London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202447645)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447645

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

4 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom house. The landlord’s records show it is aware the resident has autism. It also recorded they have hip dislocation and mental health conditions. The resident has additionally indicated they have OCD, chronic pain, and fibromyalgia.
On 2 April 2024 the resident reported issues with the ceilings in their property. The landlord carried out 2 asbestos surveys. The second survey found asbestos and recommended removal of the kitchen, living room, and bedroom ceilings.
On 29 October 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. They were unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the asbestos issues in their property. They were also unhappy about its handling of other repairs in the property and it not acting on an occupational therapist’s recommendations.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 December 2024. It apologised for delays, lack of communication, and all the inconvenience and any distress it had caused. It offered £200 compensation.
On 5 January 2025 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. They remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs in their home.
The landlord issued its final response on 17 February 2025. It provided further apologies and offered an additional £300 compensation.
The resident escalated their complaint to us on 24 February 2025. They said the landlord had failed to adequately resolve their complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In their communication with the landlord and us, the resident has suggested this situation had a detrimental impact on their health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, these can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration will be given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
In their stage 2 escalation and contact with us the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a radiator and their boiler. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will treat new matters raised during an ongoing complaint investigation as a new complaint. While it is unclear whether it raised a new stage 1 complaint, it did not respond to these matters in its final response for this complaint.
It is important, in the interests of fairness, that landlords are given the opportunity to investigate and respond to complaints. There is no evidence that the resident’s concerns about their radiator or boiler have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. As such, we cannot investigate these matters as part of this complaint. We would advise that if the resident is still concerned about the landlord’s handling of these repairs then they should raise this as formal stage 1 complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

On 2 April 2024 the resident reported damage to their ceilings. The landlord raised a work order and attended on 5 April 2024 to inspect. It prioritised this repair as routine which has a 20-working day target time limit. This was in line with its repair policy. It determined that the ceiling in the kitchen and lounge should be tested for asbestos. It raised an order the same day for an asbestos test of the kitchen ceiling. It also identified a large crack on the staircase wall and one on the landing that it needed to repair.
The kitchen ceiling was tested for asbestos on 26 April 2024. The tested sample did not have any asbestos.
On, or around, 10 May 2024 the resident raised concerns about the asbestos testing. They asked that the landlord re-attend to test the kitchen again and to test the lounge and bathroom. The landlord agreed and attended on 15 May 2024. This second survey identified asbestos in all 3 ceilings and recommended the landlord replace them.
Both asbestos surveys were prioritised as routine and carried out within the relevant timescale. However, the landlord has not explained why it initially only requested an asbestos test of the kitchen ceiling. This was not in line with its inspection which advised both the kitchen and lounge ceilings be tested. This suggests a possible issue with record keeping and case management.
It is possible that had the first survey taken samples from multiple rooms then asbestos may have been identified at an earlier stage. This may have removed the need for the resident to have raised concerns about the testing or for the landlord to re-attend.
On 10 September 2024 the landlord raised an order to repair cracks in the ceiling. This appears to have been in relation to the cracks it identified on the staircase wall and landing in April 2024. It has not provided any explanation for the delay in raising this order. This is further evidence of poor record keeping and case management.
The landlord’s records show that it attended on 20 September 2024, 27 September 2024, and 9 October 2024 but was unable to gain access. The records show it provided notification of the appointments in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This states it will normally give at least 24 hours written notice. The landlord closed the order on 15 October 2024. This was in line with its repairs policy which states it will cancel repairs where it has been unable to gain access on 2 occasions.
The landlord attended on 7 and 8 October 2024 but was unable to gain access. It recorded this attendance under the work order it had raised in April 2024 for the damaged ceilings. There is no clear detail about what work it intended to carry out when it attended. There is also no explanation for the delay from the second asbestos survey on 15 May 2024 to this further attendance. This is further evidence of poor record keeping and case management.
On 17 October 2024 the landlord raised a work order to repair a leak under the kitchen sink. This was prioritised as routine. There is no evidence that the reported leak was uncontainable or factors to suggest that the landlord’s prioritisation was inappropriate.
