London Borough of Enfield (202533065)

Decision
Case ID	202533065
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Enfield
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	4 June 2026

Background

The resident struggled to open and close her driveway gates which the landlord had replaced in October 2024. This meant she had to park her car on the road away from her property. The resident has a diagnosed health condition which causes chronic pain in her joints and affects her mobility.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the replacement driveway gates.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the replacement driveway gates.
There was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about the replacement driveway gates

The landlord failed to attend inspections and recall repairs within its policy timescales. It did not have proper oversight of its contractors. Despite completing remedial works, it failed to complete a lasting and effective repair. There were conflicting assessments on whether the gates were of an acceptable standard.
It unreasonably delayed in referring the resident for a needs assessment. It then failed to review the issues again following the outcome of the OT assessment, which it promised in its stage 2 complaint response.

Associated complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its policy timescales. It failed to recognise the resident’s many requests to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It failed to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within its policy timescales.

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 provided by a manager. 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 02 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 made up as follows: £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the replacement gates. £200 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and not set off against any debt owed. 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 02 July 2026
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because, based on the evidence we have seen, we cannot be satisfied that the replacement gates are of an acceptable standard or design. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. An external suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. 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. The inspection report must set out: Whether the materials used for the gates are of an acceptable standard. Whether the design of the gate is suitable or if a new design is needed. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the gates. The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 02 July 2026
4	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works to the gates are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 30 July 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 April 2025	The resident complained that the gates, which the landlord had fitted in October 2024, were of a poor standard and did not fit. She said she had not heard back from the landlord following its March 2025 inspection. She told the landlord that, due to her disability, she needed to be able to park on her driveway so that she could carry shopping from her car. She could not park on the street outside her property due to double yellow lines and the lack of available space nearby. She said the issue was affecting her independence and daily life.
7 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It accepted it had not completed the repairs to the gate within its repair timescale. It said it had arranged for its contractors to reattend on 9 May 2025. It apologised and offered £100 compensation.
Between 13 May 2025 and 21 October 2025	The resident contacted the landlord on at least 9 occasions to express her continued dissatisfaction and tried to escalate her complaint.
15 December 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said it was sorry it had not resolved the issue with the gates. It said it had submitted a referral to occupational therapy (OT) to assess the resident’s needs regarding the access gate. Once the assessment had taken place it would review the delays the resident had experienced. As an alternative, it suggested the removal of the gates altogether. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in it providing the stage 2 complaint response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the issue was outstanding and the gates were fixed closed. She said it was a security risk if the landlord removed the gates as they lead to the rear of her property. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to fit working gates so that she could park her car safely next to her house and maintain her independence. She also wanted the landlord to pay compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience it had caused her.

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	Concerns about the replacement gates.
Finding	Maladministration

