London Borough of Newham (202326788)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a one bedroom first floor flat. She complained about the condition of communal areas in the building and was not satisfied when the landlord did not provide her with a definitive date for completing works it had identified. There are no known vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to communal areas.
   2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to communal areas.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made recommendations for the landlord.

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of communal repairs

5. The landlord carried out a survey that identified that the reported issues to the interior and exterior of the building were cosmetic. It added these works to its planned works programme and told the resident that it was unable to confirm when this would take place. Its overall response to the complaint was satisfactory, though there was some evidence of delays and poor communication.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord apologised about delays in its complaint handling at stage 2 and for a lack of clarity in its communications when addressing the correct location of the repair. It offered compensation for the total of £100. This was reasonable and proportionate redress.

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.

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.

What we have not investigated

7. A complaint is duly made when it has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident contacted us on 24 July 2024 to ask that a note be added to the file about the poor quality of painting that had been carried out. This complaint did not form part of the original matters because it has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. For this reason, it cannot be considered in this investigation.

The landlord’s response to reports of communal repairs

8. The resident reported issues with the communal areas of the building between April and October 2023. The landlord did not dispute its repair and maintenance responsibility. This was in accordance with the terms of the resident’s lease agreement.
9. In its first stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged a delay in its response to paint peeling on the stairwell. It said it would ask the repairs team to take action to put it right and apologised for the delay. It offered compensation for the delay, but it did not identify or communicate at this stage that the repair may form part of planned cyclical works for the building. The landlord also provided the resident with the direct email for the repairs team to report any further concerns directly. It was beneficial for the landlord to signpost the resident to the direct repairs email for future repair issues.
10. The landlord completed some painting work in August 2023, but it did not cover the areas the resident specified on the communal flooring. In its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident that the repairs were cosmetic and would likely be included in the next programme of cyclical works. It said that once the survey was complete and works were scheduled, the resident would be informed.
11. The landlord reasonably relied on its survey results when telling the resident that the reported issues were cosmetic. However, it delayed too long because it did not complete the survey until 9 months after her initial report.
12. In its further stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the handrail repair was still outstanding and set an action for its repairs team to get a contractor complete the repair and monitor progress. However, the repair log shows the repair as completed in April 2023 creating a discrepancy. This raises concerns about the accuracy of record keeping and whether it had completed the repair. Although the repair status was unclear, the resident did not raise this issue in her subsequent complaints. This may indicate it resolved the repair later.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained the scope of the required works. It stated that the holes in the floor and cracks needing filler did not pose a health and safety risk. The landlord relied on the inspection outcome, which was reasonable. Based on the inspection and the nature of the works, it appropriately included the repairs in the cyclical works programme.
14. We acknowledge the landlord delayed the inspection survey and its communication with the resident about the cyclical repair works. It also failed to give the resident information on how it would prioritise future planned works. The resident then escalated her complaint. She said the landlord did not repair the cracks or peeling paint in the correct area and, in her view, failed to meet its obligations because the works remained outstanding.
15. Our Insight report on shared ownership and our Spotlight report “A new lease of life” explains the importance of timely and effective communication with residents in connection with complaints about communal areas and estate management and the importance of record management.
16. We have seen internal communications from the landlord before its stage 2 response was issued in which it attempted to establish if the resident’s building was scheduled in the next planned programme of repairs so that this detail could be provided as part of tits response, however, it was not possible for the landlord to confirm this at the time given information about future planned works was unknown.
17. The landlord tried to confirm a clear timescale for the cyclical works before it issued its stage 2 response but could not do so. It was commendable that it tried to give the resident as much information as possible, but a concern that it did not receive a response internally.

