Islington Council (201913645)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913645

Islington Council

29 January 2021

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 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:

• The resident’s reports of repairs and defects at the property.
• The resident’s request for the installation of an intercom system at the property.
• The resident’s request for the installation of an external front light at the property.
• The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

Background and summary of events

Background

1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom flat. The resident has lived in the property since 17 May 2019, and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a Local Authority.
2. The landlord operates a three-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that the resident is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within 3 days and will formally respond within 21 days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response or offers new evidence the complaint can be dealt with as a stage one review, the review will be acknowledged within 3 days and completed within 10 working days. If the resident is still dissatisfied and the complaint has completed both stage one and the review stage, the resident can request a final chief executive stage review and a formal response will be provided by the landlord within 20 working days.
3. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines the response times for different types of repairs, it aims to attend to ‘routine repairs within 20 working days and planned repairs within 60 working days’.
4. The landlord’s availability standards state that it ‘must provide a fully functional door entry system to each property comprised of more than one dwelling’  
5. The landlord’s availability standards state that ‘lighting be provided to adequately light the front and rear of the property’, furthermore it would be considered a failure indicator to not have appropriate lighting.
6. The landlord’s refunds, compensation and remedies policy allow for discretionary payments in situations where the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience. In these cases, the landlord will consider the individual circumstances of the case and may award compensation for perceived service failures as a gesture of goodwill.

Summary of events

7. On 25 May 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, the complaint contained a number of repairs and maintenance issues as well as the return of a set of keys from an outdoor safe.
8. The landlord contacted the resident to discuss her formal complaint on 30 May 2019. It gave the resident the code to the combination safe and stated that contractors would start works on the week beginning 10 June 2019 and it would assess other issues then. 
9. On 17 June 2019, the following repairs were complete at the resident’s property: to the architrave in the lounge, new skirting board in the bathroom, fix exposed pipe and skirting, holes filled in boiler cupboard and cutting of kitchen worktop to allow room for fridge-freezer.
10. On 18 June 2019, the landlord provided the resident with its stage one response. It highlighted further issues that were raised during a phone conversation on 30 May 2019 and from the house inspection on 6 June 2019. The landlord partially upheld the complaint as the snagging works should have been performed before the resident moved in. The works commenced on 10 June 2019 and the landlord apologised for any inconvenience. The landlord addressed the following issues including the combination safe, stains on the kitchen floor and small exposed pipes, repositioning of the isolation valve, the front door, holes in the floor and boiler cupboard and skirting board, the large black piping exposed in the hallway, the repair of the plaster and replacement of the fire door.
11. On 21 June 2019, the resident contacted the landlord via phone and asked for a number of other repairs issues to be included in the stage one review, these included replacement of the front door, kitchen flooring, boxed pipes, fire doors, skirting and rendering. 
12. On 25 June 2019, a window contractor attended the property to carry out repairs to seven windows within the property. The contractor provided a written report outlining the need for no further additional works.
13. On 28 June 2019, the resident emailed the landlord regarding the reinforced steel not being installed properly and suggested structural damage to the property and asked for a surveyor to attend to assess.
14. On 5 July 2019, the landlord issued the resident with a follow up stage one review incorporating the issues raised on 21 June 2019. It again partially upheld the complaint addressed the following issues including the door being unstable and bouncing, repairs to vinyl flooring, skirting board not matching original skirting board, box the armoured cable, fire doors, rendering and the void report.
15. On 1 July 2019, there was an altercation between the resident and a contractor performing works at the property. The contractor and a witness provided statements that the resident had become physically and verbally abusive after the contractor refused to continue doing extra work that he had not been instructed to do by his superiors. The contractor left the property and refused to return to perform further works. The landlord decided to engage the plasterers who were working at the property at the time to finish the agreed snagging and plaster works to the property.
16. On 6 July 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two the chief executive stage of the landlord complaints procedure. The resident stated that it failed to directly answer several questions directly raised in its stage one review.
17. On 29 August 2019, the landlord issued the resident with its final chief executive stage response. It partially upheld the complaint and acknowledged and apologised that works that were not completed before the resident moved into the property. It reiterated that the property was let inline with the availability standards and deemed fit to let. The landlord apologised for any distress caused and acknowledged the inconvenience of having contractors around performing works at the property. Further works were agreed to including the decoration of the halls stairs and landing area (walls and ceilings only, no woodwork). It clearly explained to the resident that that this was only offered on the understanding that the resident considered her complaint closed. It asked the resident to email the landlord confirmation of her acceptance which she did. The landlord did not offer any monetary compensation as it considered the works and the key lock replacement to be a reasonable offer of redress.
18. On 11 November 2019, the resident made a complaint to the landlord and reiterated issues with the banister not being flush. She also asked for it to install a light at the entrance of the flat due to it being unreasonably dark and a safety issue. She also asked it to consider installing an intercom at the property.
19. The resident made a complaint to this service on 27 January 2020, it was clear that the new issues above had not completed the landlord complaints procedure. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide a final response to the resident regarding outstanding repairs issues, the lack of light outside the home and the installation of an intercom system.
20. The landlord provided a response to this service that all works were completed at the resident’s property on 3 March 2020. This did not include the further repairs which would not be performed to the windows or the requested installation of a light out the front of the resident’s property or the installation of an intercom system.
21. On 30 March 2020, the resident asked for escalation of the complaint regarding the landlord’s decision to refuse the installation of a light at the front of the property, an intercom system. The resident also stated that she felt that the compensation of changing her locks and decorating her flat wasn’t enough.
22. On 14 April 2020, the landlord issued a final response to the resident’s second complaint and stated that it had no requirement or obligation to install a light on the outside of the property. It highlighted that if there was one there at the start of the tenancy, under its repairs policy it would be its duty to maintain. In regard to the installation of the intercom system it stated that it was not obliged to provide door entry systems for individual properties who had their own individual street entrance door. It stated that the resident could install their own light and intercom if she wished but needed to seek permission from the landlord before doing so. In relation to the bannister the landlord’s record shows the making good of the bannister and therefore no further works would be performed.
23. On 18 January 2021, the Ombudsman spoke with the resident and determined that all the repairs at the property were completed as of March 2020. The only works that she wanted preformed were further works to the windows and installation of a light out the front of the property and an intercom system. The resident stated that she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate both complaints as they were a continuation of each other.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of repairs and defects at the property

