London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202326483)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326483

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

29 May 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of a broken bathroom extractor fan.
    2. Reports of a broken window.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the 8th floor. She has a secure tenancy with the landlord, who is a local authority.
  2. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  3. The resident reported issues with the bedroom window not opening on 11 July 2022 and 25 July 2022 to the landlord.
  4. On 15 August 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the bedroom window. She said that she had not been able to open it since November 2021, and she had tried to contact the landlord to repair it on numerous occasions. She expressed concerns for her health and safety, and that she was unable to sleep because the heat and lack of ventilation.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response relating to the window on 17 August 2022. It said it had raised a job for 24 August 2022.
  6. On 6 February 2023 the resident raised a further formal complaint about her bathroom extractor fan not working. She said that bad odours were not able to escape the flat.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response relating to the extractor fan on 28 February 2023. It said it had coordinated with its repairs team to confirm an appointment for the extractor fan on 7 March 2023.
  8. On 30 January 2024 the landlord advised that, because the window is on the 8th floor and required access from the outside, the repair was still outstanding.
  9. In early February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint and referred it to us because the repairs had not taken place to either the extractor fan or the window.
  10. On 23 April 2024 a report was produced by the landlord’s contractor for the extractor fan, which recommended an upgrade.
  11. We subsequently requested for the landlord to act to complete the repairs and award compensation for any damage to fixtures and fittings in bathroom resulting from the build-up of moisture.
  12. On 24 May 2024 the resident confirmed the window had been repaired.
  13. The landlord contacted us on 17 June 2024. It apologised and said it had overlooked the resident’s complaint, and that the repairs were still ongoing. The evidence suggests that the extractor fan was attended to in June 2024.
  14. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 June 2024. It acknowledged the delays in relation to the window repair, and that it would provide updates on the progress of the repairs. On the same day, the landlord said in internal correspondence that the bathroom fan was now working.
  15. The resident said to us on 15 July 2024 that she wanted an increase in compensation for the missed appointments and length of time it took to complete the work.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman understands that the bathroom extractor fan issue has been ongoing for a number of years and has already been subject to an Ombudsman investigation. A determination report relating to the extractor fan was issued on 4 December 2023 (reference 202127035). That report covered a period from January 2020 through to the landlord’s stage 2 response in July 2022. We found service failure and ordered £200 compensation. We also ordered the landlord to carry out an assessment of the bathroom and kitchen and to carry out any necessary remedial works.
  2. The Ombudsman will not reinvestigate matters on which it has already provided a determination. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the extractor fan repair from July 2022 onwards. Any reference to other events is for context only.

Determination

The landlord’s handling of reports of a broken bathroom extractor fan

  1. The landlord has not provided us with a repairs policy; however, it has an obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect this, such as volume and complexity of required work, or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  2. On 6 February 2023, the resident reported issues with her bathroom extractor fan. On 28 February 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in the form of its stage 1 compliant response. The landlord said it had booked an appointment for the extractor fan for 7 March 2023. It also explained that for a previous appointment it had recorded no access and that a further visit was carried out. It did not specify a date of the previous appointment nor the further visit. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain why works had not taken place, although this was lacking justification and clarity. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to explain fully what had happened and supply some certainty to the resident about the repair moving forward.
  3. Across 28 February 2023 to 14 March 2024, it is not apparent what actions the landlord took in respect of the extractor fan repair. The lack of evidence here suggests no further works were undertaken across that time. The landlord should have acted to undertake works or at least regularly update the resident as to why the works were not going ahead across this period. This delay in undertaking action and lack of communication from the landlord was unreasonable.
  4. The landlord booked another appointment for 14 March 2024. This appointment was then rescheduled for 26 March 2024 without consulting the resident. It was then again pushed out to 23 April 2024. It not clear if these appointments took place as the landlord has not supplied any repair logs, and it does not appear the reasons for the appointment changes were communicated to the resident. This rescheduling would have caused uncertainty and delays in addressing the issue and compounded the stress the resident was already experiencing.
  5. It was apparent from a report conducted by the landlord’s contractor that the bathroom extractor fan needed replacing on 23 April 2024. However, the landlord’s records do not show if any replacement took place, or if it was repaired. It would have been helpful had the landlord provided its position and intentions to the resident following its April 2024 inspection, which it failed to do.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 June 2024. This was only supplied after we repeatedly asked the landlord to supply it. The landlord’s complaints handling has been investigated further below; however, the delay to this response further delayed the landlord’s action relating to the fan.
  7. There is a comment on 18 June 2024 made by the landlord in internal correspondence saying, “turned valve on pipe on roof bathroom now extracting”. Based on this evidence, the extractor fan appears to have been repaired 16 months after the resident had reported the issue in February 2023. This is well beyond what is considered a reasonable timeframe for a routine repair. It also does not appear the landlord supplied justification behind the excessive delay or recognised the resulting impact on the resident. This was another missed opportunity to explain the delay and to put things right for the resident.
  8. In summary, the landlord did not address the repair for an extended period or keep adequate repair records, it did not adequately communicate with the resident about the repair or address her concerns raised. As such we find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the reports of a broken bathroom extractor fan. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and because the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has not attempted to put things right, an order has been made for compensation of £500 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by its failures.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a broken window

