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

Islington Council (202015622)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015622

Islington Council

16 September 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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and leaks at her property, and its response to her subsequent formal complaint about the matter.

Background

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 set out that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in repair.
  2. The landlord’s ‘Housing Repair Guide (published November 2018) sets out that it would ‘make good’ after completing a repair, preparing the surfaces in the area around the repair so they are ready to be redecorated, usually after there has been a leak. This document also sets out that routine repairs would be attended to within 20 working days (though may require an inspection first), and urgent repairs within 24 hours.
  3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure:
    1. Stage 1 – This includes a stage one response and a stage one review. Stage one should be investigated and responded to within 21 calendar days of receipt by the service area in which the complaint originated.
    2. Stage 2 – Chief Executive’s stage gives the customer the right to request that an investigation of their complaint is undertaken by the Corporate Customer Service Team on behalf of the Chief Executive, and would be responded to within 28 calendar days.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments to be made to residents who suffer damage, disturbance or inconvenience. The landlord would take the particular circumstances of the case into account when making a decision.

Summary of events

  1. On 9 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating that there was an ongoing issue with a leaking roof. She said ‘…the fact that you keep fixing the problem and it keeps on not being successful may show that there is an underlying cause that you are not paying attention to.’ She said that this would be the third time that the landlord had come out to fix the issue, and that the damp that was resulting from the leak was affecting her wellbeing. She asked the landlord to let her know what it intended to do to fix the issue. 
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 July 2020, following a conversation with her the previous day in which she asked it to detail what works it was going to carry out, explaining that it would be carrying out pointing works to prevent water ingress, and asked the resident to get in touch to arrange this. 
  3. In August 2020 the resident emailed again listing a number of issues around the leaking roof. These included:
    1. A lack of clear communication about repairs and what was being done.
    2. Scaffolding being erected ten days before works were due to take place.
    3. Repeat issues with a leaking roof (which first occurred in 2019, and then again in 2020) and damage this had caused to pictures and frames.
  4. The resident also asked what would happen with the water damage, damp wall, and decorations.
  5. Following a telephone call with the resident on 20 August 2020 to discuss her concerns, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 24 August 2020. In this it acknowledged that a repair appointment that had been made for 7 July 2020 had not been communicated to the resident, and she was therefore unaware of it when contractors attended. The landlord agreed that she should have been telephoned about this and offered apologies for its mistake. Another appointment was booked for 27 July 2020 but as the resident advised that this was not convenient, an alternative appointment was agreed for 31 July 2020.
  6. Regarding the roof leak, the letter noted that on 2 March 2020, prior to the Covid-19 ‘lockdown,’ the resident had reported wet patches on the wall caused by a possible roof leak. Contractors attended on 13 March 2020 and confirmed that the roof was ‘safe’. After easing of the lockdown contractors attended in July 2020 to carry out pointing works to the rear part of the roof and top of the external wall. It was found that a scaffold was required for the works to be carried out.
  7. The scaffold was erected, and the works were scheduled for 13 August 2020, but could not go ahead as suppliers did not have the required materials in stock on that day. The operative took measurements and photos for the leadworks, and cleared the hopper and box gutter. A follow-on visit was booked for 21 August 2020, but due to high winds, the operatives were unable to carry out the work. The outstanding work had now been assigned to a specialist roofing sub-contractor who would be attending shortly to complete.
  8. The landlord acknowledged that the scaffolding had been erected too soon as it should only have been in place two days before the works commenced, and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
  9. The letter stated, ‘Having checked our records, I can see that the previous roof leak occurred in March 2019, which is outside the 12 months, of which our complaints policy does not allow me to investigate.’ The landlord concluded that it had made two errors in the appointment booking process, but no errors in the repairs process. It advised the resident that she would need to make a claim on her own home insurance for any damaged belongings.
  10. The resident submitted an escalation request on 21 September 2020. She said that the fact that the scaffold was put up early meant that she had incurred costs for additional lighting, and also two of her plants had died due to the blocking of light. She asked for compensation for this.
