London Borough of Hillingdon (202329872)

Decision
Case ID	202329872
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hillingdon
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Flexible Tenancy
Date	30 October 2025

Background

1. The resident has a flexible tenancy with the landlord. She moved to the property in July 2023. The property is a 1-bedroom, ground-floor flat. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to her mental and physical health. These include a chronic pain condition and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).She began to raise concerns about the property soon after she moved in. The landlord was already aware that she was vulnerable.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about the property’s condition on letting.
   2. Reports of leaks.
   3. Requests for a permanent move.
   4. Concerns about its lettings process.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition on letting.
   2. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks.
   3. Complaint handling.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s requests for a permanent move.
6. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about its lettings process.

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

Summary of reasons

7. We found that:
   1. The landlord contributed to the overall duration of the property’s energy supply issues.
   2. Issues with one of the landlord’s leak inspections adversely impacted the resident.
   3. The landlord did not inform the resident about alternative ways to move home.
   4. There was no evidence of any failures with the landlord’s lettings process.
   5. Among other handling failures, the landlord overlooked some of the resident’s key complaint points.

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 relevant senior 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 28 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £900 made up as follows: £300 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her concerns about the property’s condition on letting. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of leaks. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her requests for a permanent move. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its 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.	No later than 28 November 2025
3	If the resident requests this and it has not done so already, the landlord must raise a new complaint to address any points it has overlooked from the resident’s initial complaint correspondence.	No later than 28 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 August 2023	The resident contacted the landlord. She said she was “extremely annoyed” about the property. She said it had a new boiler but she could not use it as there was no gas meter. She also said she was disabled and had lacked hot water since she had moved in. Her other key points were: She had asked a gas distributor to install a meter, but it was unable to help for several weeks. She needed to wash properly due to a medical condition. She was incurring additional electricity costs due to the lack of gas. The landlord should move her until the problem was resolved. The property had no electricity for about 1 week after she moved in.
Between 25 November and 9 December 2023	The resident expressed further dissatisfaction to the landlord. She said it had moved her temporarily but the gas supply issue was ongoing. She referred to pest issues at her previous home. She requested £3,000 in compensation based on her overall experience. Subsequently, the resident referenced a leak and the landlord logged a complaint for her.
5 January 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It addressed 8 complaint points. The landlord said it was unable to commission the boiler until a gas meter was in place. It said the resident should have her supplier install one. The landlord did not identify any service failures. Its other key points were: It told the resident how to set up the property’s energy supply during the lettings process. In July 2023, it asked the gas distributor to attend the property. The distributor had told the resident to have a gas meter installed. The resident had recently reported 2 leaks. It had attended her leak reports promptly and would complete follow-up repairs.
12 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord’s response was inaccurate and it was trying to avoid blame. She reiterated her request for compensation.
29 January 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said it agreed with its previous findings and would not repeat the information in its stage 1 response. However, it said it was willing to consider further evidence from the resident. It also updated her about some scheduled repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In 2024 the resident told us that leak repairs were outstanding and she wanted a permanent move. She referenced some new concerns at this stage. These included a gas leak and blown windows. We were unable to obtain a further update from the resident in October 2025.

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	Response to concerns about the property’s condition on letting
Finding	Maladministration

