London Borough of Hounslow (202343086)

Decision
Case ID	202343086
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hounslow
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	4 November 2025

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy started on 16 August 2023. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident’s son has physical and mental health diagnoses.
In February 2023 an Occupational Therapist (OT) carried out an assessment of the families housing needs which recommended the family be rehoused. Another assessment carried out in 2024 said the family agreed to accept the property on the grounds that it would be adapted for their needs. This included installation of a dropped kerb and hardstanding in the front garden. The resident also raised additional requests for repairs including windows, doors and a new boiler.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of works to install a hardstanding and dropped kerb.
2. Response to the resident’s request for repairs.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of works to install a hardstanding and dropped kerb.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs.
3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Installation of hardstanding and dropped kerb.

The landlord failed to proactively manage the resident’s expectations regarding timescales.
Works were unreasonably delayed.
There were failures with the landlord’s record keeping.

Request for repairs.

There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s response. It did not always adhere to the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
Some repairs were only resolved after multiple visits to investigate the same issue.
There were instances of ineffective communication.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s acknowledged its complaint handling failure. It apologised and offered compensation to put it right. The compensation offered was in line with our Remedies Guidance.

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 02 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows: £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s handling of works to install a hardstanding and dropped kerb. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for 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. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 02 December 2025
3	Take Specific Action order The landlord should review the failures identified in this report. It should identify what went wrong and what it will do differently. This should include but is not limited to how it will manage the repair process to resolve issues first time without the need for repeat appointments.	No later than 16 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £50 for its complaint handling failures as offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 February 2024	The resident left a voicemail for the landlord the day before. She had not received a response so she contacted it to ask when works would start.
13 May 2024	The resident contacted us to say the landlord had not responded to her complaint. We wrote to the landlord the following day to request that it respond by 21 May 2024.
14 May 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident to say it would respond by 29 May. It wrote to us the next day to explain it had not received a complaint on 27 February 2024.
21 May 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response which said: It was satisfied with its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It asked her to provide up to date photographs of current issues. It apologised for delays and lack of updates relating to the hardstanding and dropped kerb. It provided an update on timescales and next steps. It would inspect the hallway windows on 23 May. It would not replace the current boiler because it was operating as expected. It had raised a new inspection of the immersion. Other works including the doors and letter plate were completed on 16 May. It upheld the complaint due to delays with the hardstanding and dropped kerb and in raising the complaint. It offered £200 compensation.
10 June 2024	The resident wrote to the landlord to ask to escalate her complaint. She said: There was still mould in the bathroom. Work had still not started on the hardstanding and dropped kerb which impacted on her and her family. It had failed to consider human rights and disability discrimination. There was a gap between the frame of the hallway window and the wall. She had provided medical evidence to support her request for the boiler to be replaced. She was dissatisfied with works carried out to the windows and fixtures including air vents. She did not accept its offer of compensation.
11 June 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge receipt of her stage 2 complaint.
9 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response as follows: It had not received photographs of the damp and mould as requested. Works to install the hardstanding and dropped kerb had taken “too long.” It apologised and set out next steps. It would inspect the window and air vents when it attended the property on 11 July. It had contacted the resident to discuss potential alterations to the pipework to the immersion but she declined works. It’s position regarding replacement of the boiler remained unchanged. It upheld the complaint due to the delay and lack of communication in relation to the hardstanding and dropped kerb. It offered £300 compensation.
18 October 2024	The resident contacted us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She set out the impact it had on her and her household including how it affected their mental health.

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	Handling of works to the hardstanding and dropped kerb.
Finding	Maladministration

We have not been provided with evidence setting out the landlord’s communication with the resident during August and September 2023 about the hardstanding and dropped kerb. This is a record keeping failure which has impacted on our assessment of the landlord’s response.
On 6 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had made an application to the highways team. On 20 November the resident emailed the landlord to chase an update. She expressed her frustration that she’d had to follow up. The landlord replied the next day to say it had asked for her to be updated.
On 20 December 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to express her frustration that work had not started. The landlord replied the following day to say that the highways team had advised work should be put on hold until it approved the application to remove the parking bays.
There’s no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident to set out the process and timescales. This would’ve been appropriate to manage her expectations and avoid the inconvenience of her having to seek updates.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 2 January 2024 she asked it to chase the highways team. The landlord replied that day to say it had chased as requested. She sent a further email on 5 January to ask if it had submitted a Traffic Management Order (traffic order) because she was aware this would take at least 12 weeks to be approved.
The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 21 May 2024 apologised for the “lengthy delay” and inconvenience caused. It confirmed it had acted on advice to update the traffic order application. It said the process would take a further 6 weeks with an additional 6 to 8 weeks to deliver the works themselves. It said it would contact the resident to discuss the final specification and obtain her approval of the proposed design.
On 10 June 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to set out the impact the delays had on her family. She said she accepted the property on the condition the works recommended by the OT would be carried out as soon as possible. She said it had a “massive, negative effect on our family.”
On 18 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She was aware there were no objections to the consultation. She referred to an email it sent her dated 3 May 2024 which she said set out next steps. We’ve not seen a copy of the email which is a record keeping failure. She said the design and implementation had been scheduled for 7 June 2024. She asked to be updated, including a meeting with the designer to discuss works.
Once again, the landlord failed to proactively communicate with the resident to provide updates and manage her expectations around timescales. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that it provided a response which further damaged the landlord/resident relationship.
By the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response of 9 July 2024 it had been almost a year since the resident had moved into the property. It accepted works had taken “too long.” It apologised for any detriment to her son’s health. It referred to its visits to the property on 27 June and 3 July 2024 to discuss and agree the layout with the resident. We have not seen any records setting out the details of these visits which is a record keeping failure. It also said it would issue a drawing of the hardstanding to the resident for her approval.
In an email to us dated 28 October 2025 the resident provided photographs which show the works have been completed. While this is positive the actual date of completion is unclear which is a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The compensation offered by the landlord is not considered proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £800 which is line with our Remedies Guidance.

