London Borough of Redbridge (202320807)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320807

London Borough of Redbridge

02 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Kitchen repairs following reports of a leak.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord living in a 2-bedroom flat on the 10th floor of a shared apartment block.
  2. On 24 January 2023, the resident reported a leak to the landlord. The leak was affecting the kitchen of the property and the landlord attempted to inspect this on 18 and 30 January 2023 but was unable to gain access. The landlord contacted the agent for the flat above the resident’s as it was suspected that the leak was coming from the upstairs flat.
  3. On 10 March 2023, a repair was completed to the upstairs flat by the agent for the flat before landlord’s contractor attended and the leak was considered resolved. A further leak was reported on 24 March 2023 and was attended by the contractor on the same day. This was traced to a washing machine in a neighbouring flat and the landlord’s contractor accessed this flat and completed the washing machine repair to stop the leak.
  4. On 31 May 2023, the landlord visited her flat and raised a works order for kitchen repairs to address damage caused by the leaks. After 3 unsuccessful attempts by the landlord to contact the resident, a visit was agreed for 18 July 2023, where repairs including painting, removing plaster, and removing damaged kitchen units were completed. The resident complained to the landlord that same day. She said she wanted all the kitchen repairs done and compensation for repairs that had not been done. She referred to the stress and inconvenience she had experienced because of the delayed repairs.
  5. The stage 1 response was issued by the landlord on 2 August 2023. It apologised for the lack of communication and the delay completing the repairs. It confirmed that the kitchen had been painted and plastered, and some kitchen units removed. It said that the kitchen colour had been discontinued. It acknowledged that the resident had wanted a new kitchen, but this had not been approved. It said white units would be installed and the beech cupboard fronts would be kept. The resident was unhappy with this response and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 5 August 2023. This was acknowledged by the landlord 7 August 2023, and it told her she would receive a stage 2 complaint response by 5 September 2023.
  6. The resident contacted us on 15 September 2023 as she had not received a stage 2 complaint response. She also said she did not want a ‘‘mix and match kitchen’’. On 13 November 2023, we wrote to the landlord to ask it to issue the resident a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord issued a stage 2 response dated 13 November 2023. It apologised for the delayed response and acknowledged it should have been issued by 5 September 2023. It also acknowledged the lack of timely action and repairs follow up. It confirmed that, following a survey on 16 November 2023, new kitchen unit fronts would be installed with the unit carcasses retained. It offered total compensation of £150 made up of £50 each for time and inconvenience to conclude the matter, stress caused, and time and delays in responding at stage 2. It identified learning from the complaint and detailed service improvements it had put in place with its contractor to monitor, post-inspect, and escalate unhappiness with leaks.
  7. The kitchen unit fronts were replaced on 18 December 2023. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint due to the stress and inconvenience experienced, adding that there were still some minor repairs outstanding.

Assessment and findings

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states landlords are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the structures of their properties and of installations for the supply of water and sanitation. It also obliges landlords to complete repairs in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s website’s repairs handbook states its contractor will prioritise and complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  2. Social housing landlords are also required to ensure their properties meet the Decent Home standards. According to these standards, kitchens should not be more than 20 years old.
  3. The landlord has compensation guidelines that allow for compensation in a range of circumstances, including where the landlord could have rectified the problem more quickly than it did, and it also allows for compensation for time and trouble.

The landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs following reports of a leak

