London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202427695)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat in a block. She has young children in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a sink.
   2. How the landlord handed the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a sink
   2. there was no maladministration in how it handled the complaint

We have not made any orders.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the request to install a sink

4. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request, clearly explaining its reasons for refusing. It acknowledged some shortcomings in its communication and apologised for these. It offered alternative solutions to her concerns and provided support with these.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord kept to most of the timelines set out in its policy but was slow to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. It called the resident regularly during the process to make sure it understood her concerns.

 Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The landlord gave a clear explanation of its reasons for refusing to install a sink. It showed it gave the request reasonable consideration and followed the recommendations made by its surveyor. It said there was not enough space to install a sink as it could cause problems with access that may result in injury. It told the resident the toilet was not considered hazardous by not having a sink under the Housing Act 2004 which showed it understood its obligations. It showed it had a good reason for refusing the alteration, in line with its tenancy handbook. It could have explained that its surveyor assessed remotely using inventory photos as the resident told us she was unclear about this.
7. The landlord repeated the specific hygiene concerns the resident had raised in its complaint responses. It used its responses to show that it understood she was prioritising the needs of her child. This showed it was being sensitive to her needs as its complaints policy says it will. It justified its decision with an explanation based on health and safety which was appropriate given the nature of her concern.
8. The landlord acknowledged the resident would be disappointed with the outcome of her request and considered alternative ways it could offer support. It offered to help with the process of applying for a transfer or mutual exchange. This showed it was seeking a positive outcome for her following the complaint. We understand the resident has since made an application for a transfer with the assistance of the landlord.
9. The landlord apologised that it did not explain the alteration request process clearly to the resident. It also said its housing officer should have been more proactive in responding to her initial request. It was positive that it identified these shortcomings and apologised. It showed it was learning from the complaint.

10. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
11. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 11 working days (11 September 2024 to 26 September 2024) which was not compliant with the Code, which allows 10 working days
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 2 working days (15 October 2024 to 17 October 2024) which was compliant with the Code, which allows 20 working days
12. While the landlord was marginally delayed in its stage 1 response, it only slightly inconvenienced the resident. It apologised for the delay which was appropriate.
13. The landlord missed its deadline for acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. She requested the escalation on 30 September 2024. It acknowledged this internally on 2 October 2024 but did not send its acknowledgment to her. A formal acknowledgment was not provided until 15 October 2024, 11 working days later. This was not compliant with the Code, which allows 5 working days for an acknowledgment. While this was a shortcoming, it called her regularly during this time to discuss the issue before investigating at stage 2. It showed it was maintaining a focus on her complaint despite the delay in a formal acknowledgment.
14. The landlord was proactive in its attempts to resolve the issue early, logging regular calls with the resident to discuss the issue. It offered assistance to complete alteration forms and asked if it could help resolve the issue prior to going through its formal complaint investigation at each stage. This was in line with its complaints policy and showed that it wanted to give her a positive outcome.

Learning

15. The landlord’s response to the request was clear and considered. It remained customer focused, recognised where it could have improved and offered alternative support to the resident when it knew the outcome would not be what she wanted. It can reflect positively on the process.
16. The landlord could consider whether the resident’s household would benefit from a vulnerability assessment in line with its vulnerable residents policy following the birth of her premature child, if it has not already done so.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord’s record keeping was generally good. It could consider whether it has sufficient oversight of complaint requests so it can acknowledge them on time.

Communication

18. The landlord communicated well. The attempts to discuss complaints to come to a resolution before investigating fully were appropriate.