Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Barnet (202437374)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437374

Barnet Homes

7 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:
    1. repairs to the kitchen floor and upstairs floorboards.
    2. work to improve the warmth of the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives with her 2 children and her 21-month-old granddaughter. The resident is registered disabled. She has neurological and muscular conditions. Her granddaughter has been diagnosed with asthma. The landlord advised the Ombudsman that there were no known vulnerabilities on file.
  2. On 14 May 2024 the resident raised a complaint about an outstanding repair to loose steps in the parking area. She said the repair was reported in October 2023, but the job remained incomplete. The resident said she had called the landlord on numerous occasions. She was told the landlord would call her back on every occasion, but it never did. The resident said an operative attended on 29 April 2024 and the job was marked as complete despite no work being carried out.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 June 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged there had been delays in completing the work. It said this was due to a reduced number of groundworks operatives and a high volume of groundwork repairs. The landlord also said staff vacancies, high sickness absences and an increase in repair requests had added to the resource problem. It said an appointment was scheduled for 12 July 2024, but it would look to bring the appointment forward. The landlord said it would contact the resident once it had an update about this.
  4. On 7 August 2024 the resident raised a new complaint about outstanding work. The work was regarding property insulation, new extractor fans being fitted, radiators being flushed and moved, kitchen flooring being levelled and work on upstairs floorboards. The resident said this work had all been discussed many months prior, but she had not been contacted. She said her calls and messages had not been replied to for months. The resident said getting any work carried out by the landlord was a difficult process.
  5. The landlord responded with a stage 2 response on 10 September 2024. It apologised for the poor communication and lack of progress following inspections. The landlord said the property’s insulation was found to be fine at an inspection. It said that the property had been insulated on 26 April 2023 which had brought it up to regulation standard. The landlord noted at the inspection that the resident said her property was cold in winter. It said the resident’s property was on a pilot scheme to have a new heating system installed. The landlord said a survey was carried out on 20 August 2024. It stated the resident would be contacted once a start date for the work had been confirmed.
  6. The landlord apologised for a clerical error which meant the flooring job had been assigned to the wrong trade. It said it was experiencing a trade shortage and the earliest it could offer an appointment for this work was 17 October 2024. The landlord stated the extractor fans were upgraded on 21 August 2024. It apologised for the service the resident had experienced and said the feedback had been passed onto a manager.
  7. On 23 November 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said the outstanding work had not been actioned and said the whole house was very cold. The resident said to get information about the insulation she had made a freedom of information request as the landlord was not replying to her. She said following an inspection she had been told her central heating would be flushed through and a radiator in the bathroom replaced and moved. The resident said despite chasing this work, she had not received any replies. The resident stated she had not heard any further about the new heating system or the flooring and floorboards.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that the property being very cold affected her and her granddaughter’s health conditions. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these problems, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the household’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen floor and upstairs floorboards.

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states it will maintain the structure of the property. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The evidence showed on 24 April 2024 a work order was raised to inspect flooring at the property. This was because the resident had reported very uneven flooring in the kitchen, landing and a bedroom. This was logged as a responsive repair to be fixed within 15 days of the work order being raised. It was not clear when the appointment was initially booked for, but the appointment was changed to 13 May 2024 in line with the resident’s availability. Any delay caused by an appointment needing to be moved to fit with the resident’s availability was reasonable.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 May 2024 to check the operative was still attending that day. She told the landlord that she had not received a text to say the appointment was going ahead and asked for confirmation. The notes on the work order showed there was some internal communication within the landlord and the appointment was rescheduled for 16 May 2024. It was not clear why this appointment was rescheduled by the landlord.
  4. At the appointment on 16 May 2024 the landlord identified that there was excessive movement and dips to the kitchen floor and upstairs flooring. The landlord stated on the work order notes that these problems were trip hazards to the resident who had mobility issues. It raised a new work order to “strengthen the floors”.
