From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202419479)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419479

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

27 August 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 the repair to an extractor fan.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the council. The tenancy started on 16 September 2019. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor.
  2. The resident reported a faulty extractor fan on 17 May 2023 and 12 June 2023. The landlord recorded on 12 June 2023 a new window was required followed by an electrician to fit the extractor fan. The landlord’s records also noted on 4 August 2023 the glass was not ready.
  3. The resident complained on 9 February 2024 that the landlord had failed to attend the appointment made for that day. The resident said:
    1. He had taken time off work to be available for the appointment. This was the second time its contractor had not attended an appointment.
    2. The last time he received £30 in vouchers.
    3. His preferred outcome was to be compensated for his time and to be told when the works would be completed.
    4. The lack of ventilation in the bathroom meant each time the shower was used, the smoke alarm activated due to the amount of steam generated.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 23 February 2024. The landlord:
    1. Agreed an appointment had been arranged for 9 February 2024 to fit a new double-glazed window to the bathroom.
    2. Said its subcontractor had not attended the appointment as the resident had not confirmed the appointment.
    3. Apologised for any miscommunication regarding the appointment.
    4. Recognised if its subcontractor had not received confirmation of the appointment, the resident should have been contacted to arrange an alternative appointment.
    5. Offered £30 in vouchers for the missed appointment.
    6. Explained it does not compensate or reimburse for any loss of earnings. It offers flexible appointment times to resident including evening and weekends.
    7. Said the double-glazed window was installed on 20 February 2024. An inspection had been arranged for 29 February 2024 before the purchase of the extractor fan.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 23 February 2024. The resident:
    1. Disputed he had been asked to confirm the appointment.
    2. Said the installation had been ongoing since January 2023.
    3. Advised the subcontractor had arrived without making an appointment to replace the window.
    4. Said he had experienced 2 missed appointments over the previous 6 months.
  6. The landlord’s records show on 1 March 2024 the landlord had to order the window kit and the extractor fan was installed on 18 April 2024.
  7. The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 6 August 2024. The landlord:
    1. Confirmed it could not offer compensation for loss of earnings but could consider payments for distress and inconvenience.
    2. Repeated appointments should be confirmed in advance. If appointments could not be kept, an alternative date should be agreed.
    3. Said the double-glazed unit was installed on 20 February 2024. Followed by a post inspection on 29 February 2024 for the installation of the extractor fan.
    4. Advised the installation of the fan was delayed until 18 April 2024 as its supplier did not have the necessary materials.
    5. Apologised for the delay, time and trouble experienced by the resident.
    6. Said monthly service improvement meetings were held to improve its service delivery. It had also implemented closer monitoring of works orders to get repair completion within its timescales.
    7. Apologised for the delays in providing its complaint responses and acknowledged the frustration caused.
    8. Advised it had increased its complaints resources to get better monitoring and responses to complaints.
    9. Offered redress of £250. This was broken down as £150 for the missed appointments and £100 for complaint handling delays.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the repair to the extractor fan

