London Borough of Hounslow (202440050)

Decision
Case ID	202440050
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hounslow
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lived alone in a ground floor studio flat. The landlord was aware she had mental health problems. The tenancy began in March 2023. The resident moved to a new property in November 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding:
   1. The kitchen.
   2. The front door.
   3. Staff conduct.
   4. Her request to move.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of resident’s concerns about the kitchen.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of resident’s concerns about the front door.
6. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
7. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
8. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

 

Summary of reasons

Kitchen

9. The landlord did not do repairs within its policy timeframes.
10. It did not take reasonable steps to avoid no access appointments.
11. There was poor planning and management of the repairs process.

Front door

12. The landlord did not do repairs within its policy timeframes.
13. It did not take reasonable steps to avoid no access appointments.

Staff conduct

14. The landlord acknowledged shortcomings in the way the TSO dealt with the resident, apologised, and allocated a new TSO

Request to move

15. The landlord delayed giving advice about mutual exchange.
16. It did not explain to the resident why it did not intend to do a management transfer.

Complaint handling

17. The stage 1 response to the first complaint was 2 working days late.
18. The landlord did not make best use of the complaints process to identify where things had gone wrong, and provide an effective resolution for the resident.

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 provided by a senior officer. 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 05 January 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 made up as follows: £350 for inconvenience and distress due to its handling of resident’s concerns about the kitchen. £300 for inconvenience and distress due to its handling of resident’s concerns about the front door. £50 for inconvenience and distress as a result of its handling of the resident’s request to move. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble as a result of its handling of her complaints. 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 05 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 March 2024	Complaint 1 The resident complained that: The property was not in a suitable condition when she moved in. There were broken kitchen cupboards and issues with the worktops. The front door, was “flimsy” plastic, making her feel unsafe. She had to chase the landlord to do repairs. Living in the property negatively affected her mental health.
13 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged complaint 1 at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It said it would respond by 10 April 2024.
9 April 2024	The landlord gave a stage 1 response to complaint 1. It said: Void works and a post-inspection had been done before the resident moved in to ensure the property was in a suitable condition. The issues mentioned in the resident’s complaint had not been raised with it before, so it found there had been no service failure. It would inspect the kitchen and front door. It would advise the resident when the kitchen was due for renewal.
13 or 18 July 2024	The resident asked to escalate complaint 1 to stage 2. The landlord has not provided a record of this request.
Unknown	The landlord acknowledged the request to escalate. It said it would respond by 15 August 2024.
15 August 2024	The landlord gave a stage 2 response to complaint 1. It said: The kitchen met lettable home standard when the resident moved in. An inspection on 12 April 2024 found 3 cupboard doors, a worktop, and tiling below the boiler needed replacing; otherwise the kitchen was in good condition. The resident refused works on 11 June 2024 due to colour concerns; the repairs policy allowed replacing parts with the nearest available shade. The kitchen was functional; full replacement was scheduled for 2027/28. The front door was checked on 12 April 2024 and found in good working order. The resident refused a glass panel repair on 19 July 2024. It invited the resident to contact it to reschedule the repairs.
27 November 2024	Complaint 2 The resident complained that: She was not happy with the Tenancy Sustainment Officer’s (TSO) handling of repairs to the kitchen. The TSO had not shown empathy or support in relation to her mental health needs.
5 December 2024	The landlord acknowledged complaint 2 at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It said it would respond by 18 December 2024.
18 December 2024	The landlord gave a stage 1 response to complaint 2. It said: Repairs had been addressed appropriately in line with its processes. It acknowledged the TSO should have taken more care with the wording and tone of their correspondence. The resident had previously consented to information sharing with the mental health service, but the TSO should have informed her of their intention to contact them. It apologised and said it would speak to the TSO about the standards expected. The resident would be allocated a new TSO in January 2025.
31 December 2024	The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response to complaint 2.
4 February 2025	The landlord gave a stage 2 response to complaint 2. It said: The TSO should have shown more thoughtfulness, and should have informed the resident of their intent to contact the mental health service. It apologised and said it would reiterate staff behavioural expectations. On 31 January 2025 it offered to consider bringing forward the date for renewing the kitchen, but the resident declined as she said she found the studio flat claustrophobic and wanted to move. It provided information on applying for a transfer via the housing register. It proposed organising a multi-disciplinary team meeting, could provide the resident with a personal alarm, and would explore other measures to help her feel safe. It would do an inspection on 4 February 2025 to establish outstanding repairs.
16 May 2025	Complaint 3 The resident complained that: The property was unsuitable, and she was concerned about the impact of stress on her mental health and her unborn child. She had been turned down for priority on the housing register on medical grounds. The landlord had been 3 separate times to do measurements in the kitchen, she was frustrated with the lack of progress. She wanted a new kitchen and she wanted to move.
21 May 2025	The landlord acknowledged complaint 3 at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It said it would respond by 5 June 2025.
5 June 2025	The landlord gave a stage 1 response to complaint 3. It said: The resident’s case had been discussed at a multi-disciplinary team meeting and an exceptional needs panel, but she was not given priority to move on medical grounds. It provided advice on mutual exchange. The resident was being supported by the mental health team, the landlord’s tenancy sustainment team, had been referred to a domestic abuse organisation for support, and had been given a personal alarm. It apologised that repairs to the kitchen did not go ahead on 30 May 2025, and said the appointment had been rescheduled for 16 June 2025.
5 June 2025	The resident asked to escalate complaint 3 to stage 2. She said: She was unhappy with how the exceptional needs panel had handled her application. Information about the kitchen repairs in the stage 1 response was inaccurate. The landlord had not done a thorough inspection of the front door.
28 July 2025	Although the landlord did not acknowledge the request to escalate the complaint to stage 2, or give a stage 2 response, it gave a detailed letter in response to the resident’s concerns following intervention from this service. It said: The resident could ask to escalate complaint 3 to stage 2 if she was unhappy with its stage 1 response. The works to the kitchen had been delayed because the resident rearranged the 23 June 2025 appointment, did not allow access on 25 June 2025, and did not respond to a letter from the landlord on 4 July 2025. All of the kitchen works bar painting, tiling and application of sealant were completed on 17 and 22 July 2025.
23 September 2025 onwards	Complaint 4 The resident complained about the suitability of the property, especially in relation to the layout of the kitchen.   This complaint has not yet completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She said the landlord was not considerate of her mental health in its handling of her concerns about the kitchen, front door, and her request to move. She reported a decline in her mental health as a result of this. She moved into a new home in early November 2025.

