London Borough of Brent (202505522)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her 2 children. The resident has anxiety and her son is on medication that requires him to have regular access to the toilet. The resident made her first stage 1 complaint on 26 November 2024 about ongoing blockages to the toilet and staff conduct. She made a second stage 1 complaint on 19 March 2025 about ongoing repairs including to the toilet and windows, pest issues, and the increase in service charge. The landlord issued its final response in July 2025 which addressed the issues raised in both complaints.
2. The landlord has a partnership with a housing association which manages services including repairs, ASB and rent for certain properties on its behalf. The resident’s home is one of these. For the purpose of this report, the housing association and the landlord will be referred to as ‘the landlord’ unless it is necessary to distinguish between the two. Where this is necessary, the housing association will be referred to as the ‘landlord’s contractor.’ The contractor responded at stage 1 of the complaint process and the landlord at stage 2.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs to the toilet.
   2. Concerns about staff conduct.
   3. Reports of pests.
   4. Query about the increase in service charge.
   5. Reports of repairs to the windows.
   6. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its response to:
   1. Reports of repairs to the toilet.
   2. Concerns about staff conduct.
   3. Reports of pests.
   4. The resident’s query about the increase in service charge.
   5. Reports of repairs to the windows.
   6. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the toilet

5. The landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence of the resident’s reports of repairs or adequate repair records for the period of time leading up to her complaint, during and after it. The landlord attended to the resident’s home on several occasions but failed to find the underlying cause of blockages to the toilet. This failure caused a significant impact to the resident and her family.
6. The landlord failed to act on a recommendation that it replace the toilet pan in a timely manner. When it did replace the toilet pan, it did not post inspect the work as it said it would. A leak to the toilet then occurred which the landlord accepted was due to the installation being carried out to a poor standard.
7. The landlord failed to assess the habitability of the property or consider whether it would be appropriate to find suitable alternative accommodation for the resident and her family due to defects related to drainage and sanitary conditions.
8. The landlord’s compensation was a considerable attempt to put things right. However, it failed to break down this amount, and it is unclear how much of this referred to its handling of repairs to the toilet.

Staff conduct

9. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct through its complaints process and failed to investigate this matter. This was not in keeping with its complaints policy.

Pests

10. The landlord failed to provide evidence of the resident’s reports of pests and its record keeping in relation to this matter was poor. It was significantly delayed in resolving this matter as it did not act on the recommendations of its pest control contractor in October 2024. It then delayed putting up scaffolding to investigate potential access holes and in inspecting the air ducts and extractor fan.
11. It did not properly respond to the resident’s concern that pest control had said parakeets were nesting outside the flat and potentially causing the fly infestation. It said it would provide the pest control report to the resident but never did.

Service charge

12. The landlord explained the increase in service charges but also told the resident it would carry out a service charge review of the resident’s complaint. The landlord has not provided evidence it did so. It also failed to provide the resident with a copy of the breakdown of her service charges as requested.

Repairs to the window

13. The landlord failed to adequately respond to this element of the resident’s complaint. It provided no details about what she complained about, and it did not demonstrate it investigated her concerns at the time.

Complaint handling

14. The landlord was delayed in responding to both of the resident’s complaints at stage 2 of its complaints process.

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.

