London Borough of Redbridge (202218043)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218043

London Borough of Redbridge

18 June 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the void period prior to the resident moving in to the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom maisonette, with her 2 children since July 2022, on a secure tenancy. The property had been void since May 2022 and the landlord, a council, completed a void checklist in July 2022 prior to the resident moving in.
On 31 August 2022 the resident requested an asbestos survey, and this was done on 7 September 2022, when very low levels of asbestos were identified. The resident chased the landlord for the outcome of the report on 27 September 2022 and was told there was no risk to her health. However, she was not sent a copy of the report, so she commissioned her own, and that recommended encapsulating the floors.
We forwarded the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 3 January 2023. She complained that:
1. Replastering was needed. Some walls needed replastering ready for painting. In addition, a leak damaged the ceiling in the hallway and repairs were needed to the ceiling and walls.
2. There was asbestos material in the property which took a long time to remove and she was not sent a copy of the asbestos report.
3. Flooring tiles were cracked and the flooring needed encapsulating.
A further survey was arranged by the landlord on 19 January 2023. This found;
1. The hallway ceiling needed taking down due to water saturation and new plasterboard ceiling applied with skim coat and decoration. The hallway floor needed to be levelled off using a latex floor screed so that it was ready for a floor covering.
2. The hallway/landing floor needed to be levelled off using a latex floor screed so that was ready for a floor covering. The walls needed to be hacked out and replastered as several large areas had blown and had no longer adhered to the wall.
3. The bath and wash hand basin should be removed so the floor could be latexed screeded then put back, plus a new non-slip altro floor should be laid.
4. The bedroom floors need to be levelled off using a latex floor screed so they were ready for a floor covering. The cement ducting in the corner of the room needed removing and replacing with plywood.
5. The living room required the floor tiles removing as they were broken and uneven, then the floor needed a full latex floor screed applied ready for the flooring to be laid.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 7 February 2023. It concluded:
1. The walls did not need plastering.
2. The asbestos survey found minimal risk, so would be left in place. It attached a copy of the report.
3. A leak had been reported on 29 November 2022 from a shower attachment. It was repaired on 23 December 2022 but a surveyor would assess the damp issues.
4. The property/floors were to the lettable standard.
The resident escalated the complaint on 7 March 2023 and, following our intervention, the landlord responded on 5 October 2023. It reiterated its stage 1 response but said it would have been better to remove all floor tiles at void stage. It apologised for the time taken to do that but did not accept the floors needed to be screed before she put carpets down. It said some work was needed in the bathroom, but the contractor had been unable to make contact with her to arrange a visit, so the job had been cancelled. It offered £50 compensation for the time and effort trying to get floor tiles removed.
In her referral to us the resident has said all the work remains outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the void period prior to the resident moving in