  11. In relation to the July 2020 appointment the resident stated ‘As this was directly after lockdown, should I have not received a letter to explain that the works which were supposed to take place in March, where going to continue and then a rundown of what to expect from the operative in regard to the keeping safe measures. This was not done, I was not informed, nor was the information to be given to me done so in regard to the keeping safe procedure. This should not have happened!’ She asked the landlord for a further response on this point. The resident noted that she then received an email from the contractor simply saying that works were going to be carried out, without any apology.
  12. The resident questioned the landlord’s assertion that only matters from the previous 12 months could be considered, and stated that its comments about finding the roof ‘safe’ in March 2020 and then attending to carry out works after lockdown eased were very confusing. She asked what ‘safe’ meant. The resident also asked why the supplies needed for the August 2020 works had not been obtained prior to the repair appointment.  
  13. The resident went on to detail enquiries she had needed to make about the works and said that the common issue was a lack of communication. She also asked about the damp that was caused by the leak and said that she needed to be told how best to dry this out, so that the landlord could then damp proof it and repaint. She stated, ‘I have been living as a tenant with damp’ and that her request to have this repaired had been ignored several times. The resident concluded that she was seeking compensation for damage to her belongings for the constant disruption the matter had caused her, particularly over the last 12 months.
  14. The landlord provided a ‘stage one review’ response on 5 October 2020. It declined to compensate the resident for a lack of light caused by the scaffolding being erected eight days too early.
  15. It again acknowledged that the resident was not informed about the 7 July 2020 appointment and that this had been upheld at stage one, and apologies offered. Another appointment had been booked for 27 July 2020, and then moved to 31 July 2020 at the resident’s request. Prior to this appointment the resident had asked for details of the works in writing, and the landlord emailed this to her.
  16. The letter went on to explain that the term ‘safe’ was used to indicate that there were no health and safety issues with the roof. Regarding the materials required for the 13 August 2020 appointment the landlord explained that these had been ordered but were still waiting on delivery the day of the appointment. It apologised if the resident had not been informed of the 21 August 2020 appointment being cancelled due to high winds.
  17. The landlord said, ‘Regarding the damp wall, I have asked our Repairs Team to arrange for this to be inspected and for any necessary works to be carried out. You will be contacted shortly to arrange a convenient appointment.’ The landlord again declined to pay compensation as other than the two errors in booking appointments, it had found no failings in its repairs process.
  18. The resident wrote to her MP about the matter on 11 October 2020 and the MP made enquiries with the landlord on 27 November 2020. In reply on          11 December 2020 the landlord explained that the complaint was with the Chief Executive team for a final response. It said that residents were regularly reminded to ensure that they had contents insurance to cover damage caused by unforeseen issues such as roof leaks, and it was not liable for damage to personal belongings. If the resident felt the damage was caused by negligence, then she could make a claim on the landlord’s insurance, and a form for this was attached. Regarding the damp, the landlord said that it did have an order raised to investigate but could not see that any appointment had been made, and apologised for this. It would contact the resident to progress the repair.
  19. The landlord then provided a Chief Executive complaint response dated         22 January 2021. It acknowledged a delay in providing this and offered £25 in compensation. As well as reiterating the previous response, the letter went on to note that the leak was first reported in March 2019, and operatives attended between 18 and 21 March 2019 to trace and rectify the damp in the hallway and the roof leak. On 27 March 2019 the box gutter was cleared, and flashings were temporarily repaired. On 29 March 2019 the flashing to the roof was replaced and all works were completed on 3 April 2019. Regarding the damp issue a visit in March 2019 to assess the damp determined the cause was water ingress from the roof and there was no damp at the property.
  20. On 24 October 2019 further repairs were carried out to the roof due to a leak. No further repairs to the roof were recorded until 2 March 2020, and these works were completed in August 2020. There were no active repair works outstanding.