On 22 October 2024 the resident reported that water had gotten into a socket under the kitchen sink and they had lost all power on the ground floor of their home. The landlord prioritised this as an emergency and attended the same day. This was in line with its repair policy. It disconnected the socket to allow it to restore power to the rest of the property. Its operative recommended the landlord move the socket to prevent a similar incident occurring again.
On 26 October 2024 the resident reported the leak under the sink had become uncontainable. The landlord raised an emergency work order and attended the same day to stop the leak. Its operative reported that further works were required to repair the cold water supply to the kitchen sink and to replace the kitchen mixer tap.
The resident has told us that, on 26 October 2024, the landlord attended to begin removing the asbestos affected ceilings. The resident has said the landlord additionally removed the bathroom ceiling during this attendance. The landlord has not provided any specific records relating to its attendance on this day. It is not clear why it removed the bathroom ceiling as it had not been part of the asbestos testing.
The resident has also told us they sent their stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 27 October 2024. In their complaint they said:
1. They were unhappy with the delays and communication from the landlord about the asbestos testing and removal of the affected ceilings.
2. The landlord had refused to test or remove the hallway ceiling which could pose health risks to them if they proceeded with plans to fit new lighting.
3. They had been left without a bathroom ceiling until 7/8 November 2024. This had caused dust exposure, aggravated their asthma, and left areas open to potential mould and pest issues.
4. The leak under the sink and the disconnected socket had not been resolved. This was preventing them using their dishwasher or washing machine. They said this was particularly distressing as they relied on these appliances due to their health issues.
5. An occupational therapist had recommended the landlord re-locate the under-sink plug and ensure the kitchen setup accommodated a dishwasher to reduce the resident’s strain from chronic pain. The therapist had also recommended a new bathroom with a shower to support the resident’s mobility needs.
6. They wanted the landlord to finish removing the ceilings on 5 and 6 November 2024 and install the new ceilings on 11 and 12 November 2024. They also wanted the landlord to repair the leak and act on the occupational therapist’s recommendations.
7. The landlord should compensate them for the distress and inconvenience it had caused.
The landlord raised an order for the kitchen sink/tap repairs on 28 October 2024. It prioritised this as an emergency with a 24-hour target time. This was in line with its repairs policy. It attended the same day but was unable to gain access. It re-attended the following day (29 October 2024) and was able to complete the required repairs.
It does not appear the landlord gave the resident 24 hours’ notice of its attendance on 28 October 2024. However, we are mindful this would not be feasible when raising a works order with a 24-hour time limit. Having not been able to gain access it was appropriate for the landlord to re-attend the next day to minimise any delay in it completing the repairs.
On 29 October 2024 the landlord raised a work order to relocate the socket under the kitchen sink. This was prioritised as a routine repair.
The resident has told us that the landlord attended on 6 November 2024 and finished removing the asbestos affected ceilings. The landlord’s records confirm this. The resident told us that the landlord did not put any temporary covering over the exposed ceilings.
On 7 and 8 November 2024 the landlord attended to plasterboard and skim the ceilings in the kitchen and lounge. It also raised a new work order on 7 November 2024 to fix the cracks (staircase wall and landing) in the resident’s home. It attended the same day to inspect the required works and completed them on 8 November 2024.
On 11 November 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to chase up when it would replace the bathroom and bedroom ceilings. The landlord’s records indicate it advised it would raise a new order and be in contact to arrange an appointment. The landlord has not explained why it had not already scheduled the works with the resident or why it was necessary to raise a new work order. This is further evidence of poor record keeping and case management. It is also evidence of poor communications between the landlord and the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 November 2024 to raise additional issues. They said:
1. They were still without ceilings in their bedroom and bathroom. This was making daily life difficult as they could not use those rooms. Dust was triggering their asthma. They were spending more money to heat their home.
2. The landlord had still not tested all the ceilings. They said they had drilled into the ceiling in their walk-in wardrobe before being aware that asbestos may be present. They were concerned this may have disrupted any asbestos in the ceiling.
3. The landlord had caused damage to their carpets, walls, and flooring during the works. It had not cleaned up dust and dirt. The walls and woodwork would need filling and re-painting due to the damage caused.
4. There were issues with the communications from the landlord. Its operatives did not always turn up to appointments or turned up before the scheduled time.
