London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202427344)

Decision
Case ID	202427344
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	31 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat. The tenancy started in January 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for major works or non-essential repairs to the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

Our investigation found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of responsive repairs to the property.
2. No Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for major works or non-essential repairs to the property.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord completed all of the responsive repairs it committed to completing. However, some of the repairs were not carried out within expected repairs timescales. The landlord recognised some of the failings we identified in its handling of responsive repairs. But its offer of redress in relation to this matter was inadequate.
The landlord was not obliged, in this case, to approve major works / essential works where the required standard was already met, or the work was the resident’s responsibility to complete.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, it did not follow its own complaint process for extending complaints, and it failed to address all the points the resident raised. The landlord recognised some of the failings we identified in its complaint handling. But its offer of redress was inadequate.

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 28 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £500 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s handling of the responsive repairs to the property. £200 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s complaint handling. 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 28 November 2025
3	General Order The landlord must write to the resident setting out its position regarding those aspects of the complaint it did not address during its own complaint investigation. This includes the resident’s requests for a new bathroom, a new toilet, and an electric shower. And her request for copies of inspection and safety documentation and compensation for damaged belongings.	No later than 24 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 March 2024	The resident emailed the landlord, reporting multiple repairs issues.
12 April 2024	The resident emailed the landlord expanding the list of outstanding issues.
14 June 2024	The resident raised the stage 1 complaint. The resident said the landlord had not responded to her email of 12 April 2024 and expressed dissatisfaction about unresolved repairs.
25 June 2024	The resident emailed the landlord on 25 June 2024 clarifying her complaint was about damp, mould, leaks, unwanted electrical wiring, and all of the issues set out in her email dated 12 April 2024. The resident said she was open to discussing compensation with the landlord.
25 June 2024	The landlord upheld the stage 1 complaint. The landlord said it that it had not received the resident’s email of 12 April 2024 due to an email routing issue. But said it had now progressed matter, after receiving a copy of her email 14 June 2024. It listed all the repairs it had scheduled for completion. But said some of her requests would need to be assessed as major improvement works, which would require an inspection. It asked her to let it know if she wanted it to arrange this. It offered the resident £25 compensation in relation to the email routing issue as a goodwill gesture. And said it had raised the matter with its information technology (IT) team to investigate why this happened and to prevent this happening again.
28 June 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident was dissatisfied with the stage 1 complaint outcome. She said the landlord had failed to take immediate action to address health and safety hazards in the property and it had not completed repairs within expected timescales. She maintained that its complaint investigation had been unfair, its communication had been poor, and she would be seeking compensation.
7 July 2024 to 23 July 2024	The resident emailed the landlord several times, citing continued unresolved repairs, health and safety hazards, and poor communication. She requested immediate completion of all outstanding repairs and for the landlord to carry out various improvements to the property. She said the landlord should provide her with copies of inspection and safety documentation related to the property. And pay compensation for damage caused to her personal belongings and for poor living conditions.
20 August 2024	The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response, which it partially upheld. The landlord: Said it had followed proper procedures and had acted impartially. But accepted there was delay and poor communication. It accepted that it ought to have addressed some of the repairs prior to the resident moving in. Listed the repairs it had completed, the repairs that were still to be completed, and the repairs that it would not complete as they were the resident’s responsibility or already met the required standard. Clarified that it had removed grilles from the balcony because they did not comply with fire safety regulations. But said it had applied anti-climb paint and suggested she could install closed circuit television (CCTV) with its permission. Offered £125 compensation, which comprised £50 for distress and inconvenience, £50 for time and trouble, and £25 for the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response.
15 October 2024	The resident escalated the complaint to us, stating the landlord had failed to complete repairs on time, handled the complaint poorly, acted dishonestly, ignored key issues, communicated poorly, withheld requested information, and did not provide adequate redress. She said the landlord should complete all of the outstanding repairs, provide the documentation she had requested, and pay more compensation.
22 October 2025	The resident told us that the landlord did complete all the repairs it said it would. However, the flow of water from the shower was not fully resolved and is the subject of a new stage 2 complaint, which the landlord is presently considering.

