London Borough of Barnet (202425854)

Decision
Case ID	202425854
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Barnet
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	6 February 2026

Background

The resident told the landlord that the water from the shower was not draining properly, and the toilet was not flushing properly. He also told the landlord that his deaf family member needed adaptations to the property’s fire alarm and doorbell. He later complained that it had not acted on his reports and requests in a timely manner and/or resolved them.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reported bathroom repairs.
2. Request for adaptations.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported bathroom repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord failed to progress the resident’s reported bathroom repairs over a prolonged period of time.
The landlord failed to follow its aids and adaptations policy in a timely manner, which contributed to the delay in progressing the resident’s request for adaptations.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints outside of its policy timescales and did not respond to all aspects of his complaint.

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 06 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reported bathroom repairs. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of his request for adaptations. £200 for its complaint handling failings. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 06 March 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to ascertain whether: He has any concerns about his reported bathroom repairs. If he does, it should investigate the repairs and provide the resident with an update. It should also consider whether further compensation is warranted and inform us of its decision. He has any outstanding concerns from his complaint. If he does, it should respond to them in line with its policy and procedures.	No later than 06 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2-17 April 2024	The resident moved into his home in early April 2024 and reported bathroom repairs. The landlord attended and recorded that it unblocked the toilet. A few days later, the resident reported that the toilet was still not flushing properly.
2-7 May 2024	The landlord inspected the resident’s toilet and noted that it had limescale and parts of it needed to be replaced. It recorded that it had also unblocked the shower drain.
17 May 2024	The resident made a complaint. He said: When he viewed the property in February 2024, he told the landlord’s staff members (Officer A and Officer B) that there was a bad smell coming from the shower drain and that he needed fire alarm and doorbell adaptations for his deaf brother-in-law. However, these issues were outstanding when he moved in. When he moved in, he noticed that the shower was not draining properly and that the toilet was still not flushing properly, so he reported the issues. However, they remained outstanding. He could not use the shower for more than a minute as it flooded the bathroom. He said that this was a health and safety issue, in particular as he had a disabled family member who could slip. He also had to use a bucket to fully flush the toilet. He asked for a surveyor to inspect the bathroom for health and safety issues.
11 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: The property was at a lettable standard when the resident moved in. It could not see that Officer A reported the bathroom issues as it did not have a record of it. It had tried to contact the resident several times in May 2024 to book an appointment for the adaptations. At the time he said that he was busy and that he would contact it to arrange the appointment, but had not done so. It asked the resident to book the appointment.
25 June 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He reiterated his concerns outlined in his stage 1 complaint and added: The landlord had not responded to his concerns that the bathroom repairs remained unresolved and his request for a surveyor inspection. He was told that the fire alarm installation and doorbell adaptations would be complete on the day he moved in, but they were not. He also asked the landlord for compensation.
6 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: Its void and lettings team did not report the resident’s concern about the smell of the bathroom to its repair team, which it should have done. It inspected the bathroom in October 2024 and could not find any blockages or smell any odour in the bathroom. The inspection was carried out within a reasonable timeframe. Its adaptations team was not aware of the required adaptations before he and his brother-in-law moved in, as Officer B handled the matter at the time. It attended to complete the adaptations on 17 July 2024, but it needed further information before doing so. It referred the matter to the local authority’s sensory team the next day. The team were now handling the adaptations.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He told us that the bathroom repairs remained unresolved and that there was a delay in installing the adaptations. He said that he would like compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported bathroom repairs
Finding	Maladministration

Toilet repairs

We do not have a record of the specific date the resident reported the toilet repair to the landlord. However, the evidence suggests that it was either on or around the day he moved into the property on 2 April 2024. Based on this, the landlord logged and attended the repair approximately 9 working days after the resident reported the issue. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repair policy timescale of 15 working days for such a repair.
However, while the landlord noted that it had changed the valve within the toilet, it did not provide the full outcome of the repair. Landlords should fully record the outcome of their repairs to show either that they were successful or that follow-up works are required. In this case, while the repair was recorded, whether it resolved the issue was not. If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information or partial information. As such, the landlord has failed to adequately demonstrate that the repair it carried out at this time resolved the issue.
When the resident told the landlord that the repair was not resolved, it carried out another inspection of the toilet on 2 May 2024, which noted that follow-up repairs were needed. The landlord noted that it attempted to book in follow-up works on 7 May 2024. It recorded that on the call, the resident said that he did not want to book in the appointment as he wanted to make a complaint about its overall handling of his repairs. The resident has told us that on this call, he asked the landlord to book in the shower repair and toilet repair at the same time, but it refused to do so. Where there are different versions of events and no objective record, we cannot say for sure what happened.
Nonetheless, the landlord was aware that the repair remained outstanding at this time. Given its lawful repair obligations to keep the property in good repair and working order, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered progressing the repair under its repair policy. Furthermore, the resident told the landlord that it had not resolved the issue in his 17 May and 11 June 2024 complaints. Despite this, there is no evidence that demonstrates that landlord took steps to progress the follow-up works.
It was not until October 2024 that the landlord took some steps to investigate the issue again. This meant that the resident’s toilet repair went unaddressed for approximately 5 months. That is a failing and a significant departure from its repair policy timescales. During that period, the resident reported that he had to use a bucket to fully flush the toilet at times. This caused him distress and inconvenience that could have been avoidable if the landlord had progressed the repair earlier.
The landlord’s 10 October 2024 record of its visit is vague. It said that “the bathroom was in good working order and functioned as it should.” Its 31 October 2024 record of the visit does not demonstrate that it adequately inspected the toilet. Given the circumstances, we would expect to see a robust record of its inspection and the outcome demonstrating what steps it had taken to ensure the toilet was working as it should. There is also no evidence to suggest that it reviewed and/or carried out its previous recommended follow-up works for the toilet. The resident has also told us that the issue is still unresolved. As such, the landlord has failed to satisfy itself that after 5 months and within its final response it reasonably investigated and resolved this issue.