The landlord attended on 14 November 2024 and reconnected the socket under the sink. Its operative told the resident that they could not move or fit an additional socket as the work order was not the correct type. They advised the resident to contact the landlord so it could re-raise the work order under an ‘exclusion’ ticket. We do not consider this was fair in the circumstances. It was for the landlord to correct its failure and the operative should have made the request to it to re-raise the order. This is further evidence of poor case management and communications.
On the same day (14 November 2024) the landlord attended to plasterboard and skim the bedroom ceiling. It also reinstated lights and alarms it had disconnected when doing works in the lounge and kitchen.
The landlord attended on 18 November 2024 to plasterboard and skim the bathroom ceiling. On 19 November 2024 it reinstated the lights it had disconnected to allow the ceiling works in the bedroom and bathroom to take place.
On 29 November 2024 the landlord attended to paint the new ceilings. It painted the lounge, bathroom, and bedroom ceilings. It noted that it would need additional time to complete the painting. It booked this for 3 December 2024. We are mindful that, even from 26 October 2024 (when the landlord began removing the ceilings), these works had taken more than 20 working days to complete. This was outside the landlord’s repair policy. There is no evidence that it had explained to the resident that there would be a delay or that it had been unable to complete the works any sooner.
The landlord also raised an order on 29 November 2024 to relocate the under-sink socket. It is not clear from its records whether it raised this after it had been contacted by the resident or due to feedback from its operative.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 December 2024. It provided a timeline of events for the asbestos-related repairs, the repairs to cracks, the kitchen leak, and the under-sink socket. It explained it would be attending on 3 December 2024 to finish painting the kitchen and on 9 December 2024 to move the socket.
The landlord said it sincerely apologised for the delay, lack of communication, and for all the inconvenience and distress it had caused. It said it had reminded its contractor to ensure that it provided residents with clear explanations about the progress of repairs. It also said it had asked the contractor to remind all its sub-contractors to ensure they carried out thorough checks to prevent delays. It offered £200 compensation for the delays and inconvenience.
In its response it said it had contacted the asbestos team to ask about the delay in removing the ceilings. It said the team had advised they had attempted to contact the resident several times and had asked about their availability but had received no response. The landlord did not provide any further details about when this contact had taken place or what methods the asbestos team used to contact the resident.
The landlord did not provide any explanations for the delay in repairing the cracks or the issues with relocating the under-sink socket. It also did not address the resident’s concerns about the quality of the work that it had carried out.
This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to be open with the resident about what had gone wrong, what matters (if any) had been out of its control, and what it had done (if anything) to try and put matters right when things had gone wrong. Providing explanations of this nature can help residents better understand what has taken place and why. It can also help rebuild the trust between a landlord and a resident.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to have explained what it had asked its contractor to do, it did not acknowledge that it was responsible for ensuring the repairs were completed in line with its policy and that the resident was kept updated where this was not possible. It failed to explain what it intended to do to monitor this in the future. Had the landlord been proactive in setting out its next steps, it would have demonstrated that it was taking the identified failures seriously and was looking to learn from the complaint.
The landlord’s records show it attended on 3 and 9 December 2024 to carry out the outstanding works.
On 5 January 2025 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the process. They remained unhappy with the work the landlord had completed in their home. They reiterated the landlord had caused damage to their carpets, walls, and floors, as well as their furniture and belongings. They said the landlord had still not tested the remaining ceilings or acted on the occupational therapist’s recommendations. They also did not feel the landlord had acknowledged their additional needs and the impact the ongoing issues had on them.
The resident said they wanted the landlord to inspect their home to identify the works needed to repair the damage it had caused. They also wanted the lounge and kitchen ceilings to be replastered as they were not level. They said they still wanted all the ceilings in their home tested for asbestos and for the landlord to carry out the occupational therapist’s recommendations. They wanted the landlord to pay for them to have their home redecorated. They said they were not comfortable with the landlord doing this and wanted to use their own contractor. They said they did not consider the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation was sufficient and asked that it review this.
On 7 January 2025 the landlord sent the resident information about how they could make a claim for damage to property and belongings. This was in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 23 January 2025. The following day it raised 2 work orders. The first was to level the kitchen ceiling and to clean up the edge of a ceiling. The second was to tidy up cables and trunking in the kitchen, bathroom, and lounge. These were prioritised as routine.
