London Borough of Harrow (202340320)

Decision
Case ID	202340320
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Harrow
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a house with her 3 children. Two of her children have disabilities which require a stable home environment. The resident has complained that the landlord damaged her hallway flooring when it repaired a leak in the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. the removal and replacement of the resident’s flooring
2. the complaint

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the removal and replacement of the resident’s flooring.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the removal and replacement of the resident’s flooring

The landlord did not show it considered all of the resident’s concerns in its response. It failed to take reasonable steps to reduce the distress and inconvenience it caused. Its actions undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s repairs service. It missed opportunities to put things right sooner and did not keep to the timeframes set out in its Repairs Policy.

Response to the complaint

The landlord did not acknowledge or issue a formal stage 1 response. This did not impact the resident or prevent her from escalating her complaint. The landlord’s following actions were timely and complied with both its policy and the Code.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the repairs This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 January 2026
3	Inspection order The resident has reported the gaps in the flooring allowed pests to enter. 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 hallways flooring gaps in the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: • Whether there are any hazards in the property • Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the gaps and pest 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 When the inspection is completed, provide the resident and us in writing the likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 15 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord could consider reviewing its Repairs Policy to ensure its processes are effective in managing complex repairs. This could include how it tracks the stages of a repair and records information to enable proactive investigation. It could consider how and when it communicates with residents when issues persist.
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident within 4 weeks to offer vinyl flooring in the hallway.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 September 2023	The landlord raised a repair order to lift the hallway flooring to investigate a leak in the property.
27 November 2023	The resident complained to her local MP. She said the landlord had removed part of her hallway’s hardwood flooring during the repair. Temporary floorboards had been put down, but they left gaps. This made the property cold and allowed mice to enter. To resolve her complaint, she asked the landlord to: remove the rubbish left in the garden from the repairs replace the damaged flooring with hardwood flooring
3 January 2024	The landlord issued its response. It said that it does not normally provide floor coverings. It offered to install vinyl flooring with a wood-effect finish. It told the resident it would not offer further help with the flooring if she refused the vinyl.
3 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to install hardwood flooring. She said vinyl would not meet her family’s needs. She repeated her concerns about the gaps in the floor, and the impact this had on her children’s health and wellbeing. She asked the landlord to install hardwood flooring and remove the rubbish.
16 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that it had removed the flooring to repair the leak, but it could not be re-laid. It referred to the resident’s tenancy agreement, which says residents must not install flooring that is hard to remove without permission. The landlord said it is only responsible for kitchen and bathroom flooring, and it would not replace the hardwood flooring.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She said the missing flooring made the property cold and allowed mice to enter. To resolve her complaint, the resident has asked: to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused by the removal of the flooring for the damaged flooring to be replaced with hardwood flooring

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 landlord’s response to the removal and replacement of the resident’s flooring.
Finding	Maladministration