Complaint	Response to request for repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

Windows.

On 13 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to follow up on its visit to measure for door and window replacements. On 6 October 2023 the landlord provided a response to say it would chase the contractor and would update again the following week. There are no records on the repair logs relating to replacement of the windows which is a record keeping failure. This has impacted on our assessment of the landlord’s response.
On 9 October 2023 the landlord’s contractor advised that window handles and vents were due to be delivered on 13 October. It would contact the resident as soon as they arrived. It’s unclear why the landlord decided to carry out repairs to the windows rather than replace them which is a record keeping failure.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 20 November 2023 she raised concerns about the quality of works carried out to the window vents. In its response of 30 November it confirmed it would attend on 5 December 2023 to inspect.
An entry on the repair logs dated 1 December 2023 raised a recall for the window vents which it said had not been fitted correctly. The records noted that it attended on 6 December to complete all works.
On 20 December 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report gaps around the window in the hall. The landlord attended on 15 January 2024 to fit 2 window restrictors to the downstairs window. On 27 February 2024 it attended to fit a new handle to the hallway window.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said it would attend to inspect the hallway window on 23 May 2024. It would use the appointment to consider other issues raised regarding draughts, restrictors and vents. It’s unclear why these issues were not addressed during the visits on 6 December 2023 and 27 February 2024.
The repair logs confirm that following the landlord’s attendance on 23 May 2024 it raised follow on works including replacing trickle vents and a handle. While this was positive it failed to adhere to its repair policy to ensure repairs were completed right first time.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 10 June 2024 she confirmed the nature of the fault with the hallway window. She also said there’d been no further communication following its visit on 23 May 2024. She expressed a lack of confidence in its response and asked it to replace the windows. There’s no evidence that it responded to her request which was inappropriate.
On 5 July 2024 the landlord raised further works to the windows including the vents which were completed on 22 July 2024.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said the surveyor who inspected on 23 May 2024 was not aware of the gap in the hallway window. However, it would look when it carried out a pre inspection on 11 July. It had already attended to carry out works to the windows including replacing the hallway window handle. Therefore it was unreasonable that a further appointment was needed, compounding inconvenience to the resident.
An entry on the repair logs dated 11 July 2024 confirmed that the wrong trickle vents had “recently” been fitted and smaller vents were “falling off.” Other works were also required to the windows. Its records state they were carried out on 22 July 2024.
It’s positive that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the windows. However, it repeatedly failed to fully make full use of appointments to limit the inconvenience to the resident and resolve issues as soon as possible. For example, the landlord had installed the vents by November 2023 and the subsequent issues were not resolved until 22 July 2024, 8 months later. The delays and repeat appointments caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Doors.

On 13 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to follow up on an appointment that took place to measure for door and window replacements. On 6 October the landlord updated the resident that it was liaising with the OT about the doors. We have not seen evidence of the communication which is a record keeping failure.
When the landlord attended the property on 6 December 2023 it noted that the resident raised an issue with the door. The resident called on the same day to say its contractor had said a new front door would be installed. She was concerned it was unsafe and said the repair to the back door remained outstanding.
There’s no evidence that the landlord raised an order to remedy the issue. Its inaction caused time and trouble to the resident who contacted it on 10 January 2024. She again reported the front door was insecure. On this occasion it attended the same day to complete the job in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
On 12 January 2024 the landlord raised an order for a new back door. This was over a month after the resident advised it was outstanding. Its response was unreasonably delayed.
On 27 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to chase a response regarding replacement of the front door. During a call with the resident on 29 February the landlord said it was waiting for a quote. Its records state that when it spoke to the resident again on 21 March she said she was liaising with the OT. It had therefore put the replacement on hold. We’ve not seen any evidence relating to this communication which has impacted on our assessment of its response.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 10 June 2024 the resident confirmed the front and back doors had been replaced. However, she was frustrated this only happened when the OT agreed to fund works.

Immersion.

