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

Islington Council (202227910)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227910

Islington Council

20 October 2023

 

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 landlord’s response to concerns about delays and quality of adaptation works carried out in the resident’s bathroom.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s mother also resided at the property, before she passed away in September 2022.
  2. The resident requested an occupational therapy assessment for shower adaptations due to her mother having difficulty accessing the bath. The occupational therapy assessment took place in January 2021, and it was recommended that a level access shower should be installed, the wall between the bathroom and the toilet should be removed, and that a rail should be installed next to the toilet. The adaptation works commenced on 29 September 2021 and were completed on 13 December 2021. In October and November 2021 the resident raised concerns about the standard of the bathroom works.
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 28 December 2021. She stated that the bathroom adaptations were supposed to take 10 days, but the work lasted for 9 weeks. The resident said that she wanted her and her mother to be compensated for the unnecessary inconvenience caused by the contractors. The resident stated that this was the second time that she had raised her complaint, and that she had previously been told she would receive a response within 5 days. She stated however, that she had received no response
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2022 (incorrectly dated 2021). The landlord upheld the complaint and acknowledged both the delay in completing the works and poor workmanship by the operatives. It stated that an inspection of the resident’s bathroom had since taken place, and various works had been recommended which the landlord set out in its the complaint response. The landlord said that the contractor had been asked to contact the resident to agree an appointment to complete the works. The landlord offered the resident a total of £260 compensation, made up of £160 for the 4 month delay in completing the works, £50 for poor communication, and £50 for the time and effort incurred making the complaint.
  5. On 21 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered, and that she had previously been offered £65 per day when there was a 14 day delay in rectifying a gas leak. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same date and said it would increase the compensation amount by £50. As such, the total amount of compensation offered was £310.
  6. The resident sent a letter to the landlord at the end of January 2022 by recorded delivery, in which she requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The evidence indicates that the resident chased up a response at the end of March 2022, and the landlord informed her that the escalation letter had not been received. The resident escalated her complaint again in June 2022
  7. The stage 2 response was issued on 19 January 2023. The landlord stated that an inspection occurred on 6 May 2022 and various defects were identified in the bathroom however, a works order had not been raised to resolve these outstanding repairs. The landlord apologised for this failure. It also confirmed that it had received the resident’s January 2022 letter sent by recorded delivery, but no response was issued. The landlord advised that she would be contacted for a further inspection to be arranged. The landlord offered the resident an increased amount of compensation of £1,175. This was made up of £625 for the delay in completing the works between October 2021 to January 2023, £200 for the time and trouble incurred, £250 for distress caused and £100 for the delayed stage 2 response.
  8. The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman on 10 February 2023. She stated that she remained dissatisfied that the works to the bathroom had still not been completed due to poor workmanship, and that there were outstanding repairs required to the tiles and the toilet. The resident stated that for the complaint to be resolved, the outstanding repairs should be completed to a high standard and she should be offered an increased amount of compensation.

 

Assessment and findings

Delays and quality of adaptation works carried out in the resident’s bathroom.

