Islington Council (202119874)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119874

Islington Council

14 February 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. Outstanding repairs to the kitchen units.
2. The replacement bath and taps.
3. Repairs to the glass in the rear door.
4. Missed appointments.
5. Staff conduct, accusation of lying, and being in breach of the tenancy agreement.
6. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. She lives in a 4-bedroom house. The landlord has recorded that the resident has limited mobility.
The resident originally raised a complaint to the landlord on 24 November 2021 but later withdrew this stating that it had been meant for this Service and not the landlord.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 25 March 2022. She said that operatives who attended to complete repairs had “bullied” her. She had been insulted, ignored, injured, and called a “liar”. The replacement bath was too big. She was left without water following a flood and had to pay for helpers to clean up. She had to replace taps and get her own plumber to complete repairs in the bathroom.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 12 April 2022. It provided an explanation for each element of the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. The repairs team had agreed to carry out “age related discretionary repairs” to the kitchen, which were completed.
2. It found no record for a service request to repair a shattered pane of glass to the rear door. However, a job was raised on 12 January 2022 to make safe the door and was completed on 22 February 2022.
3. The adaptation team had confirmed that it had never installed a disabled bath in the resident’s home. The replacement bath was “like for like”, and details were provided for Social Services to arrange for an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment, who could instruct the adaptation team. It had also upgraded the taps as the resident had not liked the previous ones.
4. There had been friction with repairs operatives who attended, and it arranged for a different team to attend to complete the works.
5. It referred to a personal injury sustained by the resident. Whilst she had not indicated any intention to claim for personal injury, the matter was outside its complaints process. It provided contact details should she wish to pursue a claim.
6. It acknowledged that various discretionary repairs carried out to the kitchen had taken longer than anticipated and there were numerous appointments.
The resident responded on 20 April 2022 raising multiple points to the landlord’s response. The landlord responded on 3 May 2022 to each of the points raised and on 31 May 2022 acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 22 March 2023. It provided further explanations and repeated some elements from its stage 1 response. It offered £625 in compensation for its late response, stress and inconvenience for delays with repairs, and distress caused.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She said that she wanted a written apology, compensation for costs incurred and missed appointments, and for the landlord to investigate matters which had occurred more than 12 months prior.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42(c) the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
The resident wanted the landlord to investigate its response to her reports of flooding in her bathroom in 2020. The landlord advised that it had checked its repairs records for May 2020, the date provided by the resident, but found only 1 service request which was unrelated. This Service saw no evidence, from the landlord or resident, to suggest that the matter had been raised at the time of the incident, giving the landlord the opportunity to investigate and respond within 6 months of the matter arising. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to decline to investigate repairs issues from 2020 and this Service has therefore not considered it in this investigation.

Assessment

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Repairs to the kitchen units

The landlord’s housing policy for repairs and maintenance, and housing repairs guide, set out the responsibilities of both the landlord and resident. The landlord is responsible for, but is not limited to, the exterior of the property, communal areas, installations for water, gas, electricity and sanitation. The resident responsibilities include, but are not limited to, repairs to doors and drawers to kitchen units.
The landlord’s repairs response times are within 2 hours for emergencies to make safe, 24 hours for urgent repairs and 20 working days for routine repairs.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said that on 10 February 2022 the local councillor had forwarded an enquiry on behalf of the resident. This related to her request for a new drawer for a kitchen cupboard and larder unit which needed replacing. The repairs team carried out age related discretionary repairs and, due to the unit not being a standard size, it was made by its joinery team and installed.
The landlord also provided a repairs chronology as part of its stage 1 response which showed repairs to the kitchen units as follows:
1. A plumber had attended in January 2021 to a leak from a metal pipe at the back of the kitchen cupboard. The same day it replaced the stop tap.
2. On 3 February 2021 a carpenter attended to inspect the base unit under the sink which was damaged by the leak.
3. On 9 February 2021 the carpenter notes that the kitchen units present were not standard units. It was unable to replace the unit like for like.
4. On 24 March 2021 it raised an inspection of the kitchen units.
5. On 2 June 2021 it noted that most doors and drawer fronts were damaged due to age and certain works to renew doors and drawer fronts were to be carried out as age related discretionary repairs.
6. On 10 June 2021 an order was raised to renew doors and drawer fronts and materials were ordered on 23 June 2021. There was a delay in delivery of the materials and the operative booked for 16 October 2021 was unable to attend. The order was re-raised on 18 October 2021.
7. On 22 November 2021 it replaced all door and front sides of cabinets at the base and wall units along with plinths. The tall oven cabinet was missing, and the bottom drawer front sent was incorrect.
8. On 3 December 2021 an order was raised for follow up works for the carpenter to attend and renew the larder unit containing the oven, and to fit the drawer front.
9. On 7 December 2021the electrician attended, disconnected the oven, and removed it from the kitchen unit. The system notes referred to the resident being unhappy with the operatives, who left site.
The resident’s response of 20 April 2022 said that in March 2020 she came home to find a “spray of boiling water” in her kitchen which was due to a faulty valve. Emergency services came and the valve was changed. The bottom cabinets were blown and were therefore not a discretionary repair. The landlord acknowledged, in its chronology of repairs on 3 February 2021, that the base unit under the sink was damaged due to a leak. It was therefore reasonable for the resident to assert that this particular unit was a required repair rather than discretionary.
On 3 March 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. She said that when the operative originally came, he brought the drawer front with him. She had asked him to leave, due to his behaviour, and he took the drawer front with him. She had asked him to leave it so she could get it fixed but he had said “nah, this comes with me.” The larder unit was part of the kitchen update 30 years prior. It had been measured twice. On 1 visit it was not on the van and the second visit it was the wrong size.
The resident wrote again on 17 March 2022 to confirm that the kitchen cupboard had been replaced. She said that 2 “lovely men” had visited and purchased the cabinet and drawer front from a supplier, returned and fitted it. She was “shocked and pleased.”. There was no need for “made to measure” cabinets as they had been purchased off the shelf.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that in the process of ordering the fittings for the kitchen, measurements should have been taken correctly. It apologised for its error and the way that the items to be returned were stored in her home. Efforts should have been made to store them safely and not inhibit the use of her home. It apologised for the inconvenience. It also stated that the replacement of her kitchen cupboards was not conducted efficiently.
It noted that the resident had advised that the injury was as a result of the removal of the drawer front and items falling out injuring her foot. It was sorry and pleased to hear that the cabinet was purchased and fitted. It provided the resident with a contact number to use if she wished to pursue a personal injury claim. The landlord’s response was appropriate in providing the information to the resident if she wanted to pursue this.
It was clear that the landlord had agreed to replace the larder unit and drawer front from its repairs chronology provided in its stage 1 response. The resident waited a considerable time for this work to be completed which was eventually resolved in March 2022.
This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord apologised for delays in completing repairs and offered £200 in compensation for stress, inconvenience relating to repairs, and having to raise a complaint. Its offer was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and range of compensation awards for service failure. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its shortcomings in dealing with the matter.

