London Borough of Barnet (202407751)

Decision
Case ID	202407751
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Barnet
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 May 2026

Background

The resident lives at the property with her children, and husband who has vulnerabilities. Within months of moving into the property, the resident complaint about several repair issues.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A window repair.
2. Plumbing issues.
3. Rear door repairs.
4. Lack of loft insulation.
5. A tree safety concern.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a window repair.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of plumbing issues.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rear door repairs.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of lack of loft insulation.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a tree safety concern.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

We have found that the landlord:
1. Delayed raising the window repair beyond its repair timescales, although it then took reasonable steps to progress the works and most subsequent delays were outside its control.
2. Did not meet its emergency and routine timescales for the plumbing repairs, resulting in delays in attending and scheduling follow-on works. It also failed to record the resident’s household vulnerabilities despite being informed.
3. Delayed taking appropriate action regarding the rear door repairs and excessively exceeded its repair timescales.
4. Apologised and provided appropriate redress for the delays in the handling the loft insulation. However, it failed to provide the resident with adequate updates.
5. Failed to communicate effectively with the resident, including providing conflicting information, and not addressing her concerns about an unannounced visit. These failures caused avoidable distress despite the tree being removed within a reasonable timeframe.
6. Delayed acknowledging the stage 2 escalation, wrongly included a new issue in the stage 2 response contrary to its policy, and failed to review its complaint handling or properly signpost the end of the complaints process, leading to a protracted 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.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 25 June 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £850 made up as follows: £50 for its handling of the window repair. £150 for its handling of the plumbing repairs. £400 for its handling of the rear door repair. £100 for its handling of the lack of loft insulation. This includes the £50 offered at stage 2, plus an additional £50 for the additional failures identified in this report. £50 for its handling of the tree safety concerns. £100 for its handling of her complaint. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made in relation to the specific matters in this case. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 25 June 2026
3	Order to take specific action The landlord must contact the resident to obtain up-to-date details of her household’s vulnerabilities, including any health conditions she wishes to disclose, and ensure these are accurately recorded and considered in future service delivery.	No later than 25 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 February 2024	The resident complained that: A broken bedroom window, reported at the start of her tenancy, remained unrepaired. Ongoing plumbing issues meant the toilet and washing machine could not be used. There was no loft insulation, raising concerns about heat loss. A gap around the back door was letting in cold air and posed a security risk.
16 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, stating: Its contractors had attempted to contact the resident to arrange the window repair but were unable to do so. It acknowledged delays in completing the plumbing repairs. An energy performance certificate (EPC) survey had been completed, resulting in a “D” rating, and it would arrange a further inspection subject to the resident’s availability. A new back door had been installed in line with void standards, prior to the resident moving in, but it would arrange a surveyor inspection, subject to the resident confirming her availability.
2 April 2024	The resident requested to escalate her complaint because: She disputed the landlord’s claim that it had been unable to contact her about the broken bedroom window and the repair remained outstanding. The plumbing repairs remained unresolved. She was unhappy that, although surveyors had agreed that the loft required insulation and the back door needed replacing, she had received no updates or further contact. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of a tree safety concern in her front garden, specifically the landlord’s communication and turning up unannounced.
15 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, stating: It reiterated its stage 1 position on the window repair and did not uphold this element of the complaint, confirming the repair was completed on 15 May 2024. It did not uphold the plumbing issues complaint because it had responded promptly to the resident’s initial reports and undertaken multiple follow-up visits but could not complete the work due to repeated no-access appointments. It confirmed it had scheduled the outstanding repair for 29 May 2024. It apologised for delays to the insulation works, upheld this element, and confirmed completion on 15 May 2024. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of this. Its contractor would reattend to inspect the rear door, however any replacement would be like-for-like wood rather than UPVC. It confirmed the tree was removed in the week ending 26 April 2024 within a reasonable timeframe and did not uphold this element.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us in July 2024 because she felt the landlord had provided inaccurate statements in its stage 2 response and had failed to carry out the actions promised. As we have been unable to speak to the resident, it is unclear what outcome she is seeking.
October 2024 to December 2024	The resident raised a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of the rear door repairs in October 2024. The landlord completed the repair in December 2024.