  1. The landlord acknowledges that it has no record of the resident’s initial report of a leak in January 2023, which is concerning. Consistent record keeping is necessary to ensure landlords can monitor repair issues and respond appropriately. The landlord in the stage 2 response did, however, accept that the resident did report a leak in January 2023 and apologised for not recording this.
  2. It is acknowledged that identifying the source of a leak can be complicated and can require multiple visits. However, other than the landlord’s attempted visits to the resident on 18 and 30 January 2023 there is little evidence of its initial actions. It is therefore appropriate that the stage 2 response also acknowledged delays and lack of follow up. This is particularly because it took until 10 March 2023 for the agent of the flat above the resident’s property to repair the leak there before landlord’s contractor attended after the resident described reporting this on 24 January 2023. This was 17 calendar days later than its website’s repairs handbook’s 28-calendar-day routine repair timescale.
  3. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said a second leak was reported on 30 March 2023 and addressed by it on 4 April 2023. Repair logs, however, show a leak report on 24 March 2023. This was appropriately raised as an emergency repair due within 24 hours under the handbook and recorded as completed on the same day, with 4 April 2023 noted as the ‘status date’. While this conflicting information may be an administrative error, accurate recording and communication of repair dates is necessary to support effective action. Nevertheless, the landlord’s records state that it did not have an obligation to complete this repair because this was to an appliance in a neighbouring leasehold property, but that it did so for the benefit of all parties. This approach shows a genuine commitment to repairs resolution.
  4. The resident expressed frustration with the time it took the landlord to complete the kitchen repairs. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. It was also required by its handbook to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. Various factors can affect what a reasonable timescale or a routine repair is, such as the volume and complexity of the required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  5. Despite the initial leak report the resident described as being on 24 January 2023, the repair logs show that a works order for kitchen repairs for damage caused by the leak was not raised until 31 May 2023, which was 127 calendar days or over 4 months afterwards. This is well outside the handbook’s routine repairs response timescale of 28 calendar days. The repair logs note the kitchen unit replacement was completed on 18 December 2023, which was 32 calendar days after the landlord’s surveyor’s recommendation of the works on 16 November 2023. However, this was 201 calendar days or almost 7 months since repairs were first raised on 31 May 2023.
  6. While the stage 2 response acknowledged that the stage 1 complaint should have been an opportunity for it to assign a surveyor earlier, it failed to acknowledge that the delay to the stage 2 complaint response also delayed timely resolution of the kitchen leak repair issue. The landlord in the stage 2 response did, however, acknowledge that “works to resolve the damage in your kitchen were also not raised in a timely manner.” Although no clear reason was provided for the prolonged delay, which would have been appropriate, especially as the resident experienced an unreasonable period of inconvenience.
  7. In the stage 2 response, the landlord demonstrated an open and transparent approach in identifying and acknowledging several failings. It also identified appropriate learning, such as improved monitoring of leak reports, follow up with residents following leak repairs, and making sure resident dissatisfaction with these was promptly escalated. It offered apologies for delays and missed opportunities to resolve the matter earlier. In line with its corporate complaints policy and compensation guidance, it appropriately provided the resident with relevant insurance details to progress a claim for food loss following the leaks.
  8. The landlord also offered the resident a total of £100 compensation for the kitchen leak repairs, made up of its guidance’s £50 maximum award for time and inconvenience and £50 for the stress the matter caused. This was in line with its guidance’s recommendation of up to £50 to recognise, according to its policy, “time and trouble taken to resolve an issue or for any distress that may have been caused due to incorrect action or failure to act.”
  9. While this offer recognised some of the effect on the resident, it did not fully recognise the multiple failings identified. There were significant and avoidable delays, as well as examples of poor record keeping, which led to prolonged disruption and avoidable inconvenience for the resident. These issues contributed to a failure to resolve the repairs in a timely manner.
  10. Overall, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the leak and kitchen repairs. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for maladministration, an order has been made for the landlord to apologise for this, as well as to pay an additional award of £150 compensation to the resident. Under our guidance, this is appropriate where ‘’The landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.’’ Total compensation of £250 more appropriately reflects the extent of effect on the resident, and so the landlord has also been ordered to pay her the £100 it previously offered her for this if not already paid.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 2 working days. The acknowledgement will provide the contact details of the officer investigating the complaint and the timeframe for a response. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
  2. The resident’s stage 1 complaint was made on 18 July 2023 and received by the landlord on 19 July 2023. It was acknowledged at the time of submission within the 2-working–day timeframe and the stage 1 response was issued on 2 August 2023, within the 10-working–day timescale of the landlord receiving this.
  3. Although the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, it failed to appropriately explain why the assets team did not approve the replacement of the kitchen unit fronts. This lack of information to support this decision was a missed opportunity to show the resident that the decision was based on consistent criteria, such as policy, which would have been appropriate.
  4. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states that the decision to escalate a complaint to stage 2 will be made within 2 working days. It aims to issue a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days from the date of receipt.
  5. The resident’s escalation request of 5 August 2023 was acknowledged within the 2-working–day timescale on 7 August 2023. The stage 2 response was, however, issued on 13 November 2023 following intervention from the Service, which was not appropriate. Although the response is dated 13 November 2023, it refers to the outcome of a survey on 16 November 2023 and was sent to us by the landlord on 20 November 2023. This suggests that the date of the letter was incorrect, as it must have been completed at least on or after 16 November 2023 to include the outcome of the survey on that date.
  6. Furthermore, the stage 2 response was therefore completed at least 53 working days outside the expected timescale of 20 working days, and no adequate reason was provided by the landlord for the excessive delay, which was not reasonable. The complaint process can be an opportunity for a landlord to build a positive relationship with a resident, however the lack of communication and updates contributed to the resident’s frustration, particularly as this delay directly contributed to the delayed resolution.
  7. Evidence to confirm completion of the outstanding minor repairs the resident referred to when she contacted us on 12 January 2024 has not been available. It is therefore not possible to determine whether these repairs have been appropriately addressed as agreed by the landlord in the stage 2 response.
  8. While the landlord’s apology and offer of £50 compensation for complaint handling delays were appropriate steps to attempt to put things right, the compensation was not proportionate redress. This is because this was not reasonable recognition under our remedies guidance for the multiple failings identified, such as delays, lack of updates, and the absence of key information. This was also not proportionate to recognise the unnecessary additional time and trouble the resident experienced from having to contact us to get a stage 2 response.
  9. The landlord was therefore responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident a further £100 compensation, which reflects the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the failings identified. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of awards where the compensation offered “was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.”

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, the landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of kitchen repairs following reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, the landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident acknowledging the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £400, this is made up of:
      1. If not already paid, £50 previously offered for time and inconvenience.
      2. If not already paid, £50 previously offered for stress.
      3. If not already paid, £50 previously offered for complaint handling delays.
      4. An additional £150, for its handling of kitchen leak repairs.
      5. An additional £100, for its complaint handling.