Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202338185)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338185

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat on the 12th floor of the building.
  2. On 16 February 2022,the resident’s flat was flooded because of a leak from a pipe in the bathroom. The resident told us that repairs were completed within one week of the leak and that the issue has not reoccurred. The landlord told us that its contractor admitted liability for the leak.
  3. The resident sent compensation claim forms to the landlord on 3 January 2023 and 6 February 2023. On 7 September 2023, the landlord offered the resident £950 in full and final settlement of the claim. The resident asked the landlord to reconsider. On 22 January 2024, the landlord withdrew its previous offer. It offered the resident £180 in full and final settlement of the claim. The resident declined its offer and contacted us. She was unhappy with the way the landlord handled the compensation process and that it reduced its settlement offer.
  4. On 19 April 2024, we asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 by 10 May 2024. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 22 July 2024. It said that its offer of £950 was reduced because laminate flooring was not covered by its insurance policy, as it was not permitted under the tenancy agreement. The revised settlement offer of £180 took into account wear and tear on the remaining items claimed, which totalled £209. The landlord acknowledged that it should have directed the resident to pursue her complaint through its contractors, as they had admitted liability.
  5. On 25 July 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord provided a final complaint response on 18 September 2024. The complaint was partially upheld. It said it was not liable for the leak on 16 February 2022, but it accepted that it had caused inconvenience to the resident by providing an incorrect settlement offer, which it then withdrew. It also acknowledged that the claim should have been directed to its contractors. The landlord offered the resident a discretionary payment of £1,000 compensation, plus £50 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delayed stage 2 response.
  6. The resident told us that she thinks the landlord’s offer of compensation is too low. To resolve the complaint, the resident wants a full refund for all goods and flooring damaged by the leak, and compensation for the way the landlord has treated her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Our investigation considers the issues that have been brought to the landlord as a formal complaint, where the landlord has had the opportunity to respond through its formal complaints process. We expect residents to raise a complaint with the landlord within a reasonable time, which will usually be within 12 months of the events that the complaint is about.
  2. The events that led to the resident making a formal complaint to the landlord began with the leak on 16 February 2022. The resident told us that after the leak, the landlord did not contact her to offer compensation and that she was given incorrect advice about the process. The resident did not raise a complaint about the landlord’s actions within 12 months of the leak, and so the landlord did not have an opportunity to respond within a reasonable period. While the history of the leak gives context to more recent events, our investigation has focussed on the period from 3 January 2023, which was the date the resident first submitted a claim form to the landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions about causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This will usually be dealt with as an insurance claim, or through the courts. Where the landlord’s handling of a compensation claim is the subject of a formal complaint, our role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately by applying its policies, procedures and any other agreements in a reasonable way, taking into account all the circumstances.

