London Borough of Ealing — case 202325804

Decision Case ID 202325804 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Ealing Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 2 February 2026 Background The landlord has vulnerabilities for the resident’s son recorded on its systems, due to significant health issues. Following an occupational therapist assessment, it was recommended the landlord changed the wet room in the resident’s property to a standard bathroom and create a downstairs toilet, to help the resident who was carer for her son.

The resident was unhappy with the standard of the repair works and how long it took the landlord to complete the works. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of planned adaptation works to the resident’s property. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of planned adaptation works to the resident’s property. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Adaptation works The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and she had to chase it for answers. There was a lack of oversight by it, and it failed to fully follow its repairs handbook. Complaint handling The landlord’s responses were outside its complaints policy timeframe. The resident chased it for answers, which caused her inconvenience as she sought help from her local councillor. It did not apologise for all its failures or offer the resident a remedy for these.

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 03 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows: £100 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of planned adaptation works to the resident’s property. £150 for its complaint handling failures.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 03 March 2026 Recommendation Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow this. Our recommendation It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff to ensure that its complaint policy is followed. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 21 February 2023 The resident raised her complaint with the landlord.

She said: There were still outstanding repair works to install adaptations into her bathroom. This was despite the landlord starting the repairs on 6 February 2023 and saying it would take no longer than 10 working days to complete them. It had put her and her family in “dreadful and inhumane conditions” while it was undertaking its repair works. It had not completed a plan of works or a layout of the bathroom before it began its repair works, to ensure there was enough space for her to support her disabled son during personal care.

The occupational therapist should have been there to ensure the adaptations met her son’s needs. High levels of dust had caused her son to develop conjunctivitis, which made his daily routine difficult to manage and impacted on his behaviour. It had not provided her with a portable toilet while it completed its repairs, despite expecting it to have done this. The contractor had told her that the landlord had not approved this as her toilet was still accessible. However, accessing the toilet meant builders would have to stop work and leave the room so her son could use the toilet.

There were tools, building materials and rubble in the bathroom. These had triggered her son’s sensory needs, and it had failed to recognise the dangerous environment it had left her to manage her son’s complex needs in. The contractor was impatient with her when she needed to take her son to the toilet. It had not responded to the emails she had sent it about her concerns. The landlord’s repair works had impacted on her son’s health issues. This caused him to attack her daughter, which could have been avoided if it had provided her with a portable toilet.

The bathroom taps were not suitable for her son’s needs, as the landlord ignored the occupational therapist’s recommendations. As a result, her son could not wash his hands independently. The contractor did not attend for 3 to 4 days, which caused her inconvenience, as she had cancelled appointments for her son. There was damage to her patio and banister as a result of the repair work. Her daughter’s eczema had worsened as she was unable to use the shower. No grab bars were installed which her son needed for stability.

The toilet was only a few millimetres away from the sink, due to the landlord’s poor planning of the adaptations. This impacted on her providing support for her son’s personal needs. 5 May 2023 The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: Its repair works included a request from the adaptations team to replace her existing wet room with a standard bathroom. It considered the possibility of installing a downstairs toilet. However, its contractor said this was beyond the normal scope of works and this was referred back to its adaptations team.

There was a delay in it completing its repair works. Although there were mitigating circumstances for this, it apologised for the length of time it took to complete its repairs and the stress and inconvenience this caused. It appreciated the difficult circumstances the resident faced while it completed its repair works. However, it was its policy to carry out such works with the resident present. However, it was inevitable that there would be some inconvenience caused during its works and dust cannot be completely eliminated.

It had been instructed to retain the existing specialised toilet. It was not feasible to relocate this due to the layout of the drains. This is why the sink, and bath had to be fitted around the toilet. It would not normally provide a temporary toilet and her request for one had not been passed onto it during the course of the works. It changed the taps during the works as she was unhappy with the standard ones it used. It fitted ones that were more suitable for her needs. It changed the colour of the flooring after she had said it was not suitable for her son’s needs.

The contractor repaired the damage to her patio, and it was not aware of any other damage they had caused. It would have fitted grab rails if requested but it did not have any record of a request to do this. It would return to do this if she wanted it to. 26 June 2023 The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said: She expected it would have provided her a portable toilet to manage her son’s health problems. It had not mentioned her disabled son and the impact its repair works had on him or her family.

She expected it to have considered the distress and trauma that she had to endure as a result of its ignorance of her son’s disability. She expected it to remedy the issue through financial redress, and she had provided a doctor’s letter as evidence. 10 October 2023 The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: It apologised for its delay in logging her complaint. Her existing toilet was retained during its repair works and it would not have supplied her with a temporary one.