Shower repair

The evidence suggests that the resident reported that the water was draining properly in his shower at or around the time he moved in. However, we do not have a record of this. Nor is there a record of a work order within the landlord’s repair logs. Whether or not this is a record keeping issue is unclear.
Following the resident’s report that the shower was leaking through to the kitchen ceiling at the end of May 2024, the landlord attended. It said that a drainage company was needed to investigate further. The evidence suggests that some works were carried out around that time. However, the outcome of the visit has not been provided. Therefore, the landlord has not demonstrated that it resolved the issue at this time.
It is unclear whether the landlord does not have this information, if no record was kept, or if it simply failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a further record keeping issue.
While the resident reported that the shower repair went unresolved in his June 2024 escalated complaint, there is no evidence to show that the landlord investigated the matter at the time or over the following months. This meant that the resident’s repair went unaddressed, this was unreasonable.
It was not until 4 months later that the landlord inspected the shower drain again. It noted that while it could not see any blockages, there was build-up in the shower gully, and it asked internally whether any follow-up works were required. It is unclear by the evidence provide whether this was carried out and whether the resident’s concern was reasonably resolved.
Given the highlighted failings over approximately 6 months, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the bathroom repairs. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations
Finding	Service failure

The landlord noted that following its visit to install the resident’s adaptations, it identified that the requirements were more complex than it originally considered and referred the matter to the local authority’s sensory team on 21 July 2024. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that adaptations are carried out based on recommendations of an occupational therapist.
Therefore, in line with its policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have referred the matter to the sensory team following the resident’s complaint instead of attempting to install the adaptations without an assessment from the team.
The resident has not disputed the landlord’s account that it attempted to arrange appointments with him in May 2024. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the 2-month delay to progress the adaptations was not fully under the landlord’s control. However, its failure to follow its procedure at the earliest opportunity contributed to a delay that could have been mitigated if it had done so. The evidence suggests that the sensory team attempted to contact the resident in August 2024.
It is acknowledged that once the landlord referred the matter to the sensory team, it did not have control of the progress of the assessment. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have monitored the matter within its own remit. It was not until October 2024 that it prompted the team to contact the resident and progress the adaptations. This was a shortcoming, as it could have reduced the further delay. It is noted that the sensory team installed the adaptations in November 2024 under its remit.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint, it said that it would respond by 27 May 2024. This was in line with its complaint policy 10-working-day response timescale. It also said that it would update the resident if its response would be delayed. However, it issued its response 10 working days after its deadline, and there is no evidence that it informed the resident of the delay as it said that it would. That was unreasonable and poor complaint handling.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was then delayed by approximately 5 months. This was a significant departure from its stage 2 complaint 20-working-day response timescale and that of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). Therefore, while the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is a failing. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord kept the resident updated during this period in accordance with the Code. That would have caused him distress and inconvenience, as he was left uncertain as to when he would receive a response.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of his bathroom repairs was vague and inadequate. It did not respond to all of his raised concerns. These included his concerns that he had reported the shower repair twice without resolution, all repairs went unresolved, and his request for a surveyor inspection. This was not in line with the Code, which states landlords must address all aspects of a resident’s complaint. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as his complaints were not fully addressed. This also suggests that the landlord may not have carried out a meaningful investigation and review of the complaint.
The resident complained to the landlord that it had not installed the aids and adaptations on the day that he had moved as it said it would. In response, the landlord said that it was not aware of his brother-in-law’s adaptation requirements before he moved in and that Officer B was dealing with the adaptations at the time.
There is evidence that Officer B was dealing with some adaptations before the resident moved into the property. However, it is unclear whether Officer B was carrying out their role under landlord’s remit or that of the local authority’s remit. If they were under the local authority’s remit, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified this in its response and signposted the resident to the correct party to raise his concerns. That it did not was unreasonable and meant that the resident’s concerns about this matter were not fully addressed. If Officer B was carrying out their role under the landlord’s remit, the landlord failed to properly investigate the resident’s concerns.
The landlord identified that its voids and lettings team did not raise an order when the resident raised his concerns about the smell of the shower drains at the viewing as it should have done. Given the time and trouble caused, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a reasonable and proportionate remedy for the failing. That it did not was a missed opportunity to put matters right.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

There were examples of poor record keeping in this case. At times the landlord failed to either use or analyse the information that was available to ensure it progressed the repairs, the adaptation request, and to support its complaint handling. This suggests that it may need to improve its record keeping practices and provide refresher training for its staff. It may also wish to carry out a case review.

Communication

This investigation highlighted that the landlord failed to demonstrate that it kept the resident updated during the complaint process. This suggests that it may need to strengthen its communication with residents. Long periods without updates cause unnecessary uncertainty and distress. Regular, proactive communication, especially when delays occur, helps manage expectations and creates a more transparent and responsive experience. Therefore, the landlord may wish to carry out a case review into its communication practices.