The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Islington Council (201915993)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915993

Islington Council

3 February 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 level of compensation the landlord offered the resident for its handling of repairs to his floor;
  • the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about staff conduct;
  • the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a first-floor flat.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance housing policy states that it may replace flooring it has installed in kitchens, bathrooms and toilets if it is a potential trip hazard. This policy specifies that emergency repairs are to be attended and made safe within two hours, urgent repairs are to be attended within 24 hours, and routine repairs are to be responded to within 20 working days and an appointment provided. 
  3. The landlord’s refunds, compensation and remedies housing procedure states that in cases of considerable inconvenience it considers payments of compensation from £500 to £3,500 per annum depending on the severity of the inconvenience.
  4. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaint procedure in which the complaint must be acknowledged within three working days at each stage, and at stage one a response must be provided within 21 calendar days. If a complaint is escalated, the landlord may issue a stage one review response within ten working days, or escalate the complaint to the final, chief executive stage, which it would aim to respond to within 28 calendar days.

Summary of events

  1. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 23 August 2018 concerning a repair he had reported to it in December 2017 about defective floor tiles in his property which were “breaking up”. He relayed that he had been visited by a worker who had informed him that the tiles would need to be removed and this would be done by Christmas, although he would need to clear the rooms in the property. The resident reported that he had done this and had been sleeping on his sofa ever since.
  2. The resident stated that he called again after Christmas and was informed by the landlord that an asbestos test would need to be carried out which went ahead. After this he did not receive contact for “weeks” and when he subsequently made contact with it each month, he would be offered calls back and “get the run around”.
  3. The resident described five calls he made to differing landlord departments between 8 June and 12 July 2018 which were not returned or unproductive. To one department he explained he was suffering from medical conditions which were being exacerbated by his sleeping arrangements. The resident requested that the landlord resolve the matter urgently and requested compensation for the “stress and discomfort” to his health.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 12 September 2018 in which it acknowledged his reports of health concerns. It stated that it was unable to comment on these and suggested he seek medical advice. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident by his difficulties in resolving the repair.
  5. The landlord relayed that it raised a repair to address the flooring on 4 December 2017 but was unable to ascertain what happened at the ensuing appointment made for 14 December 2017, as this information was no longer available to it. It acknowledged the resident’s report that an asbestos check was carried out but the repairs were not followed up, which he had to repeatedly chase.
  6. The landlord noted that an inspection of the property was carried out in May 2018 when follow-on works were identified and the resident was advised that the furniture would need to be removed from several rooms to carry out the work. It informed him that it was now arranging for a removal contractor to relocate the furniture.
  7. The landlord recognised its failures in delaying the works and not responding to the resident’s enquiries and offered compensation of £41.66 per month for the nine months which the repair had remained outstanding and £100 for his time and trouble in pursuing the repair, totalling £474.94 in compensation. It also assured him that it would act on the failures identified to learn from them.
  8. On 24 January 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord to relay that he had received an appointment for 8 October 2018 for the works to commence and was advised that his furniture would be placed into storage on 5 October 2018. He declined an offer of temporary accommodation from the landlord while the works took place and advised he would stay with family and pay them for accommodation.
  9. The resident stated that he then made several calls to the landlord to arrange for new tiles to be installed which was not completed until 29 October 2018. During this period, he had continued to pay £30 a day to stay with family but the extended stay had led to “friction”. On contacting the landlord to arrange temporary accommodation, the resident relayed he had been told that it was “too late in the day” and any accommodation available would not be local. He then slept on the bare floor in his property before being offered temporary accommodation the next day. The resident considered that the accommodation offered was too far away, and declined this, preferring to remain close to his area as he had become “ill due to stress”.
  10. The resident asked that the landlord compensate him for the costs he had incurred in staying with family at £30 a day for two weeks and the loss of his telephone, which he had lost while making calls to it to arrange temporary accommodation. He also wanted to be compensated for the week he spent sleeping on the bare floor. The resident added that he noted the names of the staff who had terminated his calls when he was attempting to resolve the matter.
  11. The landlord issued a stage one complaint follow-up response on 11 March 2019 in which it confirmed that the resident had been offered temporary accommodation initially and again when the works overran, both offers of which he declined. It explained, as temporary accommodation was sourced at short notice, it was not feasible for it to locate a property in the area of his choice.
  12. The landlord stated that it was “not reasonable” for it to be held responsible for the loss of the resident’s telephone and did not offer compensation for this. It offered compensation to him of £41.66 for the further month’s delay in completing the works and £50 for his time and trouble, which it rounded up to £100.
  13. The landlord noted the resident’s reports of unsatisfactory staff conduct and assured him that these had been raised to managers for investigation and the appropriate action. It stated that this aspect of the complaint was “inconclusive” as it was unable to divulge the outcome of internal staff investigations. The landlord explained this was to avoid breaching employee rights and data protection regulation.