On 27 July 2023 the water company informed the resident and the landlord of a leak at the property. On 19 September 2023 the landlord raised a repair order to lift the resident’s hallway flooring for investigation. On 4 October 2023 it placed the order on hold due to ‘the tenant’s flooring’ without further explanation.
There is no record of any conversations or decisions between these dates to explain the change. Keeping clear records of actions and decisions helps landlords ensure transparency. This highlights a weakness in the landlord’s record-keeping, which may have contributed to the overall delays the resident experienced.
On 12 October 2023 the contractor removed external bricks to investigate the leak from under the property. This was unsuccessful and required further investigation. The landlord did not record why it changed its approach from lifting the flooring to removing bricks. It later said this was a minimally disruptive approach, which was reasonable given its awareness of the household’s vulnerabilities.
On 13 November 2023 the contractor lifted the hallway flooring and located the leak. However, they did not have the correct part to repair it. This was 56 days after the landlord raised the repair order in September 2023. This delay was not consistent with its Repairs Policy, which requires attendance within 20 working days and the timely resolution of issues. The delay likely caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident, who had been waiting for the leak to be resolved.
That day, the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the delay in repairing the leak. She was concerned her children could hurt themselves on the temporary floorboards that were laid that day. She said the property was cold without flooring and rubbish had been left in the garden.
On 14 November 2023 the contractor returned and replaced the water pipe. The landlord responded to the resident and explained that the leak had been difficult to trace. It raised a repair order for the rubbish removal, but it did not tell the resident. Had it communicated these actions, the resident may have felt that all of her concerns had been acknowledged.
The landlord also said it would consider installing new hallway flooring ‘within reason’ and it would level the surface to ensure it is safe. This showed it considered the resident’s concerns about her children’s safety. However, if the repair had been better planned and the resident’s expectations managed, there may have been no concerns about the flooring. The landlord missed the opportunity to provide a timescale for its response. This was not consistent with its policy obligation to communicate proactively.
On 27 November 2023 the resident complained to her local MP. She said the landlord had damaged her hallway flooring, and left rubbish in the garden. She reiterated her concerns about the flooring, saying it had been left unsafe, and mice were entering through the gaps. She said the landlord offered to install a wood-effect vinyl in the hallway, but vinyl was unsuitable for her family’s needs. On 4 December 2023 the MP sent the complaint to the landlord.
On 3 January 2023 the landlord issued its response. It said that it does not normally provide floor coverings, but it had offered vinyl flooring. It told the resident that if she refused its offer, it would not provide further assistance with the flooring. The landlord clarified its repair responsibilities but missed the opportunity to respond to the pest problem and floorboard concerns.
Under the Complaint Handling Code (The Code), landlords must address all points raised. It failed to consider what measures it could take to reduce the resident’s distress, such as by blocking mice entry points. In not doing so, the resident would have likely felt her concerns were not taken seriously. This would have further undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord to resolve her concerns.
On 3 January 2024 the resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that vinyl flooring was less durable and insulated than hardwood and does not meet her family’s needs. She reported the rubbish had not been collected and was mouldy, causing her concern for her disabled children.
The landlord recorded that the rubbish was removed on 2 December 2023. The resident reporting the rubbish again raises concerns about the landlord’s oversight of its repairs service.
On 16 January 2024 the landlord issued its final response. It went some way in putting things right. It reiterated its offer to install vinyl in the hallway as a gesture of goodwill. While we understand the resident’s concerns at having her flooring removed, we have to consider what the landlord was obligated to do and what remains the resident responsibility.
In this case the landlord did consider other less intrusive works, which unfortunately were not effective. The landlord’s initial communication about what it could provide was unclear, missing the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about what it could replace the flooring with. Under the tenancy agreement, it was only responsible for kitchen and bathroom flooring. It was not responsible for replacing the floor with like for like. Considering this, the landlord’s offer was reasonable.
The landlord also referred to the resident’s tenancy agreement, which says residents must not install flooring that is difficult to remove without permission. There is no evidence that the resident sought permission. Had permission been requested, the landlord could have recommended appropriate flooring, helping avoid later issues. When referring to this clause, the landlord missed the opportunity to explain this clearly, which could have helped the resident understand its position.
The landlord also missed another opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns about the rubbish, gaps, and mice. She had raised these concerns at both complaint stages. The landlord could have taken steps to pest proof the property and check whether the rubbish had been removed. It could have re-assured her that it would level the hallway flooring as it had previously suggested.
While investigations can delay repairs, the overall delay in addressing the flooring gaps and rubbish removal was excessive. Several repair orders had little or no records, showing poor oversight of the landlord’s repairs service. It failed to seal gaps after removing the flooring to help prevent pests and reduce the cold. These steps could have reduced the resident’s distress and inconvenience. We have made an order of £250 compensation in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. Our findings are:
The landlord has a published Complaints Policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
On 27 November 2023 the resident raised a complaint via her local MP. The landlord received a copy of the complaint on 4 December 2023. Under its policy, the landlord should have logged and acknowledged this as a formal stage 1 complaint, but it did not do so.
While the complaint was not formally logged, the MP informed the resident that the landlord was investigating her concerns. The lack of acknowledgement would not have impacted the resident.
On 3 January 2024 the landlord issued its response, 17 working days after the MP’s contact. Its response did not confirm the complaint stage or explain how to escalate the complaint. This was not consistent with the Code, which requires landlords to provide this information. This did not stop the resident from escalating her complaint.
On 3 January 2024 the resident escalated her complaint, which the landlord acknowledged on 4 January 2024, 1 working day later. It issued its stage 2 response on 16 January 2024. This was within the 20-working day timescale required by its policy and the Code.

Learning

Clear and early communication is essential for managing residents’ expectations. When landlords explain what will happen, when, and why, residents understand the process and the reasons behind any decisions. This transparency helps build trust and confidence in the landlord’s service delivery and helps reduce uncertainty.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We have identified a lack of notes on repair records. The landlord should maintain accurate and clear records of the outcome of all repairs to avoid future delays and confusion. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of its repairs service. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.

Communication

Logging and acknowledging complaints on time is essential for compliance. Even minor delays can sometimes create uncertainty and undermine residents’ confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.