London Borough of Barnet (202452106)

Decision
Case ID	202452106
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Barnet
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	18 November 2025

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 11 September 2009. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The resident’s daughter is disabled. The resident authorised a representative to act on her behalf in the complaint. For the purposes of this report the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident.’
On 21 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the pump in her walk in shower was taking too long to drain and was leaking. At the time of the landlord’s final response the repair was outstanding.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s report of a leak from her walk in shower.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak from her walk in shower.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Leak from walk in shower.

The landlord failed to comply with its adaptations and repairs policy. Its response was unreasonably delayed.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was not in line with its agreed response deadline.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 16 December 2025
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £850 made up as follows: £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s report of a leak from her walk in shower. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failure. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 December 2025
3	Case Review order The landlord should consider what it will do differently to ensure works are carried out to a satisfactory standard. It should provide an update to the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 30 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 June 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to make a complaint. She said she was unable to use the shower which was causing stress and anxiety.
26 June 2024	The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint. It said it would respond by 10 July 2024.
10 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint and said that: The walk in shower blockage was ongoing despite previous interventions. Its adaptations team said the wet room was outside the warranty period. Therefore the repair should be carried out by its responsive repairs. It apologised for the lack of coordination which created a delay. Its response was not within expected standards. It set out its learning including reducing wait times and improved communication. The repair was raised on 10 July. It tried unsuccessfully to contact the resident to advise her of the appointment date and said it had been made for 23 July 2024.
15 July 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to ask to escalate her complaint because she disagreed with the decision. She attached a photograph showing damage caused by the leak from the walk in shower. She said she hoped this would help it understand her reason for the escalation.
16 July 2024	The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint. It said it would respond by 13 August 2024. It also said it would let the resident know if there was likely to be a delay.
15 August 2024	The landlord emailed the resident to apologise for not responding on 13 August but it needed more time to gather information.
16 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint due to delays. It said it would inspect on 23 August 2024.
21 March 2025	The resident emailed us to report the leak was ongoing.
11 November 2025	During a call with us the resident confirmed the leak had been resolved.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Response to report of a leak from the walk in shower.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate.

During her phone call with us on 12 November 2025 the resident said that issues with the removals process during a move to temporary accommodation was part of her complaint. The landlord provided a response to this issue at stage 1.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 15 July 2024 to escalate her complaint she attached a photo of the ongoing leak so the landlord “could understand the reason.” There’s no evidence that she raised the issue of removals at this stage and the landlord did not provide a further response at stage 2.
We can only investigate complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore we have not considered the resident’s complaint about removals as part of our investigation.

What we did investigate.

On 21 March 2024 the resident reported a fault with the shower pump. An entry on the repair logs of the same date noted the disabled adaptations team should raise a recall because the wet room was new. There’s no evidence the landlord progressed the repair in line with its adaptations policy which says its contractor will maintain adaptations during the initial warranty period.
The landlord’s inaction caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who contacted the landlord on 26 June 2024 to report a leak. The landlord raised an emergency 24 hour repair. The notes said the repair should be referred to the contractor who installed the wet room. It noted it needed to be repaired as soon as possible and that the resident’s child was disabled.
Also on 26 June the resident emailed the landlord to confirm an operative had attended but someone else would need to inspect. She said she was unable to use the shower because water was reaching the stairs.
An entry on the repair log dated 27 June 2024 said an appointment was booked for 28 June. It was updated to say the shower waste from pipe to pump was unblocked.
It’s positive that the landlord attended within 24 hours in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. However, the status of the repair at that point in time was unclear. This is because there is no evidence that by unblocking the pump the leak was fully resolved.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 10 July 2024 acknowledged the delay and provided an explanation for its failure of service. It said it would inspect again on 23 July. By 15 July 2024 the landlord was put on notice that the leak was ongoing.
It emailed the resident on 16 July 2024 to reiterate its intention to visit on 23 July. While this was positive the status of the leak at that time is again unclear. This has impacted on our assessment of the landlord’s response.

An entry on the repair logs dated 18 July 2024 noted the resident was on holiday between 19 July to 11 August 2024 so the appointment would need to be rebooked. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 16 August confirmed it would inspect on 23 August 2024.
The landlord’s repair logs show it attended on 23 August 2024 but was unable to gain access. It attended again on 6 September and decided the issue needed further investigation. It attended on 12 September 2024 and located the leak. It carried out a temporary repair to seal the lino flooring where it met the shower tray. It said it would raise follow on works to make good the damage caused but there’s no evidence it did so.
The evidence shows that the landlord failed to take effective action to resolve the leak. In a further stage 2 complaint response dated 4 August 2025 it upheld a further complaint. It acknowledged there was “no excuse” as to why works were not delivered more efficiently. It also said works carried out in 2024 to the tiles and flooring were not up to the standard it would expect. It said it would investigate again and its surveyor would attend on 9 September 2024. It offered £229.50 for distress and inconvenience.
During her call to us on 12 November 2025 the resident confirmed that repairs were finally completed around mid–September. This was 18 months after the resident reported the issue therefore the delay was unreasonable. The landlord’s failures caused distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration. The compensation is not considered proportionate to the failures identified in this report. Its compensation policy says it will consider compensation over £100 where there was a serious failure of service. There is no upper limit. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £800 in line with our Remedies Guidance. It may deduct the compensation it offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The resident made a complaint on 26 June 2024. The landlord’s acknowledgement and response were in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and the Code.
The resident escalated the complaint on 15 July 2024. The landlord’s acknowledgement said it would respond by 13 August 2024 and would let her know if there was likely to be a delay.
It was unable to meet the deadline and failed to update the resident until 2 days after the response was due. Therefore it was an apology for not doing something rather than proactively managing her expectations.
It issued its response on 16 August 2024. Its response was 3 working days outside its timescale. The landlord’s response failed to acknowledge the delay and therefore failed to put things right which was inappropriate.
Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. At stage 1 the landlord partially upheld the complaint and at stage 2 it was fully upheld. However, it failed to consider offering compensation to put things right in line with its compensation policy which was inappropriate.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It has been ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance where the failure may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Learning

The landlord appropriately identified that its failures arose first from inconsistency in its approach and later due to poor workmanship. Its second stage 2 complaint response of 4 August 2025 updated that it was prioritising delays in its repairs service. However, it failed to set out steps it was taking to ensure its works were carried out to the required standard. This is reflected in the orders above.