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 Croydon (202421223)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421223

London Borough of Croydon

16 September 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:

a. The resident’s concerns that her kitchen doors should be fire doors.

b. The resident’s report of faulty internal sliding doors.

c. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 3-bedroom adapted bungalow. The resident told the landlord and the Ombudsman she is a wheelchair user with significant medical needs.
  2. The landlord employs a contractor to complete some repairs at the resident’s property. The resident is part of the landlord’s concessionary repairs scheme which means the landlord will carry out repairs which would normally be resident’s responsibility.
  3. The resident has sliding doors into her kitchen. She reported issues with these doors from October 2023. The contractor made repairs and in February 2024, the contractor told her they were fire doors and they would need to be replaced.
  4. When the resident did not hear anything further about the kitchen doors she made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 30 April 2024. She told the landlord she was unhappy with the delay in replacing the kitchen fire doors.
  5. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 21 May 2024. It said a job was sent to the wrong contractor then closed in error. It confirmed the contractor would attend on 5 June 2024 to fit the new kitchen doors. The complaint was upheld and the landlord apologised for the delay and errors made.
  6. The resident continued to experience issues with the kitchen doors and contacted the landlord again on 18 July 2024. This was her escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process. She confirmed she was still awaiting a replacement for the fire doors. She said contractors had completed inspections but still nothing was completed.
  7. The landlord arranged an inspection of the kitchen doors on 25 July 2025 as part of its investigation. This confirmed the kitchen doors were not fire doors but required some repairs due to faulty tracks at the bottom.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 22 August 2024. It apologised for not monitoring the actions from stage 1 through to completion. It apologised for the miscommunication regarding the kitchen doors being fire doors. It confirmed they were not and there was no requirement for them to be fire doors. It said the contractor repaired the tracks at the bottom of the doors on 5 August 2024. It apologised for the delay in progressing the work to the kitchen doors, and the confusion caused. It offered £200 in recognition of this.
  9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman following the stage 2 response as she continued to experience issues with the doors and there had been a lack of resolution by the landlord. The complaint was one which this Service could consider on 2 April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident recently told this Service that she experienced issues with 2 fires in her kitchen. We have not been provided with evidence that her concerns regarding this were raised as part of her formal complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire doors, the repairs to the doors and the landlord’s response.

The resident’s concerns that her kitchen doors should be fire doors

  1. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Building Safety Act 2022 sets out landlord fire safety duties. Although these focus on communal area doors and individual flat entrance doors, they also emphasise the importance of clear resident communication about fire safety.
  2. The landlord’s complaint remedies guidance shows the compensation or award it will consider when resolving complaints. It identifies the following:
    1. Distress – awards ranging from a written apology to £600 depending on the impact on the resident.
    2. Delay / time and trouble – awards ranging from a written apology to £200 depending on the impact and the time passed.
  3. The resident first reported problems with the kitchen sliding doors in October 2023. The contractor confirmed in February 2024 that these were fire doors and would need replacing. This was the first point where the resident was given incorrect information. Understandably, she told this Service this caused her to worry that her property might not be safe if a fire occurred.
  4. At this point it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer confirmation that they were not fire doors, to provide reassurance. There is no evidence this happened, so this was a missed opportunity by the landlord.
  5. When the resident submitted her stage 1 complaint on 30 April 2024, she said the internal kitchen fire doors had not been replaced and she had been waiting a long time.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, on 21 May 2024 it acknowledged that there had been a delay in resolving the resident’s issues with the kitchen sliding doors. However, it again failed to clarify they were not fire doors. This was not appropriate and a missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right. It would have caused the resident to continue to believe and worry that the property was not fire compliant as the doors were not operating correctly.
  7. Following further reports by the resident, the landlord arranged for another contractor visit on 11 June 2024. Notes from this confirmed it was passed to the Fire Risk Assessment team to fit new fire doors. This provided the resident with further confirmation that the doors should be replaced with fire doors by the landlord. At this point, the resident had been told on more than one occasion that they were fire doors which would have caused further distress as she continued to experience issues.
  8. It was not until the stage 2 investigation, that the landlord arranged an inspection on 25 July 2024. This inspection confirmed that the kitchen sliding doors were not fire doors, did not require replacement, and the living room door provided the required fire separation. While this clarification was helpful, it came around 6 months after the resident was first told by the landlord, her doors were fire doors. The landlord’s delay in providing accurate information was unreasonable, particularly given the resident’s known vulnerabilities and the obvious distress this would cause. The landlord had a responsibility to provide clear fire safety advice, but from the evidence seen, this was not the case for this resident.
  9. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised and offered £200 compensation for the delays in progressing the work needed for the doors and the confusion caused. It is not clear how much of this compensation was for the confusion surrounding the doors, but it is fair and reasonable for us to consider that £100 was for each issue. This is at the lower end of the landlord’s award for distress and delay as detailed in its complaint remedies guidance. It does not sufficiently reflect the impact of the 6-month delay and distress caused to the resident. For 6 months the resident was led by the landlord to believe her home was not fire compliant, causing ongoing worry about her safety.
  10. This Service has found the stage 2 did not go far enough. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and the property type she lived, but we have found no evidence to suggest that the landlord took these into account. It did not acknowledge in its responses the impact this conflicting information would have had on the resident. The stage 2 response could have gone further to reassure the resident, using more detail from the inspection report. For example, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to share how the property was fire compliant as it had an interlinked smoke alarm system. This additional information may have provided further comfort to the resident regarding the fire safety of her property.
  11. In summary, while the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made attempts to put things right by:
    1. apologising,
    2. providing clarification at stage 2,
    3. offering financial redress.