Replacement bath and taps.

The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that it had contacted its adaptations team who had confirmed that it had never installed a disabled bath in the resident’s home. The bath had been replaced “like for like”. It had also replaced the bath taps as the resident had stated she did not like them.
On 20 April 2021 the resident responded to say that she had never had a disabled bath but had a medium sized bath. The landlord provided small, medium and large sized baths. It then installed a “very large family bath” which she could not get in or out of. She wanted the landlord to install the original size bath that she had previously. She had “beautiful vintage style” taps which were replaced with chrome “left to right action” which made it easy on her hands. She acknowledged that this was one good thing to come out of the situation. She wanted the operative to retract the statement that she had not liked her taps.
In a further response of 3 May 2021, the landlord repeated its response from stage 1 and said it would not investigate this further.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in that if the resident wanted a disabled bath installed, she should have followed the process of contacting social services as directed by the landlord. However, as part of its evidence, the landlord provided photographs of the original and replacement baths stating that the replacement was “like for like”. This Service is unable to determine whether the replacement bath was the same size from the photographs, but it was evident that the original bath had grab rails either side and the new bath did not. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to have installed grab rails on the new bath ensuring that it was “like for like”. It would also have been helpful for the landlord to have provided dimensions of the original and replacement bath to the resident, demonstrating that it was “like for like”. This Service therefore finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to this matter.

Replacement glass in the rear door.

The resident stated that she had reported the broken glass and a glazier had attended on 1 December 2021 to make it safe. It had taken 2 and a half months for the repair to be completed.
The landlord’s responses said that its records indicated that it had raised a job on 12 January 2022 for a carpenter to attend to make safe. On 13 January 2022 a further works order was raised for a glazier to attend to measure for the replacement glass. The description was noted as “fold up window with maximum new toughened glass needed for bottom pane”. It noted that the description “fold out window” was incorrect, thanked the resident for her correction, and apologised for any confusion.
With regard to the length of time taken to complete the repair, the landlord acknowledged that the target date had been 10 February 2022, however it was reasonable to expect delays where repairs required materials such as glass.
As outlined in paragraph 22 of this report, an offer of £200 in compensation was made for the stress and inconvenience of delays in completing repairs. For the same reasons set out in paragraph 22, this Service finds that the landlord has made reasonable redress to the resident.

Missed appointments.