The landlord raised additional orders on 28 January 2025. These were to replace a shelf in a kitchen unit, overhaul the kitchen extractor fan, overhaul and adjust an external door in the lounge, and make good the painting in the living room. These were also prioritised as routine.
On 6 February 2025 the landlord marked the orders for tidying up the cables/trunking and overhauling the kitchen extractor fan as complete. The time taken for these repairs was in line with its policy.
The landlord issued its final response on 17 February 2025. It provided similar timeline details as it had given in its stage 1 response. It added that it would only usually remove asbestos if there was damage, the asbestos posed a risk, or it was carrying out works to the affected area. It said that as it “had addressed the primary issues where no asbestos was found, the service did not investigate this further, and you had to request this”.
It is unclear what the landlord was trying to explain or how this clarified why it had not done any further asbestos testing despite the resident’s request. This is evidence of poor communication.
The landlord also said as part of its complaint response that it had raised and completed an order in August 2024 to refix a stair rail. It suggested it had raised this following an occupational therapy attendance. It said there had been issues with communication between its repair teams, its contractors, and the occupational therapy team regarding the full recommendations.
In the information provided by the landlord for our investigation, there is no evidence that it contacted any occupational therapy team. The evidence shows it did, however, speak to a surveyor in its Aids and Adaptations team who said the team had not received any recommendations relating to the resident’s kitchen or bathroom. There is no suggestion in the evidence that the landlord received any recommendations or had failed to pass them to the repairs team or its contractors. It is unclear why the landlord chose not to provide this information to the resident. This is further evidence of poor communications.
As with its stage 1 response, the landlord missed the opportunity to try to rebuild its relationship with the resident by being open and providing clear explanations about why things had gone wrong. It could have used this response to have clarified what it had found during its January 2025 inspection, what works it intended to carry out (and why), what works it had already completed, and when it intended to complete any outstanding works. This may have given the resident some confidence that their concerns had been acknowledged and that the landlord was attempting to resolve them.
The landlord did repeat its apologies for the initial incorrect asbestos test and delays in completing repairs. It offered an additional £300 compensation. This comprised £150 for impact and distress, £50 for communication failures and delays, and £100 for the failure to complete adequate assessments to determine asbestos.
The landlord also said it had learnt from the complaint that it should find alternative ways to identify asbestos without the need for a repair issue. It had also learnt that it should test the entire property for traces of asbestos where there are cracks or disrepair or scheduled works even if the property has given a zero reading. While this would normally indicate the landlord was attempting to improve its services following a complaint, it is concerning that the landlord still did not offer to test the remaining ceilings in the resident’s home. Given the identified learning it should have been clear that carrying out further testing would have been an appropriate remedial action.
The resident escalated their complaint to us on 24 February 2025. They said the landlord’s complaint responses had fallen short of adequately addressing their complaint and the impact on them.
The landlord marked the order to replace a kitchen shelf as complete on 26 March 2025.
The resident contacted us on 2 June 2025 to say they had been without a kitchen light for a month. They said the landlord had replaced the kitchen ceiling again but had not yet painted it or replaced the light. They also said that the landlord had not addressed all the issues identified by its surveyor. They advised they had paid for their home to be re-decorated as they had a baby on the way and could not wait any longer for the landlord to fix the damage. They also said they had continued to have issues with the landlord’s operatives showing up unannounced or for jobs that could not be completed.
The landlord provided us with evidence for this case on 4 June 2025. The repair records showed the order to adjust the external door had been marked as cancelled with no details about when or why it was cancelled. The order to make good the painting in the living room was still showing as active. Further information from the landlord on 14 July 2025 showed it had marked the order to level the kitchen ceiling as complete on 19 June 2025.
We spoke to the resident on 22 July 2025. They said most of the outstanding issues had been resolved when they had paid for their home to be re-decorated. This had been in May 2025. They said the only outstanding issues were the lounge ceiling was still not level and testing the remaining ceilings for asbestos.
