From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Newham (202421004)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421004

London Borough of Newham

12 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s wet room repairs, including shower screen, damp and mould, and flooring.
    2. The resident’s reports of the conduct of contractors when carrying out the repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The tenancy started in 2009.
  2. The resident has reported to the landlord that she has disabilities including limited mobility, sight impairment, and hearing impairment.
  3. The resident raised a report with the landlord on 2 January 2023 regarding damage to the shower screens in her property. The landlord raised works with a target completion by 1 February 2023.
  4. The resident followed up her report to the landlord over the course of January 2023. She was informed during a call to the landlord on 30 January 2023 that the work had been scheduled for 28 April 2023.
  5. The repair works took place on 9 March 2023. The resident said that the screens installed by the contractor were the wrong size and asked for them to be replaced with screens that matched the size of the original set.
  6. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 15 March 2023. She said there were errors in the repair work and that the behaviour of the contractors who attended the property was unacceptable.
  7. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 24 April 2023. It apologised for delays in its response and partially upheld the complaint. It asked for access to the property to complete an inspection of the repair works. It offered £50 compensation for delays in the complaint handling process.
  8. The resident responded the same day to ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She said this was due to the delay in the stage 1 response and being unhappy with the response from the landlord.
  9. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 4 May 2023. It apologised for the time taken to investigate the complaint. It said that new shower screens had been installed on 26 April 2023 and that the resident was satisfied with them. It said there was no damp and mould in the property when it inspected on 27 April 2023. It said there was need to renew the wet room floor and repair tiles. It said it would organise a date for these works with the resident and that she would be decanted from the property for 3 days during repairs.
  10. The landlord offered £200 compensation, made up of £100 for inconvenience caused by the repair of the shower screen and £100 for inconvenience caused by the damaged flooring.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 6 May 2023. She was unhappy with the landlord’s responses to the issues raised.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience issues with her wet room. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint and the landlord’s responses. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required.
  2. At various points in her contact with the landlord, the resident mentioned that she felt she was being unfairly treated as a person with a disability. We cannot make a legal finding of discrimination. The courts are best placed to assess whether this occurred. If the resident believes the landlord has unlawfully discriminated or harassed her, she can seek legal advice about this. We will instead consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and how it responded to her concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs

  1. The landlord’s housing repairs policy says that requests for routine repairs will be responded to within 20 working days by its repairs and maintenance service. It says it will offer appointments at a date and time convenient to the resident and that pre and post inspections may be required. It says the quality of work is managed through inspections.
  2. The policy also says it will identify and record any special needs and/or vulnerabilities which need to be taken into consideration when delivering the repairs service.
  3. The resident raised a report via email on 2 January 2023 asking for her shower screens to be replaced as they had been damaged. She noted in her report that she was a disabled tenant.
  4. The landlord’s repair log shows that the work was raised on 4 January 2023 with a target date of 1 February 2023, but was closed on that log the same day. There was no explanation provided for this. There is no evidence that the resident was informed of the closure. The resident did not receive reassurance from the landlord that her report was being progressed which caused distress and confusion.
  5. The resident confirmed in an email to the landlord that she was informed of a proposed date for the completion of the repair work after calling the landlord directly on 30 January 2023. The target date given was 28 April 2023. The resident said that she was not told about this date prior to the telephone call. The landlord failed to respond to a request for repair within 20 days as its policy says it will. The landlord should have responded sooner and given the resident a choice of a convenient date and time for the appointment.
  6. The landlord inspected the property on 1 February 2023 and confirmed the works were scheduled for 26 April 2023. The work was actually completed on 9 March 2023. The resident raised immediate concerns about the new shower screens, saying that they were smaller and designed differently. This was considered a health and safety concern by the landlord due to the risk of a fall. The landlord attended the property the next day to remove the screens. It also put additional works to the floor of the wet room on hold. The landlord showed a responsible approach to the resident’s needs as it considered the risks caused by the incorrect screens.
  7. The resident requested a like-for-like replacement of her original screens. The landlord acknowledged this request but noted the significant cost difference between the original screens and the replacements it had offered. The landlord had a responsibility to consider the balance between a cost effective solution and the needs of the resident in its decision making. It was reasonable to look for a more affordable alternative shower screen. It should have explained clearly to the resident before starting any work why it was providing a different model to the original screens. This would have given the resident an opportunity to explain her specific needs, to ensure the alternatives were appropriate.
  8. In its compensation policy, the landlord states that it will consider time and trouble caused to resident’s when following up issues. It also says that the loss of amenities will be considered based on the significance of their impact. The policy gives the example of ‘difficulties in washing, etc. due to lack of required adaptations’ as a loss of amenity.
  9. The resident made the stage 1 complaint on 15 March 2023. She said the screens were the wrong size and that the floor was not fixed but temporarily sealed. She said that unnecessary holes were drilled into the tiles and many had been left damaged. As a result, she was unable to use her wet room while works remained incomplete and was travelling to a friend’s home to shower. Delays in the completion of the repair works meant that the resident was inconvenienced by not having access to her wet room.
  10. The landlord took steps to organise a post-works inspection in order to provide a response to the complaint. It attempted an inspection on 18 April 2023 but the resident asked the inspector to leave as they were not aware of the complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2023, the landlord made further requests for a post-works inspection.
  11. Following contact with the resident, the landlord organised installation of new shower screens on 26 April 2024. The works were inspected the following day.
  12. In its stage 2 complaint response on 4 May 2023, the landlord said that the resident had confirmed she was happy with the newly installed shower screens. It said that it had inspected for damp and mould and there was none present. Finally, it said that the floor remained incomplete and that the resident would be contacted to organise a date for the works to be completed. It said the resident would be decanted to accommodate this. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by delays.
  13. The landlord acknowledged this inconvenience in its complaint response and offered compensation of £200. This was broken down into £100 for inconvenience caused by both the shower screens and the floor separately. The sum offered was not proportionate in the circumstances. It considered the time and trouble caused over the 3 months that the repairs remained incomplete. However, it did not account for the resident’s loss of amenity during this time and the significance of the impact on the resident’s disabilities. The resident mentioned feeling distress at having to wash with baby wipes and travelling to a friend’s house to wash.
  14. In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the repairs in the property but could have gone further. Delays between the initial report of damage and the final repairs to the screens and floor meant that there was an extended period that the resident went without proper use of her wet room. The resident was put to time and trouble by having to chase the landlord for updates and poor communication will have impacted the resident landlord relationship.
  15. In addition, the landlord should have considered the significance of the impact of the delays on the resident as a disabled person, in line with its repairs policy. There has been no evidence provided of extra steps taken to support the resident despite her vulnerabilities. For these reasons, a finding of maladministration has been made.
  16. In considering compensation, an amount of £400 inclusive of the amount already offered is reasonable for the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident. This includes £200 for the resident’s loss of amenity during the period of disrepair which was 4 months. This amount has considered the landlord’s remedies guidance on loss of amenities. The total amount has been considered with the Ombudsman remedies guidance in mind.
  17. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord also offered an apology and £50 additional compensation for delays in its stage 1 complaint handling. It learned from this failing, responding throughout the remainder of the complaints process in a timely and appropriate way. This was an appropriate response to the delay in complaint handling.