24. There were a large number of repairs issues that the resident raised at the beginning of the tenancy in relation to the property. The resident first made the landlord aware of the issues on 25 May 2019, and it began works to fix the issues on the 10 June 2019. The property was not up to standard when first let to the resident as evidenced by the snagging repairs that should have been completed before the resident moved in. The landlord took reasonable steps to complete these small defects in line with its repairs procedure, it inspected the property and permitted flexibility and agreed to further repairs as they became apparent. The landlord rightfully undertook resolution focused repairs that were outside of its repairs responsibilities as a way of making the situation right with the resident.
25. In response to the resident’s request for additional works at the property it offered to carry out further replacement and design repairs on a discretionary basis, which it arranged and completed in line with its repairs policy. It later arranged for an expert to attend the property to assess the previous installation of reinforced steel and completed the necessary works when issues were discovered. The landlord engaged with the resident in a resolution focused way and offered proportionate redress by offering to replace the front door and locks and plaster all areas of the property and pay for the decorations as a reasonable form of compensation.
26. It is clear from the evidence that there were delays in some of the repairs at the property but this was partly due to the resident requesting further repairs as original works were being completed. Furthermore, there were delays due to the conduct of the resident and the need to get new contractors to complete the required works. Due to a report provided by the window contractor it is accepted that the windows at the property were in acceptable working order and no further repairs were necessary. The landlord kept the resident up to date regarding the timeline of the repairs in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
27. On the available evidence it is clear that there was a failure and the property did not meet the lettable standard when initially to the resident. There were a number of minor defects that were identified that should have been carried out before the start of the tenancy. The landlord however took a resolution focused approach to the repairs and made the resident a proportionate offer of reasonable redress by offering to replace the front door and locks and plaster all areas of the property and pay for the decorations as a way to put the situation right.

The resident’s request for the installation of an intercom system at the property.

28. The landlord’s availability standards state that it is not obliged to provide door entry systems for individual properties who had their own individual street entrance door. The resident has an individual street entry door therefore the landlord is acting within its rights and policies and procedures to decline the resident’s request. Additionally, it had stated that it would allow the resident to install an intercom system if she wished which was appropriate and fair in this situation.

