London Borough of Barnet (202339032)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202339032 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London Borough of Barnet |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
18 March 2026 |
Background
1. The resident reported damp and associated repair issues which required works at the property. The landlord temporarily relocated the resident while the repairs took place.
What the complaint is about
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
- Reports of damp and mould.
- Concerns about matters relating to the temporary move.
- Complaint.
Our decision (determination)
3. We found the landlord responsible of:
- Reasonable redress in its response to reports of damp and mould and the associated relocation period.
- No maladministration in its response to the resident’s concerns about matters relating to the temporary move.
- No maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Handling of damp and mould and the associated relocation period
4. The landlord arranged repairs to address damp and mould which required the resident to temporarily relocate. However, it did not demonstrate that it kept the resident informed when the repair timeframe increased beyond the original estimate, which caused inconvenience during the relocation period. The landlord acknowledged this and offered compensation which we consider to be proportionate to the impact on her.
The resident’s concerns about the temporary move
5. The landlord raised the resident’s concerns regarding missing belongings with the contractors who attended the property and referred to the disclaimer signed before the works commenced. We cannot determine liability for alleged theft, and the landlord took reasonable steps to address the concern.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s request for reassurance by raising a repair order to replace the front door lock.
7. The landlord reviewed the resident’s request for additional compensation, including claims for food costs, laundry, loss of earnings and the replacement of a bed, and provided explanations for the elements that were not awarded. It also increased the compensation offered at stage 2.
Complaint
8. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued responses at both stages of its complaint procedure. The stage 2 response was issued one working day later than expected and the landlord apologised for the delay
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 recommendations |
|
The landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £700 offered at its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not done so already. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on this sum being paid to the resident. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
16 October 2023 |
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord regarding repairs, the relocation period and missing belongings. |
|
16 October 2023 |
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised it would respond within 20 working days. |
|
30 October 2023 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. The response addressed the repairs, relocation period and the resident’s concerns regarding missing belongings. The landlord offered £500 compensation for the disruption caused by the extended repair works including a 25% rent rebate for 40 days of the temporary move. |
|
14 December 2023 |
Following an escalation request from the resident, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord addressed the issues raised in the complaint and increased the compensation offered to the resident to £700. The landlord also apologised for issuing the response one day later than the expected response date. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation amount offered following the landlord’s stage 2 response. |
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 |
Reports of damp and mould. |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
9. Repair records show the property had damp-related repairs prior to the events considered in this complaint. A repair order dated 14 October 2022 recorded damp affecting several rooms. The landlord raised follow-on works to investigate and address the issue. Those works were completed and were not the subject of a complaint. This investigation therefore focuses on the landlord’s handling of damp and mould issues identified from August 2023 onwards.
10. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including walls, ceilings and plaster. The landlord’s repairs policy says that routine repairs should normally be completed within 15 working days.
11. The evidence shows the landlord arranged an inspection on 31 August 2023 after identifying further damp issues at the property. The stage 1 complaint response records that this inspection identified works were required to address damp affecting the property.
12. Repair records show the landlord raised works to remove polystyrene ceiling tiles and re-skim the affected ceilings. Once these works commenced, further damp damage became visible. One repair order recorded a high damp meter reading on a living room wall which required the plaster to be hacked off and replaced. This indicated that the landlord identified additional remedial works once the ceiling area was opened.
13. The landlord decided the resident should temporarily relocate while the works were completed. The resident moved to hotel accommodation on 7 September 2023. The stage 1 complaint response records the landlord advised the resident the works would take approximately 10 days.
14. Arranging relocation within one week of the inspection shows the landlord acted promptly after identifying the repairs. This response fell within the timeframe expected under the landlord’s repairs policy.
15. The evidence shows the works were not completed within the original estimate. Internal emails dated 11 October 2023 record that the resident and her children had remained in hotel accommodation for “almost five weeks”.
16. Further internal emails dated 13 October 2023 state the works had been completed apart from minor touch-ups. An email dated 16 October 2023 confirms the works had been completed. The evidence therefore shows the repairs took approximately 40 days, which exceeded the 10-day estimate originally provided.
17. The evidence suggests that the delay was caused by the landlord identifying additional damp damage identified once the ceiling area was opened. The landlord acted appropriately in investigating the damp and mould and in relocating the resident while intrusive works were completed.
18. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord provided regular updates during the extended relocation period. Internal emails dated 11 October 2023 show the resident contacted the landlord expressing frustration about the length of the relocation and the lack of clarity regarding the progress of the works.
19. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the disruption caused to the resident by the extended relocation period. The stage 1 complaint response notes the landlord awarded £500 compensation to the resident which included a 25% rent refund for the 40 days she could not use the property. We consider it reasonable for the landlord to calculate part of the compensation based on a percentage of the weekly rent, as this reflects the temporary loss of amenity experienced by the resident while the repairs were completed.