15. The landlord confirmed that the frequency of the resident’s reports of blockages to the toilet increased in the 12 months leading up to her formal complaint in November 2024. Despite requesting records to cover this period of time, the landlord only provided a limited number of repair records dating back to 27 September 2024. This means we have been unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the matter prior to this time. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord and demonstrates it did not seek to fully understand the impact of the issue on the resident and her family in the 12 months leading up to her complaint.
16. Between 27 September 2024 and 18 December 2024, the landlord attended to the resident’s home at least 17 times to reports that the toilet was blocked. Although it was responsive to the resident’s reports, the landlord’s inability to identify and remedy the underlying cause of the blockages caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family. She explained that she did not have full use of the only toilet in the property and often had to use bin bags to collect heavier waste and toilet paper and then dispose of these outside her home. She also explained the smell impacted her enjoyment and use of her home and she felt she could not invite guests round. Furthermore, her son was on medication and needed regular access to the toilet.
17. A repair operative recommended that the toilet pan needed replacing on or around 25 October 2024. The landlord did not act on this recommendation until 17 December 2024 when its contractor attended with the instruction to replace the toilet. The resident said that the operative did not arrive with the new pan and had to leave to pick it up. On their return, they informed her it was the wrong size, and it would leave a gap. They said they had ordered the correct pan, but this would not be available until January 2025. This caused further delay and caused more distress and inconvenience to the resident.
18. The landlord installed the new toilet in January 2025, but it failed to provide evidence that it post inspected the work as promised in its first stage 1 response to the resident. The resident then experienced a leak from the toilet in March 2025 which the landlord resolved promptly but confirmed it occurred due to poor installation of the toilet. Had it post inspected the work as it said it would, this might have been avoided.
19. The landlord failed to provide its repair records from January 2025 to date. This is concerning especially given that it asked its contractor for these records as early as June 2025. We are aware that in March 2025, the resident said that the blockages were less frequent but still occurred. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord took any further action until arranging a camera survey of the drains on 27 June 2025. This was a considerable delay given the history of the repairs.
20. The landlord has not provided a copy of the camera report but said that no follow-on works were required. It attempted to arrange another camera survey on 17 July 2025, but this could not be carried out due to the toilet needing to be removed. The landlord did not attempt to reschedule this until November 2025. This was a further delay.
21. At the time of this report, the toilet continues to block and the issue remains unresolved. The resident told us the landlord’s surveyor attended on 15 December 2025 and suggested she would need to be moved to suitable alternative accommodation due to the blockages. The resident was not able to agree to this as she was unwell at the time. Since then, it is unclear whether the landlord has taken any further action. As such we have made the above inspection order for it to complete a full drainage survey using a specialist contractor. It must provide the resident and us with the report and act on the recommendations of this survey.
22. The landlord offered the resident £600 in its first stage 1 complaint and £175 in its second stage 1 complaint for its handling of repairs related to the toilet. It then offered a further £800 at stage 2. This was a considerable attempt to put things right. However, it is unclear what portion of the further £800 referred to its handling of repairs to the toilet and what portion referred to the failures it identified in its handling of the complaint and the resident’s reports of pests. As such, we will not consider the proportionality of the compensation separately but instead have broken it down in our compensation order in line with our Remedies Guidance.
23. In this case, in addition to the inspection order, we have included in the compensation order £1000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its significant failures in its handling of repairs to the toilet which have been ongoing for a considerable amount of time until the end of its complaints process. Following the landlord’s complaint response in July 2025, it also offered to pay the resident £150 each month the issue remained outstanding, which we consider to be reasonable amount for the distress and inconvenience caused by the intermittent blockages in the toilet. As the issue remains outstanding to date, it should therefore pay the resident a further £900 bringing the total to £1900. For any further delays after the date of our investigation report, we recommend the landlord considers further compensation.

24. The resident told the landlord that she had experienced unprofessionalism from its repair operatives. We don’t have sufficient evidence to prove these incidents occurred, but we have assessed the landlord’s investigation into these claims and its response to the resident.
25. The landlord’s contractor said that the resident’s reports of staff conduct had already been addressed through a staff complaint and that they were outside the scope of the normal complaints process. They did not fully respond to the resident’s concerns as part of their stage 1 response, and neither did the landlord in its stage 2 response. This was not in keeping with its complaint policy which states a complaint can be about ‘rude, unhelpful or inappropriate behaviour by staff.’
26. Whilst it would be unreasonable for the landlord to share details of any disciplinary action taken against specific members of staff as a result of a complaint, it should have demonstrated that it had spoken with the resident to understand her concerns in more detail and set out the steps it had taken to investigate her reports. The resident has told us the landlord did neither. Additionally, we have not seen evidence of the landlord’s investigation or discussion with the operative to support the landlord’s statements at stage 1. This was a failure by the landlord, and it demonstrated that it did not take her concerns about staff conduct seriously.

27. The landlord has not provided us with copies of the resident’s reports of pests and its records relating to its handling of the matter are unclear. However, we understand that its pest control contractor attended to the resident’s home on 24 October 2024 and recommended that the landlord check the air vents for chew marks as there might have been a dead rodent which was the source of the flies. It also recommended the landlord arrange for a roofer to check for any access holes. The landlord failed to provide any evidence it acted upon the recommendations of pest control at the time.
28. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 8 May 2025 was confused. It said it had spoken to pest control recently who had assured it there were no pest related issues present in the resident’s home. However, it also said that it would be erecting scaffolding to inspect the loft space for dead rodents. The resident has since told us the scaffolding was put up to check for a roof leak rather than pest issues. However, the landlord’s records indicate it intended to check for entry holes for pests too.
29. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it was delayed putting the scaffolding up but did not confirm how long this delay was. This was a failure in its response to the complaint as it should have provided more detail. This would have demonstrated it took accountability for its failure and might have helped it recognise the impact to the resident. It then said it would put the scaffolding up on 9 May 2025, but this had still not been done by 11 July 2025. The resident has told us the scaffolding did go up after this, but it is unclear when as the landlord has not confirmed this. It is also unclear whether it found any access holes or evidence of dead rodents.
30. The resident also told the landlord that its pest control contractor who attended to her property on 27 May 2025 told her there was evidence of parakeets. She said they were potentially nesting in the outside air vent and was informed that pest control’s report would be sent to the landlord. The landlord has failed to confirm whether the pest issue stems from nesting parakeets and has shown no evidence it provided this report to the resident, despite it saying it would. We have therefore ordered it to write to the resident and provide her with a copy of its pest control reports.
31. The resident told us that the pest issue remained unresolved and the landlord had taken no further action. It is unclear whether the flies are stemming from a dead rodent or related to issues within parakeets nesting close to the property. During this time, the resident continued to experience a high number of flies in her property which she told the landlord was an infestation that was impacting her ability to enjoy her home. She said the flies were getting into food whilst she cooked and entered the fridge and kept her awake at night.
32. The landlord has provided evidence that it attempted to attend to the resident’s home on 10 October 2025 to carry out work to inspect the air ducts and extractor fan as part of its investigation into this issue. It appears the resident could not accommodate the appointment at the time, but the landlord remained open to re-scheduling it. Since then, there has been no further action. The landlord must re-schedule this appointment at a convenient time for the resident. It must also write to the resident and confirm whether it inspected the roof space and/or external structure of the building and what its findings were.
33. The landlord offered the resident £25 for delays in erecting the scaffolding in one of its stage 1 responses but it is unclear what part of the £800 it offered at stage 2 related to its handling of pest issues. In this case, we have made a compensation order in line with our Remedies Guidance, which is appropriate in circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