On 9 December 2024 the resident reported the driveway gates installed in October 2024 would not open, preventing access. She said she had repeatedly reported the issue to the contractors. The contractors had attended but had not resolved the issues. In line with its policy, the landlord should have completed the works within 30 calendar days, by 16 January 2025. This included the Christmas closure. Instead it marked the repair complete on 13 February 2025 which was 29 calendar days late. This was a failure.
There is no record to show what work the contractor completed at this time. This shows poor record keeping.
On 12 March 2025 the resident reported another fault with the gates. The landlord inspected on 14 March 2025. It found the contractor had not fitted or finished the gates and hinges to an acceptable standard. It agreed to meet with the contractor on site to explain what works it needed to complete. It raised recall works on the same day. However, it took 57 calendar days to complete the works. This exceeded its repair timescale by 27 calendar days. The landlord did not record what work it completed on 9 May 2025, reflecting poor record keeping. It also failed to conduct a post-inspection to confirm the works had resolved the issues. This showed poor oversight of contractors.
On 13 May 2025 the resident reported that the repairs were poor and had not resolved the issues. She also reported the front gate latch was broken. The landlord said the driveway gates met its repair standards but agreed to adjust them. It attended on 3 June 2025 and completed adjustments and the latch replacement to the front gate. This was within its repair timescales.
On 15 August 2025 the resident reported the driveway gates had dropped and caused injury to her hands when she tried to operate them. The landlord inspected on 29 August 2025. This was outside its 5-day timescale to inspect boundary fences and gates where there was a health and safety concern. It identified design issues and said it would consult the contractor on redesign. There is no evidence that this happened.
The landlord’s repair policy says it will consider adaptations recommended by an OT to help residents to live independently. If residents are finding it difficult to carry out daily tasks or access their home, they can contact the landlord to request a needs assessment. In this case, the resident had told the landlord that the issue was affecting her daily life. Whilst the landlord emailed its adaptations team on 21 August 2025 it failed to request a needs assessment at this time. It also failed to inform the resident that she could request a needs assessment herself.
The resident continued to report issues with the gates throughout September 2025 and October 2025. On 10 October 2025 an operative confirmed the gates were of poor quality and unsuitable materials. It completed a temporary repair, recommended a surveyor inspection and replacement with heavy-duty gates. This contradicted what the landlord told the resident in May 2025. There is also no record that the landlord took any further action at this time, which was a failure.
On 9 December 2025 the resident reported the gates were stuck, restricting access to her car. In line with its policy, the landlord initially logged this as urgent but downgraded the priority at the resident’s request. Again, there is no record of any subsequent attendance or works.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said sliding gates were not feasible due to a lack of room. It confirmed it had referred the case to adult social care for a needs assessment. Records indicate the landlord made this referral between 16 October 2025 and 15 December 2025. A January 2026 update from adult social care confirmed the case was awaiting allocation to an OT. We have not seen the OT report. However, the resident told us the OT had attended but said they could not help with the adaptations. The OT returned the issue to the landlord.
Overall, the landlord demonstrated multiple failures in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the gates. This included delays in attending inspections and completing recall repairs, inadequate oversight of contractors and conflicting assessments. The repairs were ineffective, with recurring faults requiring temporary fixes. The landlord also failed to adequately progress or evidence referrals for adaptations or OT support, which delayed matters.
The landlord’s failings caused detriment to the resident. It’s failure to rectify the issues with the replacement gates caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It also affected her independence because she had to park her car away from the property. As a result and due to her disabilities, the resident needed help from family to carry shopping. Further detriment was caused by the landlord delaying referring the issue to adult social care for a needs assessment. This meant the resident had to wait longer than she should have to receive a response from the OT.
When considering the complaint, we assessed whether the landlord failed, whether this caused detriment, and whether it took reasonable steps to put matters right.
The landlord attempted to put things right by apologising, raising recall works and offering £100 compensation. This amount did not fairly reflect the failures identified in this case.
Our Compensation Guidance says an apology, learning and £800 compensation would remedy failures which had a significant impact on the resident. It also reflects circumstances where the resident’s vulnerabilities meant the landlord’s actions or inactions affected her more than other residents.
The landlord said it would review the issue again once it had received the OT assessment. There is no evidence that this has happened. The resident has also told us the issues with the gates remain outstanding and she is unable to use them. Due to this and the inconsistencies in the landlord’s assessments that the gates had been installed to an acceptable standard, we have ordered an inspection by an external suitably qualified person.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales.
The landlord acknowledged and sent its stage 1 response on time and in line with its policy timescales.
Between 13 May 2025 and 21 October 2025 the resident tried at least 9 times to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord failed to recognise these requests.
The resident said she received an email on 2 September 2025 in which the landlord said it would respond within 20 working days. We have not seen this email. We therefore do not know if this was a complaint acknowledgement or not. Even if it was an acknowledgement, this was approximately 4 months after the resident’s first request to escalate her complaint. This was not in line with its 5 working day policy timescale.
The stage 2 acknowledgement was unclear. It referred to the complaint being the “first complaint” but also gave a 20‑day response time. This would have confused the resident and did not meet the requirements of the Code.
In November 2025 the landlord asked for more time to respond at stage 2. It explained why and gave a new deadline, but it did not include our contact details. This did not meet the requirements of the Code.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response 7 months after the resident asked it to escalate the complaint. This was not in line with its policy timescales.
In both responses, the landlord clearly addressed the issues the resident raised and used plain, easy‑to‑understand language.
The landlord recognised the delay at stage 2 and offered £50 compensation. It failed to recognise the detriment to the resident or show what it had learned. This leads to a finding of maladministration.
Our Compensation Guidance says an apology, learning and £200 compensation would remedy complaint handling failures which had a significant impact on the resident. In this case the resident made multiple attempts to escalate her complaint to stage 2, which the landlord failed to recognise. This resulted in a 7-month delay in her complaint completing the landlord’s complaint procedure which delayed her ability to refer the complaint to us for investigation.

Learning

The landlord showed a lack of oversight of its contractors which may have contributed to the failings identified. It may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust in relation to managing relationships with contractors.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records were incomplete. The absence of clear and complete records made it difficult to understand what actions the landlord had taken. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management emphasises the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail.

Communication

The landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident which resulted in her having to chase it for updates both on the substantive issue and the complaint.