  21. The landlord concluded ‘I have decided to partly uphold the investigation based on the two errors made in the appointment booking process. In recognition of the inconvenience caused, time and trouble, I would like to offer compensation of £50, this being £25 for each of the appointments rescheduled in addition to the £25 for the delay in responding to your Chief Executive complaint. This brings the total compensation award to £75.’
  22. The resident responded the same day stating that her concerns about damp had been overlooked. She noted that to date there had still been no visit to assess this, despite the stage one response and the November 2020 email to the MP saying this would be done.
  23. Following this the landlord arranged for the reported damp to be inspected on 5 February 2021. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2021 noting that it had found that damp had been caused by the leaking roof. She asked that in light of the recommendations made following the inspection did the landlord want to change its response to her complaint. She said that the matter should have been addressed at the first roof repair and referenced damage to her belongings. She said ‘It would seem to me, that if water ingress had been found, upon an observation in the property, that concluded that the roof was indeed damaged and thus needed to be repair, then once the roof was fixed, the water ingress, would also need to be looked at; it was not.’ She noted that the roof had been found to still be leaking and asked that this was remedied once and for all.
  24. The landlord provided a further response on 1 March 2021, in which it said that following the 5 February 2021 inspection it was agreed that there had been a delay dealing with the matter. It awarded a further £117.60 compensation, for a 21-week delay.
  25. The resident replied the next day, stating the landlord had failed to fully address the issues with the roof since she moved in, that the repairs made had been unsatisfactory, and that it had been an ongoing problem. She said that the fact remained that after the roof was repaired following on from the March 2019 leak, the internal wall should have been treated. As the roof was still leaking, it was still not clear when the internal wall could be addressed. She therefore did not agree that the delay was only 21 weeks as the matter had been ongoing for a lot longer. The leak kept occurring in the same place and had not been remedied by any of the repairs to date.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

  1. The resident first reported the roof and damp issue on 18 March 2019. The call log from this stated that there was a leak from the roof which only occurred when raining and was causing damp internally. In line with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord was obliged to investigate and repair this issue. This was treated as a ‘routine’ repair (as the leak was containable and not causing any health and safety concerns), and so should have been attended to within twenty working days, dependent on the need for inspections.
  2. The repair records show that operatives attended to repair the roof within the 20-working day timeframe, with the lead flashings being renewed, and cement works to rear of main roof carried out.  This supports the Chief Executive response which said that the repair was attended to between 18 and 21 March 2019 and all works completed by early April 2019.
  3. There is no indication that any other works were required to the wall that had become damp due to the leak, and there was no further contact from the resident about damp or related issues until several months later in October 2019. The evidence shows that the landlord dealt with this initial repair appropriately.
  4. On 24 October 2019 the resident reported a further roof leak, and this was treated as an ‘urgent’ repair. Although the Housing Repair Guide sets out that such repairs should be attended to within 24 hours, the repair record gave this repair a seven working day timeframe, with an appointment being offered for 4 November 2019, and then changed to 11 November 2019 as the resident’s request. The repair records state that cement works to main roof took place.
  5. Although there seems to be a discrepancy between the repair time frame that should have applied here, again the evidence shows that the landlord attended to address the issue in line with its obligations, and no further concerns about a damp wall were reported by the resident. While the fact that there was a recurrence of the issue would have been understandably frustrating for the resident, this is not necessarily a sign of a failing on the part of a landlord.
  6. However, that there was third recurrence of the same issue on 2 March 2020 (with the resident describing the leak to be occurring in the same place each time), could suggest that the repairs that the landlord was carrying out were unsatisfactory. The March 2020 job was again raised as an ‘urgent’ repair but with a seven working day timeframe, although was attended for inspection on 6 March 2020. The note of this states that the landlord would raise works to repair the roof, but it seems that this was put on hold due to the Covid-19 restrictions that came into force soon after.
  7. The landlord has explained to the Ombudsman that during the first Covid-19 lockdown, it operated an emergency only service (with this repair not being classed as an emergency). This was reasonable and in line with the approach taken by most landlords at that time. However, there seems to have been no communication with the resident following this until the ‘no access’ 7 July 2020 appointment (which she was not informed of) and her subsequent contact with the landlord soon after. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that the landlord updated the resident about the repair between March 2020 and July 2020. It is not disputed that the landlord’s service was affected by Covid-19, however, it should have engaged with the resident to update her.
