London Borough of Croydon (202417068)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417068

London Borough of Croydon

8 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen repairs.
2. external door repairs.
3. radiator repairs.
4. roof repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure flexible tenant. She has lived at the property since October 2016 with her 3 children. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
On 28 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that:
1. the tap in her bath was constantly leaking and this had damaged the bath.
2. it had told her on 3 previous occasions it would replace her front door, but it had not yet done so.
3. she had been reporting both these issues to the tenancy team “for months”, but it had ignored her.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 8 December 2023. It apologised for its delay in fixing both repair issues. It said it would forward the concerns she had raised to its repairs team which would then contact her to arrange the repairs. It also suggested that she should contact its repairs contractor directly for assistance.
The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response and asked to escalate it to stage 2 on 11 December 2023. She suggested that in addition to the bath and front door, there were other outstanding repairs in the property. The landlord asked her for more information about these and indicated it would address them as part of its stage 2 response.
On 15 February 2024 the resident sent the landlord a list detailing various repair issues in the bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen. She also said the front and back door were in poor condition and not secure, radiators were leaking and not fully heating up, and the roof was leaking.
The landlord attended the property on 27 February 2024. During this visit it discussed the complaint with the resident and inspected the property.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint on 27 March 2024. It said:
1. it was sorry that its stage 1 response to the complaint was “not adequate”. It was “lacking in detail” and should have set out the actions its repairs team would take to resolve the reported repair issues.
2. its advice in the stage 1 response that the resident should contact the contractors directly was “inappropriate”. It was responsible for asking the contractor to carry out repairs and to enquire about progress. It apologised that it had suggested otherwise.
3. following the repairs inspection on 27 February 2024, it had raised work orders with its contractors for:
  1. all of the bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen repairs.
  2. the front and back doors to be eased and adjusted to ensure they closed correctly and to prevent draughts. If during this work the contractor found the doors to be beyond repair, it would consider renewing them.
  3. a full survey of all radiators in the property and also a repair to be carried out to a leaking radiator pipe in the cloakroom.
4. it had inspected the roof to assess its condition on 14 March 2024.
5. it offered the resident £200 compensation for its delay in resolving all of the above repair issues and its “inadequate” stage 1 response.
The resident contacted us and asked us to investigate her complaint. She told us that the landlord had not completed all the repairs it said it would in the stage 2 response. The main outcome she sought was for it to complete the outstanding repairs. She also wanted it to compensate her for the impact of the delays on her mental health, and also for costs she incurred in carrying out repairs that it had “failed to do”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has explained she wants to seek compensation for the impact of the landlord’s handling of repairs on her health. Personal injury claims are better dealt with via the courts where independent medical experts are appointed to give an impartial view of the likely cause of any injury or illness. We are not likely to be able to arrive at meaningful findings based on a review of the complaint file.

Bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen repairs

The landlord is required by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep sanitation facilities such as baths, sinks and toilets in repair and working order. The landlord’s repairs policy recognises this, however it qualifies the extent of its responsibility. For example, if an internal waste pipe or trap from a sink is blocked, it expects resident to first try and clear the blockage before reporting it. The tenancy states that residents are responsible for replacing kitchen units, which are landlord’s fixtures and fittings.
The repairs policy requires the landlord to categorise repairs according to the level of urgency. Each category has a target response time. Issues such as dripping taps and minor leaks when a sink is in use would likely be a “non urgent” repair under the policy, with a target response time of 15 working days. Works to replace baths, sinks or kitchen units would likely be “semi-planned” repairs under the policy, with a target response time of 60 working days.
When the resident first complained to the landlord in September 2023, she said she had been telling it “for months” that a bath tap in the bathroom was leaking and that this had damaged the bath. When escalating her complaint in December 2023, she told the landlord there were a number of other repair issues. She sent it a detailed list of these issues on 15 February 2024. The issues included a blocked sink in the bathroom, a leaking toilet, leaking sink and broken tap in the downstairs cloakroom, and a damaged kitchen sink unit.
It was the landlord’s responsibility to attend to all of these plumbing repairs. This included the blocked sink as the resident told it she had attempted to unblock it but was unable to. Although its repairs policy stated residents were responsible for replacing kitchen units, the resident said the landlord had caused the damage to the kitchen sink unit when carrying out a previous mould treatment. It therefore appropriately accepted in February 2024 that it was responsible for attending to all the reported bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen repairs.
We have not seen any evidence that the resident reported the bath tap was leaking prior to making her formal complaint in September 2023. Similarly, we have seen no evidence she reported the other bathroom, cloakroom or kitchen repair issues prior to her email in February 2024. This may be as a result of the landlord’s record keeping, as it is noted that during the complaints process it did not dispute that the resident had been reporting matters “for months”. Either way, while we do not know the full extent of the delay, the landlord accepted in its stage 2 response in March 2024 that it delayed in responding to all the reported repair issues in the bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen. It appropriately apologised for this.
Despite the initial delay by the landlord in attending to the reported repairs, once it received the resident’s detailed list of repair issues on 15 February 2024 it acted appropriately. On 27 February 2024, 8 working days after receiving the list, it carried out an inspection of the property. It identified a number of repairs required in the bathroom, cloakroom and to the kitchen sink unit. It also agreed with the resident that it would fit privacy locks on the bathroom and cloakroom doors.
The landlord raised works orders the following day. Its repairs records show that:
1. on 22 March 2024 it replaced the kitchen sink unit.
2. on 28 March 2024 it installed a new bath with new taps, a new bathroom sink with new taps, and a new tap in the cloakroom sink. It also checked and satisfied itself the cloakroom sink was not leaking.
3. on 8 April 2024 it repaired and replaced the waste pipe to the bathroom sink and a flush inlet pipe to the toilet in the cloakroom.
This meant that by the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response on 27 March 2024, it had completed or planned to shortly complete all of the required repairs in the bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen. It included a plan of action for resolving the outstanding repairs in these rooms and it completed most of the required works shortly after the stage 2 response was issued. However, we understand that it has still not fitted the privacy locks. Given this, we are unable to find that it offered reasonable redress to the complaint. Instead we have found that there was service failure in its handling of the repairs.
In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation. This is in addition to the £200 it offered her in its stage 2 response for it delays in completing repairs. This is to reflect the distress caused by its further delay in fitting the privacy locks, and the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing this issue.

External door repairs

The landlord is required by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes external doors.
In her original complaint email in September 2023 the resident said the landlord told her 3 times previously it would replace her front door. In a further email sent to the landlord on 15 February 2024 during its stage 2 investigation, she provided specific detail about problems she was having with the front door and also the back door. She outlined that the doors were allowing cold air and leaks in, and that the locks on both were not fully secure.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will treat damaged external doors as an “urgent” repair with a target response time of 24 hours. Given the resident told it the locks on both external doors were not working correctly, we would have expected it to respond to her report urgently. It failed to do so. Instead, it did not attend her property to inspect the doors until 27 February 2024, which was 8 working days after she told it of her concerns about the locks.
The inspection record, from the landlord’s visit on 27 February 2024, did not detail if it checked the locks on both doors and confirmed they were in proper working order. The record referred only to the front door being old and allowing cold air in. It stated that a works order would be raised for a contractor to inspect the door and report back if it was beyond repair. There is no reference on the inspection record to the back door. It is therefore unknown what, if anything, the landlord’s initial findings were in relation to the back door at that time.
A month later, in its stage 2 complaint response of 27 March 2024, the landlord appropriately recognised and apologised for its delay in attending to the door repairs. It said it would “ease and adjust” both doors to ensure they closed correctly and to prevent draughts. It said it would consider renewing the doors if the contractor believed they were beyond repair.
While this response on the face of it appeared to offer a resolution to the resident’s complaint about the doors, the landlord failed to follow through with the commitment it made. This was contrary to our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states, “Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.”
The landlord’s repair records show that on 21 May 2024 it carried out an inspection and found that both doors, including the frames, should be replaced. There is no further information available to us regarding this inspection, such as a contractor’s report. Therefore we do not know whether the landlord “eased and adjusted” the doors and was satisfied they were secure in the interim pending replacement. The only other record it has provided regarding the doors was a note in its repair log on 5 July 2024 which suggests it fitted a new front door.
The information that is contained in the landlord’s repair records is not only limited, but also inaccurate. The resident told us that the landlord replaced the back door, rather than the front door, during 2024. She said that it asked her to choose a colour for the front door, but that she has heard nothing further from it about when it will be fitted. She said she chased it for updates but it did not respond, including during the winter of 2024-25 when she reported the front door was leaking during heavy rain. As of July 2025, the landlord has still not fitted a new front door.
In relation to the back door, the resident said the landlord only replaced the door itself but not the frame. She said this meant that she was still experiencing issues with the new door closing correctly and that she has reported this to the landlord.
As such, the landlord has failed to demonstrate to us how it followed through on its commitment in its stage 2 response to carry out remedial work and consider replacing the doors. The resident remains concerned, as she did when she originally submitted her complaint, that both doors are not secure or weatherproof . Almost 2 years has passed since she made her complaint, and the landlord has still not fully repaired or replaced either door. This is maladministration.
In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £450 compensation. This is to reflect the distress caused by the landlord’s delays in resolving both door repairs, which remain outstanding, and for her time and trouble in seeking updates.
We also order the landlord to inspect the external doors and complete the works.