  1. As noted above, the landlord does not have a repairs policy. Once again, routine repairs should be completed within a reasonable period, which would usually be within 20 working days.
  2. On 17 August 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had raised a job for 24 August 2022 for the bedroom window, although we do not have records that this took place. The landlord’s internal correspondence of 16 April 2024 refers to an appointment in late February 2024, but that it had to reschedule because of working commitments. However, it did not specify whose working commitments, and so it is unclear who was responsible for this delay.
  3. The resident’s correspondence suggests that the window was fixed on 8 May 2024. However, it is apparent from the landlord’s internal correspondence of 17 June 2024 that it was unaware the window had already been fixed by its contractors in May 2024. It continued to reference the need for further repairs even after the repair had been completed. The landlord also said that they had incorrectly saved the resident’s correspondence on the incorrect file, and as a result the complaint was overlooked for some time. This evidence illustrates poor record keeping and communication channels between the landlord and its contractors. This had a negative impact on the landlord’s repairs management and contributed to the confusion experienced by the resident.
  4. The time period it took for the landlord to fix the window amounts to 20 months. As noted above, the landlord was aware it had repair responsibilities and did not explain the reasons for the delay. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. 
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response of 18 June 2024, the landlord advised that it had challenges getting access to the property as it was on the 8th floor. It said that it was actively finding a contractor with the necessary expertise to do the work. It was also committed to updating the resident. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delays, it did not justify why these delays were so long, and it did not recognise the impact to the resident. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns about excessive heat in the flat or consider any temporary measures to alleviate this concern. As such it missed an opportunity to explain its actions or mitigate the residents’ health and safety concerns.
  6. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s communication was poor. There is no indication it made reasonable efforts to provide the resident with regular updates, or provide estimated completion dates at any point. The resident attempted to contact the landlord’s repairs team twice in July 2022, she did not hear back. On 2 August 2022 she called the repairs team, and they said they would raise a repair and call her back. Again, she did not hear back. The landlord communicated on 17 June 2024, that the window issue was still not fixed and that they would consider work on other properties in the same block at the same time as the residents. It was right for the landlord to update the resident; however, it would have been reasonable for it to communicate these plans in August 2022. This appears to be a plan for planned works, but the landlord failed to communicate this to the resident. If the landlord had categorised the window repair as a planned work, it should have informed the resident of this as soon as possible with an assigned timeframe for the works to take place. The landlord’s poor communication, and failure to provide regular updates added to the resident’s uncertainty over whether or not the repair would take place.
  7. We have not seen evidence of any learnings taken in relation to the landlord’s repairs handling or improvements in the landlord’s communication with the resident. Further the landlord did not identify the reasons leading to its failures or gaps in its record keeping practices, so that it could prevent any similar failures in future.
  8. In summary, the landlord overlooked its repair responsibilities and did not acknowledge the impact on the resident. The landlord also displayed poor communication and record keeping in its response to the reports of a broken window further adding to the confusion and impact to the resident. For these reasons, we consider that this amounts to maladministration. An order for the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by its failures associated with the window repair has been made below. This order is in line with our remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has failed to acknowledge if failings or put things right.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the extractor fan complaint on 7 February 2023, a day after the resident had raised it. Its stage 1 complaint response was issued on 28 February 2023, 15 working days later. This was beyond its policy timeframe of 10 working days.
  2. The landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response, did not define the complaint, identify the complaint stage, or make a decision on the complaint as required by the Code. It did not detail any remedy to put things right. It merely referred to another repair appointment being arranged. The Code requires these elements to be captured in the landlord’s complaint response. It was not appropriate for the landlord to exclude so many elements without explanation.
  3. We asked the landlord to supply its stage 2 response in respect of both the window and the extractor fan on 29 February 2024, 21 May 2024, and 24 May 2024. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord had ample opportunity to respond to both matters. However, the landlord failed to provide a further position regarding the extractor fan in its stage 2 response. Given the Code requires it to operate a 2-stage process, it was unreasonable that it did not address the extractor fan issue in its stage 2 compliant response. This amounts to a further failure in the landlord’s complaint handling approach.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response for the bedroom window within 2 days of receiving the complaint on 17 August 2022. It was appropriate to act quickly; however, it was not clear that this was a stage 1 complaint response, and it seemed more like a complaint acknowledgement. The landlord advised that the complaint was assigned to the complaints team, and they raised a job for the window. The response again did not contain the details required by the Code, such as a complaint definition or a decision on the matters raised. This was another departure from the Code.
  5. Further, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until our intervention. This meant the landlord did not produce its stage 2 response until 18 June 2024. This was 403 days after the resident had escalated the complaint. This is far beyond the landlord’s complaints policy timeframe of 30 working days. The excessive delays and lack of clarity around the process meant it did not adequately address matters in a timely manner.
  6. In summary, this investigation has found that the landlord’s complaint handling practises departed from the Code and its own policy, that its complaint responses had minimal detail, and that the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from the failings it had identified. This amounts to maladministration. Given the significant delays and the failures to address all elements of the complaint despite intervention from this Service, we order the landlord to pay £250 compensation to the resident in respect of its complaints handling approach. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repair to the bathroom extractor fan.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repair to the bedroom window.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1,350 made up of:
      1. £500 in recognition of its failures in handling of reports of a broken bathroom extractor fan.
      2. £600 in recognition of its failures in handing reports of broken window.
      3. £250 for its poor complaint handling. 

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord implement tailored complaints handling training for its complaints staff, to ensure a clear process is followed in the future.
  2. We recommend the landlord review its record keeping practices in light of the findings of this report.