  8. The landlord scheduled in the works that had been planned in March 2020 for 7 July 2020 without contacting the resident, although has acknowledged and apologised for this. It then provided the resident with the information about what works were to take place as she had requested, and booked 13 August 2020 for these. This was reasonable, however, while the landlord has stated in its response to the complaint that materials had been ordered in advance for the 13 August 2020 appointment, the repair record for this day specifically states ‘We completed inspection and measuring for leadworks as lead was not ordered…’ In light of this the Ombudsman finds that the response to this aspect of the complaint was incorrect. However, the repair records indicate that the repairs to the roof were completed soon after.
  9. Overall, this repair was carried out in a reasonable timeframe given the impact of Covid-19, but there was a lack of communication with the resident.
  10. At this point the resident had clearly raised concerns about damp that had been caused by the leak. She specifically asked in August 2020 what would happen with regard to water damage, damp wall and decorations. The landlord did not address this in its response, and there is no indication in the repair records that any works or inspections took place in relation to this during August 2020. The landlord’s ‘Housing Repair Guide specifically sets out that it would ‘make good’ after completing a repair such as a leak, so it was reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to address any issues with the wall.
  11. The resident raised the matter again in her 21 September 2020 communication, asking about the damp that had been caused by the leak, and how best to dry this out so that the landlord could then damp proof and repaint. In response on 5 October 2020 the landlord said that it would arrange for the damp to be inspected and any necessary works to be carried out. This did not happen, and the resident had to raise the issue again via her MP later that month.
  12. On 11 December 2020 the landlord acknowledged that no appointment had been made in relation to the damp, apologised and said that it would contact the resident to progress the repair. Again, this did not happen, which the Chief Executive response of 22 January 2021 failed to recognise, incorrectly stating ‘There were no active repair works outstanding.’ The resident once again had to raise the matter, and it was not until this point that an appointment was made to inspect the damp on 5 February 2021.
  13. The Ombudsman considers this to have been a significant failing on the part of the landlord. It was not until six months after the resident originally raised her concerns about damp (in August 2020), and after she had repeatedly chased up, that the landlord attended to inspect.
  14. The 5 February 2021 inspection found that the roof was still leaking, and that scaffolding was required to remedy this. No ‘make good’ works could be carried out to the damp wall until this was resolved. The fact that the roof was again found to be leaking further suggests that previous inspections and repairs had been unsatisfactory. There is no indication that any explanation or apology has been offered to the resident for the ongoing issue.
  15. This Service asked the landlord for clarification of any plan in place to complete the repair and any schedule of work it had in relation to this. In response the landlord referred to the repair history it had provided, which only goes up to February 2021 and does not demonstrate any plan in place to resolve the matter. The resident has recently explained that after issues the landlord experienced with another occupier objecting to scaffolding being erected, she has heard nothing further. She says that no works have been carried out, the roof is still leaking, and the wall is still damp due to the leak.
  16. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that there was a failure in resolving the roof leak issue from the March 2020 report onwards. The multiple inspections and works that have been/are still required to be carried out have been disruptive and inconvenient for the resident, who understandably feels frustrated by the lack of communication from the landlord and the failure to fully rectify the problem with the roof.
  17. Further, the landlord failed to respond in good time to the resident’s ongoing reports of a damp wall from around August 2020, despite undertaking to do so and the resident chasing this up on many occasions.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made a formal complaint in August 2020, and the landlord provided a stage one response within 21 days, as set out in the landlord’s complaint policy.
  2. The response was reasonable and fair in acknowledging the mistake made with the 7 July 2020 appointment, and that the scaffolding had been put up eight days too soon. The landlord declined to address the resident’s concerns about the roof leak in March 2019 on the basis that it occurred more than 12 months previously. While this was in line with the complaint policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to exercise discretion here to include the first leak, given the resident’s concern was that the matter was an ongoing issue that had not been resolved. However, these earlier reports were addressed in the Chief Executive response.