Radiator repairs

The landlord is required to keep the radiators in repair and proper working order.
The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) sets minimum standards for the condition of social housing properties. It requires landlords to ensure properties provide “a reasonable degree of thermal comfort”. Properties must have an efficient heating system and effective insulation in place.
The resident told the landlord on 15 February 2024 that the radiators in the property were not fully heating up. She also said that “all of the pipes” from the radiators were “corroding” and “leaking” which had damaged her flooring.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will treat leaks from heating pipes as an “urgent” repair with a target response time of 24 hours. It also categorises reports of partial heat loss during winter months as an “urgent” repair. The next level of repair category in the policy is a “less urgent” repair. This is for repair issues that “seriously interfere” with a resident’s comfort. The target response time for “less urgent” repairs is 3 working days.
The landlord attended the property on 27 February 2024 to discuss the resident’s complaint and carry out an inspection. This was 8 working days after she had outlined the issues she was having with the radiators. The landlord therefore failed to respond with the timeframe set out in its policy for either an “urgent” or “less urgent” repair.
It is unclear what the landlord’s initial findings were as its record of the 27 February 2024 inspection does not refer to the radiators. Even if it was satisfied that there was no urgent issue and that a plumbing contractor could inspect in due course, it should have recorded this in its inspection notes. It should also have ensured the contractor then attended within 15 working days, which is its target response time for “non urgent” repairs. It failed to do this.
The landlord’s repair records indicate a contractor attended the property to inspect the radiators on 5 March 2024, but that the job was cancelled as the resident did not answer the door. The resident refutes that this visit took place as she was working from home that day. The landlord has provided no evidence to show it informed her in advance of the appointment or that it contacted her afterwards to advise it had attempted to carry out an inspection. There is no evidence it attempted to reschedule the visit. This was inappropriate.
In our recent Spotlight report ‘Repairing Trust’ we highlighted a concerning practice by landlords of “closing repairs to fix a health hazard if an appointment is missed, even if the appointment was not pre-arranged, leaving the resident exposed to the hazard”.
The landlord did not refer to the missed appointment in its stage 2 complaint response a few weeks later on 27 March 2024. However, it appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its delay in attending to the radiators. It said its contractor would carry out a “full survey of all radiators” and fix a leaking radiator pipe in the cloakroom. This may have resolved the complaint had the landlord followed this proposed remedy through to completion, but it failed to do so.
The only subsequent action the landlord appears to have taken in relation to the radiators, according to its records, was 8 months later. Its repair logs show it attended the property in November 2024 and bled one radiator. Its records do not indicate whether it inspected any other radiators while there, but the resident told us it did not. She said that all but one radiator in the property is still leaking and that they do not heat up properly.
Overall, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of radiator repairs. It has inappropriately failed to fully inspect all the radiators in the property despite the resident having reported issues with leaks and temperature almost 18 months ago.
In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation. This is to reflect the distress caused by its ongoing delay in inspecting and repairing the radiators, and for her time and trouble in continuing to report the issues.
We also order the landlord to inspect the radiators and to repair or replace them.