Its contractor said that her toilet was unavailable for short periods and she did not request a temporary toilet. It had referred her comments about the temporary toilet to its asset management team to see if this could be incorporated into future similar repairs. It offered her £100 compensation and partially upheld her complaint. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident referred her complaint to us on 4 November 2023. She said: She had never received the landlord’s stage 2 response, only a cheque for the £100 compensation.

She desperately needed the adaptions for her son’s disability to provide a safe and secure level of support with personal care needs. Her son has complex bladder and bowel issues that if left untreated can trigger him to become violent through challenging behaviours. Her son is nonverbal and is unable to verbally communicate his needs and feelings. He depends highly on his family and support workers. Many care providers have refused to provide support because of the tight bathroom space.

She needed an additional room upstairs to allow a live in carer and equipment for her son to use for his physical therapy. The resident also told us that her son no longer lives with her. He has his own property with a live–in carer. She considered the landlord responsible for breaking up her family. 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. What we did not consider The resident was unhappy that the landlord did not agree to an occupational therapist’s recommendation that it built an extension on her house. However, she did not raise this specific issue as part of her complaint. As the landlord has not had chance to respond to this through its complaint’s process, we are unable to consider this as part of this investigation.

Complaint Adaptation works Finding Maladministration An occupational therapist assessment took place of the resident’s bathroom on 8 July 2022. It recommended that the landlord reinstalled a bath, repair the sink in the bathroom, fix sensor lights and install an additional toilet on the ground floor. It said that the resident provided a high level of care for her son. The landlord needed to adapt the property to be as suitable as possible. This would enable the resident to continue to provide this level of support that was having a positive impact on her son’s physical and mental health.

However, there is no record that the landlord discussed the assessment with the resident before it began its adaptation works. It told us that this was “not really relevant” as the repairs were done at the request of its adaptations team and occupational therapist. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its repairs handbook that says it will work in partnership with residents and provide a high-quality service. The landlord’s records show that it began its repair works to the resident’s bathroom on 6 February 2023.

The landlord told us that it sends residents a letter notifying them of the works. Its contractor also sends residents an introductory letter before an initial survey. However, its evidence does not include either of these letters, so it is unclear if the resident received them. This was a record keeping failure. The landlord’s evidence includes a handover certificate from its contractor that shows that it completed its repair works on 28 February 2023. However, it listed the works it had done as “bathroom renewal” so it is unclear what specific repairs its contractor actually completed.

This was a record keeping failure. On 8 February 2023 the landlord agreed to the resident’s request to install a new radiator in the bathroom, as she said the current one was too large. The resident chased the landlord and its contractor about this on 8 March 2023, as she said it had left her without a bathroom radiator for 6 weeks. The landlord apologised to the resident for this on 15 March 2023. It said it visited her property on 22 and 27 February 2023 but was unable to install the new radiator as it had ordered the wrong size, but it had installed this on 8 March 2023.

However, there is no record of this or that it kept the resident updated on the situation with the radiator. This was not reasonable and a communication and record keeping failure. The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on 10 March 2023 to discuss the delay in it fitting the correct taps in her bathroom. It apologised for this and said that the landlord had not made it aware of her son’s needs. The evidence supports this as there is no record that it communicated her sons needs to the contractor.

This indicates there was a lack of oversight by the landlord, which was not reasonable, given her son’s vulnerabilities, which it was aware of. The landlord’s contractor told the resident that the majority of delays in it completing its works was due to it permitting her son to use the toilet. The landlord’s repairs handbook says it will tailor its service to meet the needs of its residents. However, there is no record that it did this before it began its repair works and considered her son’s vulnerabilities during its repair works.

This was not reasonable and a failure by it to follow its repairs handbook. The landlord’s contractor told the resident that it failed to attend her property to continue its repair works on only 1 day. However, the resident disputed this. She told the landlord and its contractor on 10 March 2023 it had not attended on 9, 10 and 13 February 2023. There is no evidence that confirms this either way, so we are unable to make a determination on this issue. The evidence shows that further occupational therapist assessments of the resident’s property took place on 1 March and 23 March 2023.

These identified there was a serious risk of accidents occurring due to limited space in the bathroom and the resident needed a downstairs toilet. The resident’s son was having difficulty accessing the toilet following its adaptations and asked it to review his environment, so he had appropriate access to toilet and bathing facilities. However, there is no record that the landlord considered either assessment, visited her property or responded to the resident about the recommendations.