  14. The resident responded to the landlord on 3 April 2019 to reject its offer of compensation asserting that, despite its previous assurance that its service would improve, it had treated him “even worse this time”. He stated this was a new complaint and it had not acknowledged his dissatisfaction with the conduct of several named staff who he felt had exhibited “bullying behaviour” despite him being “sick and vulnerable”. The resident wanted apologies from the individuals who “blocked” his attempts to get the work completed.
  15. On 23 April 2019 the landlord offered the resident an ex gratia payment of £300 in recognition of the decant taking longer than had been planned.
  16. After the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 April 2019, it issued a stage one complaint response on 25 April 2019 to the resident. It acknowledged information he had provided relating to his medical conditions and the care he required. The landlord explained that it had investigated the resident’s contact with its staff and found its attempt to discuss the complaint with him on 16 April 2019 was unsuccessful as he was “resting” at the time. It clarified that the calls he had made to one member of staff were terminated due to him becoming “abusive” and phone records showed he had no contact with another member of staff who he named in his complaint.
  17. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in carrying out asbestos removal works in his property, for which it had offered temporary accommodation and compensation. It clarified that it had committed, in its stage one complaint response, to highlight the identified failures in its repairs service to the relevant managers to improve its service. The landlord noted that outstanding works to the property were evident and proposed to arrange an inspection of these. It asked him to contact it to arrange this.
  18. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledging that there had been a delay to his repair works which caused him inconvenience. However, it asserted that his calls to its staff had been terminated due to his “inappropriate behaviour”.
  19. On 31 May 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord to clarify his complaint as he felt that aspects of his complaint had not been taken into consideration. He noted that it had offered him accommodation prior to the works commencing at his property but highlighted that he had been told that the works would have taken a “few days” to complete, not three weeks. The resident contended that this was the landlord’s failure by not arranging for replacement floor tiles after the old ones were removed. When he was offered temporary accommodation again in a different area, he could not accept as he needed to remain in the area for daily medical care and his medical condition prevented him from travelling from another area.
  20. The resident stated that he also could not accept temporary accommodation in another area because he needed to remain close in order to supervise the works being undertaken, citing his lack of confidence in the landlord as the reason. He therefore held it responsible for his subsequent experience of sleeping on his unfinished floor in the unfurnished property without access to cooking facilities.
  21. The resident believed that he was due further compensation for the “inconvenience, discomfort and stress” caused by the extended delay to the works. He also held that the landlord failed to find him suitable alternative accommodation during the period when it transpired that the time needed to complete the repair would be longer than the “few days” he had originally been told. The resident also requested £420 compensation for the costs he incurred by staying with his family when he was decanted from the property.
  22. On 3 June 2019 the landlord advised the resident that he had exceeded to the timeframe for expressing his dissatisfaction with the stage one complaint response. It advised that it had passed feedback onto the relevant staff and suggested that he request his complaint be escalated to the final stage of its complaint procedure if he remained dissatisfied. The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 September 2019 to request that his complaint be escalated to the final stage. He added that he had requested this once a month for the previous three months without acknowledgement.
  23. The landlord acknowledged the complaint by letter to the resident on 25 October 2019 before issuing its final stage complaint response on 21 November 2019. In this, it noted that upon review of the handling of the complaint, it had failed to provide its stage one follow–up response within its target timeframe and apologised for this. The landlord also noted that it had opened a new stage one complaint in response to the resident’s contact on 3 April 2019 and it apologised for not clarifying this in its stage one complaint response on 25 April 2019. It also noted that its letter on 3 June 2019 lacked detail but asserted that it had no record of correspondence from him until 9 September 2019.
  24. The landlord confirmed that an ex-gratia payment of £300 had been awarded to the resident on 23 April 2019 by a different department for issues relating to his decant and he had also been awarded £579.84 compensation for the delayed repair and his time and trouble. It confirmed that these awards were made in accordance with its compensation policy. However, the landlord noted that its handling of the complaint had been delayed, there had been “confusion” caused by opening two complaints at stage one, and it had not been clear in its complaint correspondence on 3 June 2019. It therefore awarded a further £50 compensation to the resident and confirmed that a total of “£630.68 is awarded in full and final settlement of your repair complaint”.
  25. On 16 March 2020 the resident advised this Service that he continued to be dissatisfied about the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the repairs. He stated that he was unable to accept its offer of alternative accommodation due to needing to remain in the area for medical treatment and was therefore forced to stay with family and suffered inconvenience from needing to supervise the repairs.
  26. The resident was also dissatisfied that the landlord did not disclose the result of its internal investigation into staff behaviour and felt it was being “deliberately opaque”. He also disputed its assertion that he had acted inappropriately towards its staff and stated that its staff had behaved inappropriately towards him which included terminating calls. The resident was also unhappy with the way in which the landlord handled his complaints, contending that it had “purposefully delayed” their handling.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation the landlord offered the resident for its handling of repairs to his floor

