appointments the repairs policy and information that we have seen does not say that there is a ‘minimum payment’ for any missed repairs. Instead, if it is found as part of a complaint that the landlord failed in its service it would consider compensation in line with its own policies and procedures.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will:
1. respond at stage 1 of its process within 10 working days
2. respond at stage 2 of its process within 20 working days.
3. if the deadlines need to be extended it will communicate this to the resident
The resident raised her complaint via email on 27 April 2022. This complaint was not acknowledged or responded to which was unreasonable and caused the resident some inconvenience.
The resident referred her complaint to this service in March 2023 as no complaint response had been received. On 10 May 2023, we wrote to the landlord and asked that a stage 2 complaint response by sent to the resident.
Following receipt of our communication, the landlord issued an acknowledgment, 6 updates, and its stage 2 complaint response to an incorrect email address. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of care in managing the resident’s complaint. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience as she had to chase us for updates to her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 8 September 2023. This was 80 working days after it acknowledged receipt of the complaint.
The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time said that “exceptionally” a landlord could provide an explanation for it exceeding the 20-working day timeframe, but that this should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days was needed, both parties should agree this.
In this instance, the landlord did not follow the guidance set out in the Code. Even if the landlord had used the correct email address, it did not provide a clear explanation as to why it needed to extend the timescale for its response. The landlord did not agree any extension with the resident beyond 10 working days. The time taken to issue its stage 2 complaint response was unreasonable, did not meet its policy timescales and did not follow the Code’s guidance. This caused the resident some significant distress and inconvenience.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord included some inaccurate information that further frustrated the resident. It said:
1. on 10 August 2021 when reporting the original repairs, the resident did not provide her contact details
2. the delay in completing work in July 2022 was due to the property not being cleared of belongings for the contractors.
However, we have seen evidence provided by the resident that shows contact information was provided to the landlord in August 2021, and that she was liaising with the contractors offering to move belongings for them throughout July 2022. These inaccuracies caused the resident some added distress.
Based on all the circumstances of this complaint, we consider this to be maladministration.
As part of its reply to the resident the landlord offered her £200 compensation for the time taken in providing the stage 2 complaint response. This was a fair amount for the 80 working day delay and followed its compensation policy for moderate impact. This also aligns with our remedies guidance which says that where there has been an impact which does not have a permanent effect on the overall service provided to the resident a payment of between £100 to £600 is appropriate.
However, this does not consider the failure to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaint dated 27 April 2022, or its failure to correctly communicate with the resident during its stage 2 process. As such, we do not consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to amount to reasonable redress. For these added failures, the landlord should make a payment of £300 in addition to the £200 it has already offered. This is a fair amount that fully recognises the impact to the resident.

Knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 spotlight report on KIM confirms that good record keeping is vital to an organisations ability to provide effective and robust services for its residents. Without good KIM, a landlord will find it far more difficult to deliver its core social purpose efficiently and effectively, providing value for money as a modern, forward-looking organisation.
Our investigation into this complaint has been hindered by a lack of evidence and detailed reports that the landlord has not provided. Specifically, we are missing the following:
1. comprehensive records of calls and emails between the resident and the landlord
2. complete records of repairs, including detailed information on all completed work and the specific tasks performed
3. inspection reports and/or records for all visits completed.
The lack of documentation raises concerns about the diligence and effectiveness of the repair work. Missing reports, detailed repair records, and correspondence have likely hindered the ability to resolve the repairs. These omissions highlight issues with the landlord’s transparency and thoroughness in record-keeping. Such practices are unreasonable.
In addition to this, the landlord showed poor information management during its complaint handling which caused an impact to the resident. As set out already in this report, it sent updates and the original complaint response to an incorrect email address. This further highlights the landlord’s poor KIM. Considering all the circumstances of the case, this amounts to maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents:
1. reports of repairs
2. associated complaint
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. write an apology to the resident for the failures found in this report, and issue a copy to the Service
2. pay the resident compensation of £1,460.30 (inclusive of the £650 already offered by the landlord), broken down as:
  1. £900 for the impact to the resident in its handling of repairs (inclusive of the £450 offered at stage 2 of its complaint process)
  2. £500 for the impact to the resident in its complaint handling (inclusive of the £200 offered at stage 2 of its complaint process)
  3. £60.30 to reimburse her for the cost of a step ladder.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. arrange an inspection of the resident’s property to assess all outstanding internal and external repairs
2. send a copy of the completed inspection report to the resident and the Service
3. send a schedule of works to the resident and the Service which details what repairs will be carried out and the dates of each appointment
4. contact the resident to discuss reimbursement of the cost of the fence panels and the damage to her flooring – following the discussion, the landlord should write to the resident with a clear explanation and reasons for its decision, and send a copy of this to the Service

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider whether it should review its practices on knowledge and information management. Specifically, its record keeping for repairs and communication to enable it to provide a robust account of its actions in future.