London Borough of Croydon (202507307)

Background

1. The resident was allocated a property for her family in February 2024. One of her 3 children is a wheelchair user with complex medical needs. The property required adaptations, including an extension, before the family could move in. The resident raised a complaint due to the delays in completing the works.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of adaptations to make the property suitable for the family.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord:
   1. Responsible for maladministration in its handling of adaptations to make the property suitable for the family.
   2. Made an offer of reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There were delays with the works being completed so the resident could move in. While these delays were unavoidable, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout the time she had to wait. This caused significant distress and inconvenience which could have been minimised if the landlord had kept the resident updated. Whilst the resident has now moved in, some external work remains outstanding.
6. There were minor delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. It made a reasonable offer of compensation to put things right in relation to these delays.

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.

Recommendations

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.

7. The resident and the council had been looking for a suitable property for several years, following a decision in 2020 that the current home could not meet the medical needs of the resident’s son. This investigation considers events after the property was identified and allocated to the family, as part of the landlord’s housing management responsibilities.
8. We recognise that the resident and her family were living in a home that was not suitable for their needs for a long time. This includes the period before a property that could be adapted was identified. We understand how difficult this must have been for the family. We also acknowledge how frustrating the time it took to do the work much have been for them.
9. The evidence shows the landlord submitted a planning application on 22 February 2024, the same day the resident viewed and accepted the allocation. The landlord had the required paperwork ready to submit, which was positive.
10. Planning permission was granted on 5 July 2024, later than expected because the Council requested changes to the submitted drawings. This delay was outside of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord did not inform the resident about the delay or its impact on the expected move-in date. This was not reasonable.
11. The landlord then progressed the works through the required processes, including appointing an architect, structural engineer and contractor, obtaining approvals for plans and funding, and involving the Occupational Therapist when needed. Some of the steps in the process took longer than expected, but these delays were outside of the landlord’s control.
12. Once the contractors got on site and started working, they realised the works would take longer than initially anticipated. This was caused by various factors including it taking longer to get materials than expected, additional ground works needed to prepare the site, and building control requiring an increase to the foundation depths. These additional delays up to September 2025 were outside of the landlord’s control.
13. During the adaptation works, the resident repeatedly asked for temporary accommodation. The landlord searched for suitable options but was unable to identify an appropriate property. It was reasonable for the landlord to continue looking during this period.
14. While the landlord provided some updates after the complaint was raised, overall communication was poor. On several occasions, the resident was not informed in advance that the move-in date would be delayed. This was unreasonable. Whilst the delays were outside the landlord’s control, it was aware of the resident’s household circumstances and needs. It should have made sure that she was kept updated with a realistic timeline for completion.
15. Some external works, such as fencing and laying a lawn, remain incomplete. It is unclear whether further works, such as drainage, are required. The resident asked to move in despite these outstanding works, and the landlord agreed, which was reasonable given the family’s needs. As we have identified failings in the landlord’s communication in this case, we have ordered it to provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of outstanding works, as the resident states she does not know what is planned.
16. The poor communication about delays had a significant impact on the resident. She:
    1. Packed up the house multiple times in anticipation of moving, which was inconvenient.
    2. Prepared her children for specific move dates several times, only for the moves not to happen, leaving them unsettled.
    3. Spent time chasing up the landlord for updates.
17. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the adaptations. We recognise that the adaptations required major and extensive work, involving a number of different parties and processes, including a planning application. Overall, we did not find that the landlord was responsible for significant delays. However, its responsibility for the works included making sure that the resident was kept updated. There were repeated failures to update her, including when the works were delayed.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the property would be ready for the resident to move in on 2 September 2025. However, there were further delays and poor communication after this. This is particularly concerning as the landlord had recognised that there were failings in its stage 2 response and it should have been proactive in ensuring that its communication was improved.
19. The resident began moving in on 5 November 2025. Between September and November, the landlord did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and gave contradictory information, which caused confusion. The evidence provided to this Service does not explain why there was a further delay.
20. In its stage 2 response, on 22 May 2025, the landlord offered the resident £500 in compensation for delays from June 2025 to 2 September 2025. As discussed above, the delays were outside of the control of the landlord, and the primary issue is the communication about the delays throughout the process and not just since June 2025. Despite this, the £500 the landlord offered was reasonable overall to recognise the poor communication about the delays up to 2 September 2025.
21. Given the further delays and poor communication following the complaints process, we find it’s fair for the landlord provide further compensation. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £200, in addition to the £500 previously offered. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and is to recognise the further distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

22. The landlord’s policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2.
23. The landlord responded within its policy at stage 1. It was 2 working days late in acknowledging the stage 2 escalation and 1 working day late in responding at stage 2, but approximately one week later than it said it would respond. This likely caused frustration to the resident.
24. Both responses are detailed and respond to all of the concerns that were raised. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was good.
25. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £50 for the delays in the complaint handling. Given the delays were minimal and did not cause a significant impact, we find that £50 is fair and appropriate. We have recommended the landlord pay this amount if it hasn’t already done so.

Learning

Record keeping

26. We did not identify any record keeping issues in this case.

Communication

27. The landlord’s communication with the resident during the adaptation works was the main shortcoming in this case. If the landlord had kept the resident updated about delays and managed expectations throughout the process, many of the issues identified in this decision could have been avoided.
28. Given the significant issues around communication identified in this case, the landlord should consider what learning it can take from this investigation. This should help to inform its approach to future adaptation works that involve major building work and multiple council departments.