The offers were not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This is because the landlord failed to provide clear communication regarding fire safety to the resident, it missed opportunities to provide clarification and reassurance. It failed to evidence that it considered the impact of the 6 month delay and distress caused to the resident in its responses.

  1. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s concerns that her kitchen door should be a fire door. We have made an order based on this Service’s remedies guidance where there has been considerable service failure, distress, and delay amounting to £200. This is including the £100 already paid.

The resident’s report of faulty internal sliding doors

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms it prioritises repairs by urgency and household needs. It says it will ask questions to better understand the impact on the resident and their home but also outline the levels including:
    1. emergency: attend within 2 hours, to remove immediate danger or health and safety risk,
    2. urgent: attend within 24 hours, to remove danger or health and safety risk,
    3. less urgent repairs: attend within 3 working days, to ensure residents’ home are safe and put right anything which seriously interferes with comfort,
    4. non urgent repairs: attend within 15 working days, to prevent serious inconvenience and keep the property in reasonable condition.

It also says it will tell residents about delays in carrying out repairs and keep them updated if the repair cannot be completed on the first visit.

  1. The policy also confirms it will maintain and replace internal doors for those residents that are part of its concessionary repairs scheme. The resident’s sliding doors fall under this category. However, the policy does not make it clear how adapted properties, such as the resident’s, should be prioritised.
  2. In the evidence provided in this case, it shows repeat failings by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of faulty kitchen doors.
  3. After her first report on 11 October 2023, the contractor attended on 8 December 2023 but there was no access. While the priority given to the repair is unclear, the time taken of 41 days did not fall into any of the timeframes for repairs. This was an unreasonable delay. There was no evidence to suggest the landlord kept the resident up to date about these appointments, which would have caused inconvenience and frustration for the resident. The contractor reattended on 5 January 2024 where notes confirmed the job was complete.
  4. She made further reports in January and February 2024. The contractor attended after 20 working days. This was an unreasonable delay as the landlord failed to attend within the repair timescales set out above. There was no evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date about this appointment which would have caused further frustration to the resident.
  5. On occasions the landlord cancelled or closed appointments in error, with no updates given. Contractor notes confirmed the doors needed to be replaced but these were not followed up by the landlord. This is not in line with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. This failing by the landlord meant the onus was put on the resident to follow these up which caused frustration, inconvenience, and led to a formal complaint.
  6. The resident complained on 30 April 2024 as she was still experiencing issues. She said the internal kitchen fire doors had not been replaced and she had been waiting a long time.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, on 21 May 2024 it acknowledged that there had been a delay in resolving the resident’s issues with the sliding doors. It confirmed that a job had been sent to the incorrect contractor and then closed in error. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay and errors made. It reopened the job for the contractor to inspect for new doors and install to put things right for the resident. This was booked for 5 June 2024.
  8. Before the contractor attended this agreed appointment on 5 June 2024, the resident reported the kitchen sliding doors again on 26 May 2024 as she could not close them. Whilst waiting for this appointment, the contractors attended on 5 June 2024 as agreed as part of the stage 1 response. The notes state the contractor did not have the measurements from the previous job so could not complete the work. This shows a continued failure by the landlord to ensure previous follow on from jobs were actioned. This added further frustration and inconvenience for the resident as she continued to report issues with the doors and have visits with no clear outcomes.
  9. The contractor then attended on 11 June 2024 which was following the residents report on 26 May 2024. The contractor completed no work, but a note confirmed it needed to pass the job to the Fire Risk Assessment team to fit a new fire door. This would have caused further inconvenience for the resident as still no work had been completed.
  10. On 15 July 2024 when the resident heard nothing, she reported the doors were rotten, getting stuck and swinging outwards from the rails. The contractors attended on 21 July 2024, and the job notes confirm they realigned the doors with the tracks, but a new job was required as the bottoms of the doors were past repair and needed to be replaced. However, the evidence provided shows the landlord did not follow this up. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the issue and caused further inconvenience and frustration for the resident.
  11. Whilst these reports and visits by the contractor were ongoing, the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 18 July 2024. She expressed how she had several different inspections, cancelled appointments, and jobs closed but still nothing was complete even though she had been told by the landlord, 2 fire doors needed replacing. The lack of follow on from contractor visits put the onus on the resident to constantly report and repeat the issues which would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  12. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 22 August 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the lack of monitoring of the stage 1 outcomes which resulted in further delays and inconvenience for the resident in repairing the doors.