  5. The resident raised her complaint on 7 August 2024. She said she had been told by a surveyor that the kitchen flooring needed to be relevelled, and work was needed on the upstairs floorboards. However, she had not heard any further about these flooring repairs.
  6. Work order notes stated an appointment was booked for 2 September 2024.  However, the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 10 September 2024 said there had been a clerical error and the job was assigned to the wrong trade. The landlord apologised for this. It arranged a new appointment for 17 October 2024. The landlord said this was the earliest appointment available due to it experiencing a trade shortage. The landlord did not offer the resident any compensation in its stage 2 response. It would have been appropriate to have offered some compensation for the delays and lack of communication the resident had experienced.
  7. At the appointment on 17 October 2024 the landlord identified problems with the flooring in the kitchen, dining room, front bedroom and the landing. The landlord’s notes stated about 6sqm of the kitchen vinyl was affected. It said the vinyl would need removing and that the plywood sheeting may need replacing too. In the dining room it said a complete removal of the vinyl flooring was needed to inspect and resolve the uneven surface. In the front bedroom the landlord noted the floor was uneven in front of the chimney breast. It said the carpet would need to be removed to inspect and resolve the issue.
  8. In the landing the landlord found the carpet had not been fully secured into the threshold strip after the previous operative attended. It also found there was significant movement between 2 medium density fibreboard (MDF) sheets which had not been secured with screws. The landlord also noted some floorboards were split and uneven, and one floorboard was cut short of the joist.
  9. The work order notes stated that the operative who attended on 17 October 2024 spoke to a supervisor about the work. The operative was advised the work needed to be sent back to the planned works team for a contractor to complete the works. The notes stated the job would require at least 2 days with 2 people to complete the work.
  10. A landlord internal email dated 17 October 2024 stated the responsive repairs team could not accommodate the works and the work order had been closed. The landlord questioned whether the work was needed as it said it had many properties with uneven flooring and dips that cannot always be resolved especially in period properties. However, it acknowledged it had a responsibility to fix loose floorboards and any safety concerns. The landlord did not keep the resident informed about what work it was going to carry out or when. Therefore, it did not manage the resident’s expectations.
  11. On 23 October 2024 a landlord internal email reiterated the defects, uneven floorboards, floorboards cut short and the MDF not secured. It said the operative that attended had taken photos of the problems. The landlord said the work would be discussed on 28 October 2024. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence regarding these discussions.
  12. The work order notes showed the resident chased up this work on 4 December 2024. The notes stated the resident had not heard anything about the flooring repairs. It was noted the resident said she was disabled, and the uneven flooring was causing a risk for her. The resident should not have needed to chase the landlord. The landlord should have been keeping the resident informed and managing her expectations. There was no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the risks the problems were causing her due to her disabilities.
  13. On 23 July 2025 the resident advised the Ombudsman that the work was still outstanding. This was 315 working days after the initial work order for this repair was raised. This significantly exceeds any of the response timeframes stated in the landlord’s repairs policy.
  14. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen floor and upstairs floorboards. This is because the work was incomplete 315 working days after the initial work order was raised. The resident has not been updated about the outstanding work and her concerns about risks were not addressed.
  15. The Ombudsman has made some orders to put things right and to have the works completed.

The landlord’s handling of work to improve the warmth of the property.

  1. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales. It assesses 29 categories of housing hazard. Each hazard has a weighting which will help determine whether the property is rated as having category 1 (serious) or category 2 (other) hazards. Excess cold is one of the 29 categories.
  2. A property must have an energy performance certificate (EPC) if it is being rented, sold, or built. It contains information about the property’s energy use and typical energy costs. The ratings are from A (best) to G (worst) and are valid for 10 years.
  3. On 21 March 2024 a local councillor made a freedom of information request to the landlord on behalf of the resident. This was because the resident thought the insulation on the property was not adequate. On 28 March 2024 the landlord told the local councillor that the property had an EPC rating of D. It said its target was to upgrade all its properties to a rating of C by 2030. The landlord said the property had loft insulation, gas central heating and double-glazed doors and windows.
