Islington Council (202101745)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101745

Islington Council

28 April 2022


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 is about:
  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the windows at the property.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom flat located on the second and third floor of a residential building. The property is occupied by the resident and her ten-year-old son.
  2. On 11 August 2020, the resident reported a crack in her son’s bedroom window to the landlord. A contractor attended the property on 13 August 2020 and identified that scaffolding was required to access the son’s room. A job was raised for the window to be measured; however, this was cancelled because a separate department of the landlord (Capital Programme Team) was on site to carry out scheduled works for window renewals on neighbouring properties (Cyclical Improvement Programme). The resident’s property was scheduled to have its windows replaced as part of the same programme.
  3. On 29 January 2021, a contractor attended the property and noted that the windows were old and ‘draughty’ and needed repair. The resident requested that they were replaced immediately; however, the contractor assured the resident that they would be replaced soon as part of the scheduled Cyclical Improvement Programme (CIP).
  4. Subsequently, the resident raised her stage one complaint on 11 February 2021. She outlined several concerns, including health and safety worries relating to the cracked window, the time it had been since she had reported the issue, her son not having full use of the room for a number of months, and concerns that the work would not be completed until 2022.
  5. The landlord issued its formal response on 4 March 2021. It explained that the CIP was taking longer than expected due to covid restrictions but assured the resident that the work for her windows was scheduled for May/June 2021. It apologised for the windows’ defects but confirmed that it would not pay compensation for heating costs because of draughty windows. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in erecting the scaffolding to repair the window but also that the CIP takes precedent.
  6. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage two on 6 March 2021, explaining that she believed the response was ‘appalling’ and that she had been advised the work would take place in 2022. She also said that it was not acceptable that the landlord recognised deficiencies in the windows yet would not replace them due to scheduled works. The resident also stated that she had not paid rent for the month of February 2021 and that she would not be paying further rent until the work was completed.
  7. The landlord issued its review of the stage one response on 22 March 2021 and apologised for the fact that the resident had received inconsistent information regarding the timeframe of the scheduled works. The resident requested escalation a further time on the same day (22 March). The landlord accepted the escalation but explained to the resident that it was experiencing a high volume of cases and therefore its response would take several months to be investigated. It explained that it would offer £50 compensation for this delay.
  8. The final response was issued on 2 August 2021. The landlord offered £75 in recognition of the delay in response. It also confirmed that the windows had been replaced on 1 June 2021 as part of the CIP. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and stood by its decision not to repair the windows and wait for the CIP to do so. It noted that a contractor had offered to board the window for the resident in March 2021, but she had declined the offer. The landlord also believed that the bedroom could be used and therefore would not consider compensation for the loss of the room. It acknowledged the delay in the repair; however, it suggested that it was understandable due to the backlog and delays caused by the pandemic.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. Section 21.7 of the housing repairs guide categorises and outlines the responsibilities and response times for repairs. It states that routine repairs are to be attended within ’20 working days’.
  2. Section 6 of the corporate complaints policy outlines the landlord’s complaints procedure (stage one, stage one review, chief executive stage).
  3. Section 6.1 and all subsections of the complaints policy outline the timeframe of acknowledging a complaint and sending the formal response to a stage one complaint. It also outlines what the response should include. It states that:
  1. For a stage one complaint, a ‘full investigation will be conducted, and a final response will be sent in 21 calendar days’.
  2. For a stage one review, it must be completed in ’10 working days’.
  1. Section 6.3 of the complaints policy outlines the timeframe of a stage two response and what it should include. It states that ‘a full response is provided to the customer in 28 calendar days of receiving the complaint’.
  2. Section 6.3.1 of the complaints policy outlines the corporate customer service team’s (CCST) ability to make discretionary decisions on whether to award compensation or to increase or decrease an award of compensation.
  3. Section 7.1 of the complaints policy instructs the landlord to keep to its published timescales when dealing with complaints and to contact the resident to advise if it needs more time to carry out an investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the windows at the property