  13. The response confirmed that the landlord completed an inspection on 25 July 2024, and the doors could be repaired. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in progressing the work needed to the doors, and it offered £100 in recognition for this. It also put things right by arranging another repair to the door which was completed on 5 August 2024.
  14. In summary, it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the lack of monitoring since its stage 1 response. Its apology for the delay in progressing the repair and the offer of £100 compensation was reasonable for the failings identified. These were in line with its complaints remedies guidance when resolving complaints. At this stage, the apology and compensation were reasonable.
  15. However, this Service has been provided evidence which shows that the resident continued to experience issues with the sliding doors. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 22 August 2024, but the resident reported the sliding doors were not operating correctly again on 23 August 2024. The contractor attended on 29 August 2024, the job notes confirmed that the doors were rotten, and they needed to be replaced.
  16. This shows that the stage 2 response did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the view of its qualified staff as part of the inspection on 25 July 2024, it failed to review the job history and consider this within its response. We acknowledge the landlord has a responsibility to balance repairs verses replacement and be financially responsible. However, it is evident from the number of times the resident had to report the doors, repairs were not resolving the issue. There is evidence on the job notes that contractors said the doors needed to be replaced. There is no evidence to show the landlord considered the job history for this property which put further inconvenience and distress onto the resident.
  17. There was no evidence provided to show the resident told the landlord about the impact the delay and lack of action was having especially in relation to her vulnerabilities. However, the landlord was aware of these, noted them on its system and knew the property type she was living in. There was no evidence to show that the landlord considered these and adjusted its approach to reduce the impact on the resident.
  18. Whilst the landlord acknowledged failings and attempted to put things right at stage 2, the resident continued to experience difficulties with the doors which resulted in confirmation it needed to be replaced. The landlord missed the opportunity to replace the door earlier by failing to review and consider previous job notes. We are aware that the resident is still awaiting the door replacements. There has continued to be an prolonged delays since the door replacement was reported on the 29 August 2024, following the stage 2 response, which has caused further frustration and distress for the resident.
  19. This shows a continued failing by the landlord to follow its own repair policy, and do what it said it would during the complaints process. The landlord failed to learn from its previous mishandling of the issue, and in doing so further undermined the landlord and resident relationship.
  20. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents reports of faulty kitchen sliding doors. We have made an order based on this Service’s remedies guidance where there has been considerable service failure, distress and delay amounting to £300. This includes the £100 already paid.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process:
    1. It acknowledges stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days.
    2. It acknowledges stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
    3. If it needs longer to investigate a complaint, it will agree an extension with the complainant.
  2. The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 30 April 2024. On 21 May 2024 the landlord responded, 14 days later. This was within its policy timescales.
  3. The resident expressed dissatisfaction regarding the landlords ongoing lack of action to resolve the kitchen door issues. She did this by email on 18 July 2024. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to record this as a complaint escalation request. It acknowledged this on 29 July 2024, 7 days after the request was received by the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s evidence confirms this slight delay was due to an admin error where the escalation request was initially logged as a new stage 1 complaint. The 2 day delay in the stage 2 acknowledgment is unfortunate but not significant enough to result in service failure. This would not have caused adverse impact on the resident, but it would have been appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this delay in its stage 2 response.
  5. After the escalation acknowledgement, the landlord’s sent the stage 2 response on 22 August 2024, 18 days later. This shows it responded within its policy timescales.
  6. In summary, the Ombudsman found there was a 2 day delay in the landlord acknowledging the residents request for a stage 2 response. This caused minimal impact on the resident and therefore, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that her kitchen door should be a fire door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of faulty internal sliding doors.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £300 directly to the resident, in addition to the £200 the landlord has already paid. This is made up of:
      1. £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords delay in addressing the residents’ concerns that her kitchen doors should be fire doors.
      2. £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the residents reports of faulty sliding doors.
    3. Provide us and the resident with evidence it has ordered the door. It should also provide an estimate of when it will receive the door and a schedule of when it then intends to fit this.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The resident reported 2 kitchen fires to this Service. Whilst this was not in the scope of this investigation, it may be appropriate for the landlord to consider whether the resident requires any follow up support. For example, through a referral to the local fire and rescue service for a home fire safety check.