London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202432413)

Decision
Case ID	202432413
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 November 2025

Background

1. The landlord became aware that aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding was present on the resident’s block of flats and notified occupants. Following this, the resident complained. She said that she and her daughter did not feel safe in the property and wanted to know why the cladding had not been removed in 2018, as the landlord had previously stated.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns about the safety of the building’s cladding.
   2. Works to remove the cladding.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the safety of the building’s cladding.
4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the complaint.
5. The resident’s complaint about the works to remove the cladding is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary of reasons

Concerns about cladding

6. The landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about the safety of the building and to keep her informed about the actions it was taking. It provided as much information as was available at the time of its response.

The complaint

7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint outside of its expected timescales. It apologised to the resident, identified learning and offered her compensation. These were reasonable remedies.

Works to remove the cladding

8. The works to remove the cladding took place after the landlord completed its complaint handling. We do not have jurisdiction over this matter until the landlord has had an opportunity to address any formal complaint the resident may raise about the cladding removal.

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.

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord told resident that it would investigate post complaint response why the cladding remained after 2018. It should consider providing the resident, and other residents if it has not done so already, with an update in respect of its investigation. This may reassure the resident in respect of the safety of the building and alleviate any outstanding concerns she may have.
The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered her, if it has not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
January 2024 – August 2024	The landlord undertook routine investigations and surveys of the resident’s building, during which it was identified that ACM cladding was present in several areas.
2 August 2024	The landlord notified residents in the block of the presence of ACM cladding and the need for further investigations. It advised residents: That fire marshals would patrol the building 24/7. That the building remained safe to live in, but in the event of a fire, residents were to evacuate immediately and move away from the building. To be extra vigilant about the risk of fires and not to leave unauthorised items in the communal area. The landlord offered residents the opportunity to speak to an officer if required and said it would write to provide more information in a few weeks.
12 September 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that the ACM cladding was supposed to have been removed in 2018 but was now aware it remained around the building. She said the landlord had failed in its duty of care and that her daughter’s anxiety had increased as she was scared something may happen. The resident requested to be re-housed as soon as possible, as she did not trust the landlord to make the building safe. She believed that the residents of the block had been left in a dangerous situation by the landlord.
26 September 2024	The landlord responded. It said: It was investigating why the cladding was not fully removed in 2018 and would share the results with the resident when completed. It was sorry to hear of the impact the resident said the matter had on her and her daughter. It would share copies of the fire risk assessments with the resident.  That the building was safe to live in with the additional safety measures it had put in place, and that this opinion was shared by the fire engineers and the fire brigade. It was going to appoint an external company to start the works quickly. It had asked the building safety officer to contact the resident to discuss her concerns and her request to move to another property.
7 October 2024	The resident escalated her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said a building safety officer cannot help with housing issues and that the matter was affecting her mental health, work and social life. She said she had been told to contact the letting team regarding rehousing.
21 November 2024	In its response to the resident, the landlord said it was unable to draw conclusions on the impact to the resident’s health, as this was best dealt with via a personal injury claim. It provided more information about the process of how the cladding was found to be unsafe and the communications it had with residents to advise them of the work to rectify the problem. It provided her with a timeline of events, including investigations of the cladding and meetings with residents and other stakeholders. The landlord said it had taken immediate action to ensure the safety of all residents by putting safety measures in place, and did not uphold the complaint.   The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and offered her £25 compensation. The landlord also offered her £25 discretionary compensation to reflect that the decision may be disappointing to her.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She was unhappy that not all of the cladding was being replaced and said the landlord was unable to prove the building was safe. She told us that the building regulator had refused to give the building a safety certificate as it is not safe, and that the landlord had not made her aware of this or put safety protocols in place. She said the landlord had not taken responsibility for the cladding remaining on the building since 2018.

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 landlords handling of works to remove the cladding
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

9. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.
10. As the works to remove the cladding happened after the landlord provided the resident with the final complaint response, we have no power to investigate this point. The resident has told us that she may make a new complaint to the landlord. She has the opportunity to raise a new complaint to us if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Complaint	The landlords handling of the resident’s concerns about the safety of the building’s cladding
Finding	No maladministration

Investigation scope

11. The resident has told us that the Building Safety Regulator has refused to give the building a safety certificate and that the landlord has not made her aware of this, nor has it put in place any further safety protocols.
12. These complaint issues are clearly important, but they arose after the landlord sent its final complaint response and therefore it has not had the chance to respond to them. Because of that we have no power to investigate these matters. The resident has the option of making a new complaint to the landlord about these issues, and can then bring her complaint to us if she is dissatisfied with its response.
13. The resident has also told us that the matter of the cladding remaining on the building between 2018 and 2024 has caused her, and her daughter, fear and anxiety, and has affected their mental health. The resident wants the landlord to offer compensation for this.
14. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.
15. This investigation will focus on events up until November 2024, when the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident.