8. Before the resident moved in, the property was void (empty) for a period. The landlord completedvariousrepairsat this stage. Its works included gas and electrical safety tests.Itnoted that the property did not have a gas meter.Overall, the landlord’s void records suggestit spent around £9,500 on the repairworks. This was a significant investment.
9. There is evidence thatin her complaint to the landlord, the residentclaimed itsoperativeshad lived at the property during the void period. In response, the landlord asked herfor evidence of this(presumably so it could investigatefurther). This was a reasonable approach.Ultimately, wehave not seen any compellingevidence to support this claim.
10. The parties agree the property lacked electricity and gas when the resident moved in. From the information seen, the electricity issue lasted for about 2 weeks and the landlord helped to resolve it. The gas supply problem lasted for around 6 months. It is unclear how it was ultimately resolved. Given its impact on the resident, this is concerning.
11. In summary, the resident feels the landlord should have ensured the property had usable energy supplies in place for her. The landlord has said it needed to complete “post-let testing” to activate these. It said it could not do this until the resident had arranged her own suppliers. It also said it was for the resident’s gas supplier to install a meter.
12. Ofgem is the UK’s energy regulator. Its website includes information about how to connect an energy supply. It says “You will need to choose an energy supplier to get a meter installed”. This wording shows the onus is onsuppliers to install energy meters.Overall, we have not seen any evidence to show the landlord was obliged to do this.
13. The landlord said it “would have” told the resident how to activate her energy supplies during the lettings process. It would have been reasonable to provide her with clear information to help her set these services up promptly. The landlord has not supplied any compelling evidence to show that it did this. This is concerning and points to record keeping issues.
14. Similarly, it may have helped the resident if the landlord had provided additional support to set up the property’s energy supply. It was aware that she was vulnerable. Under the Equality Act 2010, it would be expected to demonstrate it had understood her needs and responded to these. For example, in the way it provided services and communicated with her. The landlord has not shown that it did this. This is also concerning.
15. In late August 2023, the resident was trying to resolve the gas supply issue through a gas distributor (rather than a supplier). The landlord may have contacted the distributor on her behalf. The resident’s related complaint correspondence indicates that she lacked clarity about the different parties’ responsibilities.  In it, she told the landlord that she was disabled. She requested a temporary move for welfare reasons. Her comments show she was in a difficult situation due to the lack of gas. It is likely this was distressing for her.
16. The landlord replied to the resident several days later. It told her to contact her chosen supplier. On 5 September 2023, it discussed her correspondence internally. It said it had told the resident “about 3 times” that she needed to contact her gas supplier to arrange a meter. There is no indication it asked her if she needed any additional support in relation to the supplier. The landlord’s approach at this stage was inadequate.
17. The resident says the landlord moved her to a hotel for about 4 weeks in October 2023. This measure indicates it was sensitive to some of her welfare concerns. However, the resident told us it ended her hotel stay even though it was aware the gas supply issue had not been resolved. The landlord has supplied little evidence about its actions and decision-making at this stage. This points to inadequate record keeping on its part.
18. In its stage 1 response, the landlord asked the resident to confirm whether a meter had been installed at the property. It said it had no records to show the boiler had been commissioned (activated) yet. This was about 4 months after the resident’s initial complaint correspondence. The landlord’s lack of clarity shows it did not monitor the situation or follow-up adequately. This is further evidence of a lack of support.
19. In the same response, the landlord told the resident it had recently changed its lettings process. It said its current process was to leave information letters for new tenants. It said these would explain what to do (presumably in relation to new energy supplies), and reiterate any advice its lettings team had given. It was reasonable for the landlord to improve its related communication.
20. Later, in its case evidence file, the landlord told us it introduced further improvements in late 2024. It said it had appointed a contractor that could arrange new meters and set up temporary energy accounts. It said the contractor’s appointment allowed it to address similar meter issues going forwards. This was also a reasonable step.
21. Around the same time, the resident told us about a gas leak in the property. She felt the landlord was responsible for this. She asked us to investigate the issue. It is understood this may have occurred around February 2024. Typically, we can only investigate issues that have completed a landlord’s complaints process. We also need sufficient information to complete a fair investigation. As a result, we have not considered this matter in our report.
22. Overall, there is no evidence to show the landlord let the property in an unsuitable condition. Similarly, it was not obliged to install a gas meter. There is evidence that it contacted a gas distributor on the resident’s behalf and placed her in a hotel for a period. This suggests the landlord was sensitive to some of the resident’s welfare concerns.
23. However,the landlord ultimately showed an unreasonable lack of urgency and/or solution focus in response to a potential safety/welfare issue. Its levels of communication, support, and monitoring were inadequate. This arguably showed a lack of care towards the resident. The landlord has not shown that it considered its legal duties under the Equality Act 2010. There were also problems with its record keeping.
24. The evidence shows the above identified failures contributed to the overall duration of the energy supply issues. The landlord has not acknowledged its failures or the corresponding adverse impact to the resident. This was significant and (in relation to the lack of gas) prolonged. The resident lacked sufficient heating and hot water, which she required for health/hygiene reasons. Overall, we find there was maladministration by the landlord.
25. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our calculation reflects the case evidence and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks
Finding	Maladministration