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	Window repairs
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident said the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues has negatively impacted on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

Within the resident’s request to make a complaint, she said the landlord had informed her on 12 January 2024 that it would repair the window in her child’s bedroom. She also said she had chased an update on 16 January 2024 but did not receive a response from the landlord. While we do not dispute the resident’s version of events, we have not seen any documentary evidence to corroborate her claims.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that where a repair requires referral to a specialist contractor, it should arrange an appointment within 24 hours of the issue being reported. However, the landlord did not raise the repair until 14 February 2024, 8 working days after the resident reported the issue, meaning it did not meet its timescales.
The landlord’s contractor attempted to contact the resident the same day on 2 different telephone numbers, however it was unable to reach the resident. The landlord’s stance within its stage 1 findings (that it had attempted to contact her) was therefore reasonable and based on the evidence available to it at the time.
Between 20 February and 15 May 2024, the landlord took reasonable steps to progress the window repair, including attempting contact on multiple occasions and arranging an appointment for 13 May 2024, which did not proceed due to no access.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response on 15 May 2024, it said the window repair was completed that day. However, this is confusing as the landlord’s repair records show that it completed the repair on 19 June 2024.
Despite this, aside from the initial delay in February 2024, we are satisfied that the delays in resolving the window repair were outside of the landlord’s control. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure. To put things right, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an appropriate amount of compensation, in line with our compensation policy.

Complaint	Plumbing issues
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

On 30 July 2024, the resident told us that she was distressed by a false allegation made by an operative who attended to the plumbing issues. There is no evidence the resident raised this matter as part of her complaint. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. We will therefore not consider this specific issue within our investigation.

What we did investigate

Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it first raised a repair for a blocked toilet and sink on 29 January 2024. However, the evidence shows that at approximately 9:00am on 28 January 2024, it raised a “priority 1” emergency repair, with a target to make safe within 4 hours and complete within 24 hours. However, it did not attend until around 2:20pm on 29 January 2024, which was outside of these timescales.
As the landlord was unable to resolve the issue at this appointment, it appropriately raised a follow-on repair and reattended the same day. However, the appointment did not proceed, and we are unable to assess this further due to conflicting accounts from the resident and landlord.
At approximately 11:00am on the same day, the resident informed the landlord that she had “no workable toilet facility” in the property. The landlord appropriately reattended the following day at approximately 07:30am and unblocked the toilet, sink and drain. This was within its target timescales.
On 29 January 2024, the resident also informed the landlord that her husband had a medical condition that potentially could significantly impact toilet access and bathroom use. However, within the landlord’s evidence submission (in November 2024), it told us that it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the household on its internal systems. This is concerning, and we find that the landlord should have captured this information to ensure it was providing the resident and her family with any appropriate support.
On 6 February 2024, the landlord raised a follow-on repair to replace the toilet pan connector and fix a leak on the external waste pipe, scheduling the appointment as a “priority 3 – responsive repair” for 6 March 2024. This exceeded its repairs policy timescale of 15 working days. Living with an unresolved leak, particularly linked to waste pipes, may cause stress, discomfort, and concern about hygiene or health risks.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and attributed it to a shortage of trade staff. We have not seen the landlord’s compensation policy. However, as it acknowledged delays in resolving the repairs, it would have been appropriate to offer compensation for the resulting distress and inconvenience. Its failure to do so was not in line with our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
The landlord attended the property on 6 March 2024 and renewed the waste pipe. However, it is not clear why it did not replace the connector at this time, which is indicative of poor record keeping. It then arranged a further follow-on repair with the resident to lift the toilet and replace the connector, scheduling this for 10 April 2024. This resulted in an additional delay beyond its 15 working day target. It is noted that this appointment did not proceed due to no access.
The same day, the landlord rescheduled the appointment for 3 May 2024 and notified the resident by leaving a card at the property. This was again outside its target timescales of 15 working days. The appointment did not go ahead on this date, as the landlord was unable to gain access to the property.
The landlord rescheduled the appointment for 29 May 2024 and attended on that date. Its records note that the resident declined to have the toilet raised on a plinth as it was not practical and she confirmed the toilet was “working fine”, after which the landlord closed the job as complete.
While the landlord cannot be held responsible for the no-access appointments, we have found maladministration due to the multiple delays in scheduling the repairs. To put this right, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation in line with our policy.

