Islington Council (202111325)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111325

Islington Council

14 December 2023

 

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:

  1. The condition of the property at the start of her tenancy.
  2. A pest infestation within the property.
  3. Her boiler not working.
  4. Repairs to taps leaking, and broken locks on the windows and doors.
  5. A defective intercom system.
  6. The building’s master water valve being house inside her property.
  7. Noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
  8. Lack of cleanliness in the communal areas of the building.
  9. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

2.             What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

3.             Paragraph 42(c) of the scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of matters arising.

4.             After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the resident’s complaints are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

  1. The condition of the property at the start of her tenancy.
  2. A pest infestation within the property.
  3. Her boiler not working.
  4. A defective intercom system

5.             In August 2016, the resident moved into her property. On 29 June 2017, she complained to the landlord about the condition of the property. She said that many of the outstanding repairs should have been completed by the landlord, prior to her moving in. The resident also complained that the property had an infestation of mice, in 2017. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident on 13 July 2017, in relation to these matters.

6.             The landlord’s complaint response explained the resident had one month to ask for her complaint to be reviewed. This service has seen no evidence that the resident sought for this complaint to be escalated at that time. If the landlord had received no reply from the resident, then it would have been reasonable for it to then close the complaint.

7.             The resident raised these same complaints to the landlord, on 1 November 2020. She also made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of multiple boiler repairs between 2016 and June 2019. She said she had no hot water for 4 – 6 months in 2019. The landlord responded that the resident had access to the immersion heater during this period.

8.             In respect of the broken intercom system. The resident’s complaint said that the issue had been historic. She also confirmed that these matters were resolved prior to her complaint being submitted to the landlord, on 1 November 2020. The repairs log shows the resident raised a repair about the intercom on 25 September 2017. This landlord referred the repair to its external contractor, who completed the repair on 2 October 2017. There are no other reports recorded concerning the intercom.

9.             The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident has felt negatively impacted, in relation to her complaints made to the landlord between 2016 and 2019. However, the Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident had previously made a complaint as described above in 2017. It would have been reasonable for the resident to escalate her complaint at that time. The Ombudsman is not criticising or questioning the resident’s decision not to escalate her complaint. However, the Ombudsman is unable to consider her decision to raise the same complaint again 3 years later, as this is not within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

10.        The resident’s complaint about her boiler was made 17 months after the matter occurred. The Ombudsman is also unable to consider this complaint, as it was not raised within a reasonable period.

11.        Therefore, in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, paragraph 42 (c), the complaints relating to the condition of the resident’s property at the start of her tenancy, mice infestation, the boiler repairs, and the defective intercom system are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

12.        After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the resident’s complaints are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

  1. The building’s master water valve being house inside her property.
  2. Noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.

13.        The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 6 April 2021 about the water valve and the landlord issued a stage one response on 27 April 2021.

14.        On 9 August 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint about noise coming from a neighbour’s property.

15.        On 26 August 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident.

16.        The evidence provided to the Ombudsman, shows that the resident did not request the escalation of her complaints about the water valve or noise nuisance made on 6 April 2021, and 9 August 2021.

17.        The timeline shows that the resident’s requests to escalate her other complaints made in November 2020, did not include these matters. Therefore, the landlord was not given the opportunity to provide its response to these aspects of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. For this reason, the resident’s complaints in respect of the noise nuisance, and the master water valve being inside her property are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted the member landlord’s complaints procedure.

Background

18.        The resident is a secure tenant. She is vulnerable and suffers with a number of mental health conditions, which the landlord has a record of.

19.        The resident moved into her property in August 2016. Between August 2016 and June 2019, the resident raised a number of repairs in relation to the condition of her property, her boiler not working, and a mice infestation. She also raised a stage one complaint during this time, which the landlord responded to on 13 July 2017.

20.        On 1 November 2020, the resident made a number of complaints which included the following:

  1. Her taps had been leaking in her kitchen and bathroom between 2016 and 2020.
  2. Locks on a number of internal and external doors and windows had been broken since she moved into the property, in 2016.
  3. The communal areas of the building were not cleaned and had a terrible smell.

21.        On 28 January 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It said it had carried out repairs in 2020 of the resident’s taps, at the property. On 13 January 2021, it carried out an inspection at the property, where it fixed door hinges, and adjusted the housing lock. It said the resident had not raised a repair in relation to windows at the property. The landlord reported it had no record of the resident reporting issues with her intercom. It had referred the cleaning of communal areas to its housing feedback team to investigate.