The landlord’s handling of reports of contractor’s conduct

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the expected behaviours of staff conducting repairs in a property. These include treating the resident and their home with respect, identifying themselves appropriately, working tidily and incorporating vulnerability considerations into the way they work. In its complaints policy, it says any stage 1 complaints received about contractors working on its behalf will either be led by the commissioning manager or the contractor themselves, depending on the contract in place.
  2. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said that the contractors who visited her property were argumentative, causing her distress. She said they used resources from her home without permission and that she overheard them talking about the price of the repairs on the communal intercom, which she found unprofessional.
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged her concerns, apologised, and said it was passing them on to the contractors directly to be dealt with internally. This was a reasonable response in line with its complaints policy. However, it could have gone further.
  4. The landlord could have asked for more details about the behaviours and should have acknowledged these as a failing of the standards expected in their repairs policy. Since it passed the concerns on in line with its policy, it could have given the resident more information about how to pursue her complaint through the contractors internal complaints procedures or considered doing so on her behalf and providing her with an outcome.
  5. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident raised concerns about the conduct of the contractors again. The landlord did not consider this in its stage 2 response. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to investigate this issue at stage 2 as the resident did not consider the matter closed. It should have taken further steps to offer reassurance to the resident and to pursue the progress of any internal complaint investigation being conducted by the contractor.
  6. In summary, while an acknowledgment and apology was an appropriate response, more could have been done to offer reassurance to the resident who was put through uncertainty and frustration as a result. For these reasons, a finding of service failure has been made.
  7. In considering compensation, an amount of £100 is reasonable for the inconvenience experienced by the resident. This amount has been considered with the Ombudsman remedies guidance in mind and is in line with the landlord’s definition of delay and distress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has found maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the wet room repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has found service failure for the landlord’s handling of reports about the behaviour of its contractors.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay compensation to the resident of £500 inclusive of the amounts already offered. This is made up of:
      1. £200 already offered for inconvenience caused by delays in repair of the shower screens and flooring.
      2. £200 for the resident’s loss of amenity during the period of disrepair.
      3. £100 for distress caused by its handling of the complaint about its contractor’s behaviour.
    3. Provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the above orders.
       

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays £50 compensation already offered for delays in its complaint handling process if it has not already done so.