London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202303693)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303693

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

29 September 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 resident’s:
1. Issues with his building insurance company, including related repairs to the interior of his home.
2. Reports of issues with his windows.
3. Reports of a blocked drain.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a long-term leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat located on the ground floor of the building. The landlord owns the block the building is part of and maintains the exterior structure.
In February 2021 there was a leak in the resident’s block, this caused water damage to his flat. The resident subsequently made a claim to the building insurance company.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 7 August 2023. He was unhappy because:
1. He believed there were issues with the electrical supply at the property. He did note the drain issues had been resolved.
2. He said he had been advised that the landlord was responsible for issues with windows, doors, consumer units and balcony lights.
3. He thought that the building insurance company had failed to support him. He was unhappy with the service that they had provided.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 August 2023. It said:
1. The blocked drain had been resolved.
2. As the resident was a leaseholder, he would be responsible for repairs within the property. However, the landlord was responsible for the repair or replacement of windows.
3. A surveyor would call the resident on 29 August 2023 and they would inspect the windows over the phone. It would then advise the resident on whether repairs were necessary or if a visit to the property was needed.
4. The resident should contact the building insurance company to discuss any rental issues as part of the resident’s insurance claim.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 December 2023. He remained unhappy with the actions of the building insurance company.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 9 May 2024. It said it had investigated the resident’s complaint and found that:
1. As the resident was a leaseholder, repairs within his home were his responsibility.
2. The landlord was responsible for the replacement or repair of windows. It said it was getting a quote for a window winding system, but there had been a delay.
3. The resident had various issues with the building insurance company. It said the resident had not given the insurance company permission to discuss the claim with the landlord. For the resident’s claim to progress, he would have to grant that permission and provide requested evidence to the insurance company.
4. Its corporate complaints procedure did not deal with claims and compensation cases as decisions can be challenged through a legal process.
The resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He said as a resolution he would like the landlord to renovate his property and then recoup its loss from the building insurance company.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has mentioned having issues with insurance companies since 2019. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, while the issues are live. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore relate to the issues raised at the time of the complaint.
The resident has complained about the actions of an insurance company. When looking at a complaint about insurance, we cannot look at how the claim was managed by the insurance company or the outcome of the claim. These are not actions taken by the landlord. The landlord is not responsible for the actions of an insurance company. So the actions of an insurance company are not something we can consider in an investigation. We can look at how a landlord supported a resident through the insurance process. This is what has been considered in this report. If the resident wants to pursue this further, he may wish to seek independent legal advice on how to do this.

The resident’s issues with his building insurance company, including related repairs to the interior of his home