  3. The landlord advised the resident that she would need to make a claim on her own home insurance for any damaged belongings. Given that the landlord had investigated the matter and had concluded that there had been no failings in its handling of the repair (and therefore it was not liable for any damage), this was not wholly unreasonable, but it would also have been appropriate to provide information at this point on how to make a claim on the landlord’s own insurance if the resident believed it to have been negligent (although it did later do so in its response to the MP). The response did not address the resident’s questions about the damp wall.
  4. The landlord provided a ‘stage one review’ response in a reasonable timeframe, and attempted to answer the questions that the resident had raised. It also addressed the issue of the damp wall, saying that this would be inspected, and any necessary works carried out, which was a reasonable action to take to address the issue (although this then did not happen).
  5. It is not clear at what point the resident requested an escalation to the Chief Executive stage or on what basis (no record of the request has been seen in the evidence available to this Service). However, the 22 January 2021 response itself does reference that it took longer than it should have to provide. This response made an offer of compensation of £75 (£50 for the two errors made in the appointment booking process and £25 for the delay in responding to the Chief Executive complaint). The Ombudsman finds this offer to be reasonable to remedy the inconvenience caused to the resident by the identified failings. However, the response failed to identify the more significant failing in the handling of the resident’s concerns about the damp wall at her home.
  6. It was not until the inspection of this eventually took place on 5 February 2021 that the landlord acknowledged that there had been ‘a delay dealing with the matter’ although it is not clear from its 1 March 2021 email exactly what ‘matter’ it was referring to here, whether the damp wall, the roof leak, or both. The calculation of compensation was made from 21 weeks presumably prior to the inspection (so from mid-September 2020) but there is no explanation for this time frame, how the figure was reached, or how the landlord took the particular circumstances of the case into account, in line with its compensation policy.
  7. The Ombudsman does not consider 21 weeks to be a reasonable calculation in terms of the damp issue, as the resident had very specifically raised concerns about the damp wall in August 2020, and so the landlord was ‘on notice’ of the issue at that point. Neither does it appear to correspond to the roof leak problem, which had been a recurring issue for a long period.
  8. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint, and the compensation offered was not sufficient to remedy the time, trouble, inconvenience and frustration that the resident has experienced, both in relation to the damp issue, and the roof leak. Therefore, an order for compensation is made below. The amount takes into account the long duration of the issues, along with the fact that the damp and leak were reasonably ‘mild’ (for example the leak was not dripping) and confined to one hallway.
  9. The Ombudsman is unable to make an assessment of any damage to the resident’s pictures and picture frames and so does not award compensation for this. As above, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to make an insurance claim.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with Section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and leaks at the property, and service failure in its response to the subsequent formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord dealt appropriately with the reports of a roof leak in March and October 2019. There is no indication of the resident raising concerns about any outstanding works to a damp wall at these times. Some errors were made with booking appointments following on from the March 2020 report, but the landlord has appropriately apologised for these and offered compensation.
  2. However, there was a lack of communication about the March 2020 repair, and this third attempt at rectifying the roof leak did not resolve it. The matter remains outstanding to date. In addition, the resident’s concerns about damp from August 2020 were not appropriately addressed in a reasonable time frame, which the formal complaint response did not identify or resolve. Again, this issue remains outstanding.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £425 (comprised of £375 for the time, trouble, inconvenience and frustration caused by the identified failings in the handling of the repairs, and £50 for the complaint handling failures). The £117.60 previously offered can be deducted from this amount if it has already been paid. The £75 offered in the Chief Executive response should not be deducted (and should be paid if it has not already) as this represented a remedy to issues not included in this order.
    2. Write to the resident, copying in the Ombudsman, setting out the actions that the landlord will now take to identify and repair any outstanding roof leak, and address the damp wall. It should provide a timeframe for these actions to be completed, which should be no later than 12 weeks from the date of this report.