London Borough of Hounslow (202518163)

Decision
Case ID	202518163
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hounslow
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her adult daughter, who acts as their representative. The resident has said they are unsteady on their feet. Additionally, the resident’s representative has a disability which requires them to use crutches and a mobility scooter. The resident’s representative said when they moved into the property in 2024 the path to access the front door was not level and this is not suitable for theirs and their parent’s mobility challenges.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of a request to repair an external pathway.
3. We will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request to repair an external pathway.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a request to repair an external pathway:

6. The landlord did not fully consider the impact the pathway had on the household due to their mobility issues. The landlord did not follow through on its stage 2 commitments, and there has been a delay in the landlord committing to complete repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling:

7. The resident experienced brief delays in the landlord’s complaints handling. However, the delays were negated by the landlord’s thorough stage one response, and its timely response at stage 2.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows: £150 for the distress associated with the landlord’s failure to fully consider the impact the uneven pathway had on the household. £150 for the distress associated with the delays the resident experienced. 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 24 February 2026
2	Arranging the works The landlord is to update the resident on when the planned works to the pathway will occur, and its projected timescale for completing the works.	No later than 24 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 March 2025	The resident’s representative complained to the landlord, they said: When they moved into the property they were notified of the uneven pathways. They had been in contact with the landlord several times about the pathways, but no progress had been made. Steps along the pathway were sinking due to subsidence. They wanted the landlord to repair the pathway to ensure it was level given theirs and their mother’s mobility challenges.
23 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage one response. It said: The matter had been ongoing for a significant time, and it acknowledged this would have led to anxiety and frustration considering the household’s mobility needs. When the property was unoccupied its voids team did not consider levelling the pathway to be necessary. On 24 July 2024 its repairs team inspected the pathway, and because of the size of the job the matter was passed onto a supervisor. The supervisor inspected the property on 6 August 2024. On 14 August 2024 a surveyor inspected the path. After this no additional action was taken, as it was thought the repairs had already been arranged. On 17 October 2024, the landlord re-levelled a manhole cover on the pathway. A post-work inspection found this repair did not meet the required standard, and it later repeated the work. Operatives attended the property on 6 February 2025 to complete the repair, but the works were postponed as the operatives did not have appropriate equipment. An inspection had occurred on 8 April 2025, and it was awaiting the outcome from this inspection before it arranged the repair. It committed to making the pathway safe, and said it would explain the details of the repair to the path once it was able to do so. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the time the repair had been outstanding, and as its communication around the repair had been poor. It offered the resident £100 in compensation.
6 June 2025	The resident escalated their complaint as they were disappointed that the landlord had proposed completing patch repairs to the path when it had previously committed to re-tarmac the affected areas.
2 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response, it said: It had determined that a full re-tarmac was not required after a review by a senior surveyor and its occupational health team. It had arranged for patch repairs to occur to ensure the pathway would be level and free from trip hazards. After the works it would conduct a post-work inspection. During the post-work inspection it would also assess if the steps were subsiding, and if this required additional repairs. It apologised for the confusion and the lack of clarity around the repair, but it felt the £100 in compensation offered at stage one was reasonable in the circumstances.
4 August 2025	The resident brought their complaint to us as they were dissatisfied that the landlord had proposed to complete a patch repair after it had previously committed to re-tarmac the pathway.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a request to repair an external pathway.
Finding	Maladministration

8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will repair trip hazards on pathways and driveways. The policy includes that it will aim to complete complex repairs within 40 days.
9. The Equality Act 2010 places legal obligations on social landlords to prevent discrimination based on protected characteristics. Under the act landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled persons are not disadvantaged. We have no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, this can only be done by the courts. However, we can consider if a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.
10. The pathway in question is a tarmacked area. The resident’s representative says this is the only method of entering the property. They report that repairs to the path have not been successful, and that it remains uneven and causes puddles to form when it rains.
11. The resident is in their eighties, and has mobility challenges. The resident’s representative also lives in the property. They are disabled and their disability requires them to use crutches and a mobility scooter. The representative said the access difficulties have led to the household becoming isolated as they don’t like leaving the home due to concerns about trips and falls.
12. The resident’s representative said that when the family moved into the property in February 2024, they highlighted the access issues. They said the landlord committed to levelling the pathway, re-tarmacking and laying paving stones. On 25 March 2025, the resident’s representative complained that the landlord had not progressed the repair despite its previous commitments.
13. In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the repair had been delayed. It committed to completing the works and said its poor communication and poor internal collaboration had contributed to the delay. This was reasonable and appropriate.
14. It also offered the resident £100 in compensation. We consider this offer to be low given the failings the landlord identified, the distress the household would have experienced, and their vulnerabilities. The landlord said it uses our remedies guidance when determining compensation. Our remedies guidance is a tool for Housing Ombudsman case workers, and there is no requirement for landlords to follow our guidance. Under our remedies guidance, compensation of £100 or less should be offered when the impact on a resident has been minimal and brief. This does not accurately reflect the failings the landlord identified, or the distress they experienced. It appears to us that the landlord did not fully consider the distress associated with mobility challenges, and how such concerns could impact the household on a daily basis.
15. Following its stage one response the landlord decided it would complete patch repairs to level the pathway. It made this decision after seeking advice from a surveyor and its occupational health team. It also committed to completing a post work inspection and to investigate the resident’s reports of subsidence around the pathway. This was an appropriate course of action when considering the advice given, and the landlord’s commitment to inspect the works.
16. The resident’s representative said the patch repairs have not been successful in levelling the path. They report that the tarmac used for the patch repairs has migrated because it was laid on a particularly hot day, and they believe subsidence is affecting the pathway.
17. We asked the landlord for information around its investigations into possible subsidence and any associated repairs. The landlord said it did not have any records relating to the reported subsidence. This indicates the landlord did not follow through on its stage 2 commitments.
18. After we notified the landlord that our investigation had begun, it decided to re‑inspect the pathway. On 22 January 2026 the landlord confirmed it had raised a work order to break up the existing pathway and install a new one. This showed it had taken steps to address the repair without our prompting it to do so which was a positive step. However, the landlord could have committed to completing this work at an earlier stage.
19. We have found maladministration occurred as the landlord did not fully consider the impact on the resident due to theirs and their daughter’s vulnerabilities, and due to the time taken to commit to relaying the path and investigate the reported subsidence. When determining compensation, we have taken into account that the landlord’s commitment to re-tarmac the pathway indicates a genuine effort to improve conditions for the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

20. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
21. The resident made their complaint on 24 March 2025, and the landlord acknowledged the complaint 11 working days later. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 12 working days after the acknowledgement. Both actions at stage 1 were outside the policy timescales; however, the delay was limited to 8 working days. The stage 1 response was thorough and addressed the issues raised, which mitigated the inconvenience the resident may have experienced from the delay.
22. The complaint was escalated on 6 June 2025, and the landlord acknowledged this 6 working days later. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 14 working days after acknowledgement. The stage 2 response was sent well within the required timescales, which negated the 1 working day delay in acknowledging the escalation request.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. This case highlighted delays caused by poor record keeping, and poor communication between the landlord’s different departments. This could have been mitigated had records been clear about the proposed works, timescales, and the required equipment.

Communication

24. This case highlights poor communication from the landlord about the repair. This led the resident to feel as if they were chasing the landlord. This could have been prevented through better record keeping and proactive communication.