This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its repairs handbook that says it will work in partnership with residents. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that no request for a temporary toilet was made during the course of the works. However, its evidence shows on 13 February 2023 the resident raised concerns with the landlord that its contractor had not provided her with a temporary toilet. She said it had failed to consider her son’s medical needs and communicate a clear plan of action with her.

This indicates there was a lack of oversight and ownership of the issue by the landlord. This was not reasonable and caused her frustration, which is evident from her telling the landlord she would be left with no choice than to raise a complaint if it did not provide her with a temporary toilet. The landlord’s records show it visited her property on 14 February 2023, to complete a property inspection. Its inspection notes say the resident told it she felt it did not listen to her concerns.

Its surveyor recommended that it moved her to a more suitable property. However, there is no record that the landlord discussed this further with the resident. This was not reasonable and a communication and record keeping failure. The landlord’s property inspection also said it may be possible to install a downstairs toilet. This would cause disruption to the resident who would need to move to temporary accommodation while it did this work. There is no record that it discussed this further with the resident.

This was not reasonable and a communication and record keeping failure. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that its contractors initial survey had found that installing a downstairs toilet was beyond the normal scope of works for that contract and it had referred this back to its adaptations team. However, there is no record of its initial survey, it referred the matter back to its adaptations team or told the resident of its decision. This was a record keeping failure. The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised that its repair works to the resident’s bathroom were not completed until 28 February 2023.

This was reasonable. However, it said the delay was due to mitigating circumstances but did not say what these were. This was not reasonable and is likely to have caused the resident confusion. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 July 2023. She said it was urgent it contacted her as the court of protection were concerned her property was not suitable for her son’s needs. She chased the landlord about this on 24 July 2023 as she said the court of protection needed clarification on the occupational therapist’s assessment that her property was not suitable for her son.

We are unable to consider matters that relate to court proceedings. However, we can consider the landlord’s communication and there is no record that it responded to her. This was not reasonable and a record keeping failure that is likely to have caused the resident distress. The evidence shows the landlord did not clearly communicate its plan of works to the resident’s property with her, she had to chase it for answers, and it did not comply with its repair’s handbook. This adversely affected the resident.

While its offer of compensation went someway to acknowledge its failures, we do not consider it adequately reflected the detriment to the resident. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay her a further £400 compensation. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 4 working days, providing a timescale for when it would send its response.

Its policy does not mention acknowledging complaints at stage 2. It says it will provide its response within 20 working days at both stages. However, it is unclear if this was from when the complaint was raised, escalated or acknowledged. The landlord’s evidence shows that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 6 March 2023. This was 9 working days after she had raised her complaint on 21 February 2023. It did not provide her with a timescale for responding until 7 March 2023 when it said it would provide its response within 14 days.

This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its complaints policy. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it sent its stage 1 response within 20 working days, as it did not formally log the resident’s complaint until 13 April 2023. This was unreasonable and a record keeping failure. Although it apologised for this its complaints policy does not say its timeframe for responding is dependent on it formally logging complaints. The resident would have expected its response within the timeframe it advised her, when it acknowledged her complaint.

We consider that it sent its stage 1 response 22 working days over the timeframe set out in its complaints policy. This was a complaint handling failure. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 10 October 2023, 76 working days after she had escalated her complaint. This was 56 days over its complaints policy timeframe. It did not explain the reasons for the delay or apologise to the resident for this. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure. The evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord for a response at both stages of her complaint.

There is no record that it contacted her to discuss this or looked to agree an extension at stage 1. This was unreasonable and a failure to follow its complaints policy that says it will inform residents where it needs to extend the timeframe of its responses. The landlord told the resident on 12 September 2023 that it would send its response to her by 18 September 2023. However, this was 36 working days after it should have sent its response to her under its complaints policy.

It did not send its response by the revised date. This caused the resident inconvenience as she contacted her local councillor on 22 September 2023 for help about the matter. This was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure. The resident emailed the contractor on 8 March 2023 and copied the landlord in. She wanted to make a formal complaint and raised issues separate to the complaint she raised with the landlord. The landlord’s contractor responded to the resident on 10 March 2023.

However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have included the issues she raised in her complaint with it. This was a complaint handling failure. The landlord’s communication with the resident about her complaint was poor. Its delays caused her distress and inconvenience. It took 161 working days for the resident’s complaint to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. This was not reasonable and delayed her accessing this Service. It failed to identify the failures that we have found in its complaint handling and did not offer her a remedy for these.

With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. We have also recommended the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s response to the issue the resident raised.

Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability. Communication The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, which led to her having to chase it for answers and updates.