London Borough of Newham (202445140)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property, a 3-bedroom house with her 2 adult children. The bathroom of the property is a wet room which was installed following a recommendation by an Occupational Therapist (OT). This was due to the resident’s mobility issues. The resident says both children are autistic, have attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and have been diagnosed as having mental health concerns. The landlord was aware of this during the time of her complaint. The resident reported a leak in her bathroom to the landlord and was unhappy that it told her it was not responsible for repairs because she had modified the bathroom. She also wanted the landlord to alter the soundproofing it had previously agreed to install. She asked us to investigate as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response to both those issues. 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request to change the specifications of the soundproofing installation.
   2. Bathroom repairs
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change the specifications of the soundproofing installation.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs.
6. The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord was entitled to rely on its contractor’s opinion that reinstalling fixtures and fittings may reduce the effectiveness of the soundproofing. It was reasonable that it refused the resident’s requests to change the specifications of the installation.
8. The landlord followed the timescales set out in its repairs policy in dealing with the bathroom repairs. Its approach regarding the resident’s unauthorised installation of a shower cubicle was also in line with its policy.
9. The compensation the landlord awarded the resident for its delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint was proportionate to the length of the delay.

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.

Recommendation

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

10. When the landlord agreed to soundproof the resident’s home due to persistent noise nuisance from her next-door neighbour it arranged for a specialist to survey her home to decide the most effective soundproofing measures to be installed. Following that, the landlord agreed to install cavity wall insulation in her living room and 2 bedrooms.
11. The landlord had previously informed the resident on 7 June 2024 that it would not soundproof her kitchen. It was therefore reasonable that it maintained this position when she raised the issue again in her stage 1 complaint. It was appropriate that it repeated its explanation that it did not consider the kitchen a room that requires quiet. It also provided further explanation as to why including the kitchen in the soundproofing would not be suitable.
12. It showed it was customer focused when it spoke with its contractor to see if there was any way it could reinstall the resident’s fixtures and fittings. As the contractor told the landlord those changes would reduce the effectiveness of the soundproofing it was reasonable the landlord refused the resident’s request. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of the contractors it employs. It was appropriate it explained its decision at both stages.
13. While the Ombudsman appreciates the time and effort the resident has spent on her home, it is reasonable that the landlord wants to ensure any soundproofing it installs is as effective as possible. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord considered the resident’s requests fairly and reasonably. As its actions throughout were proportionate and in line with its obligations, there was no maladministration in its handling of those requests.
14. The landlord has confirmed to us that the resident is still able to accept the offer to soundproof her home to its surveyor’s specification.

What we have not looked at

15. The resident has provided us with evidence that she paid privately for a refurbishment of her bathroom in February 2025. The plumber she used provided a report that notified her of a number of issues they had identified in the existing bathroom. Our investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to bathroom repairs up to its January 2025 final response. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction prior to our involvement. If the resident remains unhappy about the issues identified by her plumber or that she felt she needed to refurbish the bathroom, she could raise a new formal complaint with the landlord. After she has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, she would then be able to bring her complaint to us.

What we have looked at

16. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a leak in her bathroom the same day she reported it, 2 December 2024. Under its repairs policy it says it will respond to major leaks as an emergency and will respond within 4 hours. When it attended it identified the leak was not major and rescheduled an inspection of the bathroom for 4 December 2024. That was in line with an urgent repair under its policy, which it aims to complete within 3 to 7 days.
17. After that inspection the landlord’s position that the resident was responsible for rectifying the issues herself was in line with its policy. This is because she had modified the bathroom without seeking written permission from the landlord. Its policy states that the landlord is not responsible for any loss or damage for any improvements or alterations completed without its prior authorisation. It was appropriate the landlord explained that to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response.
18. During its stage 2 complaint investigation the landlord agreed to repair the flooring in the resident’s bathroom as a goodwill gesture. It scheduled that repair to be completed on 21 January 2025 which was within the 20 working day timeframes of its repairs policy for routine repairs. The resident contacted the landlord on the day its contractor was due to complete the repair. She said she was unwilling to have its contractors in her home, so the repair was not completed.
19. As the landlord followed its repairs policy throughout there was no maladministration in its handling of bathroom repairs. It treated her report of a leak seriously but then its contractor identified that the cause of the leak was resultant from the unauthorised installation of a shower cubicle. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its contractor. It showed good customer focus when it offered to repair the flooring as a goodwill gesture, but the resident ultimately refused that offer.
20. We considered including a recommendation for the landlord to inspect the resident’s bathroom to establish if there were any repair issues. Then to set out its position whether it or the resident was responsible for those repairs. However, the resident told us she would not welcome that as she does not want the landlord to enter her home.

21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
    1. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had a published complaints policy that was compliant with the Code.
    2. The landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It acknowledged the complaint after 3 working days, 19 November 2024. It provided its response after 10 further working days, 3 December 2024. That was in line with the 10 working days allowed by the Code.
    3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on the same day it received it, 3 December 2024. The landlord decided to treat the new issues the resident raised about the leak in her bathroom as a separate stage 1 complaint. It provided its stage 1 response after 10 working days. It provided its stage 2 response after 34 working days, that was 14 days later than it should have under the Code. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by its delay and awarded the resident £50 compensation.
22. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the bathroom issues by opening a new complaint specifically for those issues. This approach was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy. Aside from the delay in its stage 2 complaint response which the landlord acknowledged, it responded to the resident’s complaints within the time allowed by the Code. To address delay, the landlord awarded £50 compensation which was proportionate and consistent with its compensation policy. Its policy allows it to award between £50 and £150 for failings with a low to moderate impact. As that amount is also in line with the service failure banding of our remedies guidance, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in its complaints handling.

Learning

23. The landlord’s complaint handling was positive. It showed due regard for the timescales set out in the Code. On the 1 occasion it failed to meet the timescales it was aware of its failing and put things right.