22.        On 9 June 2021, the resident stated she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint made on 1 November 2020. On 21 June 2021, the landlord wrote the resident stating it would not be offering the resident compensation, as she had requested. The resident requested an escalation of her complaints made on 1 November 2020, in July 2021.

23.        On 26 October 2021, the resident repeated her request for the landlord to escalate her original complaints, that she raised on 1 November 2020.

24.        The landlord provided a stage 2 written response on 17 August 2022. It awarded the resident £75 in compensation for its delay in providing a final response to the resident. It awarded the resident an additional £25 for its delay in responding to requests by the Ombudsman, to update the resident.

25.        In the landlord’s final response, it accepted that it had not responded to the resident’s complaints about the cleanliness in communal areas of the building. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 October 2022, stating her desired outcome that additional compensation be paid to her.

Assessment and findings

26.        When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

27. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policies and Procedures

28.        The landlord’s repairs policy sets out a number of categories to which it will respond to repairs. This includes the following:

  1. Emergency – This is where there is an immediate danger to a person, or serious risk of damage to the property. Its contractor will respond within 2 hours and make the repair safe.
  2. Urgent – This is where the repair affects a resident’s day-to-day living. Its contractor will respond within 24 hours.
  3. Routine – This is for repairs that need to be completed before the next scheduled programme of works. It states it will make contact within 20 working days and provide the resident with an appointment.

29.        The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 days. It will then provide its written response within 10 working days at stage one. If it requires more time to provide a response, it will update the resident within this 10-working day period. It will set out the reason for the delay and provide the expected date it will be able to respond. Following a request by a resident to escalate their complaint, the landlord states it will provide its final response at stage 2, within 20 working days.

30.        The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will not consider complaints about matters more than 12 months old unless, the resident can provide a good reason for the delay. It will also not consider a complaint, that it has already investigated.

Scope of Investigation

31.        As above, section 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident stated she had issues with her taps leaking, and broken locks on windows since 2016. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident has been impacted by these on-going repairs in her property. However, the resident made her complaint in November 2020, and the landlord’s complaints policy states that it will only consider complaint made within 12 months of the issue being reported. The Ombudsman considers this to be reasonable. The Ombudsman has therefore, in line with the Scheme, and the landlord repairs policy, considered the landlord’s handling of the repairs to taps leaking, and broken locks on the windows and doors between 1 November 2019 and 17 August 2022, when the repairs were completed.

Repairs to taps leaking, and broken locks on the windows and doors.

32.        On 17 July 2020, the resident reported that the following:

  1. Her hot water mixer tap in her bath / shower was leaking.
  2. The hinge was broken on one of the living room windows.

33.        A contractor attended to the resident’s bathroom mixer tap on 28 July 2020, and completed this repair. On 12 August 2020, the landlord repaired 2 windows at the property, including the one with the broken hinge. These would both be classed as routine repairs, which the landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete within 20 working days. Both repairs were completed within this time, this was therefore, a reasonable response by the landlord.

34.        The resident reported her cold water tap dripping on 2 November 2020. A contractor attended the property on 4 November 2020, carried out the repair and reported that the tap was running, and was not dripping. The resident reported this again on 5 November 2020, and the landlord overhauled the tap due to it not being straight, on 11 November 2020. As this was a routine repair as described above, the landlord’s response was reasonable.

35.        The repairs log shows that the landlord completed a repair to the kitchen door, and lock during an inspection of the property. It carried out the inspection following the resident’s complaints in November 2020, about a number of repairs she had reported at the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out this inspection upon receipt of her complaint letter. This was because it could identify the outstanding repairs, and if appropriate set a schedule of works for the outstanding repairs. It was reasonable that the landlord carried out repairs during its inspection of the kitchen door and lock, at the property.

36.        The landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs about the leaking taps, broken locks on doors and windows between 1 November 2019 and 17 August 2022 were reasonable, for the reasons described above. Therefore, there is a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of these repairs.

Lack of cleanliness in the communal areas of the building.

37.        The resident said she raised her complaint about the lack of cleanliness on 1 November 2020. The landlord said it did not receive this complaint until 5 January 2021. It responded to the resident on 28 January 2021, and said it would refer the resident’s concerns about the lack of cleanliness of communal areas, to its housing feedback team. As this was the first record of the resident raising this issue, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a request for a service and refer it to the relevant service area rather than issue a formal complaint response through its complaints process.

