London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202338408)

Background

1. The resident reported a faulty lock on his front door. The landlord told him to hire a private locksmith. Subsequent damage was caused to the door, which the resident asked the landlord to resolve.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new front door and for it to reimburse him for the locksmith charges he had incurred.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new front door and for it to reimburse him for the locksmith charges he had incurred.
5. We have made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord gave the resident accurate information about leaseholder responsibilities. In its complaint responses the landlord maintained that resident was responsible for the repair, which was in line with the lease.
7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint promptly at both stages.

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.

8. The resident told us that he had paid the landlord £2,000 in service charges for the front door. He said he disputed these charges as the door would not lock. As this was not included as part of the complaint, we cannot include it in our investigation. This is because we can only investigate matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. We also cannot consider the amount or appropriateness of charges paid. This would more appropriately be determined by the first-tier tribunal. If the resident brought a new complaint to us about service charges, we would only be able to investigate how the landlord responded to these concerns, rather than the charges themselves.
9. In December 2023 the resident asked the landlord to repair the front door lock after he said the wind forced the door closed and broke it. The lease says that resident is responsible for internal doors, “save where such door opens onto a balcony or patio or onto the exterior of a building”. As the resident’s front door opened on to a communal area, it would be reasonable to conclude that the resident was responsible for the repair. This position is supported by the landlord’s published guidance, which says that leaseholders are responsible for entrance doors and their frames unless the door opens on to the exterior of the building.
10. In line with both the lease terms and the landlord’s published information, the landlord responded promptly to the resident to advise that the repair was the resident’s responsibility. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not repair the door or agree to reimburse the resident’s locksmith costs.
11. The resident asked the landlord about making a claim under the door’s warranty. The landlord advised that the warranty had expired and did not apply because additional damage had occurred. This explanation appropriately set out why the warranty could not be used.
12. The landlord’s stage 1 response explained that the resident was required to arrange installation of a fire door by an approved installer and to provide a certificate confirming installation. The resident expressed disappointment with the complaint response and later told us that he had concerns about the requirements specified for the door. The landlord’s website confirms that leaseholders must ensure that a specific fire door‑set is installed and sets out the relevant verification requirements. The information provided by the landlord was accurate and it was reasonable for it to share this information with the resident.

13. On 9 April 2024 we contacted the landlord to request information on the status of resident’s complaint. The landlord advised that no complaint was currently logged. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) differentiates a complaint from a service request. A service request is a resident’s request for the landlord to take action to put something right. A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service. At this stage the resident had sought reimbursement for locksmith costs, requested a repair to the door and asked the landlord to put its final decision on the matter in writing. The landlord responded promptly to the resident and there was then no further contact to it from the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord had not treated this as a complaint.
14. Following our correspondence, the landlord opened a stage 1 complaint. The Code requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. While the landlord did send acknowledgements, it sent prompt responses within the timeframes.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

15. We did not identify any record keeping issues.

Communication

16. The landlord acted appropriately by providing timely, clear, and reasoned explanations for its decisions.