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

London Borough of Sutton (202220388)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220388

London Borough of Sutton

25 April 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 resident’s request for repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which is a local authority. The property is managed by an arms-length management organisation. The tenancy commenced on 3 February 2020. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident has authorised a representative to act on her behalf. For the purposes of this report the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident.’
  3. During May 2021 the resident exchanged ‘whatsapp’ messages with the landlord about 2 redundant electric boxes which needed to be removed following works at the property.
  4. During August 2021 the landlord visited the property. The resident asked to add the front door to the outstanding repairs which was agreed by the landlord. On 20 August 2021 the resident messaged the landlord to chase the works.
  5. On 18 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint. She advised the 2 boxes still needed to be removed and that the front door remained difficult to open.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 July 2022, the main points being:
    1. The resident requested the repair to the boxes on 20 May 2021 and to the front door on 5 August 2021.
    2. It had visited the property and the issues were subsequently passed to repairs to action. It apologised that they had not been completed.
    3. It said the member of staff no longer worked for the landlord so it could not investigate why the works were not booked in. 
    4. It contacted the resident on 29 June 2022 and offered to book a new appointment that fitted around her availability to rectify the mistake. It asked her to confirm when it could attend.
    5. If the resident remained dissatisfied she should raise her concerns within 28 days of the date of the letter.
  7. On 14 July 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s property. It removed the electrical boxes and said it would return to make good the walls. It also advised that the problem with the door was caused by the draught excluder.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord, also on 14 July 2022, to request to delay the follow on appointment because she was unable to take any more time off work. The appointment was arranged for 23 September 2022 at the resident’s request. Works to make good the walls were carried out however, the issue with the door was ongoing.
  9. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 4 November 2022, the reasons were:
    1. Poor customer service.
    2. Poor workmanship.
    3. Poor internal communication between the landlord and its contractors.
    4. Not adhering to agreed timescales.
    5. Contractors not arriving with all the correct materials to complete the work.
    6. Having to take additional time off to facilitate further appointments.
    7. Requesting compensation of £350 for days taken off work and inconvenience.
  10. On 13 January 2023 a repair was raised for the front door. The resident was having difficulty opening it from the inside and the keys were getting lodged in the lock.
  11. In an email to the landlord dated 1 July 2023 the resident expressed concern that the walls had not been painted correctly because the grey undercoat was showing through. On 10 July the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the grey was only a mist coat and that she was responsible for redecoration.
  12. Following intervention from us the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 November 2023, as follows:
    1. It upheld the complaint.
    2. Works were not completed to a “satisfactory standard” and items identified as snagging remained incomplete.
    3. Incorrect information had been provided to the complaints team which resulted in an incorrect response being provided.
    4. The request to escalate to stage 2 was not accepted based on information provided by its repairs team in conjunction with the delay between the stage 1 response and escalation request. This was its error for which it apologised.
    5. It spoke to the resident who felt a visit was not necessary and that there were no outstanding works. However, she asked that it speak to her representative.
    6. When it spoke to the representative it became “clear” that snagging works were incomplete. The resident declined a visit and said there were no outstanding repairs because of “poor” customer service she had previously received.
    7. The previous manager had advised works were complete when they were not. It failed to attend in line with agreed dates and times.
    8. It apologised for its failures which had caused distress and inconvenience.
    9. It had listened to the resident’s feedback. It would amend its letters and policy to clearly indicate that if there was a specific reason why a resident needed more than 28 days to request to escalate to stage 2 it would consider accepting it.
    10. It understood the resident’s concerns about allowing access to its contractors to complete snagging. It said it would carry out works around her needs including attending at weekends to complete works.
    11. It would attend the property on completion of works to ensure they were signed off to their “mutual satisfaction.” It expected works to be completed by 18 December 2023 to allow time for agreed appointments with the resident and ensure works were completed.
    12. It offered £150 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.

 

Events post internal complaints process.

  1. The resident wrote to us on 21 November 2023 to say she did not accept the landlord’s offer to attend at weekends or its offer of compensation. The complaint became one we could investigate on 23 May 2023.
  2. In an email to us dated 16 April 2025 the resident confirmed that the door was “finally resolved” after multiple appointments. It is unclear when the works took place.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Guide states that:
    1. It aims to carry out routine repairs within 20 working days.
    2. The resident is responsible for decorating the inside of the property.
  2. Its Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure (complaints policy) says that:
    1. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days.
    2. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement and to stage 2 complaints within 21 working days.
    3. If resident’s wish to escalate their stage 1 complaint they must do so within 28 days of the date of the response.
    4. It reserves the right not to agree to a request for a stage 2 review. 
  3. Its Discretionary Compensation, Goodwill and Reimbursement Policy (compensation policy) says it will consider paying discretionary compensation when there are delays to failures to repair or other failure of service.

Scope of the investigation.

  1. The substantive issues raised by the resident at stage 1 related to the electric boxes and front door. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 16 November 2024 refers to “works”. In an email to us dated 14 April 2025 the landlord advised that this referred to a faulty extractor fan.
  2. The evidence provided by the landlord shows the fan was not reported as an issue until 30 March 2023. This was 4 months after the resident raised her escalation request therefore it could not have formed part of her stage 2 complaint. In an email to us dated 16 April 2025 the resident confirmed this to be the case and that her complaint related to the original issues raised at stage 1.
  3. This investigation has therefore not considered the landlord’s response to additional repairs as part of the substantive issue. However, it has been considered during the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.

The complaint is about the resident’s request for repairs.