The lease agreement says the resident should repair and maintain his property. This includes doors and any fixtures and fittings. The landlord’s repairs policy says a leaseholder is responsible for all repairs to internal building components and all services inside the property.
The resident submitted a claim to the building insurance company in February 2021. He contacted the landlord on 24 April 2023 to describe his issues with the insurance company. The landlord responded on 27 April 2023 and explained it had been monitoring the correspondence. Given the resident made the claim himself, it was reasonable for the landlord to be keeping track of the claim and offer support if the resident requested it.
The landlord then tried to support the resident. In the same correspondence it provided advice on next steps for the resident. It told him what he could do if he was unhappy with the insurance company after these steps were taken. It did not offer to contact the insurance company on the resident’s behalf due to the complexity of the claim. The landlord did what it could to support the resident. Explaining there would be no value in contacting the insurance company was a fair approach. The insurance company is a separate organisation and the landlord could not influence its actions. The landlord acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances here.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 7 August 2023. He said he was unhappy with the conduct of the insurance company and asked the landlord for support. In its stage 1 response on 21 August 2023, the landlord said the resident should contact the insurance company about any issues he had. The landlord did not offer to support the resident. It did not comment on the resident’s issues. The landlord should have tried to explore how it could have supported the resident. Or, it should have explained why it believed it could not support the resident. The landlord did not act reasonably here by not commenting on these issues in a meaningful way.
The resident also raised concerns about his doors and a consumer unit in his stage 1 complaint. He also mentioned these items in an attempt to get his complaint escalated to stage 2 on 27 November 2023. We understand that these items were covered by the insurance claim. The landlord said that for repairs following the flood, the resident was responsible. It said that as a leaseholder the repairs were the resident’s responsibility. The landlord’s position is the same as what is set out in the lease agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy. This would be a reasonable position to take. However, the repairs the resident was raising were in relation to the insurance claim. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have referred the resident back to the insurance claim. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s response.
The evidence shows that after the stage 1 complaint response the insurance company told the landlord and the resident that it was putting the claim on hold. The resident had refused to sign an agreement that would allow the insurance company to contact the landlord about the claim. There is no direct evidence of this correspondence. However, internal correspondence from the landlord and correspondence from the resident confirm that this was the situation. There is evidence that the landlord knew this on 28 November 2023. It is therefore reasonable to say that it had this information on or before this date.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 May 2024. In this period, between November 2023 and May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord about his issues with the insurance company on 4 occasions. The resident was aware of what he had to do to progress the claim. However, the landlord should have responded to the resident to confirm what its position was after the insurance company put the claim on hold. The resident’s emails show he thought there was more the landlord could be doing. The landlord did not act reasonably by not responding to the resident’s emails in this period.
The landlord did explain its position in its stage 2 response. It said it could not assist the resident any further and explained what he needed to do to progress his claim. While it should have explained this sooner, this was a reasonable position to take from the landlord. It was not responsible for the insurance companies actions. We believe it is reasonable to say that there is not much more support the landlord could have offered at this point aside from advising the resident of the situation and suggesting he seek legal advice. The landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
In conclusion, the landlord initially tried to support the resident while he was making an insurance claim. The resident made the claim independently and we would not expect a landlord to be proactively contacting a resident about a claim. When the resident did request support from the landlord, it gave advice and an assessment of the situation. This was a reasonable and proportionate approach to take.
However, the landlord did not try to support the resident after this. In its stage 1 response, it should have tried to explore what support it could provide or informed the resident why it would not be doing that. The landlord’s position in its stage 2 response, that it could not assist the resident any further, was a reasonable position to take. However, it should have informed the resident when it established this position and not waited until its stage 2 response to tell him this. Because of the lack of communication and support after the stage 1 response, we have found service failure for this part of the complaint.
The landlord should apologise to the resident for not supporting him more in this period. Considering our guidance on remedies, we find that an appropriate level of compensation would be £75. This recognises that the landlord should have supported the resident more after the stage 1 response. But, that the impact on the resident was minor. The landlord would not have been able to change the position of the insurance company.

The resident’s reports of issues with his windows

The landlord’s repairs policy says that a routine repair will be completed within 20 working days. It gives the example of replacing window furniture as an example of a routine repair. It says certain works can take longer to complete, it gives the example of when windows need to be manufactured. It says residents will be informed when this is the case.
The lease agreement says that the landlord is responsible for the external structure of the property. In its stage 1 complaint response on 21 August 2023 the landlord took responsibility for the windows. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it would speak to the resident on 29 August 2023 about the windows. The landlord did not make the call due to a system error when logging the request. This was a failing from the landlord.
The landlord told the resident it would call him on 6 September 2023. The landlord called the resident on 6 September 2023 and attended the property on 7 September 2023. The landlord followed through on its commitment to the resident. It acted reasonably here.
The landlord’s records show that it decided to replace the windows. It raised a job in its system on 19 October 2023 for this. The evidence shows that the resident’s windows had already been replaced earlier in 2023. There is no direct evidence when this occurred specifically. The job that was raised in October was because there were health and safety concerns as the windows opened outwards. The windows were to be replaced because of this, with a hand winding system. It is a record keeping failure of the landlord that its systems do not record when the windows were originally replaced.
Aside from acknowledging the resident’s complaint on 2 January 2024 and apologising for the delay on 25 April 2024, the landlord did not contact the resident about the windows until its stage 2 response on 9 May 2024. The landlord should have kept the resident updated on the status of the repair. It only updated the resident in its stage 2 response, 8 months later. The landlord did not act appropriately here as it did not keep the resident informed, as per its policy.
The landlord uses contractors to carry out repairs. It used 2 contractors for the windows as it was a specialised repair. The evidence shows the landlord started chasing the contractors for an update and to progress the repair on 2 January 2024. The contractors eventually attended the resident’s property on 30 April 2024. While the evidence does show the landlord chasing to try and get the repair carried out, it is still responsible for the contractors actions. It took over 6 months from the visit in October 2023 for someone to attend the resident’s property. That was to re-assess what repair was necessary. The landlord failed to follow the timescales for repairs set out in its policy.
The visit on 30 April 2024 was to reassess what work was needed for the windows. The landlord concluded that as the resident’s property was on the ground floor, the windows opening outwards was not a health and safety hazard. It said the resident could reach all windows with ease, aside from one window where a washing machine had been positioned in the way. So, a hand winding system was not necessary. This visit occurred 6 months after the landlord initially logged the repairs for the windows. The landlord did not act reasonably here and its actions were not within the timescales in its policy.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 9 May 2024. In the response it said it was still waiting for a quote for the hand wind system. The visit where the landlord concluded the window replacement was not necessary took place on 30 April 2024. This was an opportunity for the landlord to inform the resident of its position on the windows, which it unreasonably failed to do.
In conclusion, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide not to replace the windows. They had recently been replaced and the landlord made an assessment that they were not a health and safety hazard. However, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout this period. It was well over any timescales for completing repairs. The landlord initially informed the resident that the windows would be replaced and then took over 6 months to reassess this and change its position. This raised the resident’s expectations. We therefore find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with his windows.
The landlord should apologise to the resident for the failings identified here. Considering our guidance on remedies, we find that an appropriate level of compensation would be £125. This recognises the landlord not following the timescales and communication standards set in its policy. It also takes into account the raised expectations of the resident. However, beyond these raised expectations, the impact on the resident was minor. The windows had already recently been replaced.
In a conversation with this service on 12 September 2025 the resident expressed dissatisfaction about his windows. We do not have evidence of the landlord informing the resident of its position. Given this, we are also ordering the landlord to confirm its position on the windows in writing to the resident.

