London Borough of Hillingdon — case 202402273

Decision Case ID 202402273 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Hillingdon Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 24 February 2026 Background The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house. She complained that contractors did not remove floor coverings, which led to her having a fall and injuring herself. She is unhappy with the way the landlord handled the complaint, and the compensation offered. What the complaint is about The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it remove protective floor coverings.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. Our decision (determination) There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it remove protective floor coverings. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right. Reasons What we have not investigated The resident told us that the floor coverings on her stairs has caused her to slip and injure herself.

It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused and we have investigated what the landlord did in response to the reports of this injury.

What we have investigated The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it remove protective floor coverings. The resident had works taking place in her property to install a new level access shower and on 10 October 2023, contractors laid floor coverings to protect the carpet. On 26 November 2023, the resident reported that she fell down the stairs due to the floor coverings. She contacted the landlord and its contractor attended the property on the same day to remove the floor coverings.

The contractor completed 2 accident repair forms whilst with the resident to confirm what had happened. The resident raised a complaint due to her injury as she stated the contractors should have removed the floor coverings which she said would have avoided this incident. She asked for compensation for all her visits to the doctor and medication. The landlord has provided the accident report forms which states the contractor removed the floor coverings within an hour of the resident having the fall, which was reasonable and the correct thing to do.

There were 2 reports as the resident did not agree to the first report which stated that she asked for the floor covering to remain, so the contractor filled in a further report which the resident signed and agreed to. The landlord investigated the matter, and we have seen evidence that the works taking place were signed off on 15 November 2023 and the floor coverings were meant to be removed shortly after this. However, the contractors left the floor coverings on as the resident requested it to be left on until all other work was completed.

But the resident has disputed this as she states she did not ask for it to remain. The landlord conducted an investigation. It contacted its contractors and surveyors to investigate what had happened and ensured an accident report form was taken from the resident. This was in consistent with how we would expect the landlord to investigate the incident in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as it considered relevant information and evidence carefully. We have also seen internal emails from the landlord investigating the issue, which reiterated that the floor covering was left on as the resident asked the contractors to do so.

The landlord stated in its responses, from the available evidence, it had considered the contractors had left the floor covering on at the resident’s request due to ongoing snagging works that needed finishing and did not uphold the complaint. The landlord also asked the resident if she had any evidence to show that she asked the contractors to remove the floor covering and said it would consider this further if provided. This was appropriate, in line with the Code, to give her a fair chance to set out her position.

We cannot see that she provided further evidence in response to this. We have not seen any written evidence of the conversation about the floor covering as this was a verbal conversation, so we cannot confirm what was said or not said. Therefore, we cannot make a finding or assumption without any evidence. There is no evidence to confirm if the floor covering was meant to be removed, and there is evidence to show that the landlord made appropriate enquires into the issue by speaking to the individuals involved as part of its investigation.

Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it remove protective floor coverings. Complaint handling The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process in line with the Code. The landlord’s complaints policy says that complaint acknowledgements will be issued within 3 working days, a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response will also be issued within 10 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on time and sent the stage 1 response 1 working day late.

Whilst this is a shortcoming the impact of this delay was not so significant to constitute a failing. The stage 2 escalation was acknowledged on time, and the final response was also sent on time. The landlord explained its findings clearly in both stages and addressed the resident’s concerns. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the handling of the complaint by the landlord. 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 We recommend that the landlord review its processes around its record keeping ensuring conversations with residents about follow up work or decisions made are clearly documented to avoid any confusion or dispute.