Post complaint procedure

18. After its stage 2 response, the resident told the landlord she accepted the outstanding repairs would be part of the cyclical works but wanted to know when they would take place. The landlord replied that its technical team managed the planned works and it would inform her when the schedule was known. It was reasonable for the landlord to have clarified which team was responsible for cyclical works and for it to confirm that it would update her when it knew when this would take place.
19. In the landlord’s contact with us in June 2025 it explained that it was in the process of prioritising repairs to its portfolio in view of its available resource and its legislative health and safety objectives. We consider it reasonable for the landlord to assess planned works on that basis but there is no evidence to indicate that it shared this with the resident. This would have provided the resident with transparency about its decision making.
20. In her contact with us, the resident said she felt ‘powerless’ because of delays in the communal repair work. It would have been good practice if the landlord explained the reasons why it could not complete cyclical works and how often it would survey the property before planning future work based on its priorities. It would also have been good practice for the landlord to have assured the resident that it would address any reported repairs that were more than cosmetic on a case-by-case basis.
21. The landlord did not effectively communicate a timely explanation to the resident of steps taken to identify the repairs as suitable to be included as part of wider estate management. It did not provide an update about the frequency of inspection surveys or explain how this work would be prioritised, along with a reason for any delay in cyclical works.
22. We acknowledge the communication issues. However, the inspection survey confirmed that the peeling paint in communal areas was cosmetic and did not pose a health and safety risk. Therefore, the delays in decorative works caused no significant detriment to the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to include these repairs in its planned future decorative works.
23. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have assured residents that it would provide updates on its cyclical works programme. However, it could not give the resident a date for the works because this was not an achievable outcome following her complaint. The landlord did show that it took reasonable steps to provide a meaningful outcome to the resident its stage 2 response.
24. Therefore, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of communal repairs.
25. We have recommended the landlord provides timely updates to the resident about its decision making in relation to its cyclical works programme and the frequency of surveys that informs decision making, along with the reasons for any delay in cyclical repairs.

The 10 and 20 working days, respectively.

26. The landlord’s complaint policy provided a two-step stage 1 process, an early resolution stage and a complaint investigation stage. For services delivered to leaseholders, it set out that response times would be given in line with the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s Code – 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2, respectively. The policy offered no timescales for when it would acknowledge a complaint.
27. It is unclear when the resident made her initial complaints. The landlord did not provide us with the original complaints, which raises a record-keeping concern. In its stage 1 response dated 11 July 2023, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in repairs to the communal stairwell flooring. It said it would ensure it completed the repair. On 23 October 2023, the resident complained again because the flooring repairs were still outstanding. The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2.
28. While the resident’s complaint appeared to be a continuation of the pre-existing issues, there was a period of over 3 months between the landlord’s stage 1 response and the further complaint. Given the landlord was operating under the previous complaints policy, we recognise that the landlord pursued its second step stage 1 process. We understand this caused unnecessary delay due to a protracted complaint resolution and was not in keeping with the expectations set out in the Code to prevent this type of scenario.
29. The landlord provided the resident with the further stage 1 response on 22 November 2023, 11working days outside of the landlord’s expected timeframe. The landlord did not provide evidence that it had given a notice of extension to the resident. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day, and the stage 2 response was provided in line with the 20 working days timescale.
30. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the lack of clarity in its complaint handling communications with the resident regarding the correct location of the reported repairs and £50 for the delays in the stage 2 response.
31. Overall, the landlord acknowledged failings in its complaint handling. It apologised to the resident and offered compensation to put things right, which provided reasonable redress which we consider was proportionate to the complaint handling shortcomings identified. In April 2025 the landlord updated its policy to align with the Code.

Learning

Knowledge and Information Management

There were issues with the landlord’s record keeping in relation to its complaint and repairs records as follows:

• The landlord has not provided us with the original resident complaints which raises concerns with its record keeping. The landlord should ensure accurate records are maintained as part of effective complaint handling.
• The repairs log did not accurately reflect the date works had been completed. It is necessary that the landlord understands the importance of maintaining accurate repairs records and how this is essential for it to explain what has happened, and to ensure an