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

Islington Council (202012886)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012886

Islington Council

4 August 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

  1. The complaint concerns:
  1. The amount of time taken by the landlord to carry out repairs to the resident’s roof.
  2. The landlord’s handling of and the amount of time taken by it to carry out plaster and paint works to the interior of the resident’s property.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and communication.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property.
  2. The property is a ground-floor flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s internal communications, dated 30 November 2018, confirmed that an inspection was carried out at the property on 27 November 2018, during which three cracks were observed on the lounge’s and the two bedrooms’ walls. The structural engineer deemed that these were not “structurally significant”, and advised for “helical stainless steel reinforcement” to be completed to the lounge and first bedroom walls, and for a flexible filler to be applied to the second bedroom wall, prior to redecoration.
  2. The resident subsequently requested for a complaint to be logged at the first stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 29 August 2019.
  3. The resident then emailed the landlord on 3 September 2019 to advise that its contractor had visited his property and had confirmed that the works to be carried out there involved plastering and painting, which were not the works that it had proposed initially. The resident advised that he wished for this information to be added to his existing complaint and to inform the landlord that the contractor “wish[ed] to check the state of the roof before commencing works [to] the kitchen roof.”
  4. The resident pursued the matter with the landlord on 4, 9 and 10 September 2019 to clarify the discrepancies between the works that were due to be carried out to his property. In his email of 10 September 2019, he noted that another contractor attended the property, who informed him that “crack stitching and brick nets” were not discussed, and he expressed his dissatisfaction with the amount of time that it was taking to commence the works.
  5. On 12 September 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it was due to “hack off 50mm either side of the crack, render and put a seeker and skim over ready to paint” on the affected areas in the lounge, both bedrooms and the kitchen of his property.
  6. On 18 September 2019, the landlord issued the stage one complaint response to the resident, in which it advised the following:
  1. The response concerned the complaint logged on 29 August 2019 regarding the outstanding repairs at the property.
  2. Following its investigation, it found that it had previously carried out structural surveys of the property in 2009 and 2015, which resulted in recommendations being made for it to remove a nearby tree and for an underground drain to be “checked for defects”.
  3. It confirmed that it had removed the tree and carried out a CCTV drain survey at his property, which had identified further repair issues to the drain, and then “sanctioned the remedial drain works” in 2016. These were followed up by structural surveys, carried out in 2017, which “confirmed the issue as stable” as the “drain and tree works carried out appear[ed] to have solved the issue.”
  4. It confirmed that internal remedial works were recommended to make good the property; however, it was deemed “prudent to wait until these works were completed before repairs were progressed” due to “major works starting”. Additionally, the landlord confirmed that major works were carried out to the resident’s entire estate between October 2017 and June 2019, which were followed up by a request for the internal remedial works to be carried out in July 2019.
  5. It advised that a further survey was carried out on 19 July 2019, during which it was deemed that the cracks seen in the walls were not “structurally significant”. The surveyor identified cracks on the walls of two bedrooms, on one wall of the living room, and on the kitchen ceiling. Furthermore, the landlord advised that, following its review of previous reports, it had found that, while the required remedial works were carried out to the drain and nearby tree, “there could be a period of about [five to six years] and maybe even up to [ten] of the ground settling”.
  6. It confirmed that a work order was raised on 31 July 2019 for plaster works to be carried out. This was initially cancelled due to a misunderstanding between the landlord and the contractor, but this was replaced by a new order, which was cancelled because the resident “disputed the scope of works”, as he had “referred to a previous report…where it was recommended that cracked stitching and brick netting be carried out in the lounge and two bedrooms.” Another works order was raised on 2 September 2019, and an inspection was carried out by the landlord and its contractor to determine the scope of works, which were then cancelled as well because there was no further agreement on additional works.
  7. It confirmed that it would review his case since the beginning of the repair issues at his property, in order to be able to decide whether the “stitching and netting” that were originally recommended there were to be “added to the scope of works”.
  8. It decided to uphold his complaint, apologised for the inconvenience caused, and advised that it would ensure that the works were carried out to his satisfaction and that it would review any compensation following the completion of the repairs.
  1. On 14 October 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident, following a telephone conversation, to confirm that it would attend the property on 28 October 2019 to carry out repairs to the roof there. Additionally, it also acknowledged receipt of his previous request for information about this on the same date. This was followed by further emails, that were sent prior to 25 November 2019, between the landlord and resident, discussing the repairs previously carried out to his roof, the ones needed at that time, and his dissatisfaction with the amount of time that it was taking to complete the remedial works. The resident also requested for his complaint to be escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 6 November 2019 because of its delays and the limited scope of its works.
  2. The resident additionally raised, on 11 November 2019, a new stage one complaint about the landlord’s “roofing team” because he reported that they and its “admin team” had failed to respond to a repair to a leak from his kitchen roof. On 29 November 2019, it issued a fresh stage one complaint response to him in respect of this, in which it advised the following:
