Slough Borough Council (202442937)

Decision
Case ID	202442937
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Slough Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	18 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a house. The ground floor has been adapted as the resident uses a wheelchair. He also requires full time carers.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   • The mould within the wet room of the resident’s property.
   • The electronic door openers at the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the mould within the wet room of the resident’s property is outside our jurisdiction and we have not investigated it.
5. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the electronic door openers at the property.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The mould within the wet room of the resident’s property

7. 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. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about the mould within the wet room of his property.
8. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue. The resident can raise a separate complaint to the landlord if he wants to about the mould. If he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to this complaint, he may be able to refer it to our service for a separate investigation at that stage.

The electronic door openers at the property

9. There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of this repair, and the electronic door openers still do not work. The landlord has failed to follow its published timescales and has not acted in line with its repairs policy in managing the installed adaptations. The landlord’s errors have resulted in the resident being unable to use his front door without the assistance of his carers. This has seriously impacted his independence over a prolonged period. The landlord has also not provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the significant impact caused to the resident.  

Complaint handling

There were delays in the landlord sending its complaint responses. The landlord apologised for its delays. However, it has not provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the impact caused to 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 provided by the landlord’s chief executive (CEO). 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 15 December 2025
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows: £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in its handling of the electronic door openers at the property. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in responding to the resident’s complaint.   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 15 December 2025
	Compensation based on rent order The landlord must pay the resident a compensation payment of 20 percent of his basic weekly rent from 1 August 2023 to the 18 November 2025. We have calculated that the total amount the landlord must pay the resident is £4,943.62. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.   This total of amount of £4,943.62 is broken down as follows: Between 1 August 2022 to 31 March 2023 (34 weeks) of the resident’s weekly rent was £131.05. 20 percent of this rent multiplied by 34 weeks is £891.14 Between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024 (52 weeks) of the resident’s weekly rent was £140.22. 20 percent of this rent multiplied by 52 weeks is £1,458.22 Between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025 (52 weeks) of the resident’s weekly rent was £151.02. 20 percent of this rent multiplied by 52 weeks is £1,570.60 Between 1 April 2025 and 18 November 2025 (33 weeks) of the resident’s weekly rent was £155.10. 20 percent of this rent multiplied by 33 weeks is £1,023.66	15 December 2025
	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the electronic door opening system. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the electronic door opener system at the property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: The most likely cause for the fault in the electronic door system. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective [repair/resolution] to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 15 December 2025
	Case Review A senior manager at the landlord is to carry out a review of its handling of the electronic door openers at the property. The review should: establish why it has failed to keep the system in good working order for such a prolonged period of time. set out how it will respond differently in the future. as an action plan including estimated timescales for specific actions, e.g. staff training, changes to processes etc. The landlord is to provide documentary evidence of its findings in this review to the resident and the Ombudsman by the due date.	No later than 12 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 August 2023	The resident complained he had been waiting 5 years for the landlord to repair the electronic door openers within his property.
24 November 2023	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord apologised for its overall delays in responding to the repair, and in its handling of the complaint. It raised an appointment for its operative to adjust and realign the doors at the property. The landlord said its aids and adaptations team would contact the resident once it had the parts required to fix the electronic door openers.
30 November 2023	The resident escalated the complaint. He was unhappy because the landlord had been telling him it had been waiting for the parts it needed for the last 5 years.
26 March 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delays in handling the repair. The landlord said this had been caused by delays in obtaining the materials it needed, and by its contractor’s availability. The landlord said it fitted the door openers to the front and bedroom doors on 22 February 2024.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and asked us to investigate. He said the electronic door openers still did not work. The resident is seeking for the landlord to: Repair the electronic door opener system. Improve its communication. Improve its disability awareness. The resident has also told us the landlord has not responded to his reports of mould in his bathroom, and he would like the tiles in the wet room to be replaced to address this.

