London Borough of Barnet (202501018)

Background

1. The resident is vulnerable because of physical ill-health and disabilities. In October 2024 she reported sloping floors in the property, a dip in the hallway, and loose slabs in the garden affecting the down drainpipe to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about sloping floors.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about sloping floors.
   2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord missed opportunities to identify repairs promptly and did not complete identified repairs in line with its policy. It did not keep the resident updated or provide clear explanations of its position and findings. It did not show that it appropriately considered the impact on the resident as a vulnerable person.
5. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, and it did not explain the reason for this to the resident. Its responses did not identify all its service failures or offer sufficient explanations and remedies for those it found.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The resident’s report is categorised as ‘programmed work’ under the landlord’s repairs policy. This requires a pre-inspection, followed by advice or a job order, and any identified repairs completed within 25 working days. The landlord conducted the inspection within this time but did not complete repairs in line with its policy.
7. Under the policy, the landlord handles repairs to the floor even where the cause is non-structural. It identified the floor sloped during its November 2024 inspection butconcluded repairs were not needed because there was no structural issue.During the visit italso found it had previously installeda step-up to the kitchen because of the slope. However, we have not seen evidence that it assessed if this installation remained a suitable fix for the issue or if it posed an added risk to the resident due to her vulnerabilities.
8. The landlord’s records also show that the surveyor did not have a spirit level available during the inspection. It is therefore unclear how the landlord satisfied itself that the moving floor levels posed no increased risk to the resident.
9. We have not seen evidence of a detailed survey report from November 2024, or that the landlord shared this with the resident. It did not update her with its findings, planned next steps, and timescales following the inspection. She chased it multiple times but still did not receive a meaningful update. It told her during one of these chasers that it did not plan to do anything about the sloping floors but did not explain why.
10. There is no evidence that during its November 2024 inspection the landlord either examined or made a finding on the risk posed by the dip in the hallway. Its repairs policy says it gives special consideration where residents are vulnerable. However, we have not seen evidence that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities during its handling of her concerns or in planning its repairs.
11. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that it would inspect and schedule necessary repairs for the slabs. It conducted the inspection as advised but then did not update her with its findings or repair plans, requiring her to chase it once again. Following the involvement of a senior manager in April 2025, the landlord picked up the concerns about the adequacy of the November 2024 inspection, assessment of risk, and the lack of explanations for its position. This is when it considered the need for a further structural survey, 6 months after the resident’s first report.
12. The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 response that it would take 6 to 8 weeks to arrange the survey, but evidence shows it did not complete this until January 2026, 9 months later. The follow-on survey found the floors presented a potential trip hazard to the resident, especially when considering her mobility needs.
13. Given a year had passed since the last survey, the condition of the floors may have changed. However, the evidence raises concerns about the quality of the November 2024 inspection. The resident specifically raised the issues picked up by the January 2026 survey. We can reasonably expect a qualified professional to identify these during the first inspection; as well as the potential for them to worsen, and the risk posed to a vulnerable resident.
14. The resident told us she continues to experience the same lack of updates, no follow-ups after inspections, and delays in completing identified repairs. For the reasons explained to her we cannot investigate these issues until the landlord has had an opportunity to address them first. However, we have considered the time taken to carry out the survey promised in its stage 2 response.
15. The landlord accepted some of its failures and apologised but did not offer compensation. Its compensation policy says it will offer this where avoidable distress and inconvenience were caused by poor service, where the resident had to spend time chasing, or had to live in poor conditions for longer than was reasonable due to repair delays. It is unclear why it did not offer compensation given the identified issues.
16. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord must pay her £400. This amount is consistent with our remedies guidance at the time, and its own compensation policy. It is proportionate to the duration of the problem, the extent of the service failure, and the increased impact on a vulnerable resident.
17. The landlord must also provide to the resident a copy of its January 2026 survey report and a plan of action that includes clear timescales for the identified repairs within the next 2 weeks. Following this, if the resident is unhappy, she may make a new complaint to it about this.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also complied with the Code.
19. The landlord’s complaint response at stage 1 was issued in line with its policy, but it did not adequately address the complaint. It explained why there were delays in arranging repairs. However, it did not explain why it did not proactively inform the resident about this or why it did not keep her updated while she waited. It listed the steps it was taking to improve its service, such as reducing the number of appointments requiring follow up works and how it managed appointment rescheduling. However, these issues were not specific or relevant to the failings found in the resident’s complaint.
20. The stage 1 response said there were no structural issues and that “in some properties like these” issues occurred without consequences, but it did not explain what the landlord meant by “properties like these”. It also did not explain or offer reassurance about whether the issue, even if non-structural, posed a risk to the resident, or if it had considered her vulnerability when making its decisions. The response said it had identified opportunities to reduce waiting times and improve communication but did not explain what these were or how it planned to implement them.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 response was not issued in line with its policy or the Code. It did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request until 27 days later, which in turn delayed its final response. Its acknowledgement apologised for the delay but did not explain the reason for it. The stage 2 response, while better detailed than the first said that “if this (the step up installed because of sloping floors) was such an issue surely someone would have flagged this during the kitchen install”. This was not a suitable response nor is it clear what this was meant to convey about the then current status and severity of the issue.
22. The landlord did not acknowledge or explain the delay in issuing its stage 2 response, and it did not redress this. Its complaint responses lacked sufficient explanations of its position. They did not provide reassurances that it had considered the resident’s individual circumstances. The learnings it listed were not specific or relevant to her complaint. It accepted some failings at stage 1 but did not identify the failings that occurred after this in its stage 2 response. It did not offer compensation for its failings at either stage.
23. The landlord must write to the resident with an apology. It must also pay her £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This amount is proportionate and in line with our compensation guidance for the errors identified.

Learning

24. This case highlights the importance of maintaining landlord and resident relations through clear communication, timely action, and follow‑through on commitments. Where these elements are missing, residents may lose confidence in the landlord’s service and complaint handling.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord did not provide us with all the relevant evidence such as its full repair log and contact records. We had to piece together a timeline of reports, repairs, and resident contact using its complaint responses and wider correspondence.

Communication

26. The landlord did not communicate clearly or promptly with the resident. It should make proactive and timely contact with residents to give updates or explain delays, even when these are minor. This approach supports good customer service and helps prevent avoidable trouble and inconvenience for residents.