  4. The landlord stated the double-glazed windows were due to be replaced in the 2024/2025 financial year. The landlord said it would check if the loft insulation needed upgrading as part of the window replacement works. It said an officer had met with the resident on 25 March 2024 to discuss the resident’s request for additional insulation. The landlord told the councillor that there was no funding for upgrades to the resident’s type of property. It said should the property become eligible for funding in the future that it would be put forward for a further package of insulation and energy efficiency measures.
  5. On 4 April 2024 the local councillor highlighted the resident’s vulnerabilities to the landlord. The local councillor forwarded the resident’s email to the landlord where the resident had stated the house was “freezing” and it was affecting her health. She said she could not afford to have the heating on all day, every day. The resident said she was registered disabled.
  6. The landlord responded on 11 April 2024 stating the EPC rating of the property was the same as 50% of the landlord’s housing stock. It said the property had a standard assessment procedure (SAP) score of 63. The landlord stated this was the higher end of the EPC D rating. It said the 250mm loft insulation depth was good.
  7. The landlord stated the cost of upgrading the property’s EPC rating was higher than finances allowed. It said it had made a request for the resident’s bathroom radiator to be measured and replaced if the size was not sufficient. The landlord said if the radiator needed changing it would contact the resident within 5 working days of the radiator being measured to arrange an appointment. It said there was no funding for cavity wall insulation at present.
  8. On 16 April 2024 the resident received a response to the freedom of information request. The landlord stated it had checked its records, and no data was held on the property’s history or extent of insulation. It offered to visit the property to check the insulation was adequate.
  9. A work order for an inspection of the property was raised on 17 April 2024. The landlord requested a “healthy homes” survey and to look at the insulation and inspect the loft. It was unclear when the inspection took place, but the work order was marked as completed on 24 April 2024.
  10. The inspection work order notes stated that loft insulation was upgraded from 100mm to 270mm on 5 April. It did not state which year this happened. However, this contradicted the landlord’s freedom of information request response which stated the landlord had no data about insulation on file. This also contradicted an email the landlord sent to the local councillor on 11 April 2024 which stated the loft insulation was 250mm. It was unclear from the evidence whether the loft insulation was 250mm or 270mm.
  11. The resident raised her complaint on 7 August 2024. She said since some inspections had occurred, she had not been contacted about the work identified. The resident said the landlord was going to look into external insulation as an option for the property. She said the radiators were going to be flushed and moved.
  12. A landlord internal email dated 3 September 2024 stated there was no inspection report on file and there was no update or follow-on work other than for new fans to be installed.
  13. Another landlord internal email of the same date stated the loft insulation was found to be sufficient. However, it said that the resident had reported the property was very cold in winter. The landlord stated the property was on a pilot scheme to have a new heating system installed. It said a survey had been carried out at the property for the new heating system. The landlord said it was due to receive the new heating system survey report that week and then it would be able to plan when the works could start.
  14. The landlord advised the resident of this information in its stage 2 response. It said the loft insulation had been upgraded on 26 April 2023 which brought it in line with regulation standard. However, this was a different date to what was stated on the work order notes which said the loft insulation was upgraded on 5 April.
  15. The landlord also stated in its stage 2 response that the new heating system survey had taken place on 20 August 2024. It said it would contact the resident to advise when the work would start. The landlord’s response did not provide a timeframe for this. Therefore, it did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations regarding this matter.
  16. The resident raised in her complaint that she had been advised that the radiators would be flushed and that a radiator would be moved. She told the Ombudsman on 23 November 2024 that it was the bathroom radiator that was due to be moved and replaced with something larger. The landlord did not respond to this part of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response. It may have been that the landlord was not going to carry out this work as a new heating system was due to be installed. However, it had not communicated this to the resident. It was also unclear from the evidence if this was the reason this work had not been carried out.
  17. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the poor communication and the lack of progress the resident had experienced since the inspections had been carried out. The landlord did not offer the resident any compensation in its response. It would have been appropriate to have offered some compensation for the poor communication the resident had experienced. The landlord did not “put things right” and “learn from outcomes” which are 2 of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles as the poor communication and lack of progress continued.
