Islington Council (202216255)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216255

Islington Council

30 January 2024

 

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 the resident’s:
    1. Request for a 2-person warning flag to be removed from her account.
    2. Reports of outstanding repairs to the toilet and cancelled appointments.
    3. Reports of plumbing issues relating to the washing machine.
    4. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. She lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette and has vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 14 October 2021. She said that 2 men had visited her home, “abused” and “lied” about her. The landlord had treated her “badly” and put a note on its system that 2 men should always attend. She believed this was discrimination and said that she was disabled and vulnerable. The men had refused to enter and repair her toilet. If the flag was not removed, she would take it further.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 4 November 2021. It said it took allegations seriously and would interview the operatives. 2 plumbers had attended due to the 2-person flag on the account. It advised the resident to contact its tenancy services team if she wanted the flag removed. It had inspected its records relating to the toilet flush and found no service failure as it had attended within timescale.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 9, 16, 18 and 23 November 2022. She said that she was not complaining about the plumbers who recently attended but was referring to a previous matter about the bathroom floor, and believed that because of this she had been “blacklisted.” No one had been to repair the toilet flush for over a month. She also raised issues with the plumbing to her washing machine and a cancelled appointment.
  5. On 23 November 2021 the landlord provided a stage 1 review response. It referred to the matter of the bathroom floor and said that because it occurred over 12 months prior, it would not be investigating this. The resident had previously refused access to complete the toilet repair and another appointment had been agreed. It was not responsible for white goods and suggested the resident get her own plumber to resolve the matter.
  6. The resident responded on 24 and 25 November 2021 and asked for her complaint to be escalated. She referred to the 2-person flag and her belief that this was added due to her making a previous complaint. She also stated that the issue was not with her washing machine but with the landlord’s plumbing.
  7. The landlord responded, at Chief Executive stage (stage 2) of its complaints process on 11 August 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding and offered £75 in compensation. It explained the reason for the 2-person flag, which was added in 2019, following an incident. It referred to access issues in completing the toilet repair and appointments made. It had undertaken investigations of the plumbing and had found no issues.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She wanted the landlord to remove the 2-person flag, complete all repairs, improve its communication, and ensure appointments were attended.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  2. In correspondence with this Service the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her home, and a broken fence and gate. These matters were not raised in the resident’s complaint of 14 October 2021, thus the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond. These matters have therefore not been considered during this investigation. The resident may wish to raise a separate complaint with the landlord in the first instance.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
    1. The resident stated that she believed the landlord had discriminated against her. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. The resident may wish to seek advice from the Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS) in relation to this matter. This Service can, however, consider whether the landlord’s response in relation to the 2-person flag was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
    2. The resident also referred to health issues caused due to the landlord’s failure to repair the toilet flush. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failures by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Request for a 2-person warning flag to be removed from her account

