London Borough of Newham (202448284)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with a downstairs bathroom, with her husband and 2 children. The resident and her husband have health issues. The resident was unable to get in the bath, so she had to wash over the toilet. In May 2024 an occupational therapist assessment said the bath should be replaced with a level access shower facility. However, the bath was under the stairs and had an inclined ceiling above it. Therefore, there were technical issues for the landlord to overcome to do the adaptations. The resident complained because the landlord did not do the adaptations.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of bathroom adaptations.
   2. We also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of bathroom adaptations.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of bathroom adaptations

4. There have been extensive delays to the bathroom adaptations and a lack of communication from the landlord. Its approach was reactive rather than proactive. This caused the resident inconvenience having to chase the landlord for updates.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. There were delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaints process, which caused the resident time and trouble contacting the landlord. The landlord failed to fully acknowledge its delays and failed to compensate the resident for its failures.

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.

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.

What we investigated

6. The resident told us that in 2022 her health needs were assessed, and it was around this time the bathroom was identified as needing adaptation. However, the only evidence of an assessment we have, was in May 2024. Our investigation focused on events from this date.
7. The landlord sent its final complaint response in April 2025 and said it would speed up the adaptation works, but this did not happen. In December 2025 a surveyor advised the resident should be permanently moved because the adaptations and damp and mould treatment would need her to move out for at least a year. In January 2026 the landlord decided to move her permanently. Our investigation covers events up to that point, as the complaint was still unresolved.

The landlord’s handling of adaptations to the bathroom.

8. The landlord acted promptly and arranged for a surveyor to attend soon after the occupational health assessment, to establish how adaptations could be made to accommodate the recommendations. However, following this visit, it did not do anything further until the resident complained in January 2025. This was an 8-month delay.
9. The landlord’s internal emails in January 2025 show it was concerned the resident did not have washing facilities. However, it also said the adaptations may not be financially viable and it needed management approval, which could take 6 months. There is no evidence it told the resident this information at the time.
10. The landlord’s ‘Guide to Information and Services for Home Adaptations’ has 11 steps it needs to take when dealing with complex adaptations, along with timescales. The first stage is for a surveyor to visit and measure up which it did in this case. The next is to have agreed plans put for planning approval, before it gets consent. It did not complete this stage.
11. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 27 January 2025.She was getting increasingly upset that the landlord had not done anything or updated her. When the landlord responded, it acknowledged how challenging the situation had been and the distress it caused. It said the resident’s wellbeing was a priority and it apologised for the lack of action and communication. It also said it would try and speed up the process and offered her £400 compensation.
12. The landlord acknowledged its service failures and said it would improve, but there was no progress. The resident chased the landlord in July 2025 and contacted her mayor, who asked the landlord to explain the delay with the adaptations. An internal email on 25 July 2025 confirmed the works would involve major alterations and the resident would need temporary accommodation. After this, there is no evidence the landlord did anything until we contacted it in December 2025, when a surveyor advised a permanent move. Other than surveying the property and preparing draft plans, no work was carried out for 19 months. This amounts to severe maladministration.
13. The landlord’s lack of action had a significant impact on the resident. She faced daily disruption and had to repeatedly chase it for updates. The landlord made the situation worse by recognising the effect of the loss of amenity and promising to speed up the works but then failing to do so. It also knew in January 2025 that the adaptations and temporary move would be costly, yet it took almost a year to decide a permanent move was the better option. The £400 compensation offered by the landlord in April 2025 was made up of £200 for the delay and distress caused and £200 for the time and trouble chasing the works. While the landlord acknowledged failures and offered to put things right, the compensation it offered was insufficient and the further delay also needs to be taken in to account.
14. The landlord’s compensation guidance says it should consider paying compensation where there has been a loss of amenity due to the landlord’s inaction. It gives several examples, one of which is a resident having difficulty washing due to a lack of required adaptations. It suggests compensation of between £40 and £150 per month dependent upon the level of impact. It did not follow its guidance.
15. The resident told the landlord she could not use the bath and had to wash over the toilet. She also explained her husband had health issues too and she felt unsafe, hurt and depressed at the way the landlord treated her
16. The resident experienced a significant and long‑lasting impact while waiting for the landlord to resolve the complaint and decide about permanently moving her. It is important to recognise this, while also acknowledging the bathroom was not completely unusable and the landlord did offer some compensation. The landlord must pay the resident the following compensation:
    1. £100 per month for 19 months due to a loss of amenity (£1,900).
    2. The £200 it offered at stage 2 for delay should be increased to £500.
    3. The £200 it offered at stage 2 for time and trouble should be increased to £500.

17. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
18. The landlord told the resident to expect its stage 1 response by 24 January 2025 but sent it 6 working days late. It didn’t tell the resident it needed more time to respond as per its complaints policy, which is unreasonable. The landlord also missed the opportunity to try and put things right at stage 1.
19. The landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. However, having said it would send a response by 31 March 2025, it sent it 9 working days late. At both stages, it did not manage the resident’s expectations. The further delays at stage 2, indicate the landlord failed to learn from its earlier mistake. The resident chased the landlord on 27 January 2025, 4 April 2025 and 7 April 2025 which caused her time and trouble.
20. The landlord’s compensation guidance suggests it should consider a payment in the range of £50 to £150 where there has been delay and distress with low or moderate impact. It should also consider a similar payment for time and trouble. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation, this only acknowledged a delay at stage 2. It did not consider the delay at stage 1 or compensation for the loss of an amenity.
21. There were issues at both stages which added to the resident’s frustration and the landlord did not comply with its own policy, which amounts to maladministration. The resident was  upset and inconvenienced having to follow things up throughout the complaint process. However, the landlord apologised at the time and offered £50 compensation. Taking that into account, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 compensation.

Learning

22. The landlord should review this case as a learning point, as it accepted its communication and overall management were poor. Better oversight could have avoided many of the issues and provided stronger support to a vulnerable resident. The landlord should also ensure it reminds all staff that deal with complaints of the different types of compensation payable, under its guidance.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. During this investigation, the landlord told us it has no record of the resident being assessed for adaptations before May 2024. It explained that the member of staff responsible at the time has since left and accepted there were problems with its record keeping. While it is positive the landlord has acknowledged this issue, it should take steps to prevent similar problems in future cases.
24. We found long periods where the landlord did not take any action or monitor the works. Better record keeping would have helped the landlord identify what work was outstanding and why progress had stalled. The landlord should review how it monitors active cases and ensure its records clearly show all its actions.

Communication

25. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of adaptations or tell her there would be a delay responding to the complaint. The landlord should review how it communicates with residents throughout the adaptations process.