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 mould within the wet room of the resident’s property.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

 

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the electronic door openers at the property.
Finding	Severe maladministration

10. The resident has stated he had issues with the electronic door openers for more than 5 years. He raised a formal complaint on 23 August 2023. We have not seen any evidence he was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put things right first. In the interest of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events occurring from August 2023. This is because we have no evidence of the resident raising this issue within 12 months prior to his formal complaint. Any information we have referred to before this date is for context to the current complaint.
11. The resident said around 2015 the landlord carried out an occupational therapist (OT) report. This resulted in the landlord installing electronic door openers to the front door and on his ground floor bedroom at the property. We have not seen a copy of the original OT report. However, it is accepted this was to allow the resident to move around the property independently. Without these electronic door openers the resident is unable to open the doors and is reliant on his carers to do so. The resident reported that the door openers had stopped working in 2018. He said the landlord had been waiting for parts to fix them.
12. In August 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s continued delay in repairing the electronic door openers within his property. The landlord apologised for its delays in its stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2023. However, it failed to show empathy in its response to the resident’s concerns about how long he had waited for the problems with the door openers to be fixed. The resident was frustrated by the landlord’s as the issue had a significant impact on his independence.
13. We understand sometimes specialist parts can be costly and can take longer to acquire. However the landlord should have:
    • Carried out an inspection of the electronic door opening system.
    • Advised the resident what the issue was.
    • Told the resident when it had ordered the part it needed and why it had taken so long.
    • Provided an estimated timescale for when it would be able to complete the works.
    • Agreed to keep the resident updated periodically if the part was going to take longer than estimated.
    • Looked at whether it could carry out a temporary repair to make the doors easier to use for the resident in the meantime.
14. The landlord said its contractor carried out repairs to the ground floor level door openers on 22 February 2024. 6 months after the resident raised his complaint. This was a significant delay, and it was unacceptable the landlord failed to keep the resident regularly updated during this time. The landlord has also failed to act in line with its responsive repairs policy. This policy states that when it has carried out adaptations to a resident’s home, including where it does to assist those with reduce mobility that its contractor will:
    • Carry out 2 visits per year to complete servicing and cyclical maintenance.
    • Carry out non-urgent repairs of the equipment within 5 working days of the repair being reported.
15. The landlord apologised for its delays in handling this repair in its final response to the resident’s complaint on 26 March 2024. However, this apology is not sufficient to compensate for the impact of the overall delay and lack of communication with the resident.
16. It is unacceptable the resident has not had access to this installed adaptation. This has caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience and has resulted in a loss of his independence over a prolonged period. He has also told us that more than 2 years after his formal complaint; the electronic front door opener still does not work. This is why we have ordered an inspection of the door openers at the property to be completed.
17. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. It says an order for over £1,000 in compensation may be appropriate when the landlord’s errors have had a severe long-term impact on a resident. This is particularly where failures accumulated over a significant period of time. The above situation applies in this case and has resulted in us finding there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the electronic door openers at the property.

 

18. We acknowledge the resident was able to access all the rooms whilst he was within his property. However, his access to the property was restricted since the electronic front door opener stopped working. This is why we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of 20 percent of his basic weekly rent from 1 August 2022 to the date of this report. As per above, we have applied this compensation from 12 months before the resident raised his formal complaint to the landlord. Therefore the landlord must pay the resident £4,943.62.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

19. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 65 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was a significant delay. The landlord should have provided this within 10 working days, to be in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling.
20. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 78 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint. This was a further significant delay which was outside the timeframes set out in the Code. We would expect a landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
21. We note the overall delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint would have inconvenienced him as he was waiting longer than he should have been for a response to his concerns.
22. 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. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from mistakes. This has resulted maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
23. We have ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation in recognition of the impact its errors in its complaint handling had on the resident. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and Communication

24. 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.
    • Gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
25. In this case, the records show the landlord failed to regularly keep the resident updated on the status of this repair. The resident was also having to communicate with the landlord, as well as its different contractors. This in addition to works not being completed in a timely manner, led to the resident’s frustration and dissatisfaction which may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs team had followed our recommendations set out within out spotlight report on repairs and maintenance.