  1. The resident first brought the issue of the cracked glass to the landlord on 11 August 2020. The landlord raised a work order as a routine repair and the repair log noted to ‘make safe/inspect [the] child’s bedroom window and living room window which both have small cracks which have appeared but are growing’. A contractor attended on 13 August 2020 and identified that scaffolding was required in order to access the child’s bedroom window. The booking and arrival of the contractor was well within the landlord’s target response time set out for routine repairs in its housing repairs guide (section 21.7), in which it states that a contractor must attend within twenty working days.
  2. On 21 August 2020, another work order was raised for a contractor to measure the window. The job was cancelled, however, as it is stated that a separate department was on site to carry out works for the scheduled CIP works. The resident had not been made aware of the cancellation. Although the residents had been made aware that CIP works would be taking place in a letter dated 25 September 2018, the resident should have been made aware that the scheduled appointment had been cancelled. The reasons for the cancellation should have also been explained to the resident. This failure to inform the resident of the cancellation and the reason for the said cancellation highlights a communication issue between the landlord and its resident. Should the landlord have informed the resident, it would have helped prevent confusion for the resident and could have prevented stress and inconvenience that may have subsequently been caused due to delays in repairing the window. It would have also helped to manage the expectations of the resident, giving her a clear plan for the repair of her windows.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to postpone the repair of the window due to the upcoming CIP works that had been planned. At this point, the landlord had not been made aware of the resident’s concerns regarding potential health and safety aspects of the cracked window, and were therefore not incentivised to advance any repairs, or to make a temporary repair until the scheduled works were underway. It is understandable that the landlord would choose to wait for the planned repairs, yet it should have made this clear to the resident that this was the intention.
  4. On 29 January 2021, a contractor attended the property once again and this time noted that the windows in the property were ‘old, open and close properly but are draughty’. The resident made it clear that she wanted the windows to be replaced immediately, yet the contractor explained that new windows will be fitted soon as part of the planned CIP works. The reasons for the contractor’s visit are unclear as it cannot be determined from the evidence provided, whether the resident had contacted the landlord again with a new report about the window, or whether this visit was relating to the resident’s initial report about the window the previous year.
  5. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide a detailed view on events that have taken place. Clear and contemporaneous records also assists the landlord in its decision making process and provides an audit trail after the event if required. If there is disputed evidence and no clear audit trail, this Service may not be able to conclude whether an action took place. Without the reason for the visit being provided in the repair log, or the date in which the resident made the request for the visit, this Service is unable to tell whether the appointment was carried out within a reasonable time or whether there was a delay.
  6. The resident submitted her formal complaint on 11 February 2021. She explained that she first reported the problems with the windows in August 2020, and that several contractors had visited and confirmed that scaffolding was needed to make the repairs. She noted that her son had not had use of the room since August 2020 due to the cracked window and, because of faulty windows elsewhere in the property, her gas and electricity bills had increased as her heating was constantly on. She also expressed concern that she had been notified that the work would not take place on her part of the property, as part of the CIP, until 2022.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one response on 4 March 2021. It explained that the CIP works were undertaken by a different landlord department (Capital Programme Team) and that it was not under the remit of the responsive repairs team. It explained that it had liaised with the department and suggested that the works had taken longer than expected due to the pandemic. It noted that the lockdown restrictions imposed by the government from 23 March to 25 June 2020, 2 November to 2 December 2020, and 16 January 2021 to present (at the time of the formal response), had slowed progress on the CIP works, although it did note that progress was being made. These dates regarding the lockdown restrictions are supported by government records.
  8. The landlord followed this by confirming to the resident that the CIP work to her property was scheduled for May/June 2021, and also confirmed that this would include window replacement. Additionally, in its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had said that she had been told the works were postponed until 2022. It apologised for any confusion caused yet could not recall having said this to the resident.
  9. The landlord’s confirmation of when the work to the resident’s property would commence, was in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles as it set out the landlord’s intentions going forward. It gave a clear timeframe of when the work would be completed and also offered a reason as to why it was going slower than it had originally anticipated.
  10. The resident’s assertion on 11 February 2021, that she and her son had been sharing her bed since August 2020 due to not being able to use his bedroom for seven months, was the first mention of this on record. Until this point, the landlord was unaware that the resident had not been using the bedroom, or that she believed there to be a significant health and safety risk due to the window issue.
