Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Newham (202301675)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301675

London Borough of Newham

29 January 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about staff and contractor conduct during refurbishment works to the property, and a gas safety incident.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The resident lives with his wife and 4 young children. He has advised that there are household vulnerabilities including asthma. He has mobility issues and his wife was pregnant.
  2. The resident’s complaint relates to his experience during a property refurbishment programme that began on 20 February 2023.
  3. The resident raised various concerns with the project officer for the works via email on 27 and 28 February 2023. In summary:
    1. He was unhappy with the lack of communication and consideration shown by contractors working at his property. He asked that he was notified in advance when works were due to take place, that it did not complete work at weekends, and that contractors left facilities – such as the toilet and sink -in working order, and the property in a clean and tidy condition, before they left.
    2. He was dissatisfied that contractors had not adhered to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and had been negligent; they had blocked access routes with hazardous items, left nails and hazardous items on the floor, they had not cleaned up after completing work, and they had attended without identification and did not confirm their names, which made them difficult to identify. He added that some workers had been disrespectful, damaged his property and blamed him for the damage, made jokes about his family, and wanted to push his wife to get through a door. He had also seen workers via his CCTV, but no one would tell him their names. He urged the landlord to take action to address the issues and ensure they did not exhibit the same behaviour in future. He also withdrew his agreement for the contractors to touch his belongings as he did not want to risk further damage.
    3. He asked for the details of the contracted company completing the refurbishment works so that he could report a gas safety issue to the appropriate authorities. He had tried to raise this issue directly with one of the contractors but not had a response.
  4. The project officer arranged to visit the resident at the property on 1 March 2023 to discuss his complaints. Its records indicate it attended with a member of a local community organisation.
  5. On 6 March 2023, the resident submitted a complaint via a webform. In summary:
    1. He wanted to raise a complaint about the landlord’s staff member (project officer) and contractors. He was unhappy with the level of service from them from 20 February 2023. He said the officer had accepted there were faults with the property but failed to rectify the situation. He alleged that they had threatened to rip out the work done on each property because of his complaint.
    2. He had also reported a different contractor who reconnected his gas cooker without being qualified to do so, which resulted in a gas leak and a different operative attending to resolve the issue. He had asked for the company details to report them to the gas safety regulator but they ignored him. The same contractor had fitted his toilet incorrectly. He added that the contractor had also sexually assaulted his wife on 28 February 2023 by intruding on her personal space and intentionally brushing against her twice. He reported this to the project officer, who refused to acknowledge the complaint. He felt the project officer disregarded his concerns and acted negligently.
    3. He asked the landlord to investigate the officer and contractor’s actions. He requested that it completed the renovation work to a high standard. He also asked that the landlord cease work with the current contractor and employed a different one to finish the works pending a thorough investigation into the contractor’s actions.
  6. The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 28 June 2023 and, in summary, explained the following:
    1. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the installation of the kitchen as it completed the kitchen installation within a 10-working day period as set out in its Kitchen Renewal Policy. It added that the contractor was fully aware that they needed to clean all areas before they left the property, and it apologised if this did not happen. It had asked the contractor to reiterate this to employees.
    2. In accordance with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, Regulation 2 (1), anyone who was not Gas Safe Registered could temporarily disconnect a cooker through a self-sealing bayonet fitting. When reinstating a gas cooker, a gas registered engineer needed to test and reconnect the appliance. Its contracted company for the refurbishment works confirmed that the person who reconnected the resident’s gas cooker was a gas safety registered engineer. This was in line with the Gas Safety Act 1998 and the contractor dd not do anything untoward. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint as there was no gas leak found.
    3. In relation to the resident’s allegation that an operative had assaulted his wife on 28 February 2023, it confirmed that the project officer had attended on 29 February 2023 to discuss this. The resident explained that he wanted the contracted company to leave the site and for a new contractor to complete the outstanding work. The project officer confirmed that they would need to re-tender the contract for the work which could take time, and the resident allowed the existing company to continue work until 10 March 2023.
    4. It said it would always advise residents to contact the police for serious allegations of this nature as it could not investigate matters that the police had responsibility for, including allegations of theft or sexual harassment. It confirmed that it, and its contractors, had taken the allegations seriously and would take disciplinary action where this was necessary. It had passed his allegations to 2 staff members to investigate on 13 March 2023.
    5. On 21 March 2023, the resident confirmed that the contractors had left site and asked when it would complete the outstanding work to the bathroom. The outstanding work was to install the new sink, bath panel and flooring. It noted that on 10 May 2023, the resident had reported that the contractors exposed wires in the bathroom and a leak. At this time, the work had ceased due to the serious allegations made against the contractors.
    6. It found the allegations to be unsubstantiated. It could not comment on the contractor conduct as this was an alleged assault which fell outside of its corporate complaints policy. It confirmed that it had re-tendered the outstanding repairs and it was awaiting quotations from other contractors. Once approved, it would arrange to complete the work to the bathroom. It noted that the contractor ensured there was running water and a functioning bathroom before leaving the property.
    7. It acknowledged the resident had said some of his belongings were damaged or mislaid during the works. The project officer confirmed that the resident had not reported this during the works. It provided an incident insurance form for the resident to complete as it was unable to complete this on his behalf. It did not uphold this element as it dealt with insurance outside of its complaints policy.
    8. It acknowledged that it had not responded to the stage 2 complaint within its policy timescales and offered £50 compensation. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused by the identified service failures. It confirmed that the response was a stage 2 complaint response at the final stage of its complaints process, and he could approach this Service if he remained dissatisfied. 
  7. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He specified that the project officer had not acted to rectify faults in the property, had threatened to rip out work due to his complaint, had not acted against the contractor, and had not acknowledged the complaint of sexual assault. He asked for a thorough investigation into the project officer’s actions and conduct, and that the landlord takes appropriate action against them. He added concerns about a person from a third party organisation attending his property with the project officer without his prior knowledge, the impact of unsafe living conditions on his family’s health, medical conditions, and wellbeing, that he did not have access to his belongings (which the landlord had placed in storage during the works), and expressed that he wanted to move from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Staff conduct