  18. On 23 July 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman she had heard nothing further from the landlord. This was 219 working days after the stage 2 complaint was issued and 233 working days after the survey occurred for the new heating system. The resident said she had not heard any further about the installation of the new heating system. She said the landlord had still not addressed her concerns about the radiators which she had raised in her complaint. The resident said the property was still very cold.
  19. The resident told the Ombudsman that her health conditions worsen in the cold. The landlord was made aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities on 4 April 2024. Despite this, there was no evidence to show that the resident’s household was identified as vulnerable by the landlord or that any risk assessment was carried out.
  20. It appeared the vulnerabilities of this household had not been appropriately recorded by the landlord. The landlord told the Ombudsman that there were “no vulnerabilities on file” for the household. As set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management recording vulnerabilities is the first step in providing a sensitive and responsive service. This information must be kept up to date, be accessible, and be shared and used appropriately. The landlord did not do this.
  21. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of work to improve the warmth of the property. This is because the landlord told the resident it would install a new heating system, but it has not carried out this work and the resident has not been kept up to date. The landlord also did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  22. The landlord is ordered to award the resident £300 compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to reflect the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 7 August 2024. In her email the resident raised new issues and clearly stated the matters were to be logged at stage 1. Despite this, on 12 August 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and logged it at stage 2 of another unrelated complaint regarding some outside steps. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
  3. Logging the complaint at stage 2 meant the resident did not have the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s initial response and escalate the matter. The resident was also required to wait longer for an initial response to her complaint as stage 2 complaints have a response time of within 20 working days. Whereas if the complaint had been correctly logged at stage 1, the resident would have received a response within 10 working days.
  4. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint handling error in its stage 2 response. It should have identified the error as looking at the stage 1 response should have been part of the stage 2 investigation.
  5. The landlord did not identify the error until the Ombudsman requested a copy of the stage 1 response. It told the Ombudsman it was unable to locate a stage 1 response for the complaint. The landlord said it appeared the resident’s complaint had been logged at stage 2 in error. It said this was due to the resident’s new complaint being submitted at the time an escalation request would likely have been submitted for a previous unrelated complaint.
  6. In her complaint the resident said she was told her radiators would be flushed through and one moved. However, the landlord did not address this matter in its response. The Code states that “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate”.
  7. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because the resident’s complaint was not correctly logged at stage 1. This meant the resident was unable to challenge the landlord’s initial response and escalate her complaint. It also meant the resident waited double the length of time that she should have waited for an initial response. This was due to the different response times for stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
  8. The landlord is ordered to award the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to reflect the detriment to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the kitchen floor and upstairs floorboards.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of work to improve the warmth of the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £800 to the resident. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to the Ombudsman. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £300 in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen floor and upstairs floorboards.
    2. £300 in respect of the landlord’s handling of work to improve the warmth of the property.
    3. £200 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The landlord must complete the flooring and floorboard work identified in the operative’s notes logged on work order BHR-315168 on 17 October 2024 at 08:15. To evidence this work has been completed, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a copy of a post-inspection report within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  3. The landlord is ordered to create a written action plan to address the warmth of the property which must include:
    1. A copy of an inspection report which investigates the property’s insulation, potential for external insulation, the heating system and position and size of the radiators.
    2. Details of any remedial or interim fixes to improve the warmth of the property.
    3. Specific timeframes for any works (planned or responsive) and explanations for any decisions. This includes whether a new heating system is to be installed as stated in the stage 2 response and whether the current heating system will be flushed and the bathroom radiator upgraded and moved.
    4. How the landlord intends to monitor the temperature of the property over the winter period. If it needs assistance from the resident to do this (energy bills, records of time the property took to get to a healthy temperature for example) it should clearly explain what it needs.
  4. The landlord must provide a copy of this action plan to the resident and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to ensure the vulnerabilities of the household are correctly recorded.