London Borough of Brent (202502965)

Decision
Case ID	202502965
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Brent
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. She lives in a house with her family. She has vulnerabilities relating to her physical and mental health. These include arthritis and anxiety. The landlord is a local council. The complaint relates to repairs which the landlord identified following a leak at the property in May 2023.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its operatives.
3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs.
2. Response to her concerns about the conduct of its operatives.
3. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to concerns about outstanding repairs

The landlord did not adhere to its policy timescale. Its repairs monitoring and record keeping were inadequate. It showed a lack of solution focus. Its failures contributed to the overall duration of the repair timeline. The landlord did not acknowledge the full extent of these or the related adverse impact to the resident. It did not do enough to put things right.

Response to concerns about the conduct of its operatives

The landlord acted on the resident’s concerns. However, its complaint response lacked a reasonable degree of clarity and/or thoroughness. The landlord did not make a meaningful attempt to redress any failures. Its approach may have added to the resident’s distress.

Complaint handling

There were various failures during the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord did not acknowledge the related adverse impact to the resident or try to put things right. It was unable to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve the resident’s concerns.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a relevant senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 made up as follows: £600 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her concerns about outstanding repairs. £150 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her concerns about the conduct of its operatives. £250 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid (from the £300 that it awarded during its complaints process).	No later than 08 January 2026
3	Update order The landlord must update the resident about its position on the outstanding repairs and its plans to complete these. If the resident has any related objections, the landlord must address these in line with its policies and procedures. It must share a copy of its update with us.	No later than 08 January 2026
4	Vulnerability records order The Ombudsman orders the landlord to ensure that its key systems accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. Before it updates these, it may need to contact the resident to gather the relevant details. It must evidence its actions to us.	No later than 08 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about outstanding repairs. She said its contractor had previously caused a leak which damaged parts of the property. She also said its surveyor had approved the repairs but the landlord did not contact her to arrange these. Her other key points were: The leak occurred when the contractor installed a new bath. The leak had caused a wider damp issue. Her health and enjoyment of the property had been affected.
18 October 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It believed the resident had delayed raising a complaint. On that basis, it declined to investigate any events that occurred before October 2023. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It did arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property.
29 January 2025	The resident contacted the landlord about “a stage two complaint”. She said there were quality issues with its recent repairs and a contractor left rubbish outside the property. She also said the situation was stressful and the landlord should consider the duration of the repair issues.
6 February 2025	The landlord issued another stage 1 response. It included a different complaint reference. It partly upheld the complaint and awarded the resident £100 in compensation. In summary, the landlord said: There was a delay following a recent inspection. This delay lasted for about 2 months. Some of the necessary repairs had been completed. It had contacted its contractor about the outstanding works. It would complete a post-works inspection to check the repairs.
26 February 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said it had not taken sufficient steps to resolve matters. She also said the contractor’s operatives acted in a rude and intimidating manner after she had complained. In summary, the resident’s other key points were: The situation had been ongoing for about 12 months. The landlord should explain why the repairs were delayed. It had paid compensation into her rent account without telling her. Given its negligent handling, it should pay her around £2,500.
1 April 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said it should not have applied a time limit to the resident’s complaint. It also said its records did not fully explain the delayed repairs. It awarded the resident another £200 in compensation. In summary, the landlord’s other key points were: The resident had prevented the remaining works from progressing. It would appoint an officer to liaise with the resident about the repairs. Its appointed officer would contact the resident soon. It had raised her conduct concerns with its lead contractor. It was not assigning new jobs to one of the contractors. It had told the resident it would offset its £100 compensation award against her rent arrears.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that the landlord’s contractor had not returned to complete the repairs. She said she lacked clarity about the landlord’s approach to these. She also mentioned a lack of contact from the landlord. She wanted it to complete the repairs and compensate her.

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.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The property needed significant repairs after the leak in May 2023. A related repair order shows that areas of the lounge and a downstairs toilet needed to be replastered. It also shows some flooring needed to be replaced and redecoration works were required. Given its extent, it is likely that the damage was distressing for the resident.
Records show that on 13 June 2024 the resident told the landlord about her vulnerabilities. Later, in its case evidence file, the landlord told us that it had no record of her vulnerabilities on its systems. This shows the landlord failed to record important information that may have helped to guide its interactions with the resident.
In its final response to the resident, the landlord acknowledged that a significant amount of time had passed since it raised the repairs. It said there were times when it was unable to contact the resident or access the property. It also said its access to certain areas of the property had been restricted. The resident has disputed some of these claims.
In summary, the landlord said there was conflicting evidence and it was unable to make a definitive decision about the root cause of the main delay. These comments show that it had difficulty interpreting its own records. Ultimately, the landlord’s lack of clarity about the outstanding repairs points to insufficient monitoring and inadequate record keeping.
For example, there is evidence that the landlord was unable to access the property to complete repairs in November 2023. In line with its repairs manual, the landlord should follow up failed repair visits with the reporting resident. It should also attempt at least 2 visits. From its repair records, it is not clear that the landlord adhered to this procedure in November 2023. Ultimately, we also had difficulty following the landlord’s repair records.
The resident has told us that many of the required repairs are still outstanding to date. Based on the period between May 2023 and November 2025, this is about 31 months after the leak. In contrast, the landlord’s repairs manual shows it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord did not adhere to its policy. Given the overall duration of the repair timeline, we find it was not sufficiently proactive or solution–focused.
During its internal complaints process, the landlord accepted that it was responsible for a short delay in late 2024. In total, it awarded the resident £300 in related compensation. From the information it had, the landlord should have reasonably acknowledged that its inadequate handling made a wider contribution to the prolonged repair timeline.
Overall, the landlord’s handling was not consistent with its repairs manual. The resident was adversely impacted by its inadequate monitoring, record keeping, and lack of solution focus. The landlord did not recognise the full extent of its failures or the related adverse impact to the resident. As a result, it did not do enough to put things right for her.
Given the above, we find there was maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation reflects the case evidence and our guidance on remedies. It will replace the landlord’s previous calculation.

