London Borough of Ealing (202429226)

Decision
Case ID	202429226
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Ealing
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	18 March 2026

Background

In June 2023, the court ordered the landlord to complete works within 90 days which a surveyor outlined in a housing condition report completed 9 months earlier. Between then and the resident’s complaint of October 2024, he requested door and window repairs. He also reported pests in the property. The resident has vulnerabilities and disabilities, including a recent cancer diagnosis. The landlord is aware of these.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs included in the resident’s disrepair claim.
2. Repairs raised outside of the resident’s disrepair claim.
3. The resident’s reports of pests in the property.
4. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs included in his disrepair claim is outside of our jurisdiction.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs raised after the resident’s disrepair claim.
3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of repairs included in the resident’s disrepair claim

The court stayed proceedings upon the basis the landlord adhered to their orders. The resident can request enforcement of the orders from the court. Therefore, the case is outside of our jurisdiction under the terms of our Scheme.

The handling of repairs raised outside of the resident’s disrepair claim

There were some delays in the landlord’s handling of repairs. We acknowledge it also faced challenges in accessing the resident’s property. However, its offers of redress were not proportionate to the failures identified in our investigation.

The handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property

The landlord had no obligation to complete pest treatments. It offered to do so but the resident declined as he had bought his own treatments.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were delays in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint at both stages. It was late in providing its stage 1 response and did not acknowledge or make any attempts to remedy this.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £300 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures we identified in its handling of repairs £50 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for complaint handling failures £100 additional payment for the failures identified in its stage 1 complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 April 2026
2	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 provided 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 16 April 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the front door and kitchen window and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 14 May 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pays the resident its earlier compensation offer of £300 for distress and inconvenience relating to other repairs if it has not done so already.
The resident reports ongoing problems with damp and mould. We recommend the landlord inspect his property as soon as possible to ascertain the severity of the issue and any required remedial works.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about waiting a long time for it to complete disrepair works. He included concerns about his front door, cracked window glass, damp and mould, and issues with the balcony in the property above. He asked it to complete repairs.
14 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It did not uphold his complaint. It said it was unclear what the exact issues were from his complaint and asked its surveyor to attend but the resident declined an appointment. It said the surveyor would contact him again. It said its contractor was due to visit on 12 November 2024 to deal with the door and window repairs.
22 November 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said it had not completed all disrepair works and asked it to send the required specialists to finish the repairs. He reported an insect infestation in the kitchen and damage to furniture from pests. He said he needed new appliances and asked the landlord to help him access a discretionary social fund and asked for compensation to cover the cost of his damaged items.
15 January 2025	The landlord rejected the resident’s escalation request. It said it was still trying to arrange an appointment for him with its surveyor to inspect the property. It urged him to accept this so it could progress his complaint.
27 March 2025	Following contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to provide a final complaint response to the resident or to send a written explanation of why it was refusing his complaint.
3 April 2025	The landlord sent its final (stage 2) complaint response to the resident. It upheld his complaint. It recorded several attempts to visit the resident where it could not access his property. It apologised for not addressing his disrepair concerns in its stage 1 response. it acknowledged and apologised for repair and complaint handling delays. The landlord provided a point of contact for managing his case going forward. It described the learning it took from his complaint and offered £450 compensation for repairs and complaint handling failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer and reported the impact of his housing conditions on his health. He asked us to investigate. He is seeking an improved compensation offer and for the landlord to complete repair works.

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 handling of repairs included in the resident’s disrepair claim
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident complained to the landlord about outstanding works from his disrepair claim in his stage 2 complaint. In its response, the landlord acknowledged outstanding repairs to the:
1. Kitchen.
2. Internal doors and windows.
3. Flooring in the kitchen and living room.
4. Decorations.
5. Insulation.
6. Balcony and garden tiles.
7. Damp and mould in the living room.
8. Kitchen storage.
The works listed above formed part of the resident’s disrepair claim in 2023. The court ordered the landlord to complete repairs within 90 days of the signed consent order. The court order allowed the resident to reapply to court for enforcement of its order.
As the court stayed proceedings and the resident has the right to bring matters back before the court, we are unable to consider his complaint about disrepair works. This is in line with the Scheme whereby we cannot consider complaints which concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.

