London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202403067)

Decision
Case ID	202403067
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	11 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom ground floor flat and at the time of her complaint, lived with her partner and 2 children. One child had a disability, which meant there was a greater need for heating and hot water to be consistently available. The resident pays a service charge to the landlord for heating and hot water, which is provided through a communal heating system.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to heating and hot water issues in the property.
   2. The landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to heating and hot water issues in the property.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The response heating and hot water issues

4. The landlord delayed carrying out a lasting repair and did not show it had explored whether any other solutions were available. This meant the resident was repeatedly without essential services, which had a significant impact on her household. The landlord offered financial redress due to the distress and inconvenience it had caused. However, the compensation did not go far enough in recognising the landlord’s lack of consideration and poor response to the resident’s individual request for a shower. Its communication was poor and placed the responsibility on the resident to seek updates.

The Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in line with its policy or the Code. It failed to respond to multiple chasing emails from the resident, and its compensation offer did not go far enough to put things right.

 

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. 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 10 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £950 made up as follows: £750 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused by the repeated system failings £100 to recognise the time and trouble it caused by delaying its stage 2 complaint response This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 10 December 2025
3	Inspection Order The landlord must arrange an inspection of the communal heating and hot water system that serves the property. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the communal heating and hot water system and produces a written report with photographs  The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of the heating and hot water issues Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary during the works   If further works are identified, the landlord must write to the resident, providing a timescale to complete the repairs.   The landlord must provide us with a copy of the survey and letter to the resident no later than the due date.	No later than 10 December 2025

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Policy review The landlord could consider reviewing its Repairs policy to ensure its processes are effective in managing recurring repairs. This could include how it identifies repeated repairs within a defined period to enable proactive investigation, and how it communicates with residents when issues persist.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 April 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint about ongoing issues with the communal heating system that provided her property with heating and hot water. Issues had persisted for 3 years, and she had reported issues on at least 9 occasions between November 2023 and April 2024. She asked the landlord to: permanently repair the communal heating system install an electric shower as a solution to the intermittent hot water freeze the heating and hot water service charge compensate her for the distress and inconvenience it caused
10 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said debris in the communal system had caused the issues. Between October 2023 and 8 May 2024, it installed strainers on the system, removed limescale, scheduled a leak detection survey, and planned to replace the filtration unit. The landlord declined to install an electric shower due to the cost and said the service charge would be reviewed at a later date.
20 May 2024	The resident escalated the complaint as the issues had not been resolved. Since October 2024, she said she had reported heating and hot water issues more than 14 times. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to install a shower and asked it for compensation.
26 September 2024	In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated the historic actions it had taken. It confirmed a Heating Interface Unit (HIU) had been ordered to help resolve the issues. It apologised for its delays in resolving the issues and responding to the complaint. It said it had improved its repairs and complaints processes through better monitoring and staff training. It offered her £750 compensation, broken down as follows: £700 for the distress and inconvenience it caused with regards to the heating and hot water issues £50 for its delays in responding to the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us on 26 September 2024. She said the issues were recurring and she wanted the landlord to: permanently repair the communal heating system install a shower increase its compensation offer
Between 7 November and 11 2024	During this time, the landlord installed a new HIU. The resident made further reports of having no heating and hot water.

 

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 heating and hot water issues in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

6. The resident logged a complaint with her landlord in 2022 about heating and hot water issues. We investigated that complaint and considered events between August 2021 and July 2022. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the issues and made an order of compensation. We cannot reconsider matters already investigated, and any reference to them is for context only. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s response to the issues between October 2023 and November 2024.