Complaint	Response to concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s operatives
Finding	Maladministration

During her complaint to the landlord, the resident raised several concerns about the conduct and/or professionalism of its contractors. For example, she said operatives had acted in an intimidating manner towards her and rubbish was left outside the property. Given her comments, it is likely the resident was distressed by the contractors’ activities.
In its final response to the resident, the landlord said it was sorry to hear about her concerns. It confirmed it had raised these with its lead contractor’s management team. It said the “necessary disciplinary processes” had been followed. It also said it was unable to share further details for data protection reasons. This approach was inadequate.
For example, the landlord’s wording indicates that it accepted aspects of the resident’s complaint. It could have reasonably confirmed what these were and what evidence it had seen. Ultimately, the landlord did not clearly communicate its related findings. It missed an opportunity to show the resident that it had taken her concerns seriously.
Similarly, the landlord did not apologise to the resident. Since the contractors were acting as its agents, the landlord was ultimately responsible for their actions. From her correspondence about left rubbish, it was reasonably clear the resident had experienced avoidable inconvenience and/or distress. The landlord should have acknowledged this.
The resident has told us that a contractor did remove the rubbish. However, the landlord did not make a meaningful attempt to redress her for any failures or adverse impacts associated with its contractors’ activities. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. The landlord’s approach may have added to the resident’s distress.
Overall, the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns and acted on these. However, its response to the resident lacked a reasonable degree of clarity and/or thoroughness. The landlord did not make a meaningful attempt to redress any failures. Its approach may have added to the resident’s distress. Given the above, we find there was maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our complaint handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (effective April 2022). The landlord provided a complaints policy that postdated its final response to the resident. We found a relevant document (effective May 2023) in our records. It refers to the Code.
There were problems with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, it issued 3 responses to the resident’s complaint in total. The Code says a complaint should only go to a third stage if a resident requests this. The landlord’s relevant policy has a matching provision. By issuing 3 responses, the landlord departed from its policy and the Code.
The resident was adversely impacted by the landlord’s duplication. Her correspondence in January 2025 shows that she wanted to escalate her initial complaint. She received a second stage 1 response contrary to her preference. This may have been distressing for her. Similarly, it may have been inconvenient to repeat some of her concerns at stage 1. The landlord did not acknowledge these issues subsequently. This was unreasonable.
In its final response, the landlord said it should not have applied a time restriction to the resident’s complaint. This points to a previous error on its part. Ultimately, the landlord gave the resident conflicting information. This may have been confusing for her. The landlord did not acknowledge this or attempt to put things right. This was inadequate.
The landlord made a number of commitments to the resident in its final response. For example, it said it would appoint an officer to be a single point of contact for her. This was to improve communication between the parties. It also said the officer would contact the resident within 7 days. The resident has told us this did not happen. In the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, we have relied on this version of events.
Ultimately, the landlord has not shown that it adhered to some of its key complaint resolutions. It should be able to record, monitor, and follow these through to completion. In this case, it is likely that the landlord’s failure to fulfil key commitments undermined the resident’s confidence in its complaint handling. This may have been distressing for her.
Overall, there were various failures throughout the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord was unable to use this as an effective tool to resolve the resident’s concerns. Though she was adversely impacted, the landlord did not acknowledge this or try to put things right for her. As a result, we find there was maladministration on its part.

Learning

General learning

The landlord applied a time restriction to the resident’s complaint and changed its position subsequently. It should exercise care when applying similar restrictions. If a resident disagrees with a restriction, it should allow them to escalate their complaint.
The landlord gave the resident conflicting information. It should be mindful that conflicting information could be evidence of a service failure that it needs to address.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records were difficult to follow at times. Good record keeping will allow it to evidence its key actions and adherence to policies. If the landlord cannot confirm it has complied with a relevant policy, this could be evidence of a failure that it should address.

Communication

Aspects of the landlord’s communications lacked clarity and/or thoroughness. The landlord may have avoided this by detailing its failures and offering a meaningful apology.