  11. The resident expressed that she was unhappy to have been paying full rent to share a bed with her son for seven months; however, her February complaint was the first time that she had raised this point to the landlord. Additionally, the landlord said that a contractor had offered to board up and make safe the cracked window in March 2021, but the resident declined this offer. This offer was made verbally and there is no recorded evidence of the conversation, although the resident does not dispute this. Although it is not denied by the resident, the landlord should keep a record of any communications and offers of work, and its failure to do so is further indicative of the landlord’s record keeping issues.
  12. The resident’s point that her energy bills had increased due to the standard of the windows was acknowledged by the landlord in the stage one response. It apologised for the defects in the property’s windows but explained that it would not award compensation to cover the cost of heating. Whilst the landlord had the discretion to compensate the resident for possible increased utility bills, there is no evidence that it was required to do so. As such, no service failure has been identified with this aspect of the complaint.
  13. In the landlord’s final response, it confirmed that the windows had been replaced on 1 June 2021 as part of the CIP. On 15 July the final installation of a small kitchen window was completed. The replacement of the windows on 1 June 2021 is in line with the timeframe that had been given to the resident, and it is good that the landlord kept within the timescales offered and made sure the work was completed by then. The resident also expressed that she was ‘ecstatic’ with the new windows.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident submitted her stage one complaint on 11 February 2021. The landlord issued its response on 4 March 2021 which was within the timeframe set out in section 6.1 of its complaints procedure (21 calendar days). The response addressed most of the issues raised, although it did not respond to the resident’s suggestion that she would withhold rent. This omission was identified in an internal review of the response by the landlord. It noted that ‘in hindsight [it] should have advised that: as rent arrears are dealt with by a separate [landlord] department, it would not be advisable to withhold rent’. It would have been appropriate to make the resident aware of the risks that she may face in the event that she withheld rent that she is contractually obliged to pay. Although the landlord did not address this as it would be expected to, it is promising that it addressed this internally and recognised its failing.
  2. Following the landlord’s formal response, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage two. The landlord issued a stage one review first and explained to the resident that, as stated in its complaints policy (section 6), the complaint must have a stage one review before being escalated to the chief executive stage (stage two). Section 6.1.2 of the complaints policy states that the review should be issued within ten working days of receiving the escalation request. With this in mind, the review was issued one day late on 22 March 2021, yet this is still within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. The review addressed most of the resident’s concerns; for example the resident’s health and safety fears regarding the window. It offered contact information for the resident to contact Housing Direct to ‘make safe’ the window and encouraged the resident to get in touch with them. However, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s comments that her son was not allowed in the bedroom due to the cracked window. It is important for a landlord to address every concern raised by the resident in its complaint responses as it gives the resident a clearer view on where the landlord stands regarding the complaint, and what outcomes can be sought.
  4. The resident requested that her case be escalated to stage two on 22 March 2021. The escalation was accepted, and the resident was made aware that the landlord would not be able to respond until 26 July 2021. It is not clear when the landlord informed the resident that its response would be delayed but its records do support that this was communicated to the resident. It confirmed with this Service that this was due to a high volume of stage two cases and that it would be offering all residents £50 compensation in recognition of this delay. This was appropriate from the landlord, and it showed that the landlord had made good use of its discretionary powers outlined in section 6.3.1 of its complaints policy to notify the resident in advance its intention to remedy the delay.
  5. The final response was issued on 2 August 2021, and it covered all aspects of the resident’s complaint. It offered £75 compensation in recognition of the delay in issuing its final response. Given the length of time it took to issue the final response, and the fact that the landlord had taken the appropriate steps to inform the resident that it would take that long to investigate, the award of £75 compensation offered reasonable redress to the delay.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the windows at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress offered for the failures identified with its complaints handling

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord take steps to establish a system of record keeping that ensures that all contact from a resident (and any representatives) is recorded and retained so that it can provide a detailed history of communication.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord improves its process of communication with its residents. It is imperative that the landlord keeps residents informed of planned and cancelled work, and provides an explanation for any changes to appointments made.