    1. A work order was raised on 9 September 2019, for which the landlord’s operatives attended the resident’s kitchen roof on 10 September 2019 “and recorded no access”.
    2. A roof inspection was then carried out on 23 September 2019, during which broken tiles were identified. These were replaced on 17 October 2019, and the landlord provided photographic evidence of this.
    3. A further roof inspection was carried out, without the resident’s knowledge, on 7 November 2019, during which it was deemed that no other repairs were required to the roof.
    4. A new work order was raised on 27 November 2019, and an appointment was scheduled for 4 December 2019.
    5. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by it not informing the resident of its most recent roof inspection, advised that it would monitor the outcome of the upcoming appointment and ensure that any recommended works were carried out in a timely manner, and partially upheld his complaint for this.
  3. On 12 December 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with it having reportedly not adhered to the “deadline date given” of 2 December 2019, to respond to his complaint of 11 November 2019.
  4. Between 21 and 25 January 2020, the resident and the landlord’s complaints department corresponded about his dissatisfaction with its overall handling of repairs to his property and their delays, a member of staff’s attitude, that complaints were not recorded accordingly or learnt from, and “poor performance management”.
  5. On 11 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to address his concerns regarding the “delayed roof repair[s]” and advised the following:
    1. It had issued a stage one response to his roofing complaint on 29 November 2019, which he had acknowledged.
  1. It had subsequently carried out another roof inspection at his property on 4 December 2019, during which it was identified that scaffolding was needed in order to carry out further inspections there. The landlord acknowledged that “there was a delay in erecting scaffolding”, and it confirmed that this was later done on 22 January 2020, and that the works to the resident’s roof started on 27 January 2020, when “operatives stripped the roof and renewed the flashing.”
  2. As he had advised it, however, that he was uncertain whether the repairs to his roof had fully resolved the leak at his property, it had arranged for a further inspection of this to take place on 18 February 2020, when it would also address any outstanding works to his kitchen. (33)
  1. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 13 March 2020, to address the fact that “there ha[d] been some miscommunication” relating to the paint works that were agreed to be carried out to his bedroom by it. As a result, it apologised to him for this and re-arranged an appointment for 18 March 2020, for its contractor to carry out the paint works that had been agreed during the most recent inspection by it.
  2. The resident replied on the same day to seek to confirm whether the works agreed involved the painting of two bedrooms and lounge area, “crack stitching and brick netting”, and repairs to the kitchen roof, as well as the agreed paint colour and his reimbursement for supply the paint for the lounge. The landlord confirmed the above to him on 17 March 2020.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 March 2020, to advise that its plasterer had informed him that repairs were put on hold due to the restrictions imposed as a response to the corona virus pandemic. He then chased it on 14 April 2020 to query when repairs would resume.
  4. On 5 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to lodge “a complaint against the repairs team” because of the delays to the completion of the repairs that were reportedly due by July 2019, and the contradictory information provided to its surveyors and contractors and to him about this, as well as it not noting all of the points that he had made to it.
  5. The above matters were discussed by the landlord and resident via email on 22 and 29 June and 15 July 2020, when it confirmed that an operative would attend the property on 24 July 2020 to carry out the outstanding internal decorating works there. However, he emailed it on 27 July 2020 to advise that the operative was not instructed to “paint the lounge and [two] bedrooms”.
  6. On 30 July 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to lodge a complaint against a member of its staff, as he felt that they had not handled his queries appropriately, which had led to further unnecessary delays in the completion of the above decorating works. It acknowledged this on 6 August 2020, and it advised that it considered his request to be an escalation of his existing complaint.
  7. On 26 October 2020, the landlord issued a final stage complaint response in which it confirmed that the resident’s complaint concerned the following. The amount of time that it took to complete the outstanding repairs and that it did not learn from its mistakes, which had caused him further stress. The landlord also noted that the resident was dissatisfied because he believed that “the poor service” that he had received from it was a “deliberate act against [him]”, that its staff did not respond to his queries, “ignored” him and failed to send the correct information to its new operative, causing further unnecessary delays, and that he wished for the repairs to be completed as soon as possible.
  8. Additionally, the landlord reiterated the above events that related to the repairs concerned at the resident’s property. It also confirmed that plaster works were completed there on 24 July 2020, but that its operative did not have the instructions to paint the lounge and two bedrooms on that date, so that this was further delayed, for which it apologised.
  9. The landlord added that the painting and decorative works were completed on 3, 4 and 8 September 2020, and so it decided to partly uphold the resident’s complaint and offered him compensation of £100 for the time, trouble, delay and inconvenience caused by this. Although it noted that the delay in completing the works between 23 March and 23 July 2020, which was during the lockdown period until its contractor was able to resume work, was “unavoidable”.
  10. On 28 January 2021, the resident contacted this Service to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repair delays to his property since July 2019, the level of its communication with him and internally with its contractors, its adherence to Government corona virus guidelines regarding repairs, and the level of compensation offered to him by it.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy resident’s agreement