  1. It is noted that the resident has mentioned that his health has been affected by the sleeping arrangements arising from his floor repair. It must be clarified that it is beyond the expertise of this Service to draw any direct link between the handling of the floor repair and any subsequent impact to his health. The resident may wish to consider seeking independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint. This assessment will therefore focus on whether the landlord offered an appropriate level of compensation for any failures exhibited during the progress of the repair.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance housing policy, above at point 2, confirms that it may replace flooring if a trip hazard is reported, therefore it responded appropriately and in accordance with is policy obligations in agreeing to carry out the work in December 2017. However, the work was not completed until 29 October 2018. While there is no evidence that this repair was reported to be an immediate danger, and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a routine repair, the ten months taken to complete the repair was excessive and inappropriate.
  3. The landlord offered temporary accommodation to the resident ahead of the works scheduled to start on 8 October 2018 and again when the works overran. It is noted that while the resident considered these offers of accommodation “unsuitable”, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain, in its stage one follow-up complaint response on 11 March 2019, that it was constrained by the availability of it housing stock.
  4. It was reasonable that the landlord did not offer compensation for the resident’s lost mobile phone, as there was no evidence provided by the resident that this loss was the direct result of its actions or omissions.
  5. The landlord offered the resident an ex gratia payment in relation to the decant. The landlord’s refunds, compensation and remedies housing procedure does not detail how the level of ex gratia payments can be calculated. However, £300 is within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for cases where there is considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.
  6. The landlord acknowledged its delay in completing the flooring works and offered a total of £630.68 in compensation, including £579.84 in respect of the delayed repairs and the resident’s time and trouble and £50 offered in its final stage complaint response on 21 November 2019 for unclear and delayed complaint handling. These amounts are broadly in accordance with its refunds, compensation and remedies housing procedure, above at point 3.
  7. It should be clarified that when this Service awards compensation, it is not to punish or make an example of the landlord, nor is it to award ‘damages’ in the way that a court or insurance claim may. The purpose of compensation is to recognise the likely level of distress and inconvenience caused by its failures and award an amount that is proportionate to this.
  8. The compensation offered by the landlord to the resident was a significant amount and broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a “significant and long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact”. In light of this, the landlord has offered a reasonable award of compensation to the resident which was in accordance with its procedure and proportionate to the likely level of inconvenience and distress caused to him by its acknowledged delay in completing the works.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about staff conduct

  1. When considering complaints about staff conduct it is often difficult to determine the exact events as differing perceptions may be held. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to investigate any concerns raised and take appropriate actions. Its stage one follow-up response of 11 March 2019 was therefore a reasonable response as it acknowledged the resident’s concerns and assured him that these had been investigated, although the outcome was “inconclusive”. It was reasonable for it decline to provide details about the outcome of investigations and explain the reason for this.
  2. The landlord responded reasonably by investigating the resident’s continued concerns raised on 3 April 2019 and providing an explanation of why his interactions may have been unsatisfactory to him. There is no evidence of any failings by the landlord in its response to his reports about staff conduct.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident’s stage one complaint was raised on 23 August 2018 and the landlord responded to this in accordance with its corporate complaints policy, above at point 4, on 12 September 2018 after 20 calendar days. When he expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of this on 24 January 2019, the landlord issued its stage one follow-on response after 32 working days, on 11 March 2019. This was 22 working days in excess of the timeframe in its policy.
  2. The resident’s additional stage one complaint was raised on 3 April 2019 and was responded to by the landlord on 25 April 2019 after 22 calendar days, which was slightly in excess of its response time as per its corporate complaints policy above at point 4.
  3. The resident’s final stage complaint escalation was raised on 9 September 2019 and responded to on 21 November 2019; this was 45 calendar days in excess of the 28 calendar days specified in its corporate complaint policy above at point 4.
  4. Therefore, the landlord did not adhere to its corporate complaint policy’s timeframes at point 4, and these delays, which was excessive in the case of the final stage complaint response, were failings on its part.
  5. The landlord, however, acknowledged in its final stage complaint response that it had delayed the handling of the complaint, it had been unclear in its correspondence on 3 June 2019, and that its handling of two simultaneous stage one complaints had caused “confusion”. It offered an additional £50 compensation for this, referred to above at point 36.
  6. As has already been established, the compensation offered by the landlord as a whole was significant; the £50 awarded for its handling of the complaint was a reasonable offer, in that it reflected the likely additional inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays. The award of £50 is also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure “which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which resolves the complaint concerning the level of compensation it offered him for its handling of repairs to his floor satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint concerning its response to the resident’s reports about staff conduct.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which resolves the complaint concerning its handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord offered compensation for its acknowledged failures in the handling of the resident’s floor repairs which was proportionate to the level of inconvenience and distress caused.
  2. The landlord exhibited no failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
  3. The landlord offered compensation for its acknowledged failures in the handling of the resident’s complaint which was proportionate to the level of inconvenience and distress caused.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord:

a.     pay the resident the compensation amount of £630.68 offered in its final stage complaint response of 21 November 2019, if it had not already done so. This Service understands that it has already paid £300 to him.

b.     review its management of repairs to ensure that excessive delays are avoided and effective communication is maintained.