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s potentially violent persons (PVP) register guidance says the PVP register represents one of the measures which the landlord will take to safeguard the health and safety of its employees. Its procedure states:
    1. The member of staff who felt threatened must report the facts in writing via its reporting system and ensure the line manager is informed. This should include witness details and background information on possible underlying causes to the incident.
    2. The line manager will review the report, known facts and any relevant history to evaluate the risk. The manager will decide the risk rating and consideration will be given to any mitigating factors. This may include whether it was a first incident and possible “one off,” or the resident is known to have suffered a serious personal crisis.
    3. The manager will decide whether a restriction to service will apply and additional safety measures. Safety measures may include lone working procedures and paired visits. Where restrictions are imposed a “restriction of service notice” will be sent to the resident.
    4. Markers should be reviewed when the end of the marker time limit is reached, if there is re-occurrence or another offence, when new evidence or facts indicate the original decision is inappropriate, or every 12 months.
  3. A 2-person flag was added to the resident’s account in June 2019 following an incident. During a joint inspection an altercation ensued in which it was alleged that the resident physically assaulted an operative. The incident was reported to tenancy services, and consequently, it was considered appropriate that any attendances to her home were to be made by 2 people. The evidence provided demonstrated that the report had been appropriately made by the member of staff and procedure followed in implementing the flag. However, this Service has not seen the restriction of service notice and timescale that was imposed.
  4. The resident had complained to the landlord on 30 August 2019 about the incident and 2-person flag. In the landlord’s response it said that it had attempted to arrange a home visit to discuss the incident, however, the resident had cancelled appointments. During a telephone call the resident had advised that she had previously been a “victim of trauma.”
  5. Following the resident’s request for the flag to be removed, the landlord’s stage 1 response advised that the flag on its system was for health and safety purposes and was there as a duty of care to both the resident and the operatives that attended. If she wanted further clarification in respect of the flagged message, as it was a housing issue rather than a repairs issue, she should contact the tenancy services team. Its stage 1 review response repeated the same.
  6. In the resident’s escalation request she advised the landlord that she had previously been in a violent abusive relationship and had every right not to allow 2 men into her property.
  7. The stage 2 response repeated that the resident should contact the tenancy services team for them to consider her request to remove the flag. It acknowledged the resident had said that she was “underweight and vulnerable”, suggesting that she was not a threat to anyone, and that she considered the flag was unfair. It noted the resident’s comment that she felt that she was being discriminated against, however, her complaint about the matter had completed the complaints process 3 years prior. It had made clear that the flag had been put in place in 2019 and consequently it had no further comment as it would mean reinvestigating the same complaint. The landlord’s response was not appropriate as the resident was requesting for the flag to be removed, rather than the reason the flag had been imposed in the first instance. It was not helpful to refer the resident to another department and it could have investigated why the flag had remained in place for 3 years and provided a response.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 August 2022 and requested that the 2-person flag was removed from her account. She said she felt “outnumbered and intimidated by having 2 men in her home”. She wrote again on 28 November 2022 stating that she felt discriminated against due to the “blacklist”. She advised this Service on 15 June 2023 that the 2-person flag was still in place and she had subsequently cancelled repairs relating to damp and mould as she did not want 2 men in her home.
  9. The landlord’s guidance refers to PVP markers being reviewed when the end of the marker time limit is reached, where new evidence or facts indicate that the original decision was inappropriate, or every 12 months. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s circumstances and why she may have feared having 2 men in her home. No evidence was provided to suggest that the landlord has periodically reviewed the flag since June 2019, or considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord has therefore failed to comply with its review process of its PVP procedure.
  10. The landlord’s records of 29 June 2023 referred to there being no further incidents recorded suggesting that, since June 2019, it should have considered whether it was appropriate to leave the flag in place. Records of the same date also refer to its failure to respond to the resident’s request to remove the flag which she made in August 2022. From the evidence provided, it is not clear whether the flag remains in place or if the landlord has removed it.
  11. Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities it should have considered whether the flag was appropriate in the circumstances. Its repairs records also refer to having a recurring issue to gain access to complete repairs which were evidently as a result of the PVP flag. It failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and distress this may have caused having 2 men in her home. There was no evidence to suggest that the landlord has considered any support required to assist the resident.
  12. While the landlord followed its procedure in implementing the 2-person flag it failed to follow its review process. Due to the length of time without incident and repeat efforts by the resident to have the flag removed, this Service finds maladministration. An order has been made in respect of the distress caused to the resident by the landlord failing to review its decision and, consequently, not considering whether the flag remained necessary.

Reports of outstanding repairs to the toilet and cancelled appointments

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that emergency repairs are completed within 2 hours to make safe, urgent repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in October 2021 stating that she had been without a flushing toilet for 3 days. On 9 November 2021 she made a further report about the toilet and said she had been without a flushing toilet for over a month. On 16 November 2021 she agreed to 2 plumbers attending and said that she would have a friend present. On 23 November 2021 she said it had been over 7 weeks since she reported having no toilet flush, she had an operation and was told not to lift anything but had been lifting buckets of water to flush the toilet. She found this distressing and asked for help as she was struggling.
  3. The landlord’s repairs records showed that it had made a number of appointments to repair the toilet flush but appointments had been cancelled by the resident or she had not provided access. It had rescheduled one appointment to enable a female officer to attend. On 11 October 2021 records referred to low water pressure but the job was cancelled at the resident’s request.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that a repair was raised on 13 October 2021 to its out of hours service. The resident had reported “water not filling up” and she was unable to flush the toilet. 2 plumbers attended on 14 October 2021 but when they arrived the resident refused access as she did not want 2 men in her home. It said it was “perfectly understandable” that she did not want more than 1 person to enter her property. While it empathised that the resident was unhappy to have 2 males in her home, it had attended “without delay” and could therefore not identify any service failure.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 review said that it could find no record of the resident agreeing a suitable appointment on its repairs system. In an effort to assist it had liaised with the repairs team and confirmed that she was contacted on 16 November 2021 where she agreed to have 2 plumbers attend, and an appointment was made for 25 November 2021. It also noted that the resident had refused access on 12 and 14 October 2021.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that operatives had attended on 13 October 2021 and noted 2 issues, a faulty inlet filling valve to the toilet flush and a partial airlock. It had offered to complete the repairs at the time but the resident refused access as she was unhappy with the 2-person visit. The appointment made for 25 November 2021 was cancelled, by the landlord, and rescheduled to 6 December 2021. It had attempted to contact the resident by telephone but she had not answered. The works order was cancelled as the repairs co-ordinator had noted that there was a reoccurring problem with refusal to permit 2 operatives access. It said if the resident was prepared to allow access she could contact its repairs team.
  7. It is not known why the landlord decided to cancel the repair scheduled for 25 November 2021. The resident had agreed to a 2-person visit on 16 November 2021 and said she would have a friend present. While the landlord attempted to contact the resident, it did not explain why it had rescheduled the appointment to 6 December. There was no evidence that the landlord was proactive to work with its tenancy management having already identified repeated access issues.
  8. It is evident that the 2-person flag was the cause of difficulties for both the resident and landlord in resolving repairs issues. While the landlord appropriately raised repair orders and attended, the resident refused access as she did not want 2 men in her home. There was evidence that the landlord had attempted to arrange for a female officer to attend and rescheduled appointments, however, it failed to appropriately consider the problem or support the resident to overcome the matter. Its responses lacked empathy and it did not acknowledge the information previously divulged by the resident about her vulnerabilities. It stuck rigidly to the fact that the 2 person flag was in place and it had therefore fulfilled its obligations when the resident declined access.
  9. While the landlord had attempted to complete the repair in line with its repairs policy and timescales, as outlined above, it failed to fully explore the issue or find a resolution. For these reasons this Service finds service failure.