Roof repairs

The landlord is required to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes the roof.
The resident told the landlord on 15 February 2024 that the roof was leaking. She said it had previously told her it would erect scaffolding to investigate the issue but had not done so.
In line with its repairs policy, the landlord should have responded to this report and assessed the extent of the issue within 3 working days. It should have ensured there were no active leaks, taken remedial steps to stop any further leaks, and determined if any further repairs were required. It could then have reasonably categorised any further repairs required as “semi-planned” repairs and arranged for them to be completed within 60 working days in line with its policy. It failed to do all of this.
Instead, the landlord attended the property 8 working days later on 27 February 2024 to investigate the resident’s various complaint issues. Its records indicate that during this visit, it looked at the bathroom, cloakroom, kitchen and door repair issues as outlined above. Its inspection record from the visit makes no reference to the roof. We therefore do not know if it took reasonable steps at that time to satisfy itself that there was no active leaking or urgent repairs required to the roof.
According to its stage 2 complaint response, it carried out a separate inspection of the roof on 14 March 2024. However, it provided no detail in the stage 2 response about what the inspection findings were or what further action it would take. The inspection is not recorded on its repair logs and it has not provided us with any other evidence relating to this.
We asked the resident if she knew what the outcome of the 14 March 2024 inspection was. She told us she did not accept it took place. She said she was working from home that day and nobody attended her property. She said it was much later in 2024 before the landlord came out to look at the roof.
The landlord’s records contain no detail about an inspection in March 2024. The only relevant records it holds show that its roofing contractor:
1. erected scaffolding outside the property in October 2024.
2. responded to a report from the resident in December 2024 that the bedroom ceiling was leaking due to the roof.
3. removed the scaffolding in June 2025.
We asked the landlord as part of our investigation to clarify what work it carried out to the roof. It checked with its contractor who confirmed all roof works had been “completed”. However, we still do not know what issues it identified with the roof, what work it carried out to resolve it, the date this was completed, or why the scaffolding was in place for 8 months. It is inappropriate that the landlord has not kept its own records of this and it has limited the extent to which we can assess whether the repair is now complete.
Overall, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs. It failed to inspect the roof and complete repairs within a reasonable period of time after the resident reported it was leaking. While it has since carried out some repairs, we do not know what the repairs were due to its poor record keeping.
The resident has told us of the distress and inconvenience she suffered due to the prolonged period over which the landlord carried out the repair work. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order it to pay her £450 compensation for this.
The resident told us that the contractor replaced some roof tiles. She hoped this had resolved the roof issues but as the work had only been completed shortly before we spoke to her, she could not be sure it had. She was unhappy, however, that the contractor had left roof tiles and other building materials in her garden. We have therefore ordered the landlord to inspect the garden and clear away any debris it finds. If the resident experiences any further issues with the roof, she should report this to the landlord. If she is unhappy with its response, she may raise a new complaint.

Complaint handling

It took the landlord over 2 months to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and over 3 months to respond at stage 2. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code which required it to:
1. acknowledge the complaint at both stages within 5 working days.
2. respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement.
3. respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.
4. notify the resident in advance of the original response date if it required more time to respond. It could extend the date by up to a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
We have seen no evidence that it notified the resident that it required more time to respond to the complaint at either stage. It also failed to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in both complaint responses. This was despite the resident pointing out to it in her escalation request that it had delayed in issuing the stage 1 response. This was a complaint handling failure.
The landlord appropriately recognised in its stage 2 response that it had failed at stage 1 to explain what it would do to resolve the reported repair issues. It attempted to remedy this during its stage 2 investigation by carrying out a repairs inspection of the property prior to issuing the stage 2 response. This meant it was in a position within the stage 2 response to explain to the resident what action it would take and when. This was good complaint handling. However, stating that it will take action is not enough. The Code states, “Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.” As outlined above, the landlord failed to carry out all the actions it said it would in its stage 2 response in relation to the doors, radiators and roof. This was a further complaint handling failure.
The Code requires the landlord to advise residents of their rights to refer their complaint to us. The landlord did not do this in its stage 2 response. Instead, in error, it said in the response that the resident could refer her complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). While there is sometimes an overlap of issues that the Housing Ombudsman and LGSCO can look at, the complaint in this case concerned only repair issues and fell solely within our remit. The result of this error was that the resident initially referred her complaint to the LGSCO and only came to us when it redirected her. She complained to us that this led to a delay of “several weeks” in us progressing her complaint.
Overall, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is due to its delay in issuing responses at both stages, its failure to complete proposed remedies, and its failure to advise the resident of her right to refer the complaint to us. This caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in chasing it for updates on the outstanding repair issues, and in referring the complaint to the LGSCO prior to referring it to us. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order the landlord to pay her £150 compensation for her time and trouble.
Since the resident has brought the complaint to the Ombudsman, she has said she has spent money on completing repairs. While the resident did not raise this point in her complaint, we are permitted to consider if the resident has suffered any financial loss as part of our consideration of the complaint. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to consider this upon receipts and evidence being provided by the resident of her costs.