26. The landlord did not supply a detailed repairs policy. We found an undated repairs factsheet on its website. We were unable to find a more relevant document in our own records. The factsheet shows the landlord will prioritise repairs based on the level of risk.
27. The factsheet says the landlord will complete emergency repairs within 1 working day. The landlord will complete routine repairs within 20 working days and “minor works” within 90 working days. Minor works are jobs which require more planning.
28. Between 1 November and 11 December 2023, the resident reported 4 different leaks to the landlord. Repair records indicate these largely related to a flat above the property. The records show the landlord attended each of the resident’s reports within 24 hours. This was appropriate action in line with its stated approach to emergency repairs.
29. During the interim period, the resident raised concerns about an inspection which the landlord had completed on 8 December 2023. She said there had been a severe leak that flooded her bathroom floor. She also said she had vacated the property for safety reasons following the landlord’s inspection. It is likely this was distressing for her.
30. The resident said the inspection was brief and focused on an upstairs flat. She felt the landlord had not considered other sources of water ingress, or checked the property’s electrics.Unlike its previous inspection records, the landlord’s corresponding notes lacked detail. Similarly, they did not mention the property’s electrics. This is concerning.
31. It is unclear whether the landlord checked the electrics during the inspection. Ultimately, it was unable to assure the resident that these were safe at this point. The evidence points to, at least, a communication failure which caused her distress and inconvenience. This may have been avoidable. The landlord’s approach at this stage was unreasonable.
32. Records show the landlord rectified a leak on 11 December 2023. It subsequently supplied the resident a dehumidifier to help dry the property. It confirmed it would cover the resident’s associated running costs in its stage 1 response. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord. There is no indication that it did not fulfil this commitment.
33. The landlord attempted to complete post-leak repairs to the property on 9 January 2024. This was around 18 working days after its above referenced leak repair. Records show it discovered an ongoing leak at this point. It completed a corresponding repair 13 working days later. These timescales were consistent with the landlord’s approach to routine repairs. There is no indication it should have reasonably expedited the works.
34. In its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident it believed that the leak was resolved. It said it was due to repair the property’s decorations on 19 February 2024. It offered to bring these works forward at the resident’s request. It also offered to arrange for a contractor to check the property’s heating pipes. This suggests the landlord wanted to provide further reassurance to the resident. It showed a positive approach at this point.
35. There is no indication the resident accepted the landlord’s offers. Repair records show it completed the decorating works as scheduled. This was in line with the information in its stage 2 response. The decorating works were also completed in line with the landlord’s routine repair timescale. This was appropriate action by the landlord.
36. From February 2024 onwards, the resident raised further concerns with the landlord about leaks. For example, in mid-March 2024 she referenced ongoing leaks, related damp and mould issues, and associated damage to her furniture. For the reasons set  out in paragraph 21 above, we have not considered the resident’s further concerns.
37. Overall, during the period in question, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in line with its stated approach. Its repair records were largely thorough and easy to follow. However, issues with its inspection on 8 December 2023 caused considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident. It did not address this in its complaint responses. As a result, we find there was maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a permanent move
Finding	Service failure

38. The landlord’s relevant housing allocations policy was effective from July 2021. It is available on the landlord’s website. It shows the landlord may arrange a management transfer (urgent move) in “extreme circumstances”. These include cases which involve harassment or violent assault. In general, there is a high threshold for this type of move.
39. From around November 2023 onwards the resident asked the landlord for a permanent move. She said it should move her to a different region through its management transfer process. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said all of its housing stock was in the local area. We have not seen any evidence to the contrary.
40. From the evidence provided, there is no indication the resident would have qualified for a management transfer. However, it may have helped her if the landlord had explained its approach to these. If it had set the resident’s expectations with reference to its policy, this may have prompted her to focus on alternative solutions. There is no indication the landlord did this during the complaint journey. This was unreasonable.
41. Similarly, there is no indication that the landlord signposted the resident to alternative ways to move. For example, it could have told her about the mutual exchange process. This allows social housing tenants to swap homes. It could also have told her about HomeSwapper, which can facilitate exchanges across the UK. These would have been reasonable steps.
42. To date, there is no evidence to show that the landlord has supplied any similar information to the resident. However, even if it had, there was no guarantee that this would have allowed the resident to secure her preferred move to a different area. For clarity, we cannot order a landlord to move a resident.
43. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s request during its complaints process. However, its response was brief and omitted helpful information. Ultimately, the landlord missed opportunities to help the resident achieve her preferred outcome. Its approach was unreasonable and the resident was impacted. We find there was service failure by the landlord.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its lettings process
Finding	No maladministration

