London Borough of Croydon (202327945)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327945

London Borough of Croydon

22 July 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. An emergency request to access a communal cupboard.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. On 9 April 2023, there was a loss of electricity at the property and the resident called her own electrician. The electrician identified that the wiring needed to be replaced. The main fuse box in the communal cupboard needed to be switched off for safety reasons before repair work could be carried out. However, the cupboard was locked.
  3. The resident called the landlord’s emergency repairs line to gain access to the cupboard at 10:45. The resident reported that the landlord had advised of a wait up to 4 hours. The resident made 3 further calls at 14:27, 16.00 and 16.35 as no one attended the property and there was still no electricity at the property. The engineer attended at 20:38 and swiftly opened the door. The resident’s electrician restored the electricity the following day.
  4. On 14 April 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She was dissatisfied that it took someone 10 hours to open the cupboard. Furthermore, she stated that she was given misinformation during the calls, that there would be a wait of 4 hours. The resident also raised questions regarding the communal cupboard’s lock and expressed safety concerns. She requested compensation for not having electricity for 24 hours and stated that the landlord’s complaints policy was not in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code regarding stage 1 response time. She chased this in May 2023 and requested her complaint to be escalated.
  5. On 14 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in the response from the emergency team which resulted in a loss of electricity for 24 hours. It also acknowledged there was a delay in providing the formal response due to limited resources. It offered £50 compensation for the distress and lack of communication.
  6. On the same day, the resident requested escalation of her complaint. She explained that there was a lack of investigation and accountability regarding the calls and misinformation she had been given. She also stated that the complaint response was delayed, the landlord had failed to escalate her complaint in May 2023 and the compensation was inadequate.
  7. On 19 October 2023, the resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. she was not satisfied with the investigation undertaken and compensation offered.  
  8. On 14 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It addressed the resident’s concern regarding the communal cupboard’s lock and emergency situations. It also confirmed that the lock has been replaced for easier access. Furthermore, the landlord explained that there was an alternative way the resident was able to access the main fuse for her property. It apologised for the misinformation regarding response times and the delay in providing complaint responses. It confirmed that the stage 1 compensation offer was suitable for repair response. It offered a further £50 compensation for the delayed stage 2 response. As such, it offered a total of £100.

Assessment and findings

Handling of a request to access a communal cupboard 

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and therefore she is responsible for repairing the interiors of her property and anything that solely serves her property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide for tenants states that urgent repairs will be responded to within 24 hours.
  3. While the resident is a leaseholder, the landlord recognised her report as an emergency. This was appropriate as there was a full loss of electricity at the property. The landlord’s contractor attended within 10 hours and opened the communal cupboard. This was in accordance with its target response timeframe of 24 hours. We note that the landlord has now changed its response time to 2 hours for emergencies. It is reasonable that the landlord has taken steps to improve its services. However, at the time, the landlord’s target response timeframe was 24 hours, which it met and therefore there were no failures in relation to this.
  4. The resident stated that she was given misinformation during the calls she made as she was advised that the response time was 4 hours. Furthermore, the resident stated that the landlord had carried out a limited investigation. We have seen evidence of the landlord conducting an in depth investigation with its contractor to determine what information was provided during the calls and the reason for the delay. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that it was unable to determine what happened due to limited evidence available from its contractor due to a change in the contractor. However, it accepted the resident’s account and this was reasonable. Furthermore, it apologised for the misinformation and acknowledged this as communication failings.
  5. While the target timescale was 24 hours as per its policy, the landlord set a wrong expectation with the resident when she was advised of a wait time of 4 hours. It is not appropriate to provide incorrect information and setting wrong expectations about response times, particularly during busier periods and out of hours. Had the resident been correctly informed of a wait up to 24 hours, this would have managed her expectations and minimised her distress, and she would not have needed to make a further 3 calls.
  6. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged that the resident made multiple calls to the emergency line to gain access to the communal cupboard and she did not have electricity for 24 hours. It offered an apology and £50 compensation for the distress and lack of communication. At stage 2, the landlord confirmed that this compensation offer was suitable given the circumstances.
  7. In the stage 2 response, the landlord informed the resident that her electrician could have accessed the main cut-out fuse for her property, which is contained inside an access panel on her floor. The electrician could have then carried out the repair swiftly. This would have avoided the delay in restoring the electricity and inconvenience suffered by the resident. The resident was not aware of the access panel. It is reassuring that the landlord corresponded with the resident to show her where the panel is. While this was reasonable, the landlord should consider providing appropriate information pack to its leaseholders about the property and the communal areas so that swift repair can be carried out in events of emergency.
  8. Furthermore, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord responded to the resident’s questions about what type of lock the communal cupboard had and addressed her concerns regarding emergency situations. Additionally, it replaced one of the locks on the communal cupboard to provide easier and quicker access. It was reassuring that the landlord took steps to provide the resident with all the relevant information and that her concerns were addressed. The landlord demonstrated it had taken learning and improved its communications.
  9. It was reasonable for the landlord to accept the resident’s recollection of events despite the limited evidence. It acknowledged its service failures and offered proportionate compensation. The landlord demonstrated learning and improved communications by addressing the residents concerns regarding the lock. Furthermore, it has now changed its policy and aims to respond to emergencies within 2 hours. The compensation offer of £50 is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and proportionate for the failures identified in this report. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy and procedure in force at the time of the events states that the landlord operates a 2-stage process. At both stages, it will provide a response within 20 working days. However, these timeframes are not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”). The Code requires landlords to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. However, we have seen evidence that the landlord has amended its policy recently to reflect the Code requirements.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint on 14 April 2023. The stage 1 response was due on 16 May 2023. However, the landlord issued the response on 14 September 2023, in 106 working days. The resident requested an escalation in May 2023 (prior to stage 1 response) after receiving no response. On 23 June 2023, the landlord explained in a voicemail to the resident that it was experiencing resource challenges and it would provide a stage 1 formal response. Despite this, the landlord did not provide a further update until the response was sent, 3 months later. The delay amounted to 5 times the target as per its policy at the time and the resident was not kept updated.
  3. In the stage 2 response, the landlord explained that in May 2023 the complaint was not escalated as an investigation of the original complaint by the repairs team had not yet been carried out. While the landlord apologised for the delay and stated that it faced resource challenges, it failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failures at stage 1 and the extent of the delays. This amounts to service failure. We have therefore made an order for £100 compensation to reflect the excessive delay in responding and the landlord’s complaint handling failures at stage 1.
  4. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 14 September 2023. The stage 2 response was due on 12 October 2023. The landlord issued the response on 8 November 2023, in 39 working days. The landlord sent an update on 20 October 2023 acknowledging the delay and issued the response on the same day the resident chased it. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response and offered £50 compensation. This was reasonable.
  5. It is acknowledged that the timescale set out in the landlord’s corporate complaints policy and procedure for a stage 1 response was not in accordance with our the Code. Prior to April 2024 and when this policy was in place, the Code was not a statutory requirement. Furthermore, the landlord has already updated its new complaints policy now to include the 10-day timescale at stage 1 as set out in the Code. As such, we have not made any policy review order.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the handling of an access request following a loss of power.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from 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 a total compensation of £150 to the resident for the landlord’s complaint handling failures. This amount is comprised of:
      1. £50 compensation (if not paid already) offered during its complaints process for the delay in providing a response.
      2. Additional £100 compensation to recognise the inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the delay in responding at stage 1.
    3. Contact the Service and provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays £50 compensation (if not paid already) to the resident offered during its complaints process for the failures in its handling of the resident’s request to access a communal cupboard.