Record keeping

The landlord’s poor record keeping hampered our assessment of its handling of the various repair issues in this case. It provided us with repair records that show it completed repairs in the bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen. However, the records did not clearly identify the action it took in relation to the door, radiator and roof repairs.
Given this, we asked it during our investigation to explain what action it had taken in relation to each of these issues. Its response provided no further information than that already contained in its repair records. For example, it did not account for why it had not surveyed all the radiators or why it had not fully repaired or replaced the doors as it said it would in its stage 2 response. It provided limited information on what works its contractor carried out to the roof and why this was delayed until 2025.
That the landlord had limited repair records, and no contemporary notes or reports from contractors, in relation to the doors, radiators and roof is service failure in its record keeping.
We have not made any orders in relation to this service failure as we have previously ordered it to review its record keeping with reference to the recommendations made in our ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM) Spotlight report (for example, in cases 202205866, 202118843 and 202227185). It should keep its KIM self-assessment under regular review. In doing so, it should consider our findings in cases such as this to improve its record keeping practices.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen repairs.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of external door repairs.
3. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of radiator repairs.
4. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
5. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should be made by a senior officer and follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. pay the resident £1,625 compensation which is broken down as follows:
  1. £75 for the distress, time and trouble due to the service failure in completing all of the bathroom and cloakroom repairs.
  2. £450 for distress, time and trouble, due to the maladministration in its handling of external door repairs which remain outstanding.
  3. £300 for distress, time and trouble, due to the maladministration in its handling of radiator repairs which remain outstanding.
  4. £450 for distress and inconvenience due to the maladministration in its handling of roof repairs.
  5. £150 for time and trouble due to the maladministration in its complaint handling.
  6. £200 compensation offered in its stage 2 response of 27 March 2024. If it has already paid this, it may deduct this from the £1,625 ordered.
3. clear away any tiles or building materials from the roof works.
4. fit privacy lock handles on the bathroom and cloakroom doors.
The landlord must appoint a surveyor to inspect the property. The inspection must be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. The inspection and survey report must comment on:
1. the bathroom and cloakroom and whether there is any outstanding disrepair.
2. the kitchen units and whether there is any outstanding disrepair.
3. the doors and door frames (front and back) and whether they are old and in need of replacement or are in disrepair and in need of repair or replacement.
4. the radiators and whether they are old and in need of replacement or are in disrepair and in need of repair or replacement.
5. whether the property is fit for human habitation.
6. whether the roof repairs and follow-on works are all completed to a satisfactory standard.
The survey report must include:
1. a full scope of works of any repairs required.
2. photographs of all areas in the property in disrepair.
Within 5 working days of receiving the survey report, the landlord must arrange the repairs to be booked in and started within 10 working days. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the works are commenced within this deadline.
Within 5 working days of receiving the survey report, the landlord must provide a copy to the resident and this service, together with evidence that it has booked in the works.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must review its handling of the repairs in this case. It must complete a learning lessons review report and provide a copy to the resident and this service. As part of the review, the landlord should consider if it will reimburse any out-of-pocket expenses claimed by the resident. This will be subject to the resident providing evidence, such as receipts, of her financial losses.