  1. As part of his complaint, the resident said he wanted the landlord to take appropriate action against the staff members he had complained about. The Ombudsman does not assess how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of staff in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues.
  2. If the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated Orders and Recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual. We are unable to order a landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members. Nonetheless, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s allegations.

Matters that did not form part of the complaint

  1. In his communication with this Service, the resident raised concerns about a third-party organisation attending his property with the landlord without his prior knowledge, the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs and return of his belongings from storage. He also raised concern that the contractors did not complete the kitchen in line with the blueprint. These matters did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord.
  2. The resident also raised a separate complaint with the landlord regarding a fire alarm repair, outstanding repairs to the property (linked to this case) and a lack of response. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 12 September 2023 but the complaint was not progressed through the landlord’s complaints process. 
  3. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure as the landlord needs the opportunity to formally respond. This investigation focuses on the complaint made in February and March 2023 and the landlord’s final complaint response on 28 June 2023.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property and installations for supplying water, gas, electricity and sanitation. The landlord has referred to a kitchen renewal policy in its complaint response but has not provided this to the Ombudsman. The landlord’s repairs policy states that when attending a resident’s home, contractors would:
    1. Treat the resident and their home with respect and be polite and courteous.
    2. Carry a corporate identity card, or, where nominated sub-contractors are undertaking works on its behalf, carry an identity card which they will provide before entering the home.
    3. Explain the nature of the work, how it will be carried out and explain the safety issues involved.
    4. Work tidily, using clean dust sheets on all occasions, and clear away all rubbish and materials at the end of each working day.
  2. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy stated that it should provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. If the resident did not agree with the stage 1 response, they could escalate the complaint to stage 2, and the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and provide a new response timescale.
  3. The policy further states that there are subjects that the landlord is unable to investigate through its complaints policy. This includes complaints that involve matters that the police would usually investigate and matters involving insurance claims. It specifies that if a complaint is about the conduct of a staff member, an appropriate service manager with authority to make decisions on potential actions in relation to the employee would investigate. It notes that it may be appropriate to give relevant assurances depending on circumstances, but it would not communicate any identifying details or actions taken in relation to an employee.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about staff and contractor conduct during refurbishment works to the property, and a gas safety incident.