34. The landlord said that its communication with the resident regarding the increase in service charge had been lacking. However, it failed to provide any further information or explain how it had come to this conclusion. This was a failure in its response to the resident’s complaint regarding service charges and missed opportunity to take learning.
35. The landlord also told the resident that a member of its staff would be tasked with a service charge review of her complaint. It has not provided evidence that it then contacted the resident with the outcome of this review or that it provided her with a breakdown of the service charges as requested. We have therefore ordered it to write to the resident with the outcome of its service charge review and a breakdown of the service charges.
36. It is unclear whether the landlord’s further offer of £800 compensation at stage 2 included its handling of the resident’s service charge query. However, in addition to the above order, we have awarded compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance, which is included in our compensation order breakdown.

37. As the landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s second complaint made in March 2025, it is unclear exactly what the resident complained about at the time. However, the resident confirmed to us that this was part of her complaint. In its response to the resident’s second complaint at stage 1, it said window repairs would be taking place on 13 May 2025. As the landlord has not provided its repair records, we do not know if it attended to this appointment or resolved the resident’s concerns at the time. This was a failure in its record keeping and its response to the resident’s complaint.
38. We are aware that the resident raised further concerns regarding the windows after the landlord’s final stage 2 response in July 2025. This was in October 2025. Whilst we understand this has caused the resident further distress, it is outside the scope of investigation to look at the landlord’s more recent handling of repairs to the window as this occurred after its final response. The landlord must first be given the chance to investigate and respond to these issues before we consider them. The resident can raise a formal complaint with the landlord if she wishes to pursue this concern further. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may be able to then refer the new complaint to us for consideration.

39. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgements.
40. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the first complaint in 14 working days. This was in keeping with its published timescales.
41. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the second complaint in 29 working days. This was not in keeping with its published timescales. However, it identified the delay and offered £50 compensation. The landlord’s offer adequately reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident by this delay at the time.
42. The landlord failed to progress the resident’s first complaint to stage 2 in a timely manner, only doing so when she raised another complaint and chased the response in March 2025. The landlord then decided to respond to both stage 1 complaints under a single stage 2 response. This meant the stage 2 response was issued 141 working days after the resident made her first complaint to it. This was a significant delay.
43. It was also delayed in responding the resident’s second complaint at stage 2 and did so in 43 working days. The landlord said that it agreed an extension of the complaint. However, we have not seen any evidence of this.
44. Additionally, in her second stage 1 complaint the resident raised the same issue about the toilet which had already exhausted stage 1. At this moment, the landlord should have considered to escalate her toilet issue and raise a new complaint for the additional concerns. However, it did not do so, and this also contributed to the prolonged complaint process.
45. It is unclear how much of the £800 offered by the landlord at stage 2 referred to its complaint handling. In this case we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £200 for the failures in its handling of the complaint. This is inclusive of the £50 already offered by it.

Learning

46. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of the compensation it offered at stage 2. Had it done so, we could have assessed the proportionality of its offer against each element of the resident’s complaint. This is an important remedy in the complaints process, and the landlord should be able to evidence transparently how they assess the impact.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. The landlord’s ability to investigate the resident’s complaint was severely impacted by poor record keeping and delayed responses from its contractor. However, it is positive that it has since appointed a senior officer to work between it and its contractor.

Communication

48. The landlord provided very little evidence of its communication with the resident, and she said it often failed to respond to her. Had it communicated appropriately with the resident, it might have avoided some of the distress caused to her during her complaint.