London Borough of Barnet (202326593)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326593

London Borough of Barnet

27 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the communal door.
2. Reports of leaks and the associated damage.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of her property.
The resident raised three different repairs for the communal door in early 2023. After requesting another repair on 18 April 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint about the lack of a lasting repair and she questioned the suitability of the door.
On 5 May 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response in which it partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It agreed to send a supervisor to inspect the quality of the recent repairs and said it would consider replacing the door.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 May 2023. She again questioned the quality of the recent repairs and said that the landlord failed to respond to her emails. Within the complaint, the resident said that the landlord had not repaired a leak that she reported in January 2023. She asked the landlord to carry out works in her property to repair the damage caused by the leak.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 June 2023 in which it upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord said that the door was of a “poor standard” and questioned the findings of the previous inspection. The landlord said that it would make a referral to its major works team for a new door. It added that it had been unable to find the cause of the leak but a new inspection would be arranged.
The resident brought the complaint to this Service on 3 November 2023. She advised that the landlord had not replaced the communal door or offered a timeframe for the replacement. The resident also said that the landlord had not repaired the leak, or carried out any repair works inside her property.
The resident reported on 31 January 2024 that the landlord had since replaced the door but it did not close correctly. She said that the landlord had not responded to her concerns.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the communal door

Landlord records show that in the years prior to the resident’s complaint, it received numerous reports of faults with the communal door. Most of the repairs reported to the landlord were about the lock and the overall security of the door.
The resident reported that the door handle had “come off” on 5 January 2023. The landlord recorded the repair as a priority 3, which its repair policy said would mean completion of the repair within 15 working days. However, the landlord did not record the repair as complete until 14 February 2023, some 28 working days later. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it did not meet the timeframe set out in its policy, prolonging the inconvenience experienced by the resident.
While awaiting the repair, the landlord raised a further works order for the same issue on 20 January 2023. The landlord noted that its contractors attended and found the doors working correctly and it marked the works order as completed on 25 January 2023.
As the landlord said that it did not repair the door handle until 14 February 2023, this calls into question the contractor’s attendance on 25 January 2023. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord, as either its record keeping is incorrect or the inspection by the contractor did not take place.
It is evident from photographs provided by the resident that the repair carried out by the landlord in early 2023, prior to her complaint, was not to a reasonable standard. One example showed that the landlord failed to use the correct number of screws to attach the door handle and did not replace the metal plate and cover, leaving it looking insecure.
The landlord recorded that the same handle had “fallen off” in April 2023, only a few months after its initial repair. This is a service failing by the landlord as it failed to ensure that it carried out a good quality, lasting repair.
When provided with these photographs as part of the complaint, the landlord failed to comment on, or acknowledge, its failings. However, it did agree to arrange an inspection of the door which was reasonable given the resident’s complaint.
Following the stage 1 response, an operative carried out a further repair to the door. A supervisor then inspected and reported that there were no issues with it. The resident emailed the complaint team on three occasions following the repair to question it and the findings of the supervisor. It is clear that the landlord did not respond until the resident escalated the complaint. This lack of oversight of the agreed actions is a service failing on the part of the landlord.
As part of the stage 2 complaint process, another contractor inspected the door and recommended that the landlord replace it. The landlord questioned the findings of its supervisor within its response and said it would investigate this further. This demonstrates a continued pattern of works that were not to the required standard. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord and the lack of good quality, lasting repairs meant that the resident had to keep reporting these failings to the landlord.
In resolution to the complaint, the landlord agreed that the communal door required replacing and it would provide the resident with a timeframe for this work. It is important that a landlord follows up on such actions until completion. However, this Service has not had sight of any correspondence from the landlord to keep the resident informed about the door replacement. This lack of oversight of the agreed actions is another service failing on the part of the landlord.
The resident reported to this Service on 31 January 2024 that the landlord had replaced the front door, but that it was still not closing or locking properly. The resident said that the landlord had failed to respond to her recent reports about the door. Although it is positive that the landlord replaced the door, it is understandable that the resident was frustrated with a lack of engagement about it. The resident recently advised this Service that the door is now working correctly.
During the complaint process, the landlord did not offer any form of compensation payment as redress for its failings. Given the failings identified in this report, the landlord should have offered a payment in recognition of the inconvenience caused. This Service will order a compensation payment as redress.
In summary, the landlord failed to carry out good quality, lasting repairs to the communal door in a timely manner. Given the number of reports about the security of the door, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a replacement sooner. Had it done so, the resident may not have needed to raise a complaint. When the resident reported these issues, it should have acknowledged its failings, offered an appropriate resolution and followed this through to completion. Having considered the service failings identified in this review, this Service makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door.

Reports of leaks and the associated damage

The resident said within her stage 2 complaint that she had first reported a leak in January 2023 and chased responses from the landlord since. This Service made a request for evidence and information related to these reports. The landlord did provide details of works orders it raised following the stage 2 complaint but the records it provided did not include any orders raised prior to the complaint being raised.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord said that “there have been recent inspections on the block”. The landlord also said that it had ruled out a water tank leak in May 2023 and there was a roof inspection in April 2023 which did not find any issues. This response shows that the landlord had previously acted on the leak reports. However, its communal area repair logs did not include details of the leak reports or the inspections it carried out.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations which likely caused inconvenience to the resident. This has also prevented the Ombudsman from determining the time and trouble spent by the resident in addressing these concerns.
The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when requested by this Service. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The evidence we have seen indicates that the resident reported leaks prior to the stage 2 complaint. Although the landlord may have completed the checks detailed in the later complaint response, the landlord did not update the resident throughout that process. Given that she experienced damage to her property because of the leaks, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not keep her informed. This lack of engagement is another service failing by the landlord which added to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Landlord evidence shows that after the stage 2 complaint, it took action to address the leak. It inspected and acted on its findings, noting that it completed the works on 14 September 2023. Given the scope of the works and the required planning, the timeframe was reasonable.
Records show that the resident reported further leaks in March 2024. The landlord recorded that it completed further works on 17 June 2024. The scope of the works and the time taken to complete the works was similar to the year before. This improved oversight of similar issues following the complaint is positive when considering the landlord’s earlier management of such reports.
When requested by this Service, the landlord provided evidence of the roofing works. However, it did not provide any evidence of any inspections of the resident’s property to ascertain any damage caused by the leaks. It is unclear if the landlord undertook any inspections, repairs or decoration works following the repairs in September 2023.
The landlord failed to show learning from the previous complaint as at stage 2, it also failed to provide adequate oversight of the actions it proposed as a resolution. It said that it would survey for any rectification works inside the resident’s property but we have seen no evidence that this was done. One of the Ombudsman’s principles of dispute resolution is that landlords should learn from complaints. The lack of ownership from the landlord to ensure it carried out all actions proposed at stage 2 led to the resident experiencing further distress and inconvenience. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord.
Within its complaint response, the landlord failed to offer any acknowledgement of its failings by way of a compensation payment. This Service will make orders for compensation and for the landlord to address the potential damage in the resident’s property.
In summary, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s reports of a leak in early 2023 in a timely manner during which period there were also record keeping failures. Although the landlord carried out repairs following the complaint, it is not clear that it followed up on its agreement to inspect the resident’s property and discuss potential redecoration or repair of any damage caused by the leaks. Having considered the failings in this element of the complaint, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leak reports and the associated damage.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the communal door repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and associated damage.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report
Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £500 to the resident, made up of:
1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of the communal door repairs; and
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of the reports of leaks and associated damage.
Within 28 days of this report, the landlord must write to the resident and set out its position regarding whether it intends to address any damage caused to her property as a result of the leaks.
The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.