  1. On 19 May 2021 the resident messaged the landlord to report that 2 electrical boxes needed to be removed. One was previously connected to an old heater and located inside the bathroom. The other was outside the bathroom. The landlord replied on the same day to say it would consult its electrician. Further messages were exchanged on 20 May 2021 regarding a telephone appointment to discuss the matter. The outcome of the communication is unclear.
  2. There were no further events until 4 August 2021 when the landlord messaged the resident to arrange to attend the following day. It is unclear why there was a delay of 2 months and it was therefore unreasonable. The resident messaged the landlord on 5 August 2021 to ask to add the front door to the list of repairs. She said it was hard to open particularly for her son. The landlord replied on the same day to agree to do so.
  3. The resident messaged the landlord on 20 August 2021 to chase the repair. It replied on 23 August 2021 and said it would chase. There was no further communication from the landlord which was inappropriate causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s inaction caused time and trouble to the resident who made a stage 1 complaint on 28 June 2022 to try to resolve the substantive issue.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 1 July 2022 asked the resident to confirm when she was available for it to attend and complete the repair. We have not been provided with ‘live’ evidence, such as a file note, of subsequent communication which is a record keeping failure.
  6. However, on 14 July 2022 the resident emailed her representative to advise that the electrician attended at 11.30a.m. that day to check the wire inside the boxes. He confirmed they were live and made sure they were no longer live from the fuse box. He did not remove them as he was not sure where they came from. Later that same day the boxes were removed by a different contractor and the hole filled. The contractor advised that 2 half days would need to be booked to make good.
  7. It is unclear why 2 half days were required as opposed to 1 full day which would have reduced inconvenience to the resident. This is a record keeping failure.
  8. The contractor also inspected the front door and concluded that it was the draught excluder that was causing the issue although they did mention that it should be a door with a handle. There is no evidence that further works were carried out to remedy the problem.
  9. The resident provided a chronology to the landlord on 4 November 2022 in support of her complaint. In it she confirmed that she spoke to the landlord on 14 July 2022. She delayed the return appointment until she was able to take annual leave. She asked to rebook the appointment to 23 September 2022. During the call she confirmed that she needed to be able to do the school runs at 9.00a.m. and 2.55p.m.
  10. In the same chronology the resident confirmed that the contractor attended on 23 September 2022. The operative advised that he was unaware of the need to carry out works around the school run. They said they would not be able to complete works by 2.55p.m. as they had to buy supplies including paint. He offered to send 2 contractors on another day which was arranged for 26 September as the resident was off work that day.
  11. That the landlord had not communicated the times to the contractor was a failure, causing distress to the resident. However it is noted that it had always intended to carry out the works over 2 half days therefore, the 2 attendances on 23 and 26 September were in line with the action plan it had communicated to the resident.
  12. During the visit on 23 September 2022 the contractor discussed adding a handle to the front door lower down however, this would not help with the opening of the door from the inside.
  13. The resident’s chronology confirms that the contractors attended on 26 September 2022 to carry out works. However, the front door was still “stiff” and the resident remained concerned that it may inhibit escape in the event of a fire. It is unclear what discussions took place regarding the door including whether the resident requested further works or whether the landlord committed to carrying any out. This is a record keeping failure.
  14. The repair logs show that a works order for the front door was raised on 13 January 2023. However, there is no evidence setting out the landlord’s response which is a record keeping failure.
  15. On 1 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to express concern that the walls had not been painted to an adequate standard. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response. This caused time and trouble to the resident who emailed again on 10 July 2023 to make the same point. The landlord’s response sent on the same day was in line with its Repairs Guide.
  16. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 16 November 2023 acknowledged that it had failed to attend the resident’s property at agreed times for which appropriately it apologised.
  17. It took the landlord over 13 months to remove the 2 electric boxes. 17 months after it had been put on notice about the front door the repair remained outstanding. The landlord’s response was significantly outside of its 28 day response time. Furthermore, the resident made repeated efforts to contact the landlord to resolve the substantive issues.
  18. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 28 June 2022. The landlord responded appropriately by acknowledging the complaint on 29 June 2022 and providing its response on 1 July 2022.
  2. The landlord upheld the stage 1 complaint. However, it failed to consider how it could put things right in line with its compensation policy which was inappropriate.
  3. On 4 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The reasons were based on its response to the repairs to the front door and electric boxes.
  4. On 8 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it would not investigate the complaint. This was because the escalation request was not made within 28 days of the date of the stage 1 response. This was in line with its complaints policy.
  5. In an email to us on 19 November 2022 the resident asked for assistance to resolve her complaint. She said she was only able to raise a further complaint once the appointments to carry out the work had taken place. The appointment could not take place until circumstances allowed.
  6. The landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy. However, following correspondence from us the landlord agreed to provide a stage 2 complaint response. 
  7. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords stage 2 responses must be written in clear, plain language. They should also set out the complaint definition. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 November 2023. However, as set out above it failed to describe what works it considered as part of its complaint investigation. This was inappropriate because the resident could not be sure that it had investigated the 2 key substantive issues raised as part of her complaint.
  8. The Complaint Resolution Policy on the landlord’s website dated August 2023 states that resident’s must escalate their complaint to stage 2 within 28 days. It is concerning that it has not made the changes it promised in its stage 2 complaint response which was issued 17 months ago. This has been addressed in the orders below.
  9. There was maladministration because the failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents request for repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £450 compensation comprised of:
      1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request for repairs.  The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.
      2. £100 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the determination the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has changed its Complaint Resolution Policy and template letters in line with its stage 2 complaint response. Evidence should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.