London Borough of Barnet (202504920)

Background

1. The resident reported issues with her boiler where it would stop working, leaving her household without heating and hot water. She complained as despite the landlord responding to the reports, it had not fully resolved the issue. The resident lives in the property with her 3 children. She raised concerns about the ongoing impact to her family if the landlord did not resolve the issues without further delay.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of no heating and hot water, and the associated repairs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water, and the associated repairs.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of no heating and hot water, and the associated repairs.

4. While the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered some redress, we do not consider the redress offered was proportionate to the failings identified or showed learning from the outcomes.

The resident’s complaint.

5. The landlord’s responses did not address all the concerns raised by the resident. It also did not acknowledge the delays in its handling of the complaint or offer any 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.

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.

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.

6. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider compensation for unreasonable delays, missed appointments, and loss of heating and hot water. It specifies that it will only consider loss of heating between 1 November and 30 April. The policy confirms it will take account of vulnerability, including households with young children, when calculating compensation.
7. The landlord has not disputed in its complaint responses that there were delays in investigating the cause of the low water pressure. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered compensation.
8. When a landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, we consider where the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
9. The landlord’s records show it attended the resident’s property in October 2023 to complete works following reports that while the heating and hot water was working, an error message was showing related to the pressure. The landlord added sealant to the boiler and topped up its pressure. There are no further reports made by the resident until 18 September 2024, when she reported a loss of heating and hot water, and low boiler pressure. An engineer attended the same day, which was reasonable, and in line with its emergency repair timescales.
10. The engineer’s notes stated there had been “non-sufficient cold water supply” for 2 years since the installation of the boiler. They topped up the boiler, balanced the system, and recommended a plumber attend to check and measure the water pressure. The landlord scheduled a visit for 7 October 2024, which met its responsive repair timescales and was reasonable given the system was left working at the time.
11. Although not reflected in the landlord’s records, the resident reported that the boiler had stopped working on 30 September 2024. She said an operative attended the same day but could not repair it, leaving her without heating and hot water. She said no one attended the next day as agreed. The landlord has not disputed the resident’s account.
12. An engineer attended on 3 October 2024 and found the boiler had low pressure. They were unable to fill it and noted the pipework had not been installed correctly. They also recorded that the resident had young children and said the situation needed a resolution. An engineer attended the following day and manually increased the pressure, reinstating the heating and hot water. They noted a plumber would attend to check the water pressure, which they described as “poor”.
13. It is concerning that despite the landlord attending within its timeframes, the resident and her 3 children were without heating and hot water for 4 days. In her formal complaint of 3 October 2024, the resident referred to the challenges this caused. We acknowledge repairs of this nature can require more than 1 visit and this alone would not amount to service failure. However, the landlord should have considered the household’s vulnerabilities and explored interim measures it could take once it could not resolve the issue on the first visit. Its failure to do so caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
14. The plumber attended on 7 October 2024. They advised the pressure was at a maximum and that they had contacted the water provider who said there was no issue with the water pressure. As the issue remained unresolved, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for further investigations on 23 October 2024. Notes from that visit stated that the back garden “needed to be dug out” to access the external stop tap.
15. It is a further failing that the landlord did not then carry out the identified works and the resident had to chase it more than 3 months later before further action was taken. There is also no evidence the landlord raised further investigations following the engineer’s findings on 3 October 2024 which said that the boiler pipework had not been installed correctly. This was not proactive and likely caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident, as she described not wanting to wait for another boiler breakdown before the landlord fixed the issue.
16. The landlord’s records show it attended throughout February and March 2025 to dig out the garden. It was reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the water provider in attempts to resolve the issues, and it carried out a joint visit to support this.
17. On 10 April 2025, the resident chased her stage 2 response and reported another failed appointment that day. She referred to previous missed appointments and said she could not continue taking unpaid time off work. She asked for compensation for the prolonged distress, delays, and missed appointments. There is no evidence the landlord replied to her. Its records confirm an appointment was booked for that day but do not explain why it failed to attend or contact the resident, which was not appropriate.
18. At the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord was waiting for the water provider to confirm whether a new stop tap had been fitted. It confirmed it had chased the water provider for an update and had arranged a joint visit for 6 May 2025. These actions were reasonable, we accept that some delays such as waiting for the water provider to fit a new stop tap, were outside of its control. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out investigations into the water pressure. It offered £50 compensation.
19. We consider the compensation was not in line with its compensation policy and did not put things right for the resident. There is no evidence the resident was without heating or hot water again after the temporary fix on 4 October 2024. However, it did not fully account for the 4 days she was without those services, the missed appointments, and the likely overall distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and delays. It is also disappointing that the appointment scheduled for 6 May 2025 did not go ahead and the resident was not informed. This does not demonstrate learning from its outcomes. We have therefore ordered compensation that is more proportionate to the impact caused to the resident and which aligns with our compensation guidance.
20. We understand further actions have taken place since the stage 2 response, but the issue of low water pressure remains unresolved. The landlord’s current position is unclear and our order seeks to provide clarity for the resident. We are not able to investigate all the landlord’s actions taken after the stage 2 response and the resident has submitted a further formal complaint about the ongoing issue. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to that complaint, she may wish to bring that to us for investigation.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It states it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
22. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint with 3 working days and provided its response within 10 working days, which was appropriate. However, it took 38 working days to acknowledge the stage 2 escalation which was not appropriate or in line with its policy. It then took a further 24 working days to issue its stage 2 response. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 April 2025 to apologise for the delay in responding and said it would provide a response by 5 May 2025.
23. The Code allows for landlords to extend the timescales for complaint responses, but it requires them to clearly explain the reasons for any extension at the time. The landlord did not do this. The Code also states that extensions should not exceed 20 working days without reason. By the time the landlord emailed the resident regarding the delay, almost 3 months had passed since her escalation. We therefore do not consider the extension reasonable or effective in managing her expectations.
24. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delay in its stage 2 response, explain the reasons, and offer compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused. Its failure to do so did not put things right.
25. As previously identified, the landlord also failed to address the resident’s reports of missed appointments. While it is difficult for us to establish from the records when all the missed appointments occurred and why, the landlord had the opportunity to investigate her reports but did not. The Code requires landlord’s to address all issues raised by the resident and it was not appropriate that the landlord did not do so, this again failed to put things right for the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s record keeping was generally reasonable. However, as noted, some instances referred to by the resident such as the missed appointments and the report made on 30 September 2024, could not be easily identified by the records provided.
27. Effective record‑keeping is a core part of a repairs service. Accurate and complete records enable landlords to track the progress of repairs, provide timely updates to residents, monitor outstanding work, and maintain an audit trail that explains delays or decisions.

Communication

28. The landlord’s communication with the resident and its contractors should have been better. We acknowledge there were a number of stakeholders involved, which can add to the complexity of the complaint. However, the landlord missed opportunities to coordinate and progress the repairs appropriately. It did not communicate clearly with the resident about its intentions, which left the resident having to chase updates, and repeatedly raise her concerns.