London Borough of Newham (202404450)

Decision
Case ID	202404450
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Newham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Other (Non-Secure Tenancy)
Date	9 April 2026

Background

The resident requested repairs to her living room door in April 2023. In January 2024, she raised a complaint to the landlord about the delay in completing the repair.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents:
1. Reports of delays in repairing the living room door.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays in repairing the living room door.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Reports of delays repairing the living room door

There were delays in repairing the living room door and 3 missed appointments by the landlord. However, it apologised for this and offered compensation in line with its policy and our compensation guidance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was a delay in the landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement and response. It also did not follow the correct procedure in escalating the complaint after the stage 1 response. However, it recognised its failings and offered compensation in line with its policy and our compensation 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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the total sum of £1,000 which it has offered to pay across all complaint responses if it has not done so already, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure. We make the reasonable redress finding on this basis.
The landlord should contact the resident to provide them an opportunity to submit a new complaint about any outstanding issues.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 January 2024	After the resident’s request to have her living room door repaired, she raised a formal complaint saying: the landlord had not repaired the living room door it initially told her it would replace the door in October 2023 her home was becoming more expensive to heat due to the outstanding repair it missed a scheduled appointment for the repair on 4 January 2024 it did not provide reasons for the delay in repairs she wanted a plan to complete the repairs and reasons for the delay
5 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
18 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. The response: acknowledged the cancelled appointments on 11 August 2023 and 04 January 2024 apologised for the missed appointments and delay in repairs offered £50 compensation for inconvenience caused to the resident by the missed appointments set a repair date of 15 April 2024
19 January 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint because she was not satisfied with the repair date of 15 April 2024 and did not think the compensation offered was fair.
30 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the residents request to escalate her complaint.
1 March 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, which: explained the reasons for each of the 3 missed appointments, along with its learnings from missed appointments confirmed it replaced the living room door on 1 February 2024 confirmed an appointment to paint the new living room door on 7 March 2024 advised that the resident was responsible for repairs to internal doors, but that they it would not charge these costs back to the resident recognised a delay in acknowledging the stage 2 escalation request offered compensation of £1,000 broken comprising: £200 for the 3 missed appointments £250 for the delay in installing the living room door £200 for the time the resident spent contacting the landlord to resolve the issue £250 for inconvenience to the resident £100 for not following the stage 2 escalation procedure
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and asked us to investigate her complaint. She was not satisfied with how long it took for the landlord to replace the door, the level of compensation offered, and the landlord’s complaint handling.

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	Delays in repairing the resident’s living room door
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s repair policy says that it is the resident’s responsibility to repair any internal doors. However, the landlord did accept the repair request and made appointments to replace the door. In these circumstances, it would be reasonable to assume that the landlord would complete the repairs on a timescale consistent with their policy.
The landlord received the repair request on 27 April 2023. It completed the repair 7 March 2024, which is a significant delay. Its repair policy says that planned repairs should be completed within 42 working days.
In addition, the landlord cancelled 3 appointments without contacting the resident. This is not consistent with its repairs policy which says residents should be consulted about changes in appointments and provided reasons for the change.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it was the resident’s responsibility to repair the living room door under its repairs policy. However, in recognition of the circumstances, it did not charge the cost of these repairs to the resident.
The landlord provided reasons for each appointment it cancelled. It acknowledged it should have given these reasons to the resident at the time of cancellation. In addition, the landlord showed learnings from these shortcomings and took steps to prevent them in future. This included telling repairs operatives that they should not confirm a repairs appointment until they had all required materials.
The landlord also apologised to the resident and offered £900 compensation in line with its compensation policy. The compensation offered was above the range of awards set out in our compensation guidance for failings that adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact. As such, we find that it offered reasonable redress.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 days. It will provide stage 1 responses in 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. Its policy is in line with the Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the Code’).
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint on time.
The landlord was 6 working days late in acknowledging the stage 2 escalation request and 11 working days late in responding at stage 2.
The resident raised issues after the landlord’s stage 1 response which were unrelated to the original complaint. It responded to these new concerns in its stage 2 response but did not address all the points raised.
The Code says where residents raise additional complaints after a stage 1 response, the other issues should be logged as a new complaint. By responding to the unrelated issues raised by the resident in its stage 2 response the landlord did not follow the Code.
The correct procedure in this instance would be to log the resident’s concerns as a new complaint, then respond to all the points raised at stage 1.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged it had not properly treated all communication from the resident as a complaint and that this was not in line with its complaints policy. It apologised and offered £100 compensation in line with its policy and our compensation guidance. This was reasonable redress and proportionate for its identified failings.

Learning

The landlord was pro-active in identifying opportunities for learning from missed appointments. It communicated to repair operatives that they should not book appointments before they get the required materials.
The landlord may wish to review the Complaint Handling Code to ensure that it is responding to complaints appropriately, particularly where new issues are raised.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We did not find any issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

The landlord failed to consistently communicate about delays throughout the repairs process. Effective communication is vital as poor communication leaves residents uninformed leading to frustration. Effective communication ensures landlords manage expectations, even when delays occur, and how they can mitigate the impact of these. It may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.