20. The resident requested compensation for additional expenses incurred during the relocation period. These included meal costs during the hotel stay, laundry costs, loss of earnings and the cost of replacing a bed.
21. The landlord’s compensation and financial loss policy allows discretionary payments where service issues cause inconvenience or disruption. The policy also states that claims for financial loss should normally be supported by evidence such as receipts.
22. The stage 2 complaint response shows the landlord reviewed the information and receipts provided by the resident. The response states the landlord considered receipts relating to meals and wi-fi costs during the hotel stay.
23. The landlord agreed to add additional meal costs to the compensation because the resident remained in the hotel longer than originally expected. This was reasonable.
24. The resident also referred to laundry charges. The stage 2 response states the landlord could not identify any receipts for these costs in the evidence provided. The landlord therefore stated it could consider these costs if receipts were later provided. That was a reasonable approach to take.
25. The resident also requested compensation for loss of earnings. The stage 2 response states the landlord did not award compensation for loss of earnings. Its decision not to award such compensation was appropriate.
26. The resident also requested reimbursement for the cost of a replacement bed. The stage 2 response states the landlord declined this request because it had not been given the opportunity to inspect or repair the bed before it was replaced. That was a reasonable approach.
27. In its stage 2 response, the landlord increased the overall compensation offered to £700 to reflect the inconvenience caused by the extended relocation and the circumstances of the resident’s household.
28. The landlord acknowledged the impact the lengthy relocation had on the resident and provided proportionate compensation. We find that this compensation reasonably addressed the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
29. Therefore, we have found the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
|
Complaint |
Concerns about matters relating to the temporary move |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
30. The resident reported that personal belongings, including perfume and aftershave, were missing following repair works carried out at the property.
31. We cannot determine liability for alleged theft or loss of personal belongings. Such matters would normally be considered through insurance or legal processes. However, we can assess the landlord’s response to this reported issue.
32. The evidence shows that the resident signed a disclaimer on 4 September 2023 before the works started. The disclaimer stated that the landlord would not accept liability for breakages or theft that might occur during the resident’s absence from the property.
33. The resident later raised concerns that items had gone missing while contractors were carrying out works at the property, including perfumes and aftershaves.
34. The stage 2 complaint response records that the landlord raised the matter with the subcontractors who attended the property and stated that it would provide a further update once their investigation had concluded.
35. Given the disclaimer and the absence of evidence demonstrating that the landlord was responsible for the alleged loss, the landlord’s actions indicate a reasonable response.
36. The resident requested that the locks at the property be changed following concerns that personal belongings had gone missing while repair works were carried out.
37. We will consider the landlord’s responsibility to acknowledge the resident’s request and determine whether a repair or safety action was required.
38. The stage 2 complaint response records that the landlord raised a repair order to change the locks on the front door to provide reassurance. This demonstrates that the landlord acted on the resident’s request. The landlord therefore took appropriate steps to address the resident’s safety concerns.
39. Accordingly, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of stolen belongings or her request for a lock change.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
40. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that complaints are investigated through a two-stage process. Stage 1 responses should normally be issued within 10 working days. Stage 2 responses should be issued within 20 working days of acknowledging an escalation request.
41. The resident raised a complaint on 16 October 2023 regarding the repairs, relocation period and missing belongings.
42. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 October 2023 and advised that a stage 1 response would be provided within 10 working days.
43. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 October 2023, which was within the timeframe set out in the complaint procedure.
44. The resident remained dissatisfied and the complaint was escalated to stage 2. The evidence does not include a copy of the resident’s escalation request or the landlord’s acknowledgment of the escalation. We expect the landlords to maintain accurate records of complaints and escalation request. The absence of these records indicates a weakness in the landlord’s record keeping.
45. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on the 14 December 2023 and stated that this response was issued one day later than the expected response date. While the exact date of the escalation cannot be verified from the evidence provided, the resident did not challenge the landlord’s explanation regarding the 1 day delay. On the balance of probabilities, we therefore accept that the response was issues one working day outside the expected timeframe.
46. We consider a delay of one working day to be minor and likely to have had minimal impact on the resident. We do not consider it amounts to a service failing. We note the landlord’s apology which was a reasonable response.
47. The stage 1 and stage 2 responses addressed the issues raised by the resident, including repairs, compensation and missing belongings. The landlord also reviewed the compensation offered and increased payment following the stage 2 investigation.
48. This demonstrates that the landlord considered the complaint and took steps to resolve the issues raised. Accordingly, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
49. The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s stage 2 escalation request or the acknowledgement of that escalation. We expect landlord to maintain clear and complete complaint records so that complaint handling can be fully evidenced.
50. The landlord should review its record-keeping practices to ensure that escalation requests and acknowledgements are retained as part of the complaint file.
Communication
51. When repairs require residents to temporarily relocate, landlords should ensue residents receive regular updates about the progress of works and any changes to expected completion times.
52. The landlord should review its communication practices during complex repairs and relocation periods to ensure residents are kept informed throughout the process.