44. There is evidence that, in her complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns about the way it let the property to her. From the evidence provided, her specific concerns are unclear. The landlord briefly addressed the matter during its complaints process. It only said that, “the property was allocated in line with the bidding process”.
45. We have seen little information about the resident’s sign-up process. From the evidence provided, there is no indication of any related failures by the landlord. It is noted that some complaints about lettings are best suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). These include complaints about housing allocations.
46. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns during its complaints process. Since there is no indication of any related failures on its part, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

47. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (effective April 2022). The landlord supplied a complaints policy from April 2024. Since this post dated its stage 2 response, we found a more relevant document (effective 28 June 2023) in our records. We considered this during our investigation.
48. The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about [a landlord’s] service, actions, or lack of action”. The landlord’s complaints policy includes a similar definition. Between August and November 2023, the resident sent the landlord at least 2 communications which met this definition. The landlord did not log a complaint for her. This is concerning. Its approach was not consistent with its policy or the Code.
49. The resident’s related communications referenced serious issues with potential safety implications. If the landlord was unsure how to proceed, it should have reasonably asked her if she wanted to log a complaint. There is no indication it did this. The resident had to repeat her concerns. It is likely this was inconvenient for her. If she felt the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously, this may have added to her overall distress.
50. The resident raised other complaint issues during her related communications. For example, she referenced a rat infestation in her previous home. She also requested  significant compensation. Her comments show these issues were important to her. The landlord did not address these in its subsequent responses. This was inadequate.
51. The evidence suggests the landlord overlooked key complaint issues due to its informal approach. There is no indication it has addressed these to date. This is a significant failure. The landlord may have avoided this if it had considered its own complaint handling during its complaint investigation. It should routinely do this at each complaint stage. As part of this approach, it should consider the full complaint journey at stage 2.
52. The Code says complaints must be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt at stage 1. A landlord should then issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days afterwards. At stage 2, landlords should issue a response within 20 working days of receiving an escalation request. More investigation time is available at each stage providing the resident is kept informed. The landlord’s policy contains similar provisions.
53. In this case, the landlord logged a complaint after the resident completed its internal complaint form. Records suggest it received her completed form on 5 December 2023. It issued a stage 1 response 20 working days later. There is evidence that it notified the resident about a delay during the interim period. This was consistent with the Code.
54. At stage 2, the landlord issued its response 11 working days after the resident had asked it to escalate her complaint. This timescale was in line with the Code. Overall, there is no indication the landlord was responsible for any unreasonable delays once it had actually logged her complaint.
55. The Code says landlords must keep a full record of the complaint. This includes the original complaint and subsequent correspondence with the resident. In this case, the landlord did not supply the resident’s complaint from December 2023. Along with other complaint documents, some of her escalation correspondence also seems to be missing. The landlord has not shown that it complied with this aspect of the Code.
56. Overall, the landlord adopted an informal approach to the resident’s initial concerns. This was not consistent with its policy or the Code. It subsequently overlooked key complaint points. Aspects of its complaint handling caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. It has not acknowledged this or attempted to put things right. As a result, we find there was maladministration by the landlord.

Learning

57. At times, the landlord showed a lack of proactivity and/or solution focus. Considering issues from a resident’s perspective may help the landlord decide how to respond.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

58. There were record keeping issues in different aspects of the landlord’s operations. Good record keeping will allow the landlord to evidence its key actions and adherence to policies.

Communication

59. During her complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns with a number of its different teams. Some of these did not deem her serious concerns to be a complaint. The landlord could provide additional staff training to ensure that all of its teams can promptly recognise and react to complaints.