 

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.

What we did not investigate

20. In deciding what to investigate we took into account the concurrent and related issues from the resident’s first 3 complaints to the landlord, the issues the resident asked us to investigate, and our Scheme and jurisdiction guidance. We did not investigate complaint 4 as it has not yet been considered at both stages of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. We did not investigate the handling of the resident’s housing register application, as the council was acting as a local authority administering the housing register under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996, not in its capacity as landlord. The resident may be able to complain about this to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Complaint	Handling of resident’s concerns about the kitchen.
Finding	Maladministration

21. The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s responsive repairs policy said the landlord must keep the property’s structure and exterior in good repair, and do repairs within a reasonable time after being told. The policy says the landlord is responsible for kitchen units, and sets out the following repair priority levels:
    1. Emergency: make safe within 4 hours.
    2. Priority 1 (seriously affects comfort of resident or causes damage to home, e.g. insecure external doors or windows): complete within 24 hours.
    3. Priority 2 (inconvenient and would cause damage): 3 working days.
    4. Routine (inconvenient, but no immediate risk, e.g. repairing and/or replacing individual kitchen units): 20 working days.
    5. Minor works (large jobs, e.g. new kitchen units/worktops, and replacement doors and windows): Either part of planned maintenance programme, or completed within 40 working days.

Delays

22. The evidence shows that the landlord did not do kitchen repairs in line with its responsive repairs policy timescales. Examples include:
    1. The resident reported broken kitchen cupboards and issues with the worktops on 13 March 2024. The landlord took the landlord 21 working days to do an inspection. It attended on 11 June 2024 to replace a cupboard doors, and put in a new unit and worktop. It was beyond the landlord’s control that the resident refused the works on this date. Even if it had completed the work on this date it was still 61 working days after the resident reported the need for repair. The replacement cupboard door was a routine repair that should have been done in 20 working days. The replacement unit and worktop where minor works which should have been done in 40 working days.
    2. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 November 2024 to report some kitchen cupboard doors and drawer fronts had fallen off. This was a routine repair, but the landlord did not complete the repairs until 22 July 2025, 170 working days later.
23. As a result of the delays to the kitchen repairs the resident experienced inconvenience and distress. There is no evidence seen that the landlord considered increasing the priority of the repairs on the basis of the resident’s vulnerability, as allowed by its policy.
24. A number of factors contributed to the delays, including:
    1. The landlord not being able to gain access.
    2. Poor planning and management of the repairs process.