On 11 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report an issue with her immersion. Its records say she had hot water through the combi boiler. Given the resident’s subsequent request for a combi boiler to be installed it’s unclear how this could be the case. This is a record keeping failure which impacted on our assessment of the landlord’s response.
The landlord attended on 23 October 2023 to carry out checks to the wiring and thermostat. It raised an order for a plumber to attend but there’s no evidence it did so.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 20 November 2023 she said the immersion was still not fixed. This was because she had been without heating and hot water for a second time. She asked for a combi boiler to be installed. There’s no evidence that it provided a response which was inappropriate.
An entry on the repair logs says the resident chased the issue on 24 November 2023. The landlord emailed her on 30 November to say it would attend on 1 December to inspect. Its operative attended on 6 December 2023 to check it was in working order. The notes say it identified a leak which was referred for follow up. It’s unclear if the immersion was operating at the time but that a longer term repair was required, or whether the fault was causing its failure at the time. This is a record keeping failure which has impacted on our assessment.
The landlord’s logs show that on 20 February 2024 the resident called to say its contractor had recommended a combi boiler be fitted because the hot water tank ran out quickly. On 5 March the landlord advised the resident it did not fit combi boilers in 3 bedroom properties.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 21 May 2024 said it would inspect the immersion again. When it attended on 23 May it noted there were no leaks and it was maintaining pressure.
In her email to the landlord of 10 June 2024 the resident said she had provided medical evidence to support her request for a combi boiler. In a further email dated 12 June the resident said it had failed to consider her family background and that its response lacked empathy.
While we do not doubt that the resident provided the documentation we have not seen any independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore it’s not possible to make a determination on this point.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 9 July 2024 said it phoned the resident on the same day to discuss potential works to the immersion. However, the resident had terminated the call. Its position regarding installation of a combi boiler was the same. It’s positive that it used the complaints process to consider alternative options to try to resolve the issue.
Landlords are legally obliged to fulfil their repair responsibilities. However, they’re not required to make improvements to the property. Therefore the landlord’s decision not to install a combi boiler was reasonable.

Damp and mould.

On 20 December 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report mould on the walls which she believed was caused by gaps around the window in the hall. The landlord’s email to the resident on 21 December confirmed the issue had been referred to its healthy homes team. The following day it raised a works order to carry out a mould wash. Its response was appropriate.
On 19 February 2024 the landlord carried out a mould wash in the bathroom. The operative said that boxing covering the pipes should be removed so they could be cleaned. The notes on the repair logs said it had been noted on 2 previous attendances. It said the boxing should be refitted straight after washing the pipes.
It was positive that the landlord attended to carry out the mould wash however this was almost 2 months after the works order was raised. Furthermore, its own records show it had not acted on previous feedback. Therefore it did not take a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould as set out in our Spotlight on Damp and Mould report.
An entry on the repair logs dated 23 February 2024 shows the landlord attended to wash and paint the pipes in the bathroom and carry out a mould wash on the stairs. On 27 February it raised a works order to refit the boxing. The records show this was completed on 12 March when follow on works were raised for a painter to attend. This was completed on 16 April 2024.
The original works order said the boxing should be fitted straight after the pipes were cleaned. It took the landlord 12 working days to refit the boxing and a further 24 working days to carry out the redecoration. The repair took 40 working days and 4 appointments from start to finish. Its response was not in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 21 May 2024 asked the resident to supply photographs of current damp and mould. On 23 May it raised a works order to carry out a healthy homes inspection. The repair logs show works to carry out a mould wash in the bathroom were carried out on 9 July 2024. While its initial response was appropriate there was an avoidable delay in carrying out works to remedy the issue.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 10 June 2024 she said that the issue was ongoing in the bathroom. On 9 July the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection. It noted there was no mould in the bathroom because it had recently been cleaned off. It asked the resident to let it know if it returned. The outcome of the visit was reasonable however the delay in carrying out the property inspection was not.

Summary.

The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord failed to identify its failures regarding the repairs and therefore failed to put things right. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord advised us that the resident did not raise a complaint on 27 February 2024. We’ve not seen any evidence that says otherwise. However, it’s noted that it accepted the delay as a failure of service. It apologised and offered compensation to put things right.
The landlord failed to comply with the Code because it failed to set out in clear plain language the details of its remedy. This is because it failed to explain how much compensation was offered for which failure at stage 1. At stage 2 it failed to clarify if the amount of compensation it offered was instead of or in addition to its offer at stage 1.
Furthermore it failed to respond to all the points of the complaint. In her email to the landlord of 10 June 2024 the resident said it had not considered the Human Rights Act 1988 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Its complaint response failed to address this point.
It’s unclear how much compensation was offered for complaint handling failures. For the purposes of this investigation we have concluded that £50 was for complaint handling failures. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance where the failure may not have significantly affected the outcome for the resident.
The landlord has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Learning

Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. Its positive that the landlord identified some of its failures. However, it failed to set out what had gone wrong and it what it would do differently. This is an important part of the complaint resolution principles.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.