Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Islington Council (202126743)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126743

Islington Council

24 January 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of mice at his property.
    2. Handling of the related complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a one bedroom flat. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident reported an infestation of mice within his property in August 2020. At that time the landlord had baited both the communal bin storage area, where the mice were found to be coming from, and a void above the resident’s bedroom ceiling, from where he believed the mice were entering his property.
  3. The landlord’s contractor attended on 8 September 2020, and found the source of the problem to be a gap under the door of the communal bins storage area. Its contractor then supplied the landlord with a proofing works report. There was already an existing job that had been raised to fix the gap under the door of the communal bins storage area and so the landlord did not raise a new job.
  4. On 21 October 2020, the landlord became aware that the job had been raised with the wrong department and had therefore been cancelled. This was corrected on 25 November 2020 and its contractor subsequently attended the resident’s property on 16 December 2020. Following this the contractor advised the landlord that they had spoken to the resident, who had allegedly informed them that the repair works had been already carried out, and that there were no outstanding issues.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 October 2021 about a further mice infestation in his property and it arranged for its contractor to attended on 1 November 2021. At this point, the contractor identified that the previous works had not actually been carried out. The contractor found no evidence of an infestation within the resident’s property itself. The contractor re–sent their proofing works report to the landlord. Nothing further was done at that time. On 29 November 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its response to his reports of the infestation at his property.
  6. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged service failure in its response to the resident’s reports of infestation within his property, although it felt that it was not entirely responsible for the outcome as the resident had initially advised its contractor that the works had been carried out and that no outstanding work remained. The landlord also said that there had been a 12-month gap between the time that the resident had chased the landlord in October 2020 and the next time that he reported an infestation in October 2021. The landlord said that if the resident had contacted it earlier it could have responded sooner. The landlord awarded the resident £850 compensation made up as follows: £150 for inconvenience, £100 for time and effort, £150 for distress, £50 for failure to log complaint, £25 for delayed review response and 6 x £41.66 for delay in responding to the reported infestation, £75 for its late stage two response and £50 for the additional time and effort to the resident to complain and make enquires.
  7. The landlord said it had completed all of the outstanding repair works on 4 August 2022, although, the resident advised that the void above his bedroom ceiling had not been filled and was still allowing the mice access into his property.
  8. The resident contacted this Service, as he was unhappy about:
    1. how long it had taken for the landlord to carry out the proofing works;
    2. the fact that the landlord had not contacted him to see if he was alright, as he believed that his health had been impacted by the landlord’s handling of the infestation;
    3. he believed that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was insufficient.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service acknowledges that the resident has explained how the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation impacted his mental health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on physical or mental health as assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that the Ombudsman is unable to provide. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his mental health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  2. This investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of mice at his property and its complaint handling, as well as its response to the resident’s concerns that the infestation was affecting his mental health.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of mice at his property.