Complaint	Rear door repairs
Finding	Maladministration

Within the resident’s request to make a complaint on 2 February 2024, she said she first raised the rear door repair on 16 January 2024. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we have seen no documentary evidence of this.
In her complaint, the resident said the landlord had fitted an internal wooden door instead of an external door, which had gaps that caused cold draughts and posed a security risk. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer to inspect the door within its stage 1 response, this was delayed by 9 working days. Given the resident’s security concerns and in line with its repairs policy, the landlord should have raised a repair within 24 hours of the resident first reporting the issue.
In her escalation request, the resident said the landlord had inspected the rear door and agreed it required replacement but had provided no further updates. The landlord has not provided any documentary evidence of this inspection, indicating poor record keeping.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its contractor would reattend to inspect and adjust the door’s weather strips. However, there is no evidence this occurred, and the next recorded attendance was around 4 months later, on 26 September 2024, when the resident reported the door as insecure.
The landlord appropriately attended to make safe the door, within less than 24 hours, on 27 September 2024. It raised a follow-on repair on 2 October 2024 to inspect the door, however there is no evidence that it progressed the works or updated the resident on its intended action, which led to the resident raising a further complaint on 30 October 2024.
Within the landlord’s second stage 1 response on 14 November 2024, it apologised to the resident for the delays since September 2024 and confirmed that it would replace the door and frame to a UPVC one.
The landlord replaced the rear door on 21 December 2024. From the date the resident first reported the repair, this was a total of 227 working days. This excessively exceeded the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy which states programmed works, where a pre-inspection is required, involving 2 or more appointments, should be planned, undertaken and completed within 25 working days inclusive of the inspection.
Given the failings identified, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation. For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation. This has been calculated in line with our compensation policy.

Complaint	Lack of loft insulation
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s void inspection report, completed in December 2023 before the resident moved in, confirms that the loft space was inspected, including the removal of the previous resident’s belongings. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to identify the lack of adequate insulation at that time.
In the resident’s complaint submitted on 2 February 2024, she said the loft insulation appeared to have been removed and raised concerns about heat loss. She also stated that she had initially informed the landlord on 16 January 2024 that there was no insulation in the loft. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, we have not seen any documentary evidence to support this.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord asked the resident to provide a suitable date and time to inspect the loft. While this was a positive action from the landlord, the request was made 10 days after the resident reported the issue, which was an unreasonable delay.
As the resident did not contact the landlord to arrange an appointment, the landlord acted appropriately by proactively emailing her on 27 February 2024 to confirm an inspection appointment for 1 March 2024.
The evidence suggests that this inspection went ahead and the surveyor had “agreed that the loft had no insulation, which would need to be rectified”. However, the landlord did not provide any evidence of this appointment.
In her request to escalate the complaint, the resident said she contacted the landlord on 19 March 2024 for an update on the repair. While the landlord has not provided documentary evidence of this, it apologised in its stage 2 response for failing to respond. This demonstrates the importance of maintaining effective communication.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it completed the works on 15 May 2024. However, it provided no evidence to support this, indicating poor record keeping, however the date is not disputed by the parties.
As the landlord provided no repair records, it is unclear what priority it assigned to this repair. However, it is reasonable to conclude the works fell under “planned works” for larger or more complex repairs, with a 60 working day target. The landlord exceeded this timescale, taking 71 working days. It was therefore appropriate that it “acknowledged and accepted that this process took longer and was not as seamless as it would accept the delay and offered £50 compensation. Although it is unclear how it calculated this figure, we find this an appropriate offer for this specific failure.
For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation in line with our compensation policy.

Complaint	A tree safety concern
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

On 30 July 2024, the resident told us that although the tree was removed, the path remained dangerous and was unhappy that this repair would not be completed until October 2024. This is a new issue which occurred after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about the path. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. We will therefore not consider this element within our investigation.