  1. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to his reports regarding staff and contractor behaviour. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the behaviours occurred or not, but to assess whether the landlord adequately investigated the matter, and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place, that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures, or that it acted appropriately.
  3. In this case, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint, its investigations into his concerns about the planned works, and its investigations into his staff conduct concerns. The landlord provided limited information which did not include an audit trail of what happened over the course of the refurbishment, logs of what it discussed during visits to the property, or documentary evidence detailing its investigations into the resident’s concerns. While the investigation has reached a determination based on the information to hand, the omissions are concerning in that the landlord was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.

Refurbishment works

  1. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the kitchen renewal works and found that that the kitchen was completed within 10 working days as per its Kitchen Renewal Policy. In its communication with the Ombudsman in June 2024, the landlord said that it was in the process of developing a planned works/improvement policy, indicating that there was no policy to confirm how the landlord should manage improvement works at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord has not provided a Kitchen Renewal Policy to the Ombudsman, or a timeline of the works. As such, it remains unclear as to how it established that it acted in line with this policy.
  2. In his complaint, the resident raised concerns about contractor behaviour. Specifically, he wanted to know in advance when contractors would work, with start and finish times and the details of the expected duration of the work. While refurbishment works are likely to cause an understandable level of disruption and inconvenience, his comments and complaint indicate that the landlord did not provide this information to him. The Ombudsman has seen limited evidence related to the works prior to the resident’s complaint and the landlord has not demonstrated that it gave the resident clear information about the work or duration. This was likely to have caused additional inconvenience to him and his family.
  3. It is evident that the works were not fully completed due to the resident’s request that the contractor ceased work in the property and that the landlord hired a new contractor. It acted reasonably by agreeing to this at the resident’s request and explained that it would need to re-tender the work to a different contractor which could take time. It is noted that the delay in returning to complete works (and the condition of the property) formed part of the resident’s separate complaint and will not be addressed as part of this investigation.

Staff conduct – contractors

  1. The resident also raised concerns that the contractors were not adhering to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, that they blocked access to entry and exit points with hazardous materials, left a mess such as nails on the floor, did not clean the property before leaving for the day, did not wear identity badges, uniform or confirm their names, were disrespectful, damaged property, and laughed at his family. He also alleged that one of the workers attempted to push his wife, and another was illegal and avoiding HMRC.
  2. In its response, the landlord apologised if the contractors had not cleaned before they left the property and said it had asked the contractor’s director to reiterate expectations to the employees. While it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise if this were the case and remind the contractor of their responsibilities, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed the other matters raised.
  3. In addition, while it said that the project officer had visited the resident, and its internal communication refers to visits, there is no clear contemporaneous evidence to show what happened on each visit and what the agreed actions were. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out how it had attempted to put things right and addressed his reports at the time. Its complaint response reiterated what the resident had said, but provided little analysis of what happened or how it investigated his concerns. This was likely to make the resident feel that the matter was unresolved.