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 responsive repairs to the property.
Finding	Maladministration

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the property in repairs. And will keep the installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating, hot water, and for sanitation in repair and working order. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days.
The resident notified the landlord on 20 March 2024, via email, of various repairs to the property. This included repairs to faulty internal door locks, a toilet flush issue, faulty or redundant electric switches, low water pressure, drafts, and a leak causing damage. The landlord completed some but not all repairs within the landlord’s 20 working day expected timescale, for routine repairs. For example, the landlord:
1. Renewed the locks on the bathroom and toilet doors on 12 April 2024 within the expected repairs timescale. But raised a “recall” on 30 May 2024 after the resident reported continued issues with the toilet lock. The repair was not fully resolved until 9 July 2024, as acknowledged by the landlord in the stage 2 complaint response. This represented a delay of 8 working days from the date of the recall.
2. Repaired the toilet leak on 22 April 2024, which was slightly outside its expected timescale for routine repairs. The resident reported a new issue with the toilet flush on 5 July 2024, which was fixed by the landlord on 22 July 2024 within the expected repair timescale.
3. Attended the property on 11 April 2024 to address the resident’s concerns about faulty / redundant switches in the kitchen, within the expected repairs timescale. The landlord’s operative found the spur was in working order. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude there was no further action required.
4. Asked the resident on 27 March 2024 to clarify the source of the drafts. The resident replied on 12 April 2024 requesting an inspection as she was unsure. But it did not receive the resident’s email until 14 June 2024 due to an email routing issue. Although this led to an unavoidable delay progressing this matter, it was a further 26 working days before the landlord inspected the property. This was unreasonable given its duty to address hazards such as excess cold, under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. But it did raise a works order in a timely manner following its inspection, to overhaul 18 windows and the back door to remedy the drafts. This was completed with the expected repairs timescale on 7 August 2024.
5. Inspected the leak into the bedroom on 22 April 2024. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of the inspection report, so the extent of the leak is unclear. However, the landlord did raise a works order the day after its inspection, to investigate a possible leak from the roof. It is not in dispute that the leak was fixed. However, it is unclear from the information provided by the parties when this was or the extent of the damage. This has limited our ability to fully assess the timeliness of the repair or the likely detriment to the resident. The resident’s request for compensation for damage to belongings is considered later under the complaint handling section of this report.
6. Investigated the resident’s reports about low water pressure on 22 April 2024. The landlord’s operative did not identify any issues with water pressure and documented it was “just the type of system”. However, no further investigation or follow-on works were raised to address the flow of water from the shower, until the resident chased the landlord about its intentions on 18 August 2024. The resident maintains that the landlord admitted it had not raised the follow-on repair correctly, so raised a new job. This was an appropriate course of action if there had been an error.
7. Attended the property on 10 September 2024 with a new shower hose and shower head, which it attached to the bath mixer tap as a temporary fix. It reattended in a timely manner on 16 September 2024 to try to find a permanent solution. It was unfortunate it could not identify a permanent solution, due to the location of the storage tanks in relation to the shower. So, it committed to escalating the matter internally. This was an appropriate course of action in the circumstances. The landlord’s handling of the matter from this point is the subject of a new complaint currently under investigation by the landlord.
The resident referenced additional property issues in her email of 12 April 2024, which as previously stated, it did not receive until 14 June 2024. This included repairs to extractor fans, a blocked drain, repairs to the door intercom, and incorrectly labelled electrical sockets. The landlord attended to some but not all of these repairs within its expected response timescales. For example:
1. The landlord raised a works order to repair the extractor fans after receiving the resident’s email. The kitchen extractor fan was repaired on 9 July 2024, which was within expected repairs timescale. The bathroom extractor fan was repaired on 31 July 2024, which was just outside the expected repair timescale.