The resident’s request for the installation of an external front light at the property.

29. The landlord’s availability standards state that ‘lighting be provided to adequately light the front and rear of the property’, furthermore that it would be considered a failure indicator to not have had appropriate lighting. It is accepted that the resident does not have a light out the front of her property which makes it hard for her to navigate steps and makes her feel unsafe due to lack of street lighting. The landlord has failed to act in line with its policies and procedures by refusing to install a light next to the front door of the property. The landlord should have installed the light at the property when asked by the resident in line with its policies.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

30. The landlord operates a three-stage complaints policy, if the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord should formally respond within 21 days. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident on 25 May 2019 and the landlord supplying a formal response on 18 June 2019. The three day delay was reasonable because the landlord had to incorporate extra issues that the resident had raised. The resident asked for a review of the decision on 21 June 2019. The landlord progressed the complaint and provided its stage one review on 5 July 2020 in line with its complaints policy.
31. On 6 July 2019, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to the final chief executive stage. On 29 August 2019 the landlord provided its final chief executive stage response, this represents a one-month delay in providing the response. The delay by the landlord was reasonable because the addition of extra issues between stage one and two and the final stage of the complaints procedure. The landlord was simultaneously waiting for the completion of works and agreed repairs should be complete before issuing the response. The landlord kept the resident informed about the progress of the matter and acted in line with its policies and procedures.
32. On 11 November 2019 the resident made another formal complaint regarding the windows at the property and the installation of an intercom and front light. The resident made a complaint to this service on 22 January 2020, it was clear that the issues had not yet completed the landlord complaints process. From the evidence provided it is clear that the landlord believed that this complaint was part of the original complaint completed in August 2019. The landlord was asked by this service to provide the resident with a response which it did on 3 March 2020. The resident asked for an escalation of the complaint on 30 March 2020 to the final chief executive stage. The landlord provided a final response on 14 April 2020 inline with its complaints policy.
33. It is clear that there was confusion by all parties in relation to which complaint the Ombudsman was investigating. The evidence suggests that the landlord believed that the complaint was the same as the August 2019 complaint, the resident even stated that it was a continuation of the earlier complaint. Once the landlord realised the mistake it addressed the problem and issued the stage one and two response in line with its complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in respect of their reports of repairs and defects at the property that resolves the complaint satisfactorily.  
2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the resident’s request for the installation of an external light.
3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of:
   1. The complaint about the resident’s request for the installation of an intercom system at the property.
   2. The complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

1. The landlord had an obligation to repair the minor defects at the property in line with its policies and procedures. When it was made aware of the issues it took a resolution-based approach to promptly fix the problems and communicated effectively with the resident. The landlord allowed further issues to be incorporated and completed repairs that were outside of its responsibility under its policies and procedures as a way to put things right. The landlord made a proportionate offer of redress by offering to replace the front door and locks and plaster all appropriate areas of the property and pay for the decorations.
2. The landlord failed to comply with its availability standards by refusing to install a light at the front of the resident’s property. The resident expressed to the landlord that not having a light out the front of her property makes it hard for her to navigate steps and that she felt unsafe. The landlord should have acted in line with the availability standards and installed the light to the front of the property.
3. The landlord complied with its policies and procedures in refusing the resident’s request for the installation of an intercom system at the property. The resident has an individual street entry door therefore the intercom system is not required.  The landlord also advised the resident that if she wished she would have her own a system installed. 
4. It is accepted that there were some delays with the first complaint that was raised by the resident, but this was due to the addition of further complaints by the resident. The landlord however communicated the delays with the resident in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord failed to complete a stage one response to the second complaint by the resident in error as it believed that it was part of the complaint that had already completed its complaint procedure. Once informed of the error the landlord provided its further responses in line with its complaints procedure.

Orders and recommendation

1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 in respect of the distress and inconvenience they experienced in relation to the request for the installation of an external front light at the property.

2. The landlord contact the resident within four weeks to arrange an appointment for the light to be installed.
3. The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has been made and the light installation completed.

The landlord is to confirm its compliance with the above orders to this Service within the targets set out above.