The resident’s reports of a blocked drain

The lease agreement says the landlord is responsible for all pipes, drains, waste water and sewage ducts. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete a routine repair in 20 working days. It gives the example of blocked drains and pipes for what a routine repair might be. The policy says a repair should be reported through certain channels, such as via the landlord’s website or a specific email address.
The landlord’s repair record shows that the drain was raised and cleared on 3 August 2023. The landlord acted quickly to remedy the situation. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policy on repairs here.
The landlord completed the repair on the same day it was reported to it. Consequently, we find no maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a blocked drain.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure says that a complaint at either stage 1 or stage 2 should be acknowledged within 48 hours. A stage 1 complaint response should be sent to a resident within 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint response should be sent to a resident within 20 working days. The Complaints Policy and Procedure also says the landlord wants to learn from complaints and will monitor complaints to ensure that response times are achieved. It says that the landlord may refuse to accept a complaint based on certain criteria. It says if the landlord does refuse, it will provide a detailed explanation why.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) from March 2022, the one current for the time of the complaint, says that landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of a complaint even when there is no new information to provide.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 9 August 2023. This was 2 days from his complaint on 7 August 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 21 August 2023. This was 10 working days from the resident’s complaint. The landlord acted within the timescales set out in its policy here.
The resident attempted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 27 November 2023. The landlord did not escalate the complaint. Internally, it said its complaint procedure does not deal with complaints regarding compensation cases. There is no evidence that the landlord told the resident this until its stage 2 response. It should have contacted the resident to tell him why it was not escalating his complaint. The landlord did not act in line with its policy here.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 December 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord formally acknowledged his complaint. This was not in line with its policy.
In the period before sending its stage 2 response, the landlord did apologise for the delay. It did this on 25 April 2024. However, beyond doing this, it did not keep the resident updated. The landlord’s actions were not in line with what was set out in the Code or its policy.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 9 May 2024. This was 96 working days from when the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord did not apologise or acknowledge the delay in its stage 2 response. This does not demonstrate the landlord monitoring complaints to ensure response times are achieved. The landlord did not act appropriately or work to the timescales set out in its policy.
In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged and sent its stage 1 response within its timescales. However, it then took the position it was not escalating the resident’s complaint. It failed to inform the resident why it was doing this. It then escalated his complaint, but sent the response late without acknowledging or apologising for this in the response. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord should write to the resident to apologise for the delay in escalating his complaint. Considering our guidance on remedies, an appropriate level of compensation for the inconvenience caused is £125.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s issues with his building insurance company, including related repairs to the interior of his home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with his windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked drain.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the below orders. This includes paying the resident £325 compensation. The landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his issues with his building insurance company, including related repairs to the interior of his home.
2. Pay the resident £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of issues with his windows
3. Pay the resident £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his complaint.
4. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation of the payments.
5. Write to the resident to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his issues with the building insurance company, his reports of issues with his windows and his complaint.
6. Write to the resident to provide its position on the resident’s windows.