London Borough of Brent (202411230)

Background

1. The resident is the leaseholder of a 3‑bedroom flat. In 2023, her energy supplier arranged to replace the electrical meter, but the work could not go ahead because of a damaged fuse and suspected asbestos-containing material in the electrical cupboard. She reported these issues to the landlord, however, the issue remains unresolved resulting in the resident contacting us to progress her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a cracked electrical fuse and associated work.
   2. We have also considered the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a cracked electrical fuse and associated work.
4. We have found no maladministration with the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord recognised its poor communication with the resident. It put things right through its apology, £100 compensation offer and followed through with its committed actions.
6. The landlord complied with the Complaint Handling Code.

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.

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.

7. The landlord has provided a copy of the renewed lease agreement dated 25 August 2022. From this document, we are unable to determine the specific repair responsibilities of the landlord and the resident. However, it is standard practice for leaseholders to be responsible for fixtures and fittings within their property, while the landlord is generally responsible for the structure of the building and the communal areas.
8. The resident raised her concerns with the landlord in 2023 after her utility company had attempted to replace the electrical meter. At that time the work could not be completed due to a damaged electrical fuse. She said the utility company advised her that the fuse needed to be repaired or replaced and that this was the landlord’s responsibility. She also reported that the utility company identified potential asbestos‑containing material in the electrical cupboard.
9. The landlord arranged for a risk assessment to be conducted in May 2023. Although we have seen a copy of a report, which includes photographs of the electrical cupboard and fuse, it does not state its findings. The resident repeatedly chased the landlord for an update. In November 2023, the landlord wrote to inform her that asbestos testing and removal were her responsibility as a leaseholder and provided guidance and contact details to help her progress this. While the landlord’s position on responsibility was reasonable, its communication was poor, leaving the resident without clarity about what was happening.
10. The electrical fuse issue remained unresolved, leading the resident to raise a complaint in February 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in March 2024, explaining that the fuse was the responsibility of UK Power Networks (UKPN). It confirmed it had contacted UKPN and would follow up to ensure the work was completed. The landlord’s response at this stage was reasonable.
11. The resident escalated her complaint in April 2024 after seeing no progress. The landlord issued its stage 2 response in May 2024, apologising for its poor communication and offering £100 in compensation. It had arranged a joint visit with UKPN, but this did not take place, and UKPN attended the property alone instead. Ongoing confusion about who was responsible for the electrical fuse led the landlord to arrange another joint visit with UKPN for June 2024. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take to move the issue towards resolution.
12. The landlord followed up with the resident in July 2024 and confirmed that UKPN had decided to fit a new “7-way service head”. This demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to resolving the issues that were in the hands of a 3rd party responsibility. It is disappointing that despite this commitment the work has still not been resolved.
13. Given the electrical work is the responsibility of a 3rd party, we understand the landlord did not have full control of resolving the issues for the resident despite its attempts to do so. The landlord acknowledged its poor communications, and we are satisfied it took appropriate steps to put things right for the resident through its apology, £100 compensation offer and its follow up actions with UKPN.
14. For these reasons we have found reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a cracked electrical fuse and associated work. We have however recommended that the landlord either contacts UKPN to request a date for completion of work or provides the resident with contact details for her to follow up and progress actions with UKPN.

15. On 27 February 2024, the resident raised a complaint. The landlord acknowledged it on 13 March 2024 and issued its stage 1 response on the same day.
16. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days of the complaint being received and a response should be sent within 10 working days. While the landlord responded 11 working days later and slightly out of time, its stage 1 acknowledgement letter timeframe did not comply with the Code. While this was inappropriate there is no evidence the landlord’s action caused an adverse effect on the resident.
17. On 23 April 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on 26 April 2024 and agreed an extension with her until 4 June 2024. It then issued its stage 2 response on 30 May 2024.
18. The Code states that stage 2 complaints must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 2 within 5 working days of the escalation request being received. A final response must be issued within 20 working days. Landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord complied with the Code and have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

19. The landlord’s overall communication was poor. The landlord must review this complaint to ensure learning actions are implemented.