What we have looked at

7. On 16 October 2023 the resident reported she had no heating or hot water. The landlord attended the same day and resolved the issue. It visited again 3 days later to flush the debris from the communal system. This was in line with its Repairs policy that requires attendance within 24 hours for loss of heating and hot water. 
8. Between 16 November and 14 December 2023, the resident reported at least 6 further losses of heating or hot water. The landlord attended within 24 hours on each occasion and restored the heating and hot water. However, it did not appear to recognise that these were repeated failures affecting a vulnerable household during colder months, when access to heating and hot water was essential. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Its records are unclear as to whether it considered its policy to provide a temporary heater, or any other support. It also did not show it considered the repeated breakdowns and whether there were ways it could mitigate that impact. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
9. On 31 December 2023 the resident reported another loss of heating and hot water. The landlord attended the same day and completed a temporary repair. It could not complete a permanent repair due to a leak within the communal system. Despite identifying the leak on this date, the landlord did not arrange a leak detection survey until 3 May 2024.
10. This delay of 87 working days significantly exceeded the 20-working day timeframe as required under its Repairs policy for non-emergency repairs. This was not reasonable and contributed to the overall delays in undertaking a lasting repair. In our earlier investigation, we identified the same theme where it had completed multiple repairs without addressing the root cause. This likely affected the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve the problem and added to the disruption experienced by the resident.
11. Between 4 January and 15 April 2024, the resident made at least 5 further reports. On 1 occasion, the landlord took 2 days to attend. This was not consistent with its policy that requires it to attend within 24 hours. Its policy also says that it will consider reducing repair times for disabled customers where repairs may affect their health. Given what it knew about the household’s needs, the landlord should have taken further steps to identify a permanent solution. Its failure to act in line with its policy would have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve the issues.
12. On 26 April 2024 the resident logged a complaint due to the poor communication and reoccurring issues. She asked the landlord to complete a permanent repair, install an electric shower, freeze the service charge, and compensate her. She said the lack of facilities posed a risk to her family.
13. In May 2024 the landlord cleared the communal system with limescale remover and completed a leak detection survey. However, its records are silent on the outcome of the survey. The lack of follow-up notes would have made it difficult to track progress or determine whether further remedial works were required. This highlights a weakness in the landlord’s record-keeping, which may have contributed to the overall delays the resident experienced.
14. In its stage 1 response issued on 10 May 2024, the landlord summarised the actions it had taken since October 2023. This included clearing debris from the system, using limescale remover, installing a new heat plate, and arranging a leak detection survey. It refused to install showers across the estate due to the cost implication and would review the service charge at a later date. Further, it wanted to focus on ensuring the communal system worked reliably, but occasional faults may occur.
15. Focussing on the reliability of the communal system was reasonable as it was expected to be the primary source of heating and hot water. However, it did not take the opportunity to consider the family’s individual circumstances and assess, what, if any, alternative remedies could be offered. Instead, it focussed on the cost of installing a shower in all the properties on the estate.
16. Under the Equality Act 2010, landlords are expected to identify and respond to individual needs. However, its response did not demonstrate that it gave due regard to its obligations. Further, it did not reflect the family’s individual circumstances or the impact of being without the facilities. This was not reasonable and would have further added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
17. The landlord’s Compensation policy allows for payments where its service delivery has fallen short of its expectations. It also allows for payments where there are prolonged periods without heating or hot water. Considering this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered offered compensation for the cumulative impact on the household.
18. After the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 May 2024, she reported further issues on 9 September 2024. The landlord attended the same day and ordered a new Heating Interface Unit (HIU). Although it provided her with a point of contact, the landlord did not provide a timeframe for completion. Rather, the resident had to chase it on 3 occasions in September 2024. Considering our previous investigation, where we found the landlord delayed completing a lasting repair and communicated poorly, this pattern reflects a lack of learning. This would have further undermined her trust in the landlord to resolve the issues. The responsibility remained on the resident to seek updates, adding to her time and trouble.
19. On 26 September 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for the length of time the issues had persisted for and promised to install a new HIU. It acknowledged that it should have been more proactive in engaging with the resident to arrange a resolution. It recognised the substantial distress and inconvenience it had caused and offered £700 compensation, given the household included a vulnerable person. Although the HIU was installed on 4 November 2024 to help prevent further issues arising, the resident went on to raise further issues with the heating system. While the landlord attended each time and restored the heating and hot water, there has been no lasting repair.
20. Overall, the landlord failed to complete a lasting repair, despite investigating and attempting other remedial actions. The time taken was unreasonable given the resident made over 13 reports in a 13-month period, prolonging the distress and inconvenience it caused the vulnerable household. While the landlord could not have foreseen this, it should have robust policies and data analysis to identify recurring repairs.
21. The landlord went someway in putting things right. It apologised, offered compensation, and installed a HIU. However, the landlord did not recognise its failings in its response to the resident’s request for a shower, or that it had taken learning from our previous finding of maladministration. In that earlier investigation, we found the landlord delayed resolving heating and hot water issues, repeatedly carried out ineffective repairs without identifying the root cause, communicated poorly, and failed to prioritise the household’s vulnerability. It has not demonstrated how it had improved its approach, given these same themes were present in this complaint. For these reasons, we find maladministration. We have made a further order of compensation in line with both the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

22. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
23. The landlord has a published Complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
24. The resident logged a complaint on 26 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 29 April and issued its stage 1 response on 10 May 2024, 8 working days later. These timescales met its policy and the Code.
25. On 20 May 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 which was acknowledged on 24 May 2024. The landlord’s policy requires it to acknowledge complaints within 2 days but on this occasion, it took 4 days. The delay fell short of the expected service standard.
26. The landlord was due to provide its stage 2 response on 18 June 2024, but it did not do so. Given the Code allows landlords to extend a complaint deadline by 20 working days, it should have contacted the resident to agree a new timeframe.
27. Due to the landlord’s poor communication, the resident was left uncertain about the progress of her complaint. She contacted it on at least 16 occasions before receiving its final response on 26 September 2024. This caused the resident avoidable time and trouble. Its response was 88 working days after the complaint had been acknowledged. This significantly exceeded the timescales set out in both the landlord’s policy and the Code, which requires a response within 20 working days.
28. In its response, the landlord did not provide a clear reason for the delay. Its poor communication placed an unfair onus on the resident to seek updates, causing her avoidable time, trouble, and frustration. In our investigation into the resident’s earlier complaint, we found service failure in the landlord’s handling due to its poor communication and delay in issuing its stage 2 response. This repeated pattern would have reasonable undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.
29. The landlord’s compensation offer of £50 did not go far enough to reflect the prolonged delay or resident’s effort to seek updates. She had to contact the landlord multiple times for a response to her complaint which would have caused her inconvenience, time, and trouble. The landlord also failed to demonstrate it had improved its approach to complaints handling, compounding the resident’s distress. Therefore, we have found maladministration. A further order of £100 has been made in addition to the £50 already offered, totalling £150. This amount is in line with its policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

30. The landlord’s approach to completing a lasting solution to the repair issues was slow. It could consider whether it has adequate systems in place to identify issues that have been reported multiple times across short periods of time to identify and address the root cause. Despite our previous findings on the resident’s previous complaint, it did not show learning or improvement in the handling of the issues, leading to repeated service failures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. We have identified a lack of notes on the leak detection survey and unclear repair records. The landlord should maintain accurate and clear records of the outcome of all repairs to avoid future delays and confusion. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to review its record-keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.

Communication

32. The landlord’s overall communication was poor, which it acknowledged. It could take the opportunity to identify where it missed the opportunity to communicate regularly and clearly with the resident.