Concerns about the building’s cladding

16. The landlord has not provided any internal policies in respect of how complaints about cladding are handled. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on dealing with cladding complaints sets out 3 actions for landlords to consider:
    1. What are the landlord’s long-term plans for compliance with the guidance, and are these fair and reasonable?
    2. How was this communicated with shared owners / leaseholders regarding the situation, and was this communication appropriate?
    3. How has it responded to the individual circumstances of the resident?
17. This investigation will consider whether the landlord has met these expectations when addressing the resident’s complaint.
18. The landlord said it became aware that ACM cladding remained on the building during routine inspections. It said a previous contractor had confirmed the cladding was removed in 2018, but further tests carried out in 2024 showed this was only partly true, and ACM was still present in some areas.
19. The landlord told the resident that it had implemented short-term measures to minimise fire risks before cladding removal work began. It explained the timeline of communications with residents, including sending letters and holding in person meetings, and outlined the strategy to improve safety. These measures included:
    1. An increase in the number of fire marshals at the building.
    2. A ban on smoking and the storage of flammable items on balconies.
    3. A ban on e-bikes, scooters and battery powered vehicles inside the building.
    4. Restrictions to parking in areas adjacent to the building.
20. The landlord said that all flats within the building had been visited by building safety officers by September 2024 and that by October 2024, a further fire risk assessment had been completed, which confirmed the appropriateness of the safety measures it had put in place.
21. The landlord has provided evidence to support its response and the actions it said it had taken prior to the resident’s complaint. The letters it regularly sent to all residents from August 2024 contained updated information around the progress of the works and the safety measures in place, to provide reassurance to residents.
22. The landlord met with residents and other stakeholders in September 2024, to discuss any concerns they had about the safety of the cladding and planned works to remove it. The meeting minutes show that residents queried why the cladding had not been entirely removed in 2018. The landlord told residents that building regulations had changed since that time, but it intended to investigate what had happened.
23. The landlord explained this in its complaint response. The records show that at that time, it provided explanations and details about why the cladding remained on the building.
24. The landlord acted promptly when it became aware of the presence of ACM cladding. While it is understandable the resident was concerned, the landlord took steps to reassure her that the building was safe and provided her with information about how it would resolve the issue. This was consistent with its fire safety policy, which emphasises the importance of engaging effectively with residents.
25. The resident told us she remains concerned that the landlord has not fully explained to her how the cladding came to remain on the building. She mentioned media reports from 2018 which said the unsafe cladding had been removed, and said she was shocked to find out it remained.
26. The landlord said it would investigate why some of the cladding had not been removed. The resident says that the landlord has not provided an update on that investigation post complaint response.
27. The landlord did give the resident some information about the cladding remaining. It said that a contractor had told it in 2018 that unsafe ACM had been removed, but that following a change of building regulations, it conducted further tests on the building which showed further work was required.
28. The landlord acted reasonably in providing this information to the resident, as it was what was known at the time. However, it is unclear if the more detailed investigation into why cladding remained has now been completed by the landlord and if that information has been shared with the resident. A recommendation is made above about this.
29. Overall, the landlord’s actions when communicating with the resident were fair and reasonable. The resident’s concern about the safety of the building whilst cladding remained present was understandable; however, the landlord took positive steps to provide her with reassurance around the actions it was taking to investigate and remove it. It took positive action to ensure the safety of the resident and appropriately signposted her in respect of her request for rehousing. The landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns was reasonable and in line with its fire safety and the Ombudsman’s guidance, when taking into account the complex circumstances when the cladding was discovered.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

30. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge stage one complaints within 2 to 5 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It says a resident should then receive a formal response to stage one complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, unless an extension is required. The landlord’s policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code.
31. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints within the stated timescales. However, it responded to the stage one complaint one day late, and the stage 2 complaint 14 days late. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered her £25 compensation for its complaint handling and £25 discretionary payment, in recognition of the decision not being what the resident would have hoped for. It also told the resident it had expanded its complaints team so that it could improve the service it provides to residents in the future.
32. The amount of compensation and apology offered by the landlord aligns with its compensation policy and were reasonable remedies for its delays.

Learning

Record keeping and communication.

33. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was good. It provided her with detailed complaint responses and copies of the fire safety information she requested.