What we did investigate

In her email to the landlord on 2 April 2024, the resident explained that during a property inspection on 1 March 2024, she raised concerns about a tree in the front garden that was leaning towards the property. She stated that the surveyor “agreed this was a problem” and confirmed that an assessment would be arranged. The landlord has not provided documentary evidence of this appointment, indicating poor record keeping. However, the landlord later stated it inspected the tree on 14 March 2024 following an internal referral.
The resident also stated in her 2 April 2024 email that she had not been informed of the subsequent inspection. She said she observed “a man outside [her] property taking pictures” and, when she contacted the landlord to check whether this had been arranged, she was told it had not. She was then later told that it had attended. The landlord has not disputed this account of the events. This unannounced visit and the miscommunication likely caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s tree policy does not specify whether appointments will be arranged with residents for tree inspections. While we acknowledge it is common practice for external inspections to take place without prior appointments, the landlord’s inability to confirm whether an inspection occurred, demonstrates poor record keeping and highlights the importance of effective communication.
It was also inappropriate that the landlord failed to address this issue in its stage 2 response, despite the resident raising in her complaint that the unannounced visit had left her feeling “terrified” because she was “attacked in [her] last home”.
During the inspection on 14 March 2024, the landlord identified that the tree had health issues and recommended that its specialist contractor remove it. This action was in line with its tree policy, which states that works may be undertaken outside of the cyclical pruning programme where a tree is in an unreasonable condition in the context of neighbouring properties.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that its contractor removed the tree during the week ending 26 April 2024, which would be 39 working days after the resident first raised her concerns. While the landlord has not provided documentary evidence to support this, again indicating poor record keeping, it is reasonable to accept this timeline as the resident did not dispute it.
Although the landlord’s tree policy does not specify timescales for tree removal, its repairs policy states that planned works—particularly those that are larger or more complex—should be completed within 60 working days. On this basis, the completion of the tree removal within 39 working days was within a reasonable timeframe, and we agree with the landlord’s stage 2 position on this point.
For the communication failures outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure. To put things right, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation, in line with our compensation policy.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024.
The landlord met its stage 1 timescales by acknowledging the complaint within 1 working day and responding within 10 working days.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged her request on 16 April 2024. This was an interval of 10 working days, and therefore exceeded the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
The landlord appropriately issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that if a customer raises additional complaints that are not relevant to the existing complaint and after the stage 1 response has been issued, the matter should be logged as a new complaint. Therefore, it was inappropriate that the landlord included the complaint about the tree within its stage 2 response. This approach prevented the resident from having the opportunity to escalate that issue separately if she was dissatisfied with the response.
A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to also review its handling of the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, the landlord did not assess its complaint handling, which meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the failures highlighted by this investigation.
The resident raised a further complaint about the rear door repair on 30 October 2024, 5 months after the landlord issued its stage 2 response on the same issue. In line with its complaints policy, which excludes matters already considered, the landlord should have advised the resident that she had exhausted its complaints process and provided details of her right to refer the matter to this Service. This indicates that the landlord operated a protracted complaints process at the time.
In view of the failings identified, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation in line with our compensation policy.

Learning

Complaint handling

Where the landlord identifies and acknowledges failures, it should ensure it remedies the situation in line with our remedies guidance and consider awarding compensation in line with both its own and our compensation policy.
The landlord should follow its complaints policy by recording new, unrelated issues as separate complaints, so residents retain full escalation rights.
The landlord should ensure issues already investigated are not re-opened without proper explanation, and close complaints appropriately in line with its policy and the Code.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair record keeping was inadequate which meant it could not evidence key actions. This undermined transparency and prevented a full assessment of events. It should ensure it maintains accurate and timely records of all correspondence and repairs.

Communication

Throughout the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues, it made some positive attempts to engage with resident. However, on occasions it was not sufficiently clear, proactive, or well-documented, and this affected the resident’s experience. The landlord should reflect on how it can strengthen its approach when interacting with residents.