Prior to the resident moving in, the property had been void for 2 months. The landlord has provided a checklist to show it was cleaned and cleared in advance of the move. It said there were no leaks and the bathroom floor tiles were replaced, but other floors were level, safe and securely fixed.
The tenancy conditions handbook confirms the resident is responsible for decorating the property. The landlord is responsible for repairing ceilings and floors. In this case, the resident has said that, while the living room and children’s bedroom could be painted, the other rooms could not. This was because there was wallpaper that peeled off leaving crumbling plaster. Therefore, the walls were not fit for decoration as they should have been.
It is not in dispute that there was a leak. However, there are inconsistencies between what the landlord says in its complaint responses and what a 19 January 2023 survey noted and suggested ought to be done to repair the ceiling and walls that had been affected by the leak.
The landlord said the walls were fine and did not need replastering, and when dealing with the complaint, referred to photographs to support its position. However, the January 2023 survey found the hallway ceiling needed to be replaced. The resident has confirmed this work remains outstanding and the staining on the ceiling and walls, where the water from the leak ran down, shows the areas that need replastering.
It is not our role to determine whether replastering is needed. However, the landlord appears to be basing its view on photographs, and did not explain to the resident why it did not follow the recommendations of the survey. This is not reasonable, as the resident has been left in a position where she is no further forward in getting the issue resolved.
The resident asked for a copy of the asbestos survey dated 7 September 2022, on 27 September 2022, but did not receive it until 7 February 2023 (with the stage 1 response). If the landlord felt it could not share the report, it should have explained its position to the resident. Instead, the resident incurred a delay of over 4 months, which clearly caused her some frustration as she chose to have a survey done independently. While she was entitled to do that, the landlord had advised her on 27 September 2022 that, although the report was positive for asbestos, it was so low it was not a risk to her health. Therefore, it would not be fair and reasonable to expect the landlord to reimburse her for the additional survey she decided to have done.
Regarding the flooring, the landlord accepted in response to the complaint, that it should have arranged the removal of all floor tiles throughout the property at void stage. It is positive the landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident having to address this point. However, it took until April 2023, 7 months later, for action to be taken. The landlord’s job record log states that on 24 April 2023 someone attended to test the lounge tiles and get a quote for their removal. However, there is no further reference to them actually being removed. There has clearly been a delay addressing the floor issue, which has meant the resident has been unable to fit any flooring during this period. This has caused her inconvenience worth more than the £50 offered by the landlord.
In addition, there is still a wider issue with the flooring that has not been resolved. That is, whether the floors should be screed before the resident has flooring fitted. She says she has been told by contractors that the floors do need screed applied to them before she can lay carpets. This was also recommended in the January 2023 survey, but the landlord does not believe it is needed and so has not followed these recommendations.
The purpose of obtaining a survey is to obtain a professional opinion on work that is needed in order to inform the landlord’s response to a request. Therefore, having instructed a survey in January 2023, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have then acted on the recommendations made. To simply tell the resident it did not feel the floors needed treating, when a surveyor said otherwise, is not sufficient.
Overall, there were issues with the property that should have potentially been identified when the property was void. The landlord then had an opportunity to put things right following the January 2023 survey, but did not follow the recommendations. As a result, there are outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Having left it so long to ensure these issues were resolved amounts to maladministration.
The compensation offered by the landlord should be increased from £50 to £400. That is to recognise the delay providing a copy of the asbestos report. In addition, it is now nearly 3 years since the resident moved in, and the other issues remain unresolved. So, a payment of that amount acknowledges the impact on the resident due to these issues being outstanding for so long. Due to the time that has passed, we also order the landlord to arrange an independent survey to clarify the current conditions within the property, in relation to the issues raised in this complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

We sent the landlord the resident’s complaint on 3 January 2023. Its corporate complaints policy says it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, but it failed to adhere that. It did not respond until a month after receiving the complaint, on 3 February 2023. While the landlord did apologise for the delay in responding, it made no attempt to put things right by considering whether compensation was appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 March 2023. Although this was not within a calendar month as stipulated in the landlord’s stage 1 response, there is no indication the landlord told the resident that it would not consider it, as a result of her request being late. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude she would have expected to have her complaint investigated further.
The landlord did issue a response at stage 2, but only once it was prompted by us on 12 September 2023, as the resident had heard nothing further. Its response of 5 October 2023 was detailed, but came 7 months after the complaint was first escalated, which is unacceptable.
It is clear there were delays at both stages 1 and 2. While the landlord’s compensation guidelines say it could consider paying compensation to recognise the time and trouble the resident went to, in order to escalate her complaint, it suggested no remedy. The guidelines suggest where someone had to pursue their complaint to a higher level, in this case, to us, because it was not investigated at stage 2 promptly, it may be appropriate to pay compensation for time and trouble between £10 and £50. This differs to our remedies guidance which says where there has been maladministration that the landlord has not offered to put right, as is the case here, compensation could be between £100 and £600. Generally, our awards for complaint handling failures are at the lower end of this scale.
In this case, the resident was not permanently affected by the delays, and at stage 1, the landlord did apologise for not responding more quickly. However, to then not address the resident’s request to escalate the complaint at stage 2, indicates it had not learnt from its earlier mistake, as it should have done. The delay at stage 2 was significant. While the resident’s escalation request was late, the landlord should have said it would not be responding, if that was its position. By not issuing a response at all, the resident thought her request had been overlooked, and she was put to the trouble of having to contact us again, in order get a reply. Taking all this in to account, compensation of £200 is considered more appropriate and an order is made to reflect that.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Void period prior to the resident moving in.
2. Formal complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident £600 compensation made up of:
  1. £400 for its handling of the void period prior to the resident moving in (inclusive of the £50 already offered).
  2. £200 for its poor complaint handling.
3. Arranged for an independent survey of the property to identify:
  1. What replastering is needed on walls and ceilings, in order for the resident to be able to decorate.
  2. Whether all floors require screed/encapsulating before carpet can be laid.
  3. To then complete any recommendations made within 4 weeks of the survey results.