  1. As per the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for “keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including…the roof and chimney…the internal structure; and external decoration.”

The landlord’s housing repairs guide

  1. The landlord divides repairs into categories, based on the urgency and level of the work required, as per below:
    1. Routine repairs – are to be carried within 20 working days and “cover non-urgent repairs” such as plasterwork.
    1. Planned works – are to be carried out within 60 working days and are to be “used for high value repair jobs which are often complicated to complete.”

The landlord’s refunds, compensation and remedies policy and compensation guidance

  1. As per its refunds, compensation and remedies policy, the landlord will pay compensation “in recognition of the inconvenience caused to residents, as a result of a service failure”.
  2. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that compensation payments for “housing repairs” can “range between £500 and £2500” per annum “depending on the severity of the problem”.

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy

  1. The landlord “operates a two-stage complaints procedure”, as per below:
    1. “The first stage is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated.” The landlord commits to acknowledging stage one complaint within three calendar days, and to issuing a written response within 21 calendar days.
    1. The second stage of the complaints procedure involves an investigation being “undertaken by the Corporate Customer Service Team on behalf of the Chief Executive”. The landlord commits to acknowledging receipt of a complaint escalation within three calendar days, and to issuing a full response within 28 calendar days.

The amount of time taken by the landlord to carry out repairs to the resident’s roof

  1. While no date was confirmed for when the initial report regarding the repair issues to the resident’s kitchen roof was made, the landlord advised that a work order was raised on 9 September 2019, which was followed by a first visit on 10 September 2019. As the initial appointment did not go through due to a lack of access, it carried out an inspection on 23 September 2019, and then replaced the broken roof tiles on 17 October 2019. Considering that this type of repair would usually involve ordering of materials, the landlord acted in a timely and efficient manner by obtaining and replacing the broken tiles in this timeframe.
  2. At the same time, the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 October 2019, to advise that it would attend the property on 28 October 2019 to carry out further repairs to his roof. As he was concerned that the issue was not resolved, further visits were carried out on 7 November and 4 December 2019, during which it was deemed that scaffolding was needed for further inspections, which was erected on 22 January 2020. The landlord confirmed that works to the resident’s roof were then carried out on 27 January 2020, and it agreed to conduct a further inspection of this on 18 February 2020, when it also agreed to address any outstanding works to his kitchen.
  3. Considering that the repair issue to the resident’s kitchen roof required inspections, scaffolding to be erected, and a specialist team to complete this, along with the landlord’s above housing repairs guide, this repair fit the guide’s criteria for planned works. While it did not adhere to the guide’s timeframe for such works to complete these within 60 working days of its initial work order of 9 September 2019, i.e. by 2 December 2019, it still acted in a relatively timely and efficient manner in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord did so by replacing the broken roof tiles within the above timeframe on 17 October 2019, and by making further visits to the resident’s property in light of his ongoing concerns about his kitchen roof leaking within and shortly after this timeframe on 7 November and 4 December 2019. As these inspections found that additional specialist works were required to further inspect and repair the roof, in the form of erecting scaffolding and carrying out further repairs on 22 and 27 January 2020, respectively, and it conducted another inspection to reassure him and address any outstanding kitchen works on 18 February 2020, its actions were not unreasonable.
  5. When reviewing the information relating to this aspect of the resident’s complaint this Service noted that certain points and dates were not documented very thoroughly. However, considering the information provided, it has been found that, despite some delays, the landlord did take satisfactory steps to complete the remedial works required to his roof in an efficient manner, after it identified that further specialist works were needed for it to do so. This is because its housing repairs guide’s 60-working-day timeframe for the completion of the works could not have anticipated that additional specialist works were required after it had repaired the resident’s roof tiles, which justified their completion within another 60 working days.