Reports of plumbing issues leading to the washing machine.

  1. The landlord’s housing repairs guide states that residents are responsible for plumbing to washing machines and dishwashers unless fitted by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s records showed:
    1. The landlord attended in January 2020 to remedy a blockage to the kitchen sink which was backing up into the washing machine. The blockage was cleared both inside and outside the resident’s home.
    2. On 9 August 2022 the landlord attended to check the washing machine hose as water was backing up to the washing machine. The plumber had been unable to gain access and re-raised the repair.
    3. A further record of 3 March 2023 referred to the sink wastewater going into the washing machine. A side entry fill vale was replaced.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 review response it said that it was not responsible for washing machines and advised to resident to get her own plumber to check her washing machine. On 24 November 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that while it stated that the washing machine was her problem, it had originally been fitted by a qualified plumber and the issue was with the landlord’s plumbing.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that an emergency order was raised for a plumber to attend. The plumber reported that it had drained down the kitchen sink, cleared all waste, and tested until clear. The plumber had made no recommendation for any follow up work or suggestion that there was a problem with the pipework. Following the resident’s email of 24 November 2021, the repairs team were asked to investigate further and on 9 December 2021 an order was issued to look at the pipes outside the property. Operatives attended on 16 December 2021 and found no issue with the pipework. It repeated that it was not responsible for washing machine repairs but as the resident had suggested there was a problem with the pipework in her home, it had asked the repairs team to check to see if there were any further repairs it was responsible for.
  5. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord had responded to the resident’s reports and carried out repairs to the plumbing. It had also raised further inspections on the resident’s request. The evidence does suggest that there were some issues with wastewater from the kitchen sink, however the landlord responded within its repairs timescales and completed repairs. This Service, therefore, finds no maladministration in relation to this matter.

Associated formal complaint.

  1. At the time of the complaint the landlord was operating a 3-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 days of the complaint being received and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 investigations are, referred to as Chief Executive stage, responded to within 20 working days. This was later amended in March 2022 to a 2-stage process.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 14 October 2021 and chased for a response on 2 November 2021. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 4 November 2021, 21 working days later and 11 working days over its complaints policy timescale.
  3. The resident asked to escalate her complaint in November 2021 and did not receive a response until 11 August 2022, 260 working days later and 220 working days later than its complaints policy timescale.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord acknowledged its error and apologised for the delay and offered £75 compensation. However, it failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint in relation to its complaint handling failures or demonstrate how it would improve its response times. The compensation of £75 was not proportionate to the length of time the resident had waited for a reply and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s responses also lacked empathy for the resident’s circumstances.
  5. For the reasons above this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and an order for compensation is made in relation to this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a 2-person warning flag to be removed from her account.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the toilet and cancellation of appointments.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of plumbing and pipework to the washing machine.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £600 broken down as follows:
    1. £250 for distress and inconvenience for its failures in relation to the 2-peron warning flag.
    2. £100 for distress and inconvenience for its failures in relation to the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to the toilet flush and cancelled appointments.
    3. £250 for its failure and inconvenience caused to the resident in relation to its complaints handling. (This includes the £75 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid).
  2. The landlord is ordered to advise the resident in writing about the action it intends to take to review the warning flag, in accordance with its process. This must include timescales for the review.
  3. The landlord is ordered to review its actions in relation to its PVP process and implications for service delivery where a resident is vulnerable.
  4. Arrange for a senior member of staff to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
  5. The landlord should provide evidence of the above within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to confirm whether there are any outstanding repairs to her home.