Request for compensation

  1. The landlord’s Compensation and Refund Guidance says that the landlord will only pay compensation for damage to a resident’s belongings or decorations as a result of repair failures where it identifies that it has been negligent. Where a contractor causes damage to a resident’s property, the landlord will refer the matter to its contractor and try to make sure it reaches a fair outcome for the resident.
  2. The landlord may in some cases pay discretionary compensation for damage to decorations, but its policy is not intended to compensate residents for a lack of home contents insurance. The landlord recommends all residents take out cover for their personal possessions. Where a resident feels that a compensation claim has not been considered in line with its policy, they have the right to use the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that residents must not install laminate flooring in the property unless it is on the ground floor.
  4. The claim forms submitted by the resident were stamped by the landlord as received on 11 January 2023 and 8 February 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the claim until it sent an acknowledgment on 7 September 2023. It then provided a settlement offer on the same date.
  5. We would expect a landlord to acknowledge and respond to all correspondence within a reasonable time. Some compensation claims are more complicated than others, so the time it takes to make an offer, or to reject a claim, will depend on the individual circumstances of the case. We would expect a landlord to provide updates to residents if it is taking a long time to investigate and process a claim.
  6. In this case, it took the landlord over 8 months to acknowledge and respond to the claim, which in our view is unreasonable. The landlord did not identify this failure, or explain the delay, in its complaint responses. We cannot see any evidence that the landlord took action to investigate or progress the claim until 7 September 2023. There is no evidence that it provided updates or took steps to investigate liability or loss until that date. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to take appropriate action to progress the claim within a reasonable time.
  7. It is also expected practice for a landlord to provide advice to residents about the possibility of claiming on their own home contents policy, and to assist them with this process if required. There is no evidence that the landlord explored alternative ways of making a claim with the resident in this case.
  8. The landlord’s compensation policy is clear that it will only pay compensation where it has been negligent. The landlord has accepted that it failed to identify that the claim should have been referred to its contractor. It also apologised for the error in the calculation of its first offer of compensation. It was open to the landlord to make and withdraw offers during the process of negotiating a settlement and before reaching an agreement. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to issue a new offer that did not include compensation for laminate flooring, as this is banned under the tenancy agreement and should not have been present in the property.
  9. The landlord has accepted that its poor handling of the claim caused avoidable distress to the resident. The landlord used the complaints process effectively to identify what went wrong and to try to put things right for the resident. In our view, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident by reinstating, and slightly increasing, its original offer of compensation. The landlord was not obliged to cover the resident’s total losses under its policies and procedures, but it wanted to restore her trust and to compensate her for the adverse effect of its service failures.
  10. We note that the resident felt she should be compensated for the way the landlord treated her. While we acknowledge that the landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the claims process was poor, we consider the offer of £1,000 to provide reasonable redress, taking into account all the circumstances. This amount is at the highest end of what our remedies guidance suggests for cases where a landlord’s failure has had a significant adverse effect on a resident. We therefore recommend that the landlord contact the resident to re-offer this.
  11. The resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final offer of compensation because it does not fully cover her losses. While we appreciate the landlord’s efforts to take responsibility for providing appropriate redress, we believe it would be reasonable to offer the resident the opportunity to progress her claim with its contractor, who may still be in a position to claim the full amount of the loss via its insurer. We therefore recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss this and to provide advice about the possibility of claiming on her own home contents insurance.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s Housing Complaints Policy and Procedure says that it will acknowledge complaints and complaint escalations within no later than 5 working days. At stage 1, the landlord will respond to a complaint within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days.
  2. There is no evidence that the resident attempted to raise a formal complaint with the landlord before contacting us. It appears from the evidence that the resident may have been unclear about the difference between the landlord’s insurance and complaints processes, and how compensation calculations are approached under each process. This may explain why she did not raise a formal complaint with the landlord before contacting us. We recommend that the landlord review its processes to make sure that it clearly communicates the difference between compensation claims and complaints to its residents where it is appropriate to do so.
  3. The landlord has said that it requested more information from us when it received the complaint on 19 April 2024, and that we did not respond. We wrote to the landlord again on 4 July 2024, asking it to provide a response by 11 July 2024, and it said it would respond to the resident by 19 July 2024. In the circumstances and acknowledging that our own service did not meet our standards on this occasion, we accept the landlord’s explanation for the delay. In the future, we would encourage the landlord to reach out the resident to confirm the complaint, or to obtain any additional information, so that it can respond within the deadline. This will avoid further inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to respond to the resident’s escalation request of 25 July 2024 within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. When we chased the response, the landlord acted quickly to investigate and respond to the complaint. It apologised for the 19-working day delay in its stage 2 response of 18 September 2024, and offered £50 compensation. In our view, the apology and offer of compensation represent a reasonable offer of redress. £50 is within the range of compensation recommended in our remedies guidance where a minor failure has had minimal effect on a resident. We therefore recommend that the landlord contact the resident to re-offer this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s view, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of her request for compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s view, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its complaints handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. contact the resident to re-offer the £1,050 compensation it previously offered her, which is broken down into:
      1. £1,000 discretionary payment it offered for its handling of her request for compensation.
      2. £50 it offered for its complaints handling.
    2. contact the resident to discuss referring the claim to its contractor, and to provide advice about claiming on her own home contents insurance policy, if she has one.
    3. review its processes to make sure that it clearly communicates the difference between compensation claims and complaints to its residents where it is appropriate to do so.