2. We could not identify any repairs recorded for blocked drains in the repairs logs, over the timeframe of the complaint. However, the resident was informed by the landlord on 25 June 2024 in the stage 1 complaint response, that it would unblock the balcony drain on 4 July 2024. It acknowledged in the stage 2 complaint response, that the job was not completed until 7 August 2024. This represented a delay of 18 working days.
3. We could not identify any repairs recorded for the intercom in the repairs logs, over the timeframe of the complaint. However, the landlord told the resident on 25 June 2024 in the stage 1 complaint response, that it had booked an appointment for 2 July 2024 to repair the intercom. The landlord noted on 20 August 2024 in the stage 2 complaint response, that it needed to return to finish the job, which the resident confirms it did. However, we have been unable fully assess the timeliness of the repair, as we do not know what additional work was required, or when the job was completed.
4. The landlord raised a works order to investigate the resident’s reports about incorrectly labelled electrical sockets on 24 June 2024. The landlord attended in a reasonable timeframe on 9 July 2024 and resolved the matter.
The resident reported plaster peeling off the walls on 24 June 2024. The landlord tried to arrange an inspection in a timely manner on 27 June 2024 for the same day. It was understandable the resident said the appointment was too short notice. The landlord rearranged the appointment in timely manner for 2 July 2024, which it attended. However, it did not have sufficient time to hack off the affected plaster and repaint the walls, so had to make a follow-on appointment. This was reasonable given the nature of the work.
The landlord made an appointment with the resident for 16 August 2024 to hack off the plaster and paint the walls. It was unfortunate the resident cancelled this appointment, which created some unavoidable delay in the landlord completing this work. The landlord rearranged the job for 28 October 2024, which was when the job was completed. It is unclear if an earlier appointment could have been arranged. The landlord did not complete the repair within the expected response timescale, but there was mitigation due to the resident’s availability and the scale of the work required.
The resident reported to the landlord on 11 July 2024 that the front door was not fire safe. The landlord by law had to address any reported faults to fire doors promptly, usually within a few days to a week. The landlord inspected the door within a week, resulting in it raising a works order to fit a new door closure and fire strips. The landlord completed this job on 19 August 2024, within its expected timescales for routine repairs. But it would have been reasonable for the resident to have expected this job to have been completed in a timelier manner, given the elevated fire risk.
The landlord was responsible for treating mould arising from disrepair, structural issues, inadequate heating, and inadequate ventilation. Under the Landlord and Tenant act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 it had to respond promptly to reports of mould, especially where this could pose a health risk. The landlord completed a mould treatment on 28 October 2024, which suggested it accepted there was mould in the property, for which it had some responsibility. But the resident had been reporting mould since at least June 2024, which was also the date she put the landlord on notice, of the impact this was having on her child’s health. The landlord ought to have offered a mould treatment earlier than it did.
It was positive that the landlord recognised during its own complaint investigation that there had been failings in its handling of repairs, that some of the repairs ought to have been addressed prior to the tenancy starting, and that its communication had been inadequate. And that it asked its IT team to investigate the issue with email routing, given the resident explained this was not the first time this had happened.
It tried to put things right by apologising for the failings it identified, made a commitment of action to complete outstanding responsive repairs, and offered £125 compensation in recognition of the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, trouble, and for issues with email routing. However, the landlord did not identify all of the failings we identified and its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings we identified.
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of responsive repairs to the property.
The landlord is ordered to pay £500 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s handling of the responsive repairs to the property. This compensation is in line with our remedies guidance, published on our website.

