London Borough of Hounslow (202514414)

Background

1. The resident occupies a 3-bedroom house. She is disabled with mobility needs and COPD. She also said that she has fluctuating mental health.  She lives in the property with her two adult sons.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak.
3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The works were poorly co-ordinated which led to delays in the landlord repairing the leak and completing follow-on remedial works. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident, so she had to chase for the works to progress. Although the landlord recognised these failings in its complaint responses, we consider that the compensation offered did not reflect the distress and inconvenience to the resident.
7. The landlord did not follow up on some of the action points in its complaint response and there was a delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The resident says that she first reported the leak in May 2025. We do not have a record of the resident contacting the landlord on this date, and we base our findings on records provided by parties.  But we can see that she called the landlord on 9 June 2025, andan operative came the same day to do an emergency repair to stop the leak and arrange an asbestos survey.This was within the 24-hour target set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
9. The resident has told us that the emergency repair failed the next day, and water leaked from the wet room through the hallway ceiling each time she used the shower. While this was frustrating for her, it is not always possible for a landlord to resolve an issue on the first visit. Sometimes there needs to be further investigation of the issues, particularly where there is complexity, or where it needs an expert opinion.
10. The resident reported that several operatives came out to make temporary fixes, but none worked. We have no records to show when she reported the returning leak, before 18 June 2025.  The repairs policy says the landlord should carry out follow-on repairs within 20 working days once it had made it safe. The landlord attended within 13 working days, repaired pipework and did another emergency repair but said that the wet room needed major work to stop the leak entirely.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete planned major works within 40 working days. In its stage 1 reply, it said that it would first stop the leak, then replace the damaged ceiling and fix the flooring around the stairs and downstairs toilet. This was a sensible approach as the leak would need to be fixed before new plaster or ceiling work could start. The resident said that operatives turned up without notice to repair the ceiling and stairs before the leak had been fixed. The resident said that operatives turned up at her home when she was not expecting them, with instructions to repair the ceiling and the stairs, before the landlord had fixed the leak. As well as being frustrating for the resident, this would have damaged her trust in the landlord’s ability to resolve the problem.
12. The resident said that she asked the landlord to refer the job to its aids and adaptations team, who had fitted her wet room 2 years earlier. It did not do this at first and instead sent its own repairs operatives, who could not fix the problem.  When the landlord eventually referred the works to the specialist contractor, after the resident said she contacted them herself, it repaired the leak in August 2025.  This was 2 months after she first reported the leak.
13. The landlord did not communicate well with the resident during this time. It sometimes promised updates, such as in the complaint replies, but did not follow up on this. The resident said that she waited weeks for news.  She also said the landlord did not return her calls and that the texts that they sent confirming appointments did not say which operatives were coming or what they were coming to fix.
14. This was unsatisfactory. We know that complex works can take time. But when there are delays, landlords give regular updates, explain why things are taking longer, and set out the next steps. It should have taken the resident’s circumstances into account, checked progress closely and looked at what it could do to reduce the impact on her. Regular contact would have helped reassure her that it was managing the repairs.
15. The resident did describe that she noted a decline in her mental health over this period, and that she went to stay with her mother for a few days at a time because she was struggling to cope with the stress. She also described her mobility needs and that she would only use the stairs in her property to come down in the morning and then at night to go to bed. She had to use the downstairs toilet during the day which the leak had damaged. There was a raised stair made of plywood which she used to access the downstairs toilet, that had become saturated with water. She was worried that the water ingress had caused the wood to rot and that it would give way when she stood on it, increasing her risk of injury or a fall.
16. We can see that the landlord took some steps to limit the disruption to the resident.  The resident said the landlord offered to arrange temporary hotel stay while the works were going on, but she turned this down because it would be too disruptive and she did not think the hotel could meet her disability-related needs, such as accommodating her specialist equipment.
17. The specialist team fixed the leak around 18 August 2025. The resident reported a further leak on 15 September 2025, but it is unclear whether this was linked to the same problem. The landlord came out the same day and arranged to replace the shower, which it fitted 2 days later, within its target timescales. It then carried out the ceiling and wall repairs in October 2025 and finished the work to the step between November 2025 and January 2026.
18. The repairs policy says that works should be prioritised for vulnerable residents, including those with disabilities. The landlord did not take the resident’s disability into account when planning the works. There was a 10-day gap between the visit on 9 June and the next visit on 18 June 2025. There were 17 days between its first attendance and follow-on works on 26 June.
19. This was unsatisfactory as delays to the works had a greater impact on the resident as she is disabled. Her home had been adapted with grab rails and an adapted wet room. She also has a hospital bed that can be lowered and raised and she uses a nebuliser. She has told us that she was worried about falling or injuring herself because of the state of the property and her mobility needs. She also said that the stress of living with the leak had affected her mental health.
20. In its complaint replies the landlord accepted that there had been unreasonable delays and poor communication. The landlord apologised for this and offered £250.When we look at whether compensation is fair, we follow our remedies guidance. We do not award ‘damages’ like a court or insurer might, we look at whether the amount reflects the impact of the failings on the resident
21. After reviewing the landlord’s offer of compensation, we do not consider that to the amount offered was enough to ‘put things right’ for the resident, especially given the extra impact on her because of her disability. Also, as the works took several months beyond the stage 2 complaint response, it would have been fair for the landlord to have reviewed the award to take this into consideration  The resident has also said that the £20 offered to her for her ruined towels and linen was arbitrary and not linked to what she actually paid to replace them.
22. We therefore find maladministration in how the landlord dealt with the resident’s leak reports and order it to pay a further £200, bringing the total to £450. This is within the range of financial redress awards in our remedies guidance for a service failure that has had an adverse impact on a resident. The landlord should also refer the resident to its insurers should she wish to make a claim for any damage to her belongings.

23. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and give a full reply 10 working days after that. For stage 2, it will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and response within 20 working days.
24. The landlord replied to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its time limits. However, it promised to take some steps in its response that it did not follow through on. For example, it said it would update the resident on 9 July about the works, but this did not happen, which was a failing.
25. The resident asked for her complaint to be moved to stage 2 on 2 July 2025, but she had to ask 2 more times before the landlord acknowledged it. This was unreasonable as she had to spend extra time chasing this up. The landlord did respond within its stage 2 timeframe, and it said that it had learned from the complaint and would use this learning to improve its service.
26. However, the landlord did not offer compensation for the delays in its complaint handling. For this reason, we find service failure and order the landlord to pay the resident £75 in compensation which is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been some impact on the resident.

Learning

27. The landlord showed learning at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It said it was reviewing its procedures with the repairs service to ensure that urgent repairs were prioritised, communication is more consistent, and that early intervention prevents similar issues from recurring in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s response to the issue the resident raised. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.