London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202336915)

Decision
Case ID	202336915
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

The resident reported an issue with the heating in the property. She complained to the landlordthat it had not fixed the lounge radiator.She explained the lack of heat in the lounge affected her asthma. There are 2 children living in the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Report to repair a radiator.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report to repair a radiator.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report to repair a radiator

The landlord apologised for the miscommunication and delays to replace the lounge radiator. It acknowledged the failing and offered compensation, which we consider was reasonable redress in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord did not provide its stage 2 response within the timeframes set out in its complaint policy.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report, including the delay to respond to the complaint. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 28 May 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its handling of the complaint. It must pay the compensation direct to the resident by the due date and provide us documentary evidence of the payment made to her.	No later than 28 May 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report, including the delay to respond to the complaint. The landlord must ensure:

the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic
it has due regard to our apologies guidance

No later than

28 May 2026

Compensation

The landlord must pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its handling of the complaint. It must pay the compensation direct to the resident by the due date and provide us documentary evidence of the payment made to her.

No later than

28 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord writes to the resident to update her about the installation of a heating pump to improve the heating in the property.
We recommend the landlord writes to the resident to explain if it would compensate her for the period she was without heat in her lounge.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £90 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s report to repair a radiator is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord that her lounge radiator was not working after it tried to fix the heating in the property.
7 November 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it found poor levels of heat in the lounge and apologised for the delay to take steps to fix the lounge radiator. It said it had provided training to the contractor to prevent this happening again. The landlord arranged to replace the radiator and offered the resident £20 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on the same day. She did not agree with the compensation offered because she said the issue with her lounge radiator had been ongoing for 3 years.
23 November 2023	The landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for the delay in escalating the complaint.
9 February 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It booked an appointment to replace the radiator. It apologised for the delay to replace the radiator and for some of the miscommunication it had with the contractor. It increased its compensation offer to £90 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the delay to replace the radiator.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord replaced the lounge radiator but had not fixed the heating in the property. She said the landlord had not installed a heating pump as the contractor recommended. She wanted compensation for the period where she did not have heat in the lounge.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report to repair a radiator
Finding	Reasonable redress

On 18 October 2023 the resident reported the heating in the property was not working. On the same day a contractor fixed the lounge radiator and “low heat” returned. This was in line with the landlord’s repair policy that says it would repair the issue within 24 hours where there is a loss of space heating. The contractor recommended flushing the lounge radiator to improve the level of heat.
The contractor flushed the radiator 6 days later and found this did not improve the level of heat the radiator produced. The landlord said it would replace the lounge radiator. This was in line with its repair policy that said it was responsible for repairs to heat and hot water in the property.
The landlord arranged to replace the radiator on 17 and 20 November 2023. On 20 November 2023 the resident said the contractor did not arrive with enough time to replace the radiator on both dates. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 December 2023 as the repair was outstanding.
The contractor tried to install the radiator again on 14 December 2023. It said the resident declined this as the radiator did not look the same as the others in the property. She disputed this and said the wall brackets did not fit the radiator the contractor had.
On 15 December 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s explanation that the contractor did not allow time to repair the radiator. However, its delay to acknowledge this and rebook the appointment meant she had to chase the outstanding repair. This likely caused her inconvenience.
Between 20 December 2023 and 19 January 2024, the landlord said the resident refused 3 of its attempts to install a new radiator. It said she refused the work as it was not a visual like for like replacement. However, the resident disputed this for various reasons. She said the contractor had installed an available radiator at another property, and the radiator it needed was not in stock.
Some of the accounts between the resident and contractor were contradictory which impacted our ability to assess the reason for some of the delays to replace the radiator.
On 9 February 2024 the landlord explained it had incorrectly said the resident refused the radiator twice. It later found the radiator was not in stock. It was in line with its repair policy that a repair may take longer than its 20-working day timeframe, where it needed to order a replacement. However, its poor record keeping and communication meant it responded to the resident without understanding what happened. This likely caused her distress and inconvenience as she had to correct its understanding of what happened.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it acknowledged andapologised forthe misunderstandingabout the replacement radiator and the delay it caused. It said it had provided feedback to the relevant teams to improve its service. Itoffered £90 compensation for the distress and inconvenience it causedto the resident. It replaced the lounge radiator on 12 February 2024.
The landlord’s offer of redress and the actions it took to put things right were in line with our dispute resolution principles. The redress it offered was in line with our compensation guidance, for failures and delays that had some impact on the resident that caused her distress and inconvenience. We therefore find reasonable redress in its handling of this part of the complaint, providing it pays the £90 compensation it offered her.
Following the stage 2 response, the landlord found replacing the radiator did not resolve the lack of heating in the lounge. The contractor recommended a new pump to resolve the issue. The resident said she had not heard from the landlord about this. She has also asked for compensation for the period she was without heat in the lounge.
We recommend the landlord writes to the resident to explain if it would install a pump, and if it would pay compensation for the period she was without heat in the lounge.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to provide its stage 1 and stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. This was in line with its complaint policy. It sent its stage 2 response within 65 working days. This was outside of the timeframe of its complaint policy of 20 working days.
When the landlord acknowledged the escalation of the resident’s complaint, it apologised for its delay and offered her £20 compensation. The landlord’s compensation offer put some things right for the resident. However, it offered her compensation prior to its further delay to provide the stage 2 response.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it did not acknowledge the overall delay or apologise. In that time the resident chased the landlord for its response and escalated the complaint again. The delay likely caused her inconvenience.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise for the overall delay and pay compensation of £50, in addition to the £20 it previously offered. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there was a delay that caused her inconvenience. The landlord has provided evidence that it already paid the resident the £20 offer of compensation on 13 December 2023. It must therefore pay the remaining £50.

Learning

The landlord missed an opportunity to set out specific learning points in its complaint response about its delay to escalate the complaint. Doing so would have been in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records. The poor record keeping about the radiator replacement made it difficult to assess the landlord’s actions. It may have also impacted its ability to meets its repair obligations.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was poor at times during its attempts to repair the lounge radiator. Better communication may have avoided inconvenience caused to the resident.