  1. The landlord has acknowledged its failure to raise a new job following the closure of the job that had been raised with the wrong department in October 2020. It also acknowledged that it failed to log the resident’s complaint at the time he made his complaint and that there were also delays in it issuing its complaints responses. Neither did the landlord dispute that it had a duty of care towards the resident, however, it did believe that the resident also had a responsibility to report that the infestation was still occurring, sooner than the 12-months that it took him to report it.
  2. Between 28 August 2020 and 19 October 2020, the landlord placed bait and block gaps within the resident’s property that could have allowed access to mice. These were appropriate actions by the landlord at this stage, as it was aware of an infestation outside of the resident’s property and the resident had informed it that the infestation had entered his property.
  3. Although the landlord had previously raised a job to fix the gap under the door of the communal bins storage area on 4 April 2020, the job was cancelled on 21 October 2020, as it had been raised for the wrong department to carry out. It is unclear why the landlord cancelled the job, rather than pass it on to the right department to carry out at that time, bearing in mind the reason that the job had been raised in the first place related to health and safety concerns due to the infestation. Best practice would have been for the job to have been flagged for review, rather than simply cancelling it. When the landlord become aware that the job had been cancelled, it raised a new job on 25 November 2020 to carry out the proofing works.
  4. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 16 December 2020, however, the resident allegedly informed them that the proofing works had already been carried out and that there were no outstanding issues. No evidence has been provided to this Service, to suggest that the resident disputes this version of events, and therefore, based on the evidence provided, the landlord cannot be held wholly responsible for the job remaining incomplete at that time. That said, it would have been helpful if the landlord had checked its repair logs to confirm that the works had actually been completed rather than relying the information the contractor said it was passing on from the resident. There is also no evidence that the contractor took any steps at that time to reassure itself that the works had in fact been completed.
  5. The landlord’s records indicate that a job was carried out by its contractors on 11 October 2021, to inspect the communal areas where infestation had been seen. During the inspection, its contractors noted that there were holes in the communal electrical cupboard, that holes had previously been identified in the communal bin storage area and that area would have to be checked to see if the holes had been blocked. The resident was informed by the landlord’s contractors of their findings, they also noted that no evidence of an infestation was found within the resident’s property. On 13 October 2021, the landlord’s contractors submitted their proofing works report to the landlord.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October 2021, to advise it of an infestation within his property. The landlord’s contractor attended on 1 November 2021, and realised that the proofing works had not been carried out, re–sent their proofing works report to the landlord on 10 November 2021. However, the work was not actioned until 1 March 2022, 77 working days later and the landlord did not complete the proofing works until 4 August 2022, 192 working days after it received the re–sent report on 10 November 2021.
  7. No reasonable explanation has been provided by the landlord as to why it took it 192 working days, over six months, to complete the proofing works, from 10 November 2021 to 4 August 2022. The landlord has stated that its failure was due to a different department taking over the responsibility of raising jobs, however this in itself does not provided a reasonable explanation for the length of the delay. The landlord also said that its contractor attended on 11 March 2022, but was unable to gain access to the locked communal electrical cupboard, and also wanted to clarify the details of the job with their supervisor. However, these explanations in themselves do not explain why a job raised as a routine repair took 192 days to completed when according to the landlord’ housing repairs guide this should have been resolved within 20 working days.
  8. In its stage one response, of 11 March 2022, the landlord initially offered the resident a total of £658.30 compensation, made up of £208.30 (£41.66 x 5) for the five months delay, £150 compensation for distress, £50 for failing to log the resident’s complaint on 29 November 2021, £150 for inconvenience and £100 for the time and effort to complain. This was increased to a total of £850 in the landlord’s final response of 4 August 2022, the landlord adding £41.66 for an additional month’s delay, £25 for delayed review response, £50 for additional time and effort to complaint and make enquiries and £75 for its late final response.
  9. The landlord’s refunds, compensation and remedies policy, does not give any indication as to compensation amounts that are relevant in this case, although compensation could have been awarded by the landlord under section 10 of the policy, which covers ex gratia payments but does not list any amounts.
  10. Given that five months had passed between the landlord’s stage one and its final response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident an additional 5 x £41.66 and not 1 x £41.66 offered. That the landlord did not offer 5x £41.66 shows a lack of consistency in its awarding of compensation, in relation to the delays in work being carried out. As such, and for consistency, the landlord should have awarded the resident £208.30 compensation and not just the additional £41.66 offered. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident and additional £166.64 in order to rectify this oversight.
  11. The resident has described to both the landlord and this Service, the impact that this matter has had on his pre-existing mental health conditions. Although the landlord did inform its targeted tenancy team about the residents mental health concerns, the landlord has not evidenced that it gave adequate consideration to his vulnerabilities in either its response to the resident’s reports or subsequent complaint. It is acknowledged that in its final stage complaints response the landlord stated that after 11 March 2022, when its contractor failed to access the communal electrical cupboard and also wanted further guidance from their supervisor, it had requested that the works be expedited, specifically due to the resident’s comments about his vulnerability. However it then too took a further 100 working days to complete the proofing works, despite the landlord being aware of the impact the matter was having on the resident’s mental health. There is also no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident whilst the repair was awaiting completion to provide him with updates on the progress of the work or to check in his health and wellbeing.
  12. As a result of these further failures, the landlord is ordered pay the resident a, additional £300 compensation for its failure to adequately consider the impact of it’s on the resident’s mental health. The landlord has also been ordered to review the lessons learnt from this case, in particular how its repairs process takes into account the vulnerability of its residents, to ensure that similar failures do not occur in the future.

The landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

  1. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its failures in relation to delays in its complaints response, and awarded the resident compensation for this, the landlord has failed to evidence that it learnt from its findings during the complaints process, as all three of its complaint responses were delayed. Additionally, although the landlord had the resident’s formal complaint from 29 November 2021 on record, it failed to register this as a formal complaint until 1 March 2022, 63 working days later.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a first stage complaint response will be issued within 21 calendar days of receipt of the formal complaint. However, as the landlord failed to correctly register the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to provide its stage one response to the resident’s formal complaint of 29 November 2021 until 11 March 2022, 103 calendar days later. This was a significant delay for which the landlord apologised and offered a compensation award of £50. In its final stage complaints response, the landlord explained that the delay had been caused by an administrative error.
  3. The resident made a stage two escalation request on 28 March 2022. The landlord issued a stage one review response on 22 April 2022, 19 working days later. The landlord apologised for the resident not receiving a response during its staff member’s absence and awarded the resident £25 compensation for the inconvenience.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue its final stage complaints response within 28 calendar days of receiving the complaint escalation. However, the landlord failed to issue its final stage complaints response until 4 August 2022. The landlord had contacted the resident on 26 April 2022, advising him that due to a backlog, it would have to delay escalating his complaint to its final stage for investigation. It then advised him of the same on 27 May 2022. The resident then contacted this Service for intervention, and the landlord was notified by this Service to issue its final stage complaints response by 7 July 2022. The landlord advised this Service on 22 June 2022, that due to a backlog, it had still not started its final stage complaint investigation into the resident’s complaint.
  5. The resident then sought the intervention of this Service again on 7 July 2022, and again this Service contacted the landlord on the same date. This Service advised the landlord to issue its final stage complaints response to the resident and to also provide this Service with a copy of its final stage complaints response within five working days, and no later than 14 July 2022. The landlord responded to this Service on the same day, and advised that it would issue its final stage complaints response within 20 working days. It issued its final stage complaints response 21 working days later on 4 August 2022. It apologised for the delay, and awarded the resident £75 compensation in recognition of this. It also advised the resident that it was working strenuously on rectifying the issue of delays in its final stage complaints responses, by providing additional resources.
  6. Even if the landlord’s final stage complaints response was to be considered in isolation, it would be considered as maladministration by the landlord. The landlord’s delay in response was a significant delay, well outside of its complaints timescale of 28 calendar days. Explaining that the delay was due to a backlog was not an acceptable justification in this case, given that its previous complaints response had also been well outside of its timescales. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that the resident’s final stage complaint escalation had been prioritised due to consideration of either his mental health conditions, or for the fact that its previous complaints response had been issued well outside of its complaints policy timescales. Consideration of either one of these factors ought to have marked his final stage escalation request as urgent, and based on the evidence provided, the landlord failed to do this.
  7. That the resident’s case had required intervention by this Service, should have led the landlord to begin its investigation of the resident’s complaint at its final stage, as a matter of urgency, and yet the landlord failed to do so. There are no mitigating circumstances under which the landlord’s final stage complaint handling can be taken as anything less than maladministration.
  8. The overall compensation that the landlord had awarded the resident for separate delays in its complaints responses came to £150. However, considering the above factors, this amount does not reflect the level of the failings that have been identified in this investigation. In the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a compensation award of between £100 to £600 compensation is appropriate where there has been maladministration by the landlord. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation, bringing the total payable for its complaint handling failures to £300
  9. Whilst not forming part of the complaint considered in this report, the resident has advised that there is a gap in his bedroom ceiling, which he was advised by the landlord to report to its relevant department. As it is unclear whether that repair has been carried out, it had also been recommended that the landlord review what the position is with regards to this repair and if necessary carry out an inspection to establish whether there are any repairs required to the ceiling for which it is responsible.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of an infestation of mice at his property.
  2. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £1,466.64 compensation, this being made up as follows:
      1. The £850 that it previously awarded him, if not paid to him already.
      2. A further £166.64 for four additional months of delay not compensated for in the landlord’s final response.
      3. An additional £300 compensation for its failure to adequately consider the impact of it’s on the resident’s mental health.
      4. An additional £150 compensation in respect of its complaint handling failures.
    2. Review the lessons learnt from this case, in particular how its repairs process takes into account the vulnerability of