Gas Leak

  1. In his complaint, the resident raised concern that a contractor had connected the gas cooker without being qualified to do so. He maintained that this had caused a gas leak resulting in the same operative reattending, confirming the gas leak, and getting a different operative (who was gas certified) to repair and reconnect it. The landlord did not uphold this aspect of the complaint as no gas leak was found, and its contractors confirmed that the person that tested and reconnected the cooker was a gas safety registered engineer. It concluded that the contractors did not do anything untoward or put the resident’s family at risk.
  2. The landlord has provided very limited records in relation to its investigations into this matter. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to what date the incident occurred. In its communication with this Service, it has said it had no reports of a gas leak at the time, and since speaking to the sub-contractor, it established that the smell of gas was due to the disconnection that took place as part of the kitchen refurbishment. The landlord’s internal records indicate that it was not present when the cooker was reconnected.
  3. Given the allegations made by the resident, and that the landlord was not present, the Ombudsman would have expected to see clear documentary evidence that the landlord had investigated the matter with the contractor to gain their statements of the events that occurred. While the landlord has reiterated comments from the contractor’s director, it has not provided supporting documentary evidence or an audit trail of its investigation or communication.
  4. The landlord’s response stated that a gas safe engineer tested and reconnected the cooker. However, it did very little to explain its understanding of the incident, or the resident’s concern that a different operative who was not a gas safety engineer had reconnected the cooker in the first instance, and a different gas registered engineer then resolved the issue. This was likely to make the resident feel that the landlord had not fully investigated the matter.

Allegations of sexual assault

  1. In his complaint on 6 March 2023, the resident outlined that a contractor had acted inappropriately toward his wife on 28 February 2023 by brushing up against her while she was using the kitchen. The landlord was made aware of the allegation on 1 March 2023 when visiting the property. It said that the resident informed it that he wanted the contracted company to cease work and for a new contractor to be assigned. It then confirmed the re-tendering process and explained that this could take time. It said that the resident allowed the work to continue until 10 March 2023.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord, in its complaint response, to advise that matters involving sexual assault were best suited for the police to investigate as criminal matters, as neither the landlord or the Ombudsman have the authority to determine whether sexual assault occurred. However, the landlord would also be expected to investigate the matter internally and take steps to remove the person from the resident’s environment until this was resolved.
  3. In his complaint, the resident raised specific concern that the project officer had ignored the complaint of sexual assault. The landlord said it and the contracted company had taken the matter seriously. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out actions it had taken following the report on 1 March 2023 within its complaint response to demonstrate it had sought to support him following the allegation.
  4. In his communication with this Service following the complaint, the resident said that he wanted the individual contractor to leave the property and not the entire team. He added that the project officer had suggested that the contract continued until the kitchen and bathroom were complete and he felt he had no choice but to agree. He noted that the situation caused confusion and stress and that he was unhappy that the landlord allowed the same contractor to remain working in the property following the allegations.
  5. The landlord’s internal communication suggests that, during the conversation on 1 March 2023, it was agreed that the contractor would remove themselves from the room the resident’s wife wanted to use so that she would not feel uncomfortable with a male presence, and the agreement was communicated to the contractor and the contractor’s director. It is evident that the landlord believed this had resolved the matter at the time which is why the operative continued working in the property until 10 March 2023.
  6. The resident did not have the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s version of events due to errors in its complaint handling as set out below. However, it is imperative that landlords ensure they keep clear records of communications so that there is an audit trail of what it has agreed with residents at various stages. This is particularly the case where serious allegations are made.
  7. In its response, the landlord should have confirmed its understanding of how it had considered the report and not ignored it as the resident had alleged. It should also have explained why it believed it was suitable or necessary for the accused contractor to continue working in the property until 10 March 2023 given the serious allegations made.

