Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Islington Council (202120558)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120558

Islington Council

2 July 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a water leak into his property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder for his property.
  2. On 26 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request a repair to his living room ceiling, which was leaking. On the 3 February, the landlord attended to the leak and inspected a communal walkway above the property, where the leak was believed to be originating from. However, the landlord could not identify the source of the leak.
  3. The resident emailed his local councillor or 10 February 2021 to complain about the landlord’s handling of the leak. This email was subsequently passed to the landlord and a formal complaint lodged, the following day. The resident’s complaint stated in June 2020 a similar leak had occurred in the living room, but had stopped after a ‘few’ days. However, it returned on 26 January 2021 in a more serious nature. On this occasion, the leak was seriously damaging his living room wall and ceiling. The resident stated that this leak had caused damp and mould to the structure of his living room, which the resident believed could be a risk to his health. The resident was told that the landlord would attend his property to inspect the damage on 3 February 2021, but this did not occur. A further visit was offered on 19 February, but he felt that this was too far in the future, from when the leak had occurred. The resident requested assistance in speeding up the repairs progress.
  4. On 16 February 2021, the landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property. It reported a constant drip of water on the living room ceiling. It was recommended to the landlord that a shutdown of the water supply to numerous properties would be required, to replace piping in a neighbouring property, which was the source of the leak. This work was completed on 26 February 2021 and the leak was fixed.
  5. On 12 March 2021, the landlord issued it stage one complaint response. It stated that the repairs to the leak were completed within the timeframes given in its repair policy. The landlord stated that any internal damage caused by the leak or any personal belongings damaged by the leak, would have to be pursued via the resident’s home contents insurance. It acknowledged that a number of emails were not responded to and apologised for this. The landlord offered £75 compensation for the time, effort and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord also offered to consider reimbursing he resident for any excess fees he incurred, as a result of claiming on the home contents insurance, up to £250.
  6. On 9 April 2021, the landlord issued a further complaint response. It apologised for delays in the responding to the issues raised and the lack of communication regarding the repairs, but informed the resident that as access to his property was not needed, in order to repair the pipe, he did not need to be informed about this work. The resident requested to be informed of the nature of the works completed, in the neighbouring property. However, due to GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) it could not disclose details of the exact works completed. The landlord acknowledged the disruption caused by the leak and the resident had to move furniture around due to the leak. The landlord offered increased compensation of £225 to the resident.
  7. The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s internal process on 16 April 2021. To resolve the complaint the resident stated he would like £10 compensation for everyday his living room was unusable, which was 169 days. He also requested £10 for every unanswered email and phone call, he averaged around 20 missed correspondence. This totalled £1890 compensation.
  8. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 16 September 2021. It apologised for the delay in its response and explained that an increase in escalated complaints had caused delays. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident on 3 February 2021, due to the belief that contractors would be attending his property. However, the landlord rejected the resident’s compensation request for £1890 and instead offered an increased compensation amount of £375.
  9. The resident referred this matter to this Service on 7 December 2021, he requested increased compensation in the region of £1890 for the loss of his living room and the unanswered communication.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
    1. Compensation for distress should be considered between £100-£300, depending on the level of distress caused to the resident. For severe or prolonged distress, payments up to £1000 should be considered.
    2. Compensation for time and trouble should be considered in two separate categories:
      1. If resolved at stage one, compensation should be up to £30.
      2. After stage one, compensation should be considered between £100-£300.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be completed within twenty working days. A routine repair is defined as a non-urgent repair.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage one response should be issued within twenty-one working days. A stage one review response should be issued within ten working days. A stage two response should be issued within twenty-eight calendar days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a water leak.

  1. The resident was unhappy with the length of time taken to resolve the leak. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be completed within twenty working days. In this case, the repair was completed in twenty-three working days, from when the leak was first reported. Whilst the repair was three days outside of the policy, the landlord made active attempts within that period to trace the source of the leak. The landlord also needed to inform other residents in the building that the water supply to their properties would be turned off in advance. This was an unavoidable delay to the repair’s procedure, as residents need to be notified in advance of a water shut-off, except in an emergency where the water supply needs to be shut off immediately without notice. It was also reasonable for it to take some time to locate the source of the leak as it is not always possible to locate leaks immediately and in some cases it may take multiple attempts to find the source of a leak and resolve it. However, it is noted that poor communication from the landlord further compounded the delay. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable in issuing an apology for the delay and offering £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  2. It is acknowledged that the resident felt that the living room was ‘unusable’ due to the leak. However, there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the leak made the living room ‘unusable’. Typically, a property would only be deemed inhabitable if it lacked basic facilities for sleeping, washing, cooking etc or was unsafe to be in. An isolated leak in the property and the presence of damp and mould would undoubtably be unpleasant and inconvenient but it would not generally pose an immediate or severe risk to health and safety. Therefore, the landlord responded reasonably by rejecting the compensation requested for loss of amenities, and by informing the resident that the property was habitable although it was in need of repairs following the leak.
  3. The landlord has also completed repairs work in the property for any damage that occurred, as a result of the leak. The specific works completed on 14 July 2021 is not clear. However, in evidence provided to this Service, the resident indicated that he was satisfied with the work completed.
  4. Residents are encouraged to take out home contents insurance to cover the cost of any damage to their personal possessions caused by sudden unforeseen events such as water leaks. The landlord would not be expected to pay for such damage unless it is proven that the damage occurred as a direct result of the landlord’s actions or inaction. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord or its contractors caused the leak and as above, the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the leak once it was made aware of it. Although there were some delays in resolving the leak, this would not mean the landlord was responsible for the damage to the resident’s possessions and it would not be obliged to compensate him for this.
  5. The resident has said there was a previous leak in 2020 which appeared to be resolved before it reoccurred in 2021. As the previous leak appeared to be resolved, it was reasonable for the landlord not to take further action at that time and to only investigate further when the resident made a further report of a leak in 2021.
  6. Overall the landlord offered £375 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by delays in the repairs, poor communication and delays in its complaint responses. This offer is in excess of the maximum amount suggested in the landlord’s own compensation policy as referenced above. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £250 to £700 for cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. In this case, the delayed repairs and poor communication would have caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident but ultimately the landlord repaired the leak, apologised for its errors and offered appropriate compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. This Service appreciates that the landlord provided its complaint handling policy. However, its complaint policy is not in-line with the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (which can be found on our website), which came into effect on 1 January 2021. The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ handling of complaints. The landlord should review its complaint handling policy and bring this in-line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The landlord’s policy states that a stage one review complaint response, should be received within ten working days. However, the complaint response was received twenty working-days later, ten working-days outside of its policy. It is acknowledged that the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay. However, it did not provide an explanation as to why the response was delayed.
  3. At stage two, a complaint response should be received within twenty-eight calendar days. However, in this case a response was not received for 109 working–days after the review request. It is acknowledged that the landlord apologised for this issue and explained it was due to an increase of cases being reviewed and compensated for this matter. However, this was a significant delay and beyond a reasonable explanation of increased work load. Therefore, the landlord did not act within its policy obligations. It should have also communicated with the resident, to inform him that there would be a delay occurring in regards to the complaint response.
  4. Whilst it is understandable that the resident might be unhappy with the delays, this delay did not significantly impact the investigation or the outcome of the complaint. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology and compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above and it is not required to do anything further in respect of this issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the concerns about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord:
    1. Pay the £375 compensation offered to the resident, if it has not already done so.
    2. Review its complaint handling policy and bring this in-line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.