  1. The landlord’s housing repairs guide states that the target for the installation of more complex equipment to be used by a disabled person, for example fitting a new level access shower, is 40 working days. The repairs guide also states that it will respond to recall jobs within 5 working days. A recall job is raised for work that needs to be repeated due to a problem with work originally done by the landlord.
  2. The adaptations in the resident’s bathroom took more than 10 weeks to complete. This amounts to 14 days in excess of the 40 working day response time set out within its repairs guide. As such, the landlord did not act in line with its own guidance. Furthermore, the works were completed significantly outside of the 10 day timeframe that was initially given to the resident.
  3. The occupational therapy notes reflect that the resident initially reported that she was unhappy with various aspects of the bathroom adaptation on 12 October 2021. She continued to report her dissatisfaction throughout November 2021, and the adaptation was eventually completed on 13 December 2021. It is accepted that in certain circumstances works may exceed an estimated timeframe however, the length of time it took to complete the adaptations was unreasonably excessive. The landlord has appropriately acknowledged that there were delays in the initial bathroom adaptations being completed, and that there was poor workmanship by the operatives.
  4. A post inspection was completed on 4 January 2022 which identified that the workmanship fell below an acceptable standard, and a list of required repairs was set out. In its stage one response, the landlord stated that the contractors had been asked to contact the resident as a matter of urgency to arrange an appointment for the work to be carried out. No timeframes were provided for when the work would be completed, which would have been an appropriate step.
  5. Internal emails reflect that an operative attended the resident’s property on 19 January 2022 and completed the snagging items that had been identified following the post inspection review. A further appointment was scheduled for 24 January 2022 to conduct a final review. An email from the landlord dated 21 February 2022 reflects that two further issues remained outstanding, and a request was made for these to be resolved by 25 February 2022. No evidence has been provided to this Service to reflect when these repairs were carried out.
  6. The landlord informed this Service that the resident reported cracked tiling in the bathroom, and that a further works order was raised on 2 March 2022. The landlord said that an operative attended on 21 March 2022 and found that 15 tiles in the bathroom had cracked, and that the works were recalled to the contractors to resolve. This indicates that 13 days had elapsed between the works order being raised and an operative attending the resident’s address. This was outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs guide which states that it will respond to recall jobs within 5 days. This amounts to a failing by the landlord.
  7. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to reflect the report made by the resident, or notes to reflect the operative’s visit to the property in March 2022.It is expected that the landlord provides robust records of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is unclear whether this is due to poor record keeping by the landlord, or whether the landlord has failed to send all of the relevant information to this Service.
  8. The landlord stated that the works order raised in March 2022 was cancelled on 5 May 2022 because it was decided that the works would be carried out in-house. It stated that a further works order was raised, and an inspection was carried out at the end of May 2022. The landlord provided this Service with an extract of the notes made in relation to this inspection however, these are undated. The notes state that there were stress cracks across the bathroom tiles, and that tiles were blown where sealant and grouting was not sufficient. It was also identified that the shower doors did not close properly and that the grab rails were loose. The notes said that the job would need to go back to the contractor who had completed the installation of the works. The works order was then closed.
  9. The evidence indicates that approximately 9 weeks elapsed between the operative’s attendance on 21 March 2022 and the further inspection on 25 May 2022. This represents a delay that is significantly outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs guidance. The evidence suggests that there was uncertainty about whose responsibility it was to complete the repairs, which seems to have contributed to the overall delay in the repairs being completed.
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord found that a works order was not raised to resolve the outstanding repairs. As such, it appears that no actions were taken to resolve the issues in months following the May 2022 inspection. This indicates a clear failing by the landlord to expedite the repairs in a timely manner.
  11. As an outcome to the complaint, the landlord stated that the resident would be contacted to arrange an inspection so that the final repairs could be organised and completed. The landlord did not provide any timescales for when the resident would be contacted or for when the works would be scheduled. It is best practice for landlord’s to give realistic timeframes so that the resident has a reasonable expectation of when repairs will take place.
  12. It appears that the inspection took place on 3 February 2023, which identified various repairs. The landlord informed this Service that an operative attended on 24 February 2023 and resecured the toilet pan however, the repairs to the tiling, shower screen and grab rails remained outstanding. On 11 October 2023, the resident told this Service that contractors had attended her property the previous week to inspect the bathroom, and identified various work that was required, including that the tiling needed to be re-done. The resident said that she had received no further contact from the landlord about the works.
  13. This Service expects the landlord to follow through on any promises it makes to residents, or to provide timely and detailed reasons for why it cannot. It is clear that the actions set out in the landlord’s stage 2 response have not been carried out, and the resident’s expectations have not been met in terms of the repairs that would take place. This amounts to maladministration by the landlord.