No access appointments

25. Between March 2023 and July 2025 there were at least 6 recorded instances when the landlord went to the resident’s home to inspect or repair the kitchen, but could not gain access. Although the resident was obliged under the tenancy agreement to provide access for repairs, there is only minimal evidence seen that the landlord pre-agreed the appointment dates/times with her, and confirmed these in writing (for only 1 of the 6 no access appointments). There is no evidence seen that the landlord was proactive in rearranging missed appointments, or alternatively, cancelling the repair, as allowed by its policy after 2 missed appointments. Given the resident’s vulnerability, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to take extra steps to ensure it was able to gain access to do repairs, but there is no evidence seen that it did so. It is therefore not possible to conclude that the landlord acted reasonably to avoid, and in response to, no access appointments.

Poor planning and management of repairs process

26. The following are examples of poor planning and management of the repairs process by the landlord, which contributed to delays in repairs being completed:
    1. The resident reported broken kitchen cupboards and issues with the worktops on 13 March 2024. The landlord did an inspection on 12 April 2024 to determine the necessary repairs. However, it did not measure the size of the kitchen unit doors needed, so had to return on 7 May 2024 to do this (on which date it could not gain access).
    2. On 18 November 2024 the resident reported some kitchen cupboard doors and drawer fronts had fallen off. On 25 November 2025 she reported more doors and drawer fronts had fallen off, but the landlord did not update its repairs records to reflect this. As a result, the operative who attended on 26 February 2025 did not order any materials as there was more work to do than they were expecting. The materials were not ordered until at least 14 April 2025, after a further inspection.
    3. Operatives attended on 30 May 2025 to fit new kitchen unit doors, drawer fronts, and worktops. However, not enough time had been allowed, and some materials were incorrect, so a follow on appointment was booked for 16 June 2025.
    4. On 16 June 2025 the work was not completed as not all of the required materials had been ordered.

Request for new kitchen

27. The resident asked for a new kitchen on 11 June 2024, because the replacement parts did not match the existing units. The landlord’s response was reasonable and appropriate. In its 15 August 2024 stage 2 response it explained that policy allowed replacing parts with the nearest available shade, which was offered on 11 June 2024 but declined by the resident. It said the kitchen was functional, and kitchen renewal was not due until 2027/28.
28. In December 2024 the resident shared medical evidence saying the kitchen layout triggered her PTSD and affected her eating habits. On 31 December 2024 the landlord said it would consider bringing forward the kitchen renewal date because of this, but explained the layout might not change much due to fixed utility positions and limited space. This was a reasonable and proportionate response, taking into account the resident’s mental health condition, and the practicality and likely cost of changing the utility positions.

Conclusion

29. As a result of the delays resulting from landlord’s poor planning and management of the repairs process, and handling of no access appointments, the resident experienced inconvenience and distress across an extended period. She also expended time and trouble pursuing multiple complaints.

Complaint	Handling of resident’s concerns about the front door.
Finding	Maladministration

30. In the resident’s 13 March 2024 complaint she expressed concerns regarding the security of the front door. She said she did not feel safe. The landlord did not respond quickly enough. According to its repairs policy, given the security concerns, this would have been a priority 1 repair, which should have been attended within 24 hours. However, it took 41 working days for the landlord to do an initial inspection and apply safety film to a shattered glass panel.
31. It took a further 133 working days for the landlord to fit a new toughened glass panel to the door, which it did on 15 November 2024. It is unclear to what extent the door was objectively secure in the interim. The resident’s correspondence indicates she believed the door was not secure and she reported that this caused her distress. 
32. Between March 2024 and November 2024 there were at least 3 recorded instances when the landlord went to the resident’s home to inspect or repair the door, but could not gain access. Although the resident was obliged to provide access for repairs, there is no evidence seen that the landlord pre-agreed the dates/times of the no access appointments with the resident, and confirmed these in writing. There is no evidence seen that the landlord was proactive in rearranging missed appointments. It is therefore not possible to conclude that the landlord acted reasonably to avoid, and in response to, no access appointments.
33. In December 2024 the resident shared medical evidence, referencing domestic abuse she had experienced in the past, and saying the glass panel in the front door made her feel vulnerable and unsafe. The landlord was obliged to repair, but not renew the front door. It was reasonable that it offered to provide a personal alarm, and fit a security chain on the front door in response to the resident’s concerns.
34. As a result of the delays inspecting and repairing the front door, the resident experienced significant distress over an extended period of time. This was elevated due to vulnerability factors which were known to the landlord.