In conclusion, it is clear from the available evidence that there were unexplained delays in the landlord’s handling of the required repairs. There was evidence of poor management of the repairs and inadequate record keeping. There was poor communication throughout.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
There is no dispute that the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident. While the landlord did accept it had been responsible for some failures as part of its complaint responses and offered compensation, the resident’s issues continued past the final response. There is insufficient evidence that the landlord has resolved all the outstanding issues. The compensation offer made in its final response did not take account of the additional distress and inconvenience it had caused to the resident. It also did not put in place sufficient remedial actions to fully resolve the complaint.
For these reasons, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs.
The landlord offered £500 compensation (£200 at stage 1 and a further £300 at stage 2) in recognition of its failures and the distress/inconvenience caused. We consider it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £350. This is to cover the period from the final response to the current date and is in line with the awards we can make under our remedies guidance where there has been an adverse impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

According to the landlord’s records it received the resident’s complaint on 29 October 2024. It acknowledged the complaint on 5 November 2024. This was in line with its complaint policy.
It issued its stage 1 response on 2 December 2024. This was 19 working days after the acknowledgement and outside its policy timescale of 10 working days. While its policy states it can extend the response time by 10 working days with the resident’s agreement, there is no evidence that it asked for this.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the resident chased the stage 1 response on 23 and 29 November 2024. On both occasions they were advised the response was with a manager for approval and that the complaint handler would chase it up. It would have been preferable had the complaint handler clarified with the manager when the response was likely to be ready before they responded to the resident. This would have allowed them to give the resident a clear timeline for when they could expect the stage 1 response. This would have managed the resident’s expectations and allowed them to hold the landlord to account if it missed that target.
The resident raised concerns about the stage 1 response on 5 January 2025. The landlord did not treat this as an escalation request. It did not log a stage 2 escalation until 20 January 2025. This was after further contact from the resident.
It was clear from the resident’s contact of 5 January 2025 that they were unhappy with the ongoing issues and were seeking to escalate the complaint. The landlord should have treated this accordingly and logged it in line with its complaint policy.
The landlord issued its final response on 17 February 2025. Had the resident’s escalation request been made on 20 January 2025 then this would have been issued in line with its policy. However, the failure to correctly log the escalation on 5 January 2025 means 10 working days had already passed at the point it did log the request. There was a total of 30 working days between the resident’s escalation request and the landlord issuing its final response. This was outside the 20 working day timescale set out in its policy.
While we accept the delays in receiving the complaint responses was likely to have been frustrating for the resident, the additional time taken by the landlord was minor. There is no evidence this had a significant adverse impact. The landlord did apologise in both of its complaint responses for the delays but did not explain why the failures had occurred. This was a missed opportunity to improve transparency and rebuild its relationship with the resident.
It is unclear from the landlord’s response whether any of the offered compensation was intended to redress the complaint handling failures. We therefore cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord has taken appropriate action to fully put right its failures.
For these reasons, we find there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.
We consider it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failures and the residents time and trouble in having to raise a complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £950. This comprises:
  1. £850 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs.
  2. £100 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint and recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  3. The landlord may deduct from these amounts any sums awarded during its complaints process. The landlord must provide evidence of any payments that it had previously made.
2. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
3. Test any previously untested ceilings in the resident’s home for asbestos. A copy of the asbestos survey report must be provided to us and the resident.
4. Inspect the resident’s lounge ceiling to assess the quality of the previous repair and determine whether any remedial work is required. A written report must be provided to us and the resident following the inspection. This should clearly set out what was inspected, what the findings were, and the reasons for any decisions about the need for further works. It should also include photographs to evidence the inspection.
5. Contact the resident to request any relevant information they have about what redecoration works they had carried out and how much they paid.
The landlord must within 8 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Use its best endeavours to ensure that it has completed all the works identified by the asbestos survey and/or its inspection of the lounge ceiling. The landlord must create and maintain records to demonstrate to the Ombudsman what endeavours it has taken to have the works completed.
2. If the landlord is unable to complete the works within this period it must agree on a time-specific action plan with the resident for any outstanding works.
3. Consider whether it would be appropriate to contribute towards the costs the resident incurred in redecorating their property. The landlord must provide us and the resident with a written explanation for this decision. This must explain what information, policies, procedures, and/or other relevant evidence the landlord considered when reaching its decision.
4. Make any payment it accepts it should make towards the resident’s redecoration costs.