Complaint	The handling of repairs raised outside of the disrepair claim
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours and routine repairs within 28 working days. It says it may need to inspect repairs before arranging an appointment to diagnose the scope of the repair. Its repairs handbook for residents says it will cancel repairs if a resident is not home when it attends.
The court ordered works included front door repairs. However, the resident reported further issues before this in May 2023 after the police forced entry to complete a welfare check. He gave the police reference number to the landlord and asked it to visit and assess the damage. It has provided no evidence it did so. This was not in line with its repairs policy.
In September 2024, the resident reported a gap in his front door letting light through. The landlord attended within policy timescales and completed temporary works. Its operative was unable to repair the damaged door frame and said it needed a new door.
On 9 October 2024, after receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord raised works to replace a cracked windowpane in the resident’s kitchen and to replace the front door. It made efforts to contact the resident and attend within policy timescales. However, the resident denied access for health and personal reasons. The landlord rebooked the appointment with the resident’s agreement for December 2024.
The landlord attended as arranged on 16 December 2024. Its operative found no issues with the front door and frame. It reported the resident refused access but spoke to the operative through the kitchen window. It noted a big crack on the kitchen window around the extractor fan.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord listed several dates in which it had tried to contact or visit the resident. It said it surveyed the property on 28 January 2025 but did not raise works afterwards. The surveyor had since left the position. It said it would work to rearrange the inspection. It noted issues with accessing the property but also acknowledged it had taken too long to resolve repairs. It offered £350 for not following up repairs he raised with it. As this amount covered multiple repairs, we can attribute £50 of this to the door and window repairs.
Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (compensation, learning, and apology) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s apology was fair in the circumstances. It acknowledged its own failing but also recognised the mitigating circumstances faced in its difficulty accessing the property. Its complaints policy states it will use our published remedies guidance to calculate compensation. Its offer was not in line with our remedies guidance when considering its failure to attend in May 2023 and its failure to raise works after a property inspection.
The landlord identified learning from the complaint. This included communicating with its housing management team to gain access to properties, assigning caseworkers to residents requiring repair in their home, signposting to support services, and considering use of advocacy services for residents. It said it would continue to work with the resident and its housing management team to arrange a reinspection of the property.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs. It has made some efforts to put things right and has identified appropriate learning from the complaint. However, its compensation offer did not reflect the inconvenience to the resident. It is unclear whether the landlord has reinspected the property since sending its final complaint response.
We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs raised outside of the disrepair claim. We have ordered the landlord to pay £300 compensation, inclusive of the £50 attributed to this part of the repairs. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when a landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the property for any outstanding repairs within the next 8 weeks.

Complaint	The handling of reports of pests in the property
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s website sets out its approach to pest control. It will only provide pest control services to vulnerable tenants. It says bedbug infestations require 2 treatments which it books appointments for during its first contact with the resident.
The resident reported bedbugs to the landlord on 2 October 2024. It called him to arrange an appointment. The resident told the landlord he no longer needed treatment as he bought his own. The landlord closed the request. This was a fair decision based on the information available to it.
The resident did not include the landlord’s handling of bedbugs in his first complaint. He then made no further reports about the issue to the landlord before his complaint escalation in November 2024. In this complaint, he said he had an infestation of insects in the kitchen unit wood and pests had damaged his furniture. However, he made no other reports about this.
The landlord did not specifically address the resident’s complaint point about the infestation in its final complaint response of April 2025. However, he had made no further reports of pests since escalating his complaint. The landlord identified the need to inspect the entire property more generally for outstanding repairs.
Overall, the landlord managed the resident’s reports fairly and in line with its current approach to pest control. There was no obligation on the landlord to complete bedbug treatments, but it offered to help the resident despite this. We find no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The timescales and definition of a complaint are compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The policy says the landlord may ask a resident time to carry out the actions set out in its stage 1 response before they escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process. If it does this, it will set out reasons why the complaint is not suitable for escalation and provide the resident with our contact details.
The landlord took 26 working days to respond to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process. It did not acknowledge this in its response or offer any compensation or apology for this.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint within policy timescales at either stage. When he requested to escalate his complaint in November 2024, it did not respond to decline this request until January 2025. Its decision to refuse escalation was due to outstanding actions from its stage 1 response.
Our Code says if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, an explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman does not agree that the exclusion has been fairly applied, the Ombudsman may tell the landlord to take on the complaint.
The landlord did not signpost the resident to us in its January 2025 email. However, its reason for not accepting the complaint were in line with its complaints policy.
In March 2025, we asked the landlord to provide the resident with a final complaint response. It did so within policy timescales. Its response was detailed and in line with the Code. It acknowledged the delays in responding to his escalation request and apologised for not managing his complaint in line with its policy. It offered £100 compensation. However, it did not recognise the delays in its stage 1 complaint handling.
Overall, there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling process and it did not follow its policy for acknowledging complaints. Its compensation offer for stage 2 delays was fair, but it did not recognise stage 1 delays. As such, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay £150 compensation to the resident, comprising the £100 offered in its stage 2 response and an additional £50 for its delayed stage 1 response.

Learning

The landlord identified learning well in its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord was unable to access records of a property inspection after its surveyor left. This made it difficult for the landlord to manage repairs and necessary actions. An effective central case management system may help to avoid future similar situations.

Communication

The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was good. It worked to try and arrange appointments with him and was sympathetic to his circumstances.