The resident originally submitted a complaint to the landlord on 24 November 2021. On 25 November 2021 the landlord asked for confirmation about there being 30 missed appointments for the kitchen unit installation, but she responded and withdrew the complaint stating the complaint was meant for this Service and not the landlord. She raised the matter again when making her formal complaint to the landlord in March 2022.
In its response the landlord stated that service requests made by a resident, and works orders raised on its system, provided an audit trail of the customer journey. The notes on its repairs system formed the basis of its response. It said it was sorry to learn that, as the resident asserted, there had been up to 30 missed appointments. However, no specific dates had been provided in order for it to fully investigate. It could see from its records that an operative had been due to attend on 16 October 2021 but had cancelled as the operative was not available. This was not unusual if an operative called in sick and was outside the landlord’s control. It asked the resident to provide details of missed appointments to enable it to investigate.
In her response to the landlord on 20 April 2022, the resident said that the landlord seemed convinced that its records were correct. She wanted it noted that not all appointments were made by post or text and were generally made by phone.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it could see 2 appointments which had been rescheduled. It empathised that this would have been frustrating for the resident and was sorry that the service fell short on these occasions.
It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its repairs records to provide a response to the resident. The resident did not provide any other information or dates relating to missed appointments which limited the landlord in its investigation. The landlord acknowledged some rescheduled appointments and apologised that its service “fell short”. This Service therefore finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to missed appointments.

Staff conduct, accused of lying and being in breach of the tenancy agreement.

The resident felt that she had been accused of lying about her kitchen whereby an operative had stated it was not the landlord’s kitchen. Reference had also been made to the resident breaching her tenancy by being abusive towards the landlord’s operative. The resident stated that the operative was rude and bullied her.
The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that its customers’ best interest and safety were its priority. There had been friction between the resident and operatives, it had taken action, and another team attended to carry out the remaining repairs. Any failure of its personnel to adhere to the code of conduct policy was treated seriously and dealt with internally.
On 20 April 2021 the resident responded and said that the operative attended and told her that the kitchen was not the landlord’s, he was rude, and she felt bullied and asked him to leave. He returned and stated he had to measure the kitchen. He brought the larder unit, which was the wrong size, removed the cooker and said, “what do I want to do”. She said she did not understand and he “ranted”, by which point she was in tears.
In the landlord’s responses it said:
1. It was deeply sorry that she felt intimidated and then accused of being in breach of her tenancy. It said it understood the comments about her conduct was the summation of an operative. It was unable to say if it was justified but apologised for how this made her feel.
2. It was sorry that she felt distressed following contact with its operative. It understood how the conversation had been difficult and where the stress of the overall situation began. Having to prove the kitchen was upgraded with the permission of the landlord was not something she should have had to do.
3. It was clear that she was not treated with dignity and respect during various visits to her home.
It would have been helpful for the landlord to have explained further whether it had taken any action in relation to the operative, or its process for investigating such matters. However, it did outline that any failures by its personnel were subject to internal procedures, and it would not have been able to disclose any outcome to the resident.
Residents will often describe how they have been affected by a situation that has led to their complaint, for example in terms of the impact on their emotional wellbeing. The landlord acknowledged how the incidents had made the resident feel, empathised, and apologised. In addition to the £200 offered for its repairs delays, it offered a further £200 in compensation for distress. The amount offered was in line with this Service’s level of redress, and remedies guidance, and therefore we find that the landlord has made reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s reports about staff conduct.

Associated formal complaint.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints, known as Chief Executive Stage, are responded to within 20 working days.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident raised her complaint on 25 March 2022, acknowledged by the landlord the same day. The landlord responded on 12 April 2022, 18 working days later and 8 days later than its complaint policy timescale.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 31 May 2022 but failed to respond until 22 March 2023, 295 working days later and 275 days outside its complaints policy timescale. While the landlord had explained that it would not be able to investigate straight away, the delay was not appropriate and would have added further to the resident’s frustration.
This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord did acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response and apologised. In addition to its offer of £200 for repair delays, and £200 for distress, it offered a further £225 in recognition of the 9-month delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, a total of £625. It acknowledged that its payment would not make up for the way the resident had felt during the time of her complaint, but hoped it went someway in acknowledging the impact this had on her.
In its explanation to this Service, it said that it was experiencing a backlog of complaints resulting in residents waiting longer than reasonable for their complaints to be investigated. It had apologised to all residents and ensured that adequate compensation was awarded. It had made efforts to clear the backlog, including recruiting a new complaints manager and additional resources. The backlog had been cleared in April 2023 and all complaints since had been responded to within time. This demonstrated that the landlord had considered the issues with its complaint handling and put measures in place to resolve its shortcomings.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in apologising for its complaint handling delays. It demonstrated that it had put measures in place to prevent any failures in the future. Its offer of compensation was proportionate and in line with this Service’s level of redress. For these reasons, this Service finds that the landlord has made reasonable redress in relation to its complaints handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports about the replacement bath.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to its handling of her reports about:
1. Outstanding repairs to the kitchen units.
2. Repairs to the glass in the rear door.
3. Staff conduct, accusation of lying, and being in breach of the tenancy agreement.
4. The associated formal complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the reports of missed appointments.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for its failings in relation to the replacement bath and not fitting grab handles to make it like for like.
The landlord is ordered to contact the resident and establish whether installing grab rails to the bath will assist and enable her to use it appropriately.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with the above.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay £625 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.