The landlord’s handling of and the amount of time taken by it to carry out plaster and paint works to the interior of the resident’s property

  1. The cracks found on the walls of two of the resident’s bedrooms and one wall of the lounge area in his property were identified during an inspection that was carried out on 27 September 2018. However, the landlord decided to not take any action at that time due to major ongoing works to the entire estate between October 2017 and June 2019.
  2. Considering that this type of repair issue had occurred in the past, that the landlord had just carried out structural surveys and works to a nearby tree and underground drains in 2015 and 2016, along with the works that it was undertaking between 2017 and 2019, the decision to postpone the plaster and paint works was reasonable and understandable at that time. This is because this was a way that it could ensure that all of the property’s repair issues were addressed and resolved permanently, including any that might have arisen during the major works undertaken to the estate, instead of it having to return to address issues that it had already attended to prior to its major works.
  3. The landlord confirmed that the works concerning the entire estate were completed in June 2019, that it carried out a survey to the resident’s property on 19 July 2019, and that plaster works were due to commence there on 31 July 2019, but this was cancelled due to a misunderstanding between it and its contractor. Taking into account the amount of time that the resident had been waiting for these repairs to be carried out, this cancellation caused even further delays, which was unreasonable because it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that communication with its staff and contractors was accurate and effective, to avoid any unnecessary inconvenience to the resident.
  4. Because the works proposed in July 2019 were different to the ones agreed during the inspection carried out on 27 September 2018, the resident disputed the scope of works, which led to the landlord carrying out another inspection on 3 September 2019. Considering that the works to be carried out had already been confirmed, this second inspection caused further delays, which, in this instance, were outside of its control because he wished for the works agreed in 2018 to be completed.
  5. This Service appreciates that the resident may have found that the works proposed in 2018 were more suitable, however, the landlord carried out another inspection in July 2019, which would have reflected the current situation of the outstanding repair issues at his property more accurately than the historical one. Additionally, it was appropriate for it to have acted in accordance with its staff’s expert recommendations when deciding what works were necessary for it to carry out at the property, in the absence of any other contemporary expert evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in its decision to carry out the works recommended by the member of staff who surveyed the property in July 2019.
  6. The landlord then confirmed, on 12 September 2019, that it would “hack off 50mm either side of the crack, render and put a seeker and skim over ready to paint”, and the matter was not discussed again until 13 March 2020, when it wrote to the resident to confirm it would attend the property on 18 March 2020. However, this did not go ahead because he further disputed the scope of works, as he wished for brick netting and stitching to be involved.
  7. This Service appreciates that some of the above delays were outside of the landlord’s control, along with the fact that it was dealing with the repairs to the resident’s roof at the same time. However, the fact that it failed to address the plaster and paint works required at his property for approximately another six months until 8 September 2020 was contrary to its above housing repairs guide’s set timeframe, which dictated that plaster works were to be completed within 20 working days. This was also unreasonable towards the resident, who was left with outstanding repair issues at the property for a considerable amount of time from July 2019 onwards.
  8. The resident confirmed that the landlord had informed him, on 24 March 2020, that the works at the property were put on hold once again due to the restrictions imposed by the coronavirus pandemic. Plaster works were then completed on 24 July 2020, and paint works on 8 September 2020. Concerning the delay of four months that was caused by the restrictions imposed by the coronavirus pandemic, it is acknowledged by this Service that restrictions started easing in early June 2020, and in this instance the landlord did not take any action until late July 2020.
  9. However, it is known that, during the above period service levels were affected and landlords prioritised works based on urgency, rather than the amount of time that they had been outstanding for. Additionally, the landlord’s offer of compensation of £100 to the resident on 26 October 2020 for the time, trouble, delays and inconvenience caused to him between 24 July and 8 September 2020, was reasonable and accorded with its above refunds, compensation and remedies policy and compensation guidance.
  10. To conclude, this Service appreciates that certain delays were reasonable, such as the landlord’s decision to wait for the major works to the entire estate to be completed prior to carrying out the plaster and paint works needed to the interior resident’s property, or were outside of its control, such as the delays caused by him disputing the scope of the works or the lockdown period. However, significant delays were identified, for which the landlord was responsible, such as the delay caused by the miscommunication between it and its contractor, and the subsequent period of almost six months from 12 September 2019 to 13 March 2020.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and communication

