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

Islington Council (202010188)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010188

Islington Council

8 March 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 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 concerns:
  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disability discrimination towards her household.
  2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet seat.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence and in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not take into consideration the matter concerning the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disability discrimination towards her household, because This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, this Service will consider whether the landlord handled the resident’s reports of repairs in a fair manner.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The property is a two-bedroom flat, situated in a building with similar properties.
  3. At the time the defective toilet seat was reported, the landlord has said it did not hold any records of residents in this property having vulnerabilities.

Summary of events

  1. The resident telephoned the landlord on 29 May 2020 to report a defective toilet seat and to request for this to be replaced. The landlord booked an emergency appointment for the same day between 9am to 1pm. Around 12pm the landlord called the resident back to advise it would not carry out the repair. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day and advised of what happened and that members of her household were disabled and required “to use the toilet often”. Furthermore, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her request to replace her toilet seat by advising that she felt that it was “dismissive about disabling conditions”.
  2. The landlord replied to the resident on 2 June 2020 to advise that the replacement of a toilet seat was the tenant’s responsibility and it would not be carrying out this repair. The resident reiterated that a member of her family required to use the toilet on a regular basis and requested for a complaint to be logged.
  3. On 16 June 2020, the landlord issued an acknowledgement comprised of the following:
  1. The landlord advised that the appointment was raised in error on the basis that “this work falls outside the remit of our repairs responsibilities”.
  2. The landlord investigated the matter further and found that, as per the information it held, the household did not qualify for a discretionary repair.
  3. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered compensation of £15, in the form of a voucher.
  1. On 8 July 2020, the landlord issued the official stage one complaint response in which it advised that it decided to partially uphold the resident’s complaint and reiterated the points addressed in its correspondence of 16 June 2020. The resident replied to this on 9 July 2020 and advised she would like to escalate her complaint to the next stage as she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not replace the defective toilet seat. Additionally, the resident advised she wanted to complain about the amount of time the landlord was taking to investigate her original complaint.
  2. On 20 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it was not its intention to delay the complaints process; however, it needed the resident to specify the reasons why she wanted the complaint to be escalated and also what her desired outcome was.
  3. At that moment in time its decision to not replace the defective toilet seat remained valid; however, it advised the resident that if she could provide evidence that she was eligible for discretionary repairs it would take this into account and review the complaint response.
  4. The resident replied to the landlord on 21 July 2020 to advise that she would like to escalate her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident advised that both her children had disabilities and that she had also been diagnosed with a medical condition recently which affected her mobility.
  5. The landlord issued the final stage complaint response on 13 October 2020 which comprised the following:
  1. The landlord apologised for the amount of time it took to review the resident’s complaint and explained that the delay was caused by an “increase in escalated complaint requests”.
  2. The landlord confirmed that the initial appointment to repair the toilet seat was raised in error. Additionally, the landlord advised it had checked its systems and could not find any information to indicate that people with disabilities resided at the property.
  3. The landlord advised that following the erroneous appointment it referred the matter to its housing team who investigated whether the repair could be carried out on a discretionary basis. As the resident did not provide “any supporting information about household members with any disabilities” she did not meet the criteria for a discretionary repair.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s secure tenancies conditions of tenancy

  1. As per the landlord’s secure tenancies conditions of tenancy document, residents are responsible for maintaining and repairing the inside of the property. This is inclusive of internal fittings including skirting boards, architrave to doors and windows, bath panels, toilet seats, plugs and chains to sinks and baths, curtain rails and pelmets.
  2. Moreover, it is stated that if residents do not carry out repairs that are their responsibility and the failure to do so affects the condition of the property, then the landlord may choose to carry out the repairs. However, the landlord may charge the residents for the costs in this situation.

 

The landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. It is noted that the resident reported the defective toilet seat on 29 May 2020 and upon contact the landlord arranged an emergency appointment for the same day. Upon further inspection, the landlord found that it did not hold any records indicating vulnerabilities that would make the resident eligible for a discretionary repair. As a result, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it cancelled the appointment and would not carry out the repair because, as per its secure tenancies conditions of tenancy document, the repair was her responsibility.
  2. Furthermore, upon identifying its error in arranging the appointment, the landlord acknowledged this and apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused. At the resident’s request, the landlord logged and investigated this matter further as a complaint. The landlord issued the resident with an acknowledgement on 16 June 2020 and a formal stage one complaint response on 8 July 2020 in which it acknowledged its error by partly upholding her complaint, apologising and offering compensation of £15. In this instance, the landlord acted in a reasonable manner as it investigated the resident’s concerns under its complaints procedure and offered appropriate compensation for the inconvenience caused by the appointment that was raised in error.
  3. Additionally, it is noted that the resident advised the landlord that she was eligible to have the repair carried out by it, because of the vulnerabilities of people in her household, in her email from 29 May 2019. The matter was also addressed in further communication between the landlord and resident, from 9, 20, 21 July 2020 and the final stage complaint response issued on 13 October 2020. The information provided to this Service showed that the landlord acknowledged and investigated the resident’s claim regarding hers and her family’s vulnerabilities; however, it was unable to identify any further details relating to this on its systems. In respect of this matter, the landlord acted in a reasonable manner because it repeatedly asked the resident for additional information to support this so that it could investigate whether she would qualify for a discretionary repair. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident provided supporting information about hers and her family’s medical conditions to the landlord and the landlord would not be required to take action without such information.
  4. To conclude, based on the information provided it is evident that the landlord dealt with this matter fairly and tried to put things right for the resident by acknowledging and apologising for its error, offering compensation for the inconvenience caused, investigating whether the resident would qualify for a discretionary repair and asking for further information to support this request.

 

Determination (decision)

  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 satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord was efficient in admitting its error in booking a repair appointment, offered adequate compensation for the inconvenience caused, investigated the resident’s complaint in a timely and reasonable manner, and acted accordingly to establish whether she was eligible for a discretionary repair due to the vulnerabilities in the household.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the compensation of £15 it initially offered to the resident for the inconvenience caused, unless this has already been paid.
  2. The landlord should provide further training to its staff to ensure that moving forward, appointments are accurately categorised and booked.