London Borough of Ealing (202447207)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447207

London Borough of Ealing

14 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports that she did not view the property before sign up and subsequently found the kitchen too small for appliances.
    2. Request of a second entrance door key.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom house where she lives with her 4 children. Her tenancy commenced on 23 September 2024. The landlord, a local council, owns the property.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 November 2024. We have not had sight of the original complaint but this related to concerns she had not viewed the property prior to accepting it. Once she obtained the keys, she became aware there was no space for a washing machine or refrigerator in her kitchen. She also reported she did not have a key for the second entrance door.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 9 December 2024. It said the resident had viewed the property but acknowledged the kitchen lacked space for appliances. It confirmed a surveyor would inspect the property to assess whether it was possible to create space for the appliances and apologised for any inconvenience this may have caused. They confirmed a request had been made for a lock change.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 11 December 2024 and repeated her concerns. On 13 January 2025 the resident again asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 February 2025. It apologised for its delay and said she had been given a second door key. It confirmed it would provide space for a standard refrigerator and for a washing machine but in doing so the resident would lose cupboard space. It also advised her that she could request permission to alter the kitchen. It asked the resident to contact it should she wish to proceed or to seek permission for the alterations.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She disputed the landlord’s responses and repeated that she had been unable to view the property, the landlord had delayed in providing a second entrance door key and resolving the issues with space in her kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has told us that next to the fireplace where her American style fridge freezer is situated the floor is uneven and walls are unfinished. She reported that she believes mice are entering as a result. We have seen no evidence that she raised these matters as part of her original complaint.
  2. We are unable to consider matters which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have seen no evidence the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to these issues. She may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord in relation to these matters.

Reports the resident did not view the property and subsequently found the kitchen is too small for appliances

  1. The evidence indicates that in making her complaint the resident stated that she had previously contacted the landlord to say she had been unable to view the property prior to accepting it. She had also reported the lack of space in the kitchen for her appliances which she found upon moving into the property. Specifically, the kitchen had no plumbing for a washing machine or space for a refrigerator. She said she had been told it would complete the work within 2 weeks but nothing had happened. While we do not dispute the resident’s assertion, we have seen no evidence of her reports prior to her complaint of 4 November 2024.
  1. In its stage 1 complaint response on 9 December 2024 the landlord said the resident had been shown the property at the viewing but accepted there was a lack of space in the kitchen for a washing machine or refrigerator. It stated a surveyor would need to inspect the kitchen to see if these could be installed. This was a reasonable and appropriate response to a request to alter her kitchen. It was also in accordance with its lettable standard which says that where possible space will be available for a fridge/freezer, a washer with drainage, cooker space with sockets. It also refers to space restrictions noting that standard white goods may not be suitable and narrow goods are available. It will consider undersized kitchens for alteration or extension as much as possible.
  2. Although the landlord stated the surveyor would contact the resident, it gave no timescale for this inspection. Doing so would have assured the resident that it was dealing with her concerns.
  3. On 11 December 2024 a surveyor attended the property to inspect the kitchen. The report shows photographs of an American style fridge freezer situated next to the fireplace in the lounge. The landlord has confirmed that it carried out no works to this area but contractors helped the resident put it in this location in December 2024. The surveyor also noted it may be possible for a space for the washing machine to be installed but at a loss of kitchen cupboards.
  4. Following the inspection, we have seen no evidence that the resident was told of her options in the kitchen and how she could progress the works. This shows poor communication from the landlord.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 December 2024 stating the landlord was wrong to say she had been able to view the property as it had forgotten to bring keys to the appointment. She acknowledged the surveyor had attended that day but wanted it to immediately create space for the appliances in the kitchen. The resident stated the situation was causing her unnecessary stress and financial strain by having to use a laundrette for her family of 5. It again does not appear to have responded to her email.
  6. On 13 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord again to say the works to the kitchen remained outstanding and there had been lots of missed appointments including that day. We have seen no evidence of when appointments were made which suggests a record keeping failure.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 18 February 2025 it acknowledged that the resident had not been given the opportunity to view the property. It apologised and said that it should have rearranged the viewing. That said, we have seen no evidence that the resident requested a further viewing. She was also under no obligation to accept the property and could have delayed the sign up until she had the opportunity to view.
  8. In its response the landlord confirmed its staff had been reminded that a full viewing should be carried out before an applicant accepts a property. This demonstrates some learning from the complaint and shows its commitment to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
  9. The landlord stated that only a standard size refrigerator could be installed in the kitchen and apologised for any confusion by the surveyor indicating otherwise. It confirmed it was able to provide space for the washing machine but that the resident would lose cupboard space. It provided instructions on how to proceed if she wished for the works to go ahead. Alternatively, it suggested she could request permission to carry out her own alterations at her own cost.
  10. The landlord’s response was appropriate. It had no obligation to provide additional space for appliances. It helped the resident put her American style fridge freezer in an appropriate place. It followed its lettable standard guidance and gave the resident options on how to proceed regarding her washing machine. We have seen no evidence that she contacted the landlord to discuss or accept one of the options.
  11. The landlord has told us that it has scheduled an appointment for 15 August 2025 to create space for the washing machine.
  12. In summary, although there were shortcomings in its earlier response to the matter, we consider the landlord’s responses to be adequate overall. It acknowledged its earlier error in stating that the resident viewed the property and apologised for this. It also assisted her in ensuring that her fridge freezer could be situated in an alternative space and provided practical options for the installation of the washing machine.

Request for a second entrance door key

  1. In the resident’s complaint she stated she did not have a key to the second entrance door which was causing her inconvenience. It is a reasonable expectation when a resident accepts a property they are given all the relevant keys and the landlord failed to do so.
  2. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 9 December 2024 it confirmed that it had requested a lock change and its contractor would arrange an appointment with the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to raise an order to complete the lock change until a month after the resident had raised her complaint. This created an unnecessary delay and likely added to the resident’s frustration. It did not complete the lock change until 21 January 2025. This was 26 working days outside the landlord’s repairs policy timescale of 28 working days.
  3. The landlord failed to apologise for the delay or offer any redress. We have made an order for the landlord to apologise for the delay and pay compensation to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. Following the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 4 November 2024 it said it would respond by 21 November 2024. It responded on 9 December 2024, 12 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. It failed to offer an apology for its delay.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 11 December 2024, however, we have seen no evidence that it responded or escalated her complaint which is a failing.  She repeated her request on 13 January 2025 which the landlord acknowledged within 5 working days. It said it would respond by 13 February 2025.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 February 2025, 4working days later than its complaint policy timescale. While the landlord apologised for its delay it offered no redress. As a result of the failures, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she did not view the property and subsequently found the kitchen too small for appliances.
    2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports she did not have a second door key.
    3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following actions and must provide evidence of its compliance to this Service:
    1. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident, and not offset against any arrears, the sum of £100 broken down as follows:
      1. £50 for time and trouble for its failure to provide a second door key.
      2. £50 for distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling failures.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider contacting the resident about her concerns regarding the uneven floor, unfinished walls, and mice. It should consider arranging an inspection to assess the situation with a view to completing any required works.