  1. The resident lodged a stage one complaint with the landlord regarding its handling of repairs to his property on 29 August 2019, to which it issued a stage one response on 18 September 2019. This complied with its above corporate complaints policy, which states that it is to issue a stage one complaint response within 21 calendar days.
  2. The resident then raised a complaint regarding the landlord’s roofing team on 11 November 2019, for which it issued another stage one complaint response on 29 November 2019. As with the initial complaint, this complied with the corporate complaints policy’s response timeframe of 21 calendar days.
  3. Between 21 and 25 January 2020, the resident corresponded with the landlord’s complaint department regarding various concerns, however, no new complaint or escalation resulted from this. Furthermore, he requested that a new complaint be logged on 5 June 2020, regarding its repairs team. The landlord did not, however, take any action with respect to this at that time. This was unreasonable because it failed to adhere to its responsibility to acknowledge and investigate this fresh complaint at the time.
  4. The resident then requested for a complaint to be logged, on 30 July 2020, about a member of the landlord’s staff. It replied to this on 6 August 2020, advising that it would escalate his earlier complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure. In its stage two complaint response, of 26 October 2020, the landlord mostly addressed the aspect concerning the outstanding repairs, rather than the resident’s concerns regarding its member of staff. It also did not adhere to its corporate complaints policy’s set timeframe when handling this final stage complaint, as the acknowledgement was issued six calendar days after the complaint was escalated, instead of within three calendar days, and the final response was issued after 88 calendar days, rather than within 28 calendar days.
  5. When investigating the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, it has been found that it adhered to its response timescales on two occasions. However, it failed to acknowledge and promptly log all of his concerns and complaints. Furthermore, the landlord also failed to properly categorise and investigate the complaint that this investigation is focused on, because it decided to escalate this to the final stage of its complaints procedure almost one year after the stage one complaint response, after the resident had requested to log a complaint about a different matter. This was despite his correspondence with its complaint department about his outstanding concerns in relation to this approximately six months earlier.
  6. To conclude, while this Service appreciates the landlord’s efforts to respond to the resident’s complaints in a timely and efficient manner, it is clear that there was significant failure in its handling of the concerns that he reported to it. Furthermore, we have acknowledged above that there were also several shortcomings in its communication with both its contractor and the resident, which led to the cancellation of work orders, inspections being carried out without his knowledge, unnecessary delays to the completion of works, and a breakdown in its relationship with him.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the amount of time taken by it to carry out repairs to the resident’s roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of and the amount of time taken by it to carry out plaster and paint works to the interior of the resident’s property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint and communication.

Reasons

  1. The landlord replaced the resident’s broken roof tiles in a timely manner, carried out various inspections to ensure that repairs were effective and that he was reassured, identified when further repairs were needed, erected scaffolding, and carried out the necessary remedial works with reasonable delays.
  2. The landlord’s decision to complete the internal plaster and paint works to the resident’s property after the completion of the major works undertaken to the entire estate was understandable and reasonable. The delays caused by him disputing the scope of works and the lockdown period were outside of its control. The landlord offered also offered the resident suitable compensation of £100 for the delay that it was responsible for from 24 July to 8 September 2020. However, it was additionally responsible for the delay between September 2019 and March 2020, when it failed to address or attempt to complete the plaster and paint works.
  3. The landlord failed to accurately log and handle all of the concerns and dissatisfaction raised by the resident in a timely, efficient, and compliant manner.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident further compensation of £250 within four weeks, for its six-month delay in carrying out plaster and paint works between September 2019 and March 2020.
    2. Pay the resident the £100 compensation that it previously offered him within four weeks, for the time, trouble, delays and inconvenience caused between 24 July and 8 September 2020, if he has not received this already.
    3. Pay the resident additional compensation of £250 within four weeks, for its shortcomings in complaint handling and communication.
  2. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Review its communication processes in relation to repairs and complaints, to ensure that communication in respect of these is effective and accurate between all parties, including its staff, contractors and residents, if it has not done so recently.
    2. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to repairs, complaint handling and compensation, which should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.
  4. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.