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

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202300813)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300813

Tower Hamlets Homes

19 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:
    1. The handling of the resident’s insurance claim, including his reports of damage to his decorations and flooring.
    2. The resident’s concerns regarding the amount he was offered to settle the insurance claim.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaints shown above fall outside of our jurisdiction as follows:
    1. In accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme, the handling of the resident’s insurance claim, including his reports of damage to his decorations and flooring is outside of our jurisdiction.
    2. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the resident’s concerns regarding the amount he was offered to settle the insurance claim is outside of our jurisdiction.

 

 

Summary of events

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the property, which is a 1-bedroom flat in a block, since 5 September 2022. Prior to this, he was a secure tenant of the property. The landlord has advised that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The landlord is a local authority and has an Insurance team that assesses public liability insurance claims made against the Council. The landlord has advised us that the team handles claims without the involvement of an insurer or underwriter, apart from in the case of large claims.
  3. The resident completed an insurance claim form on 15 April 2021 in relation to reported damage caused by water penetration to his property. The form stated that the decorations, flooring, furniture and other items had been damaged. The Insurance team wrote to the resident on 15 June 2021 to acknowledge receipt of the claim form.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 September 2021 and attached receipts for items he reported had been damaged. He confirmed that the landlord had removed the mould in the property. The resident wrote to the Insurance team on 18 October 2021 and said he wanted to make a formal complaint about poor customer service and a lack of response to his email.
  5. The Council’s records state that the Insurance team made an interim offer of £1,945 on 1 December 2021, followed by an increased offer of £2,200 on 18 January 2022 to recognise the delays experienced by the resident. The Council’s notes state that both of these offers were made as goodwill gestures and that it had not admitted liability.
  6. The resident wrote to the Insurance team on 1 February 2022 and said he was dissatisfied with the outcomes and the information he had received. He referred to his email dated 18 October 2021 and requested a stage 1 reply from the Council. He listed various reasons for his dissatisfaction, including:
    1. Very poor customer service.
    2. Misinterpretation of his statement.
    3. Treating his claim unfairly and neglecting it.
    4. Delay to the settlement offer.
    5. He requested a breakdown of the Council’s claim settlement offer.
  7. The Council’s Insurance team sent a stage 1 reply to the resident on 10 February 2022 in which it:
    1. Apologised for the service the resident had received.
    2. Stated that the resident’s complaint dated 18 October 2021 had been logged on its claims system.
    3. The resident’s claim had been reviewed by a senior claims handler and its settlement offer was considered to be fair as it took the delays into account.
    4. Explained how it had calculated the settlement offer and advised the resident to seek legal advice if he was unhappy with the offer.
  8. The Council’s records state that on 4 April 2022 the resident formally accepted its interim settlement offer. However, the resident wrote to the Council’s Insurance team on 17 May 2022 and said he was dissatisfied with the outcomes and the information provided to him. He asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
  9. The Council sent its stage 2 reply on 16 June 2022 in which it stated the following:
    1. It confirmed that the resident’s claim had been reviewed by a senior claims officer and as a result it had made a settlement offer of £2,200.
    2. It once again said the resident could seek legal advice if he was unhappy with the settlement.
  10. The resident replied on the same day (16 June 2022) and said he was dissatisfied with the outcomes. The Insurance team then wrote to him on 17 June 2022 and said the following:
    1. It had concluded its investigations and had found no negligence on the Council’s part. It therefore repudiated the resident’s claim and was unable to assist the resident financially.
    2. It would be happy to look into the resident’s claim regarding the damaged flooring if he could provide evidence that the damage/loss had occurred.
    3. It explained the reasons for the delay in concluding the claim.
  11. The resident contacted us on 6 April 2023 and said he wanted to make a complaint about the following:
    1. The Council’s staff had failed to follow its policy during the process of dealing with the claim and his complaint.
    2. The Council had not responded to his questions about the decorations and locks.
    3. None of the outstanding works had been carried out, despite the Insurance team advising him that the landlord would carry out the work.
    4. The Council had referred him to the wrong Ombudsman service.
    5. The Council’s staff had refused to speak to him over the phone.
  12. The resident confirmed to us on 9 May 2025 that he was dissatisfied with the handling of his insurance claim and with the amount of the settlement offered.

Reasons

The handling of the resident’s insurance claim, including his reports of damage to his decorations and flooring

  1. Paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…concern matters in respect of local housing authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease”.
  2. The resident’s complaint was about the handling of his insurance claim. The claim was handled by the Council’s Insurance team, which assesses public liability insurance claims relating to all services provided by the Council. We therefore consider the handling of the resident’s insurance claim (including the settlement offer made to him) to have been carried out as part of the Council’s wider local authority duties, rather than as part of its social housing management function. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 41.d. we have not investigated the handling of the resident’s insurance claim, including his reports of damage to his decorations and flooring.
  3. The resident could approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) as they can look at complaints about most council services (apart from matters relating to their responsibilities as social landlords). Therefore, they may be able to investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The resident’s concerns regarding the amount he was offered to settle the insurance claim

  1. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
  2. The resident wrote to the Council’s Insurance team on 17 May 2022 and said he was dissatisfied with the outcome (of the stage 1 complaint). He also confirmed to us on 9 May 2025 that he was dissatisfied with the amount of the settlement offered to him.
  3. We are unable to comment on the outcome of an insurance claim as we do not have the power to issue binding decisions about liability or negligence. The courts have the power to issue binding decisions about such matters. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.f. we have not investigated the resident’s concerns regarding the amount he was offered to settle the insurance claim.
  4. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue the matter through the courts.