Staff conduct – landlord employee

  1. In his complaint on 6 March 2023, the resident raised concerns and allegations about the employee he had been in communication with regarding the works and complaints. He made specific allegations that the employee had threatened to rip out the works as a result of his complaint, had refused to acknowledge the allegation of sexual assault and had treated his complaints with disregard and negligence. He requested that appropriate action was taken against them.
  2. Given this complaint, it is of concern that the staff member remained a point of contact for the resident and subsequently asked to visit the property in an email on 14 April 2023 (to determine the remaining works to complete). It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously by either assigning a different staff member where possible, arranging for another person to attend alongside the staff member where needed, or providing clear information to the resident as to why the staff member would continue to be responsible for the works despite the complaint.
  3. The landlord’s complaint response did not adequately address the concerns raised about the individual employee and failed to provide any clarity or reassurance about its investigation process. As set out in its complaint policy, complaints about the conduct of a staff member should be investigated by an appropriate service manager. While the landlord cannot share the outcome of any investigation in terms of any disciplinary matters (as this would relate to terms of employment), its policy specifies that it may be appropriate to give relevant assurances depending on circumstances. There is a lack of evidence to show it did so.
  4. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s allegations (without compromising confidentiality) by commenting on whether it had found any wrong-doing by its staff member, explaining any miscommunications, and apologising if there was evidence that something inappropriate was said.
  5. The landlord failed to comment on why it believed the actions taken were reasonable or appropriate. Instead, it confirmed that the same employee would contact the resident about the outstanding works once a new contractor had been appointed. This was likely to cause inconvenience and distress to the resident as it remained unclear as to whether the landlord had investigated his allegations appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. It is evident that there were significant delays and errors in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident labelled his communications with the landlord on 27 February 2023 as complaints. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered his communication under its formal complaints process. While the landlord confirmed that it would visit to discuss the complaints and find a resolution on 1 March 2023, there is a lack of evidence to confirm the outcome of the visit, any agreed actions, or that the resident believed the matter was resolved.
  2. The resident raised another complaint via the landlord’s online webform on 6 March 2023. The landlord initially acknowledged the complaint on 8 March 2023 and confirmed it would provide a stage 1 complaint response by 20 March 2023. The landlord provided a complaint response on 28 June 2023 that was labelled stage 1, but also stated that it was a final response at stage 2 of its complaints process. Within the response, it apologised for not responding to the stage 2 complaint in line with its policy timescales and offered £50 compensation.
  3. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out requirements for member landlords) specified that a landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of 2 stages. Landlords were expected to only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it completed a stage 1 investigation, and at the request of the resident. In this case, the landlord failed to act in line with its complaints process or offer any explanation as to why it failed to issue 2 complaint responses at different stages in line with its policy.
  4. By only issuing a single complaint response, the landlord did not allow sufficient opportunity for the resident to respond to its position, challenge comments that it had made, or raise any concerns that it had overlooked. The review process allows the landlord to reconsider its position, learn from outcomes, and ensure it considers both sides of the complaint. As set out above, the landlord’s response to the complaint lacked clarity regarding its decisions or empathy. In this case, a review of the initial complaint response may have allowed it to have addressed concerns to which it had not responded while the matter was ongoing.
  5. There was a significant delay in providing a complaint response to the resident between the initial acknowledgement on 8 March 2023, and the response on 28 June 2023. While the landlord said it had explained that its response would be delayed on 21 March 2023, it has not provided evidence to confirm this or that it adequately updated the resident, which was likely to cause inconvenience.
  6. It is evident that the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing the complaint through the support of this Service as a result. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 10 May 2023 and asked it to respond to his complaint by 1 June 2023. The landlord then extended this deadline via email to the resident on 1 June 2023, 2 June 2023, 8 June 2023, and 27 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged that it had not issued its response within its response timescales and offered £50 compensation. This offer was disproportionately low given the extent of the delay.

Summary

  1. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about staff and contractor conduct during refurbishment works to the property, and a gas safety incident. The landlord failed to provide evidence that it had adequately addressed each aspect of the complaint or investigated the specific concerns raised. While it may have taken steps to address the resident’s concerns, it failed to explain its actions and its response lacked empathy.
  2. It acknowledged a delay in providing a complaint response but its offer of £50 compensation did not adequately put right the 4 month delay in addressing the complaint or its failure to follow its complaints process or the Ombudsman’s Code. The landlord’s overall offer of compensation is not sufficient in view of the impact on the resident as a result of its failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint about staff and contractor conduct during refurbishment works to the property, and a gas safety incident.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the identified failings.
    2. Pay the resident £250 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of his complaint. This is in addition to its offer of £50 if this has not yet been paid.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within the timescales.