Complaint	Handling of resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
Finding	Reasonable redress

35. Between 20 November 2024 and 27 November 2024 the resident corresponded with the landlord’s tenancy sustainment officer (TSO) regarding damage to the kitchen units. The TSO queried how further damage had occurred. On 27 November 2024 the resident complained that the TSO had not shown empathy or support in relation to her mental health needs. On 5 December 2024 she further complained that the TSO had breached data protection regulations by contacting the mental health service without her consent.
36. While it was appropriate for the TSO to query how further damage to kitchen had happened, the landlord acknowledged (in 18 December 2024 stage 1 response, and its 4 February 2025 stage 2 response) that the TSO should have taken more care with the wording and tone of their correspondence, to convey understanding and empathy. The landlord reassured the resident that she had previously consented to information sharing with the mental health service, but agreed that the TSO should have informed her of their intention to contact them on that particular occasion. The landlord apologised and said it would speak to the TSO about the standards expected. The resident was allocated a new TSO in January 2025.
37. While the landlord acknowledged shortcomings in the way the TSO dealt with the resident, in apologising and allocating a new TSO, it gave appropriate and proportionate redress to the resident, which was in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and satisfactorily resolved this element of the complaint.

 

 

 

Complaint	Handling of resident’s request to move
Finding	Service failure

38. From December 2024 onwards the resident told the landlord she wanted to move to a new property, and shared medical evidence referencing the impact of the home condition, including the kitchen, on her mental health. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to join the housing register to request a transfer, as it did in its stage 2 response on 4 February 2025. We cannot investigate how the housing register application was handled because we only consider complaints about councils when they are acting as the landlord. In this case, the council was acting as a local authority administering the housing register under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996, not in its capacity as landlord. The resident may be able to complain about this to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
39. In its 5 June 2025 stage 2 response the landlord gave advice about mutual exchange. While this was appropriate advice, it would have been better to provide this at the same time as advising the resident to join the housing register, so she was aware of all options.
40. There is no evidence the circumstances for a management transfer were met. However, for the sake of completeness the landlord should have explained this to the resident, so that she could have confidence that the landlord had considered all of the options.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

41. The landlord’s complaints policy, in line with the Code, required the landlord to:
    1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days.
    2. Respond within 10 working days (with provision for extensions of up to 10 working days for complex cases).
    3. Acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days.
    4. Respond within 20 working days (with provision for extensions of up to 20 working days for complex cases).
42. In the main, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaints within the required timeframe. However, the stage 1 response to complaint 1 was slightly late, being 12 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. The landlord had not contacted the resident to notify her of the need for extra time. Additionally, it did not acknowledge her 31 December 2024 request to escalate complaint 2 to stage 2.
43. The landlord has not provided a record of the resident’s request to escalate complaint 1, so we are unable to confirm that it kept a full record of the complaint, as required by the Code.
44. In its correspondence with this service the landlord has acknowledged that, due to an error in its triage process, the resident’s 5 June 2025 stage 2 request was not escalated as it should have been. It has apologised for this. We appreciate that the volume and repetition of complaints submitted by the resident was a factor in the landlord’s failure here. It is encouraging that the landlord has already reminded staff of the importance of ensuring it understands complaints at the point of triage, to ensure complaints are escalated correctly.
45. Good complaint handling enables landlords to put things right for residents when they have gone wrong, and helps organisations develop and improve services. In this case, the landlord failed to identify during the complaints process that repairs to the kitchen and front door were not remedied within its repair policy timeframe. There is no evidence seen that it sought to understand the factors that caused the delays, and what it could do to avoid these in future. As result, the complaints process did not assist the landlord in providing a resolution for the resident, she expended time and trouble pursuing multiple complaints, and this had a negative impact on landlord/tenant relations. There was a lack of overall cohesion in the handling of concurrent issues resurfaced by the resident.

Learning

46. While the landlord has acknowledged and sought to learn from errors in complaint handling, there is no evidence it has sought to understand and learn from the factors that caused the delays repairing the kitchen and front door.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. The landlord’s repair records were found to be unclear and incomplete. This caused issues with operatives knowing what work was needed, and with the correct materials being ordered.
48. The record of the complaint is incomplete.

 

Communication

49. There is minimal evidence seen that the landlord pre-agreed the dates/times of repair appointments with the resident, and confirmed these in writing.