Slough Borough Council (202318429)

Decision
Case ID	202318429
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Slough Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	21 April 2026

Background

The resident has severely impaired sight and suffers with epilepsy. He raised concerns about the landlord’s installation of soft base flooring in the garden. This was laid on top of concrete outside of the resident’s bedroom patio door. The repair to the flooring remains unresolved. The resident exercised his Right to Buy the property in November 2023.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of soft base flooring in the garden.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the installation of soft base flooring in the garden.
2. Associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of soft base flooring in the garden.

There were delays and poor communication in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of the soft base flooring in the garden. On some occasions it did not respond at all. The landlord’s overall assessment and reasons for not repairing the flooring lacked fairness which left the resident who was vulnerable, with a trip hazard in his garden. The landlord has also not provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the detriment its errors caused the resident.

Complaint handling.

There were delays in the landlord sending its complaint responses to the resident. The complaint was also investigated by the same member of staff at each stage. The landlord has not provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the impact its errors caused the resident.

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 20 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of soft base flooring in the garden. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of the residents associated complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident, and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 20 May 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

20 May 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows:

£300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of soft base flooring in the garden.
£250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of the residents associated complaint.

This must be paid directly to the resident, and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

20 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 June 2023	The resident complained about the landlord’s response to his concerns about the soft matt flooring tiles its contractor had installed in the garden. He said: When the flooring was inspected, he was advised it had not been laid properly and would be replaced in the nicer weather. The landlord then said it would not replace the flooring because it had been used outside of its intended purpose which he disagreed with. The flooring had become a trip hazard and wanted it to be fixed.
19 October 2023	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response that said: The flooring had been installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, although it accepted its contractor revisited to apply further glue to secure the tiles to the ground. During its inspection the technical officer observed a boxing bag had been placed on the flooring. That had indicated the flooring had been used as an activity area. Photo evidence also showed a boxing mannequin had been used in multiple positions around the flooring. The flooring had been installed for the sole purpose of protecting the resident if he was to fall. The additional activity would have caused stress on the tiles outside of its intended use. It would not accept liability for the condition of the flooring but offered to repair it at a cost to the resident.
1 November 2023	The resident escalated the complaint. He maintained the flooring had not been installed correctly, and this left him with a trip hazard that had impacted his health.
8 February 2024	We asked the landlord to send the resident its final response.
15 February 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. In this, it advised that it agreed with its response at stage 1.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. He said the flooring had been an adaptation that was not installed to the required standard. This resulted in it becoming a trip hazard. He wanted the landlord to make the flooring safe and to remove the hazard.

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 the resident’s concerns about the installation of soft base flooring in the garden.
Finding	Maladministration

The evidence shows that the resident continually and consistently raised concerns about the installation of the soft base from July 2021 and for that reason we have assessed matters from this date until 15 February 2024, when the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
The landlord installed soft based flooring tiles outside the resident’s ground floor bedroom. This was following an occupational therapist (OT) report.This recommended an automated door opening system from his ground floor bedroom into the garden. This was so the resident could gain quick access to fresh air to help prevent his seizure developing into a full convulsion. The landlord agreed to install a soft base flooring outside this exit to assist the resident should he fall on the ground during a seizure.
The landlord’s records are silent of when the soft base flooring was installed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have ensured that accurate records relating to these works were maintained.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete a routine (non-urgent) repair within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord twice in July 2021 to report his concernthat the flooring had not been installed correctly and the edges of the tiles were raised. The landlord failed to respond. This was unacceptable. The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable, and he had raised concerns about a potential trip hazard.
The landlord signed off the repairs to the soft base flooring on 20 December 2021. This was 6 months after the resident raised the repair which should have been completed within 20 working days, in line with its repairs policy.
The resident reported that the soft flooring had become loose again and had become a trip hazard in June 2022. He reported this again in September 2022. We have not seen any evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s reports. The landlord should have responded to his concerns in line with its repairs policy. Its failure to do so caused the resident frustration as he was chasing for the landlord to resolve the ongoing repair.
In March 2023 the resident’s doctor reported the soft base flooring had become a trip hazard in the garden. It was right the landlord’s contractor who originally installed the flooring inspected it in April 2023. Although, this was a significant delay of 9 months after the resident had raised the issue.
The resident told the landlord the flooring had not been installed correctly, and this had been accepted by its contractor during a conversation. He said the contractor told him the flooring would be refitted in nicer weather. We have not seen any evidence to corroborate what the resident said the contractor told him. Where there is a lack of evidence, we as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what happened.
However, there is evidence that the contractor told the landlord the resident’s son had been using the area as a gym and boxing matt. The contractor concluded the resident had not been using the area for its intended use which was to assist him in the event of a fall during an epileptic episode. Based on the contractor’s assessment, the landlord concluded that in the circumstances it would not be responsible for the repairs. It offered to complete the repair at a cost to the resident which he was asked to pay in advance.
The landlord disputed that the flooring was not installed correctly. Although it accepted it had previously visited the property to add further glue to secure the tiles following its original installation. It is therefore unclear how the landlord concluded that there was no issue with the original installation.
The landlord refused to accept liability for the repair based on a photograph taken during its inspection that showed a boxing mannequin had been moved around the flooring to alternate positions. It also said there was evidence the flooring had been jet washed. Within the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord may decline repairs where it considers the resident may have caused or contributed to any damage caused.
We have seen no evidence the landlord told the resident he could only use the soft base flooring in the garden in the event of a medical episode. There is also no evidence the resident was told he could not jet wash the area. The landlord also failed to consider the resident had repeatedly said the flooring kept getting loose and the edges of the tiles curled up during the warmer months. He had been referring to this this for 2 years from its initial installation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the resident’s repeated concerns when assessing its liability for the repair.
The landlord’s overall response to the resident’s concerns was inappropriate. It delayed in its communication, failed to listen to the resident, and focused disproportionately on the photograph taken by its contractor. As a result, the resident who was severely partially sighted and suffered with epilepsy was left exposed to a trip hazard in the garden for a prolonged period. The landlord failed to put things right during its complaints process and missed the opportunity to learn the lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation.
The resident exercised his Right to Buy the property in November 2023. He would have agreed to purchase the property in its condition at that time. This would have included with the outstanding repairs to the soft base flooring. Therefore, the landlord would not be responsible for any repairs to the flooring after November 2023 and is the reason we have not raised an order to inspect and/or repair this.
However, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation, in line with our Guidance on Compensation. This is with the aim of putting right the distress and inconvenience that was caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of the soft base flooring.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy timescales comply with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. However, these responses were issued 82 working days and 63 working days late and required our intervention for the landlord to send its final response to the resident.
It is unacceptable the same member of staff at the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2. This is also a departure from the Code which says the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. This is to ensure the landlord’s second review of the resident’s complaint can be held to be impartial, fair, and transparent.
The landlord’s overall delays and error in its handling of the resident’s complaint have been significant and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The resident was left waiting for longer than he should have been for a response to his concerns. The landlord then failed to acknowledge its errors. Therefore, it has not acted in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from mistakes. To put right the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures, we have ordered compensation in line with our Compensation Guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

In this case, the landlord’s complaints process failed to comply with the Code. We would encourage the landlord to ensure its current internal complaint handling processes are compliant with the Code. The landlord should also ensure that its staff who handle complaints are given suitable training, including that stage 1 and stage 2 complaints should not be investigated by the same member of staff.

Communication

The landlord also failed to respond to some of the resident’s communication. This left him chasing the landlord which left him feeling frustrated and dissatisfied. This may have been avoided if the landlord had responded to him in timely manner.