Complaint	The landlord’s response the resident’s request for major works or non-essential repairs to the property.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident emailed the landlord several times during the landlord’s internal complaint process (between 20 March 2024 and 11 July 2024), asking it to make a number of non-essential additions or improvements to the property. This included the installation of more electrical sockets, a shower curtain bar, replacement of toilets and sinks, a full bathroom refurbishment, an electric shower, and security measures for the balcony. The landlord considered the resident’s requests, when it inspected the property on 22 July 2024.
The landlord was not obliged to carry out non-essential improvements to the property. Faulty components were not required to be replaced if they could be repaired. However, compliance with the Decent Homes Standard was required, including keeping the property free of serious hazards and providing modern facilities and services.
It was positive the landlord arranged to inspect the property on 22 July 2024 to help it come to an informed decision, concerning the resident’s requests. It satisfied itself upon inspection, that the existing sink and the number of electrical sockets in the property was compliant with the Decent Homes Standard. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to was conclude in the complaint response, that there was no further action necessary. However, it did not address the resident’s request for a new bathroom, toilet, and electric shower, leaving these matters unanswered. This is considered later under the complaint handling section of this report.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that sanitary accessories such as sink plugs and toilet seats were the responsibility of the tenant. It is reasonable to conclude this would also cover shower curtain bars. So, we do not find failing in the landlord telling the resident this would be her responsibility to install.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the security of the balcony in the stage 2 complaint response. It clarified that it had removed grilles from the balcony prior to the tenancy starting, as these had been installed by the previous tenant and did not comply with fire safety regulations. The landlord showed it was being supportive by attending the property on 21 August 2024 to apply some anti-climb paint and by suggesting the resident could apply for permission to install CCTV. The landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
Therefore, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for major works or non-essential repairs to the property.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) set out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). The landlord has a published complaints policy, which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of response timescales.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 14 June 2024. The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint acknowledgement on 24 June 2024, which was 5 working days late. However, the landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response a day after its acknowledgement, so responded within the expected timescale.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 28 June 2024. The landlord did not immediately log a stage 2 complaint as it considered the complaint was still in the stage 1 resolution phase. The landlord sent the resident an email on 5 July 2024 asking her to confirm which matters were still outstanding, so it knew what to consider in terms of a formal response. This was an appropriate course of action if the landlord was unclear.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 July 2024 asking it to make contact so she could clarify the reasons for her complaint. The landlord did not respond. This put the resident to avoidable time and trouble having to email the landlord on 11 July 2024, to explain the complaint and resolution she was seeking. The landlord did not agree the scope of the complaint with the resident following this or send a stage 2 formal acknowledgement. This was contrary to the Code and left the resident unclear of the landlord’s intentions.
The resident was put to additional time and trouble, chasing the landlord for the stage 2 acknowledgement on 19 July 2024. The landlord explained later the same day, that it was unable to provide the resident with a timeframe for issuing the stage 2 complaint response due to a backlog of complaints. But said it would take any delays into consideration when issuing the final response. The landlord should have provided the resident with our contact details if it was unable to confirm when the complaint would be considered. This would have been in line with the Code.
The resident chased the landlord again on 4 August 2024 for the complaint outcome. The landlord told the resident on 6 August 2024 that it still had a high workload but would be in touch as soon as it could. The landlord missed a second opportunity to provide the resident with our contact details. The resident chased the landlord again on 15 August 2024. The landlord’s corporate complaint’s team said it would get a member of the landlord’s complaints team to call her back. However, no further contact was received from the landlord until it issued the stage 2 complaint response on 20 August 2024.
The landlord was required to issue the stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days, however, it was permitted to extend this to 40 working days if it needed more time. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response within 37 working days of the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. However, we cannot say the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on time, as it did not send the resident a letter of extension.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide reasons for any decision. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s requests for a new bathroom, a new toilet, an electric shower, for copies of inspection and safety documentation, or the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings. It was a failing that the landlord did not address any of these points within its complaint response and left these matters unresolved for the resident.
It was positive that the landlord recognised during its own complaint investigation that there had been delays in its complaint handling at stage 2, for which it offered apologised and offered £25 compensation. However, the landlord did not identify all of the failings we identified and its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings we identified.
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s complaint handling (in line with our remedies guidance). The landlord must write to the resident confirming its position in relation to the outstanding matters referenced at paragraph 30 above.

Learning

Our investigation found examples of the landlord trying to learn from complaint outcomes. For example, the landlord requested its IT team investigate the reason for email routing issues, so this could be avoided in future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

While it was possible to make a decision in this case based on the evidence seen, there were gaps in the evidence provided by the landlord, as referenced in the report. For example, the landlord did not provide us with copies of its inspection records. The landlord needs to identify the reason for these gaps, so this can be avoided in future cases.

Communication

The landlord’s communication in this case fell short, which the landlord acknowledged during its own complaint investigation. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident concerning the status of repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs team had followed our spotlight recommendation.