38.        The landlord has provided evidence that it carried out 8 monthly inspections between 17 June 2022 and 23 March 2023. These inspections concluded that the communal areas were cleaned to a satisfactorily standard. It was right that the landlord carried out these inspections to the communal areas of the building. However, its ‘housing feedback team’ made no contact with the resident to confirm the result of the inspections. The landlord accepted in its final response to the resident on 17 August 2022, that it had not responded to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning of the communal areas. It was unreasonable for the landlord to not communicate with the resident about her concerns. It should have engaged with the resident and explained to her what it was going to do to maintain the cleanliness to the building.

39.        Because of the landlord’s poor communication, and its failure to address the detriment to the resident in its final response, the Ombudsman therefore, makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the lack of cleanliness in the communal areas of the building.

40.        We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident compensation of £150 for errors in its handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Amounts in this range are appropriate in cases where there has been maladministration by a landlord. Examples of this are where a landlord has failed, and its failure has adversely affected the resident. This includes where a landlord has made an offer of compensation but in the Ombudsman’s opinion to does fully reflect the negative impact caused to the resident.

The associated complaint.

41.        The resident raised her stage one complaint on 1 November 2020. The landlord has said that the letter was received hand delivered and stamped on 5 January 2021, at its offices. The landlord’s stage one response was provided on 28 January 2021, which was 17 working days after it said it received the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 3 days as per its complaints policy. It should have provided its response within 10 working days. Although this is not a significant delay, it is accepted that this may have caused some degree of negative impact on the resident.

42.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 June 2021 asking it to escalate her complaints made on 1 November 2020. The landlord carried out a review of its original stage one complaint. It advised the resident that it would not revisit compensation in respect of the mice infestation, due to the delay in the complaint being made. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. Its complaints policy as quoted above, does not consider complaints about matters over 12 months old, without a ‘good reason’ for the delay.

43.        The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s views that she did not know about the complaint procedure, until 2020. She had however, previously submitted a complaint about the same issue in 2017. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident but cannot consider her lack of knowledge as a ‘good reason’ for the landlord to have considered this aspect of her complaint further.

44.        In July 2021, the resident repeated her request to escalate her complaint. She then submitted another letter on 26 October 2021, asking the landlord to respond to her previous requests. The resident should not have had to write multiple letters for the landlord to respond to her request to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 November 2021. This was 109 days after the resident first requested her complaint be escalated. This was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in responding to the resident.

45.        The landlord provided its final response to the resident 194 days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaints. It contacted the resdient twice in that time, to apologise for the delay in its response. It was right the landlord apologised for its delay in providing the response. However, the length of the delay was significant and unreasonable. The landlord should have been more proactive in its updates to the resident. This is evidence of poor communication. Whilst it is positive that the landlord offered compensation in view of the delays, the Ombudsman does not consider the £100 awarded to the resident to be reasonable redress, when considering the length of the delay, and the vulnerabilities of the resident.

46.        For the above reasons, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

47.        In line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as described above, the landlord is to pay the resident £350 compensation (including £100 already offered) in total for delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

48.        After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman has determined that the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the condition of the property at the start of her tenancy, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

49.        After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman has determined that the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation within the property, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

50.        After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman has determined that the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of her boiler not working, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

51.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to taps leaking, and broken locks on the windows and doors.

52.        After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman has determined that the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a defective intercom system, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

53.        After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman has determined that the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the building’s master water valve being house inside her, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

54.        After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman has determined that the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

55.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of lack of cleanliness in the communal areas of the building.

56.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the associated complaint.

Orders

57.        The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days of this determination. The apology is to be in line with this Service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint.

58.        The landlord is to pay the resident £400 compensation. This is in addition to the £100 compensation awarded in its stage 2 response to the resident. The breakdown of the £400 is as follows:

  1. £150 for its handling of the resident’s reports about the lack of cleanliness in the communal areas of the building.
  2. £250 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

59.        If it has not already done so, the landlord is to pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered the resident in its stage 2 written complaint response.

Recommendations

60.        The landlord should continue to carry out regular inspections to ensure the quality of cleaning and grounds maintenance on the estate. This includes its use of photographs. To assist in communication between the landlord and the resident, the landlord could consider communicating with the resident prior to it completing its regular inspections of the communal areas of the building. This would allow the resident to be present during such inspections to enable her to raise any concerns at the time.