  14. The resident and her mother were caused significant distress and inconvenience due to the initial adaptations taking significantly longer than expected, and due to the failure to complete the work to a satisfactory standard. The resident reported while the works were ongoing, contractors left the front door open while her mother was in the property, which had an adverse effect on her due to the work taking place during winter. It is clear that various repairs have been required due to poor workmanship and the delays in these being completed will have caused further frustration to the resident. The resident has incurred significant time and trouble in chasing up the outstanding repairs, and in pursuing the complaint. There has been a clear detriment to the resident in that the issues with the bathroom remain ongoing 2 years after the adaptations commenced.
  15. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  16. The landlord has appropriately acknowledged that the delays in resolving the issue were beyond what was reasonable, and in its stage 2 response, it offered compensation of £1,175 to remedy the complaint. The landlord informed this Service that this amount was an increase of the amount offered at stage 1, rather than in addition to what was previously offered. The landlord’s compensation offer took into account the repair delays experienced, the distress caused and the time and trouble incurred.
  17. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance suggests amounts of £1000 or above should be ordered when there has been serious failings by a landlord which have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident. As such, the compensation offered was proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. However, the works are still outstanding, and the compensation does not take into account the ongoing delays in completing the repairs, and the distress and inconvenience that this is continuing to cause the resident. As such, a finding of maladministration is made, and an increased amount of compensation should be offered to remedy the ongoing impact on the resident.
  18. The landlord offered the resident £41.66 per month for the 15 months between the works starting in October 2021 and the stage 2 response in January 2023. It is unclear how the landlord calculated this monthly figure. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident this amount for each month between the stage 2 response and the date at the time of writing. The landlord should therefore pay the resident an additional £374.94 in recognition of the additional 9 month delay from February 2023 to October 2023.
  19. In order to put things right, it has been ordered below that the landlord should complete the outstanding repairs to the resident’s bathroom. A list of the required bathroom repairs should be provided to both the resident and the Ombudsman, and the landlord should complete these repairs in order to fully resolve the issue.
  20. The landlord should also take steps to learn from this complaint by conducting a review of the delays in both completing the adaptions and the follow-on repair work. It should identify any changes that can be implemented to ensure such work is completed in a timely manner. This should help to prevent a similar reoccurrence.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time states that it will acknowledge complaints in 3 calendar days, and stage 1 responses will be issued within 21 calendar days of receipt of a complaint. The policy states that responses at stage 2 (Chief Executive Stage) will be provided within 28 calendar days of escalation.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 28 December 2021 and the stage 1 response was provided on 17 January 2022. This was within the 21 calendar day timeframe stipulated in its complaint policy.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord at the end of January 2022 to escalate her complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that the letter was received but no response was issued. This amounts to a failing by the landlord, which led to a delay in the resident’s complaint being escalated.
  4. The resident sent a further escalation letter which is undated. However, the landlord stated that this was received on 17 June 2022. The stage two response was issued on 19 January 2023. This represents a delay of approximately 26 weeks outside of the timescales stipulated in the landlord’s complaints policy, which is a further failing by the landlord. Overall, it took a year from the resident’s first request until the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £100 compensation in recognition of this. The compensation offered is not sufficient to properly remedy the impact on the resident of the landlord’s poor complaint handling. She was required to contact the landlord to chase up both the missing escalation letter, and the complaint outcome, causing inconvenience and frustration. There was a significant delay in providing the stage 2 response, and the landlord should pay the resident an additional £300 compensation to remedy the impact of this delay. This amount is in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests compensation of between £100 and £600 when the landlord has attempted to put things right but when the offer made is not proportionate to the failings identified.
  6. The landlord should review its handling of the resident’s complaint to establish why the significant delays occurred, and implement any lessons learnt as a result.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s concerns about delays and quality of adaptation works carried out in her bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £1,849.94 compensation, made up as follows:
      1. £1,175 offered by the landlord within its stage 1 and 2 responses (if this has already been paid, it can be deducted from the total).
      2. £374.94 in recognition of the ongoing delays in completing the outstanding repairs.
      3. £300 for poor complaint handling.
    2. Provide a list of outstanding works to both the resident and the Ombudsman, and complete the works to the bathroom. The landlord should provide written confirmation to the Ombudsman that the works have been completed.
    3. Conduct a review of the delays in completing the adaptions and in carrying out the follow-on repair work. The landlord should identify any changes that can be implemented to ensure such work is completed in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs guide. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of the review.
    4. Review its handling of the resident’s complaint to identify why the failings occurred, and highlight what actions will be taken to avoid a recurrence. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of the review, setting out any lessons learned as a result of the complaint outcome.
  2. The landlord should evidence compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.