  1.  Landlords have an obligation to maintain the home to a reasonable standard and respond to reports of repairs in a reasonable time frame. The landlord’s repair policy covers all responsive repairs including mechanical and electrical works. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord is obliged to keep the extractor fan in working order. The landlord received reports in May 2023 and June 2023 the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working. The landlord assessed a new double-glazed window was required. 2 months later in August 2023, the window had not been installed and the situation had not progressed. The landlord’s records do not give any further information. Repair logs are a vital source of intelligence for landlords, to give a clear activity plan of what has been achieved. When these are not complete, this can lead to delays and frustrations for the resident as in this case.
  3. There is a gap in the landlord’s records between August 2023 to February 2024. The landlord has not provided records to show what happened to progress the installation of the extractor fan. This is not reasonable as the landlord is expected to monitor progress and have accessible records of appointments, works orders and completion dates.
  4. The resident told us in August 2023, he had an operation and the following month, September 2023 his child was born. The resident also said he did not chase the landlord as he had relied on it to complete the repair. We have no reason to doubt the resident’s account. The resident also said during this period a repair appointment was missed but he cannot recall the date of the appointment. For this he received £30 in vouchers. The landlord’s records do not record this appointment. This is not reasonable as it should record all repair appointments and the outcome so it has a history of the works carried out to the property
  5. The landlord remained responsible for ensuring its contractor acted in line with its repairs policy and any specific contractual arrangements. When the resident raised concerns about the actions of its subcontractor, the landlord is expected to investigate the concerns. The resident expressed on 2 occasions he had experienced missed appointments causing him to lose income after taking time off work. In its complaint review, the landlord acknowledged the resident had received reminder texts before the repair appointment. The landlord said its contractor had not attended as the resident had not confirmed the appointment following the reminder texts sent.
  6. The landlord’s repair policy says mutually convenient appointments will be made. The resident said the repair appointment was made and agreed by phone with the landlord’s subcontractor. The text message sent to the resident is headed “repair confirmation” and informs the resident of the date and time of the appointment. The text message does not indicate to the resident of the need to confirm the appointment. The landlord tried to blame the resident for the unsuccessful appointment on 9 February 2024 and the consequent delay in completing the repair. This was unreasonable and not a customer focused approach.
  7. The landlord acknowledged delays and a failure in service in regard to the installation of the extractor fan in its complaint responses. The landlord acknowledged the double-glazed window was installed by 20 February 2024. A further inspection took place on 29 February 2024 to assess the type of extractor fan required. A works order was raised on 1 March 2024 for the installation of the extractor fan and this was installed on 18 April 2024, taking 33 working days from inspection. The repair exceeded the landlord’s routine repair timescales of 20 working days causing inconvenience and frustration to the resident and his family. It is noted the landlord said it was affected by its supplier who did not have the required extractor fan in stock.
  8. In its complaint review the landlord awarded the resident £150 for the missed appointment and the delay installing the extractor fan. Overall, it took the landlord around 11 months for the landlord to provide a lasting repair with the installation of the extractor fan. The delay experienced by the resident was not reasonable as it was contrary to the landlord’s repairing obligations and caused the resident to wait a significant amount of time before the repairs were completed. Even though it is accepted the landlord was affected by delays in its supply chain. This caused inconvenience to the resident. Our Remedies Guidance says payments between £100 to £600 are appropriate for failings which adversely affected the resident. The landlord’s compensation award of £150 falls towards the lower end of the scale. This did not reflect the landlord’s lack of monitoring or progressing of the repair and the detriment experienced by the resident. For those reasons, the landlords offer of redress is not considered reasonable or proportionate. The landlord has been ordered to pay additional compensation to the resident closer to the midpoint of our compensation category. In addition a finding of maladministration has been made.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint process says it will respond to complaints at its first stage within 10 working days and within 20 working days at its second stage.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 2 working days on 13 February 2024. The landlord took 8 working days to provide its Stage 1 complaint response on 23 February 2024. This was reasonable as it was in line with its complaints procedure and our complaint handling code.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says it pays a set amount for missed appointments and discretionary compensation for time and trouble or distress experienced by residents. The policy also explains it does not offer compensation for loss of earnings. It was reasonable the landlord explained in its complaint responses it did not pay compensation for such circumstances. However, it would consider payments for any inconvenience or distress experienced. This was in line with our Remedies Guidance which recognises residents are required under their tenancy agreement to provide access for repairs. Where inconvenience is experienced when repair appointments are missed, landlords should assess any inconvenience caused to resident. In its complaint responses, the landlord used the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about any potential redress he may receive.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint the same day, 23 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 February 2024. The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint on 6 August 2024, taking 113 working days. This significantly exceeded its complaint handling timescales which says complaint responses will be provided within 20 working days. The failing caused inconvenience and distress to the resident who had to wait a significant time to receive the landlord’s position on the complaint.
  5. The landlord in its complaints review assessed it had not met its complaint handling timescales. For this it awarded £100 for service failing. The landlord also said it had learnt from the complaint as it held regular service improvement meetings. The landlord also said it had increased its complaint resources to meet its published complaint handling targets and those outlined in the statutory complaint handling code.
  6. Our dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from mistakes. The landlord has accepted its handling of the resident’s complaint should have been better. It identified its shortcomings, impact to the resident and acknowledged its services required improvement. Given all the circumstances of the case, including the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s action, its sincere apology, compensation awards and learning from the complaint, warrant a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the extractor fan.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders & recommendation

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident apologising for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident an overall compensation award of £300. This includes the £150 awarded in its complaints review for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
    3. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £150 it awarded during its complaints process. It can deduct the £150 from the £300 awarded above.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord should review its definition of a missed appointment and the information provided to residents when appointments are confirmed.

a.     The landlord confirm this to its contractor to prevent unnecessary delays in completion of repairs and provide us with a copy of its review.

  1. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales outlined above.

Recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £100 it awarded in its complaint process for its acknowledged complaint handling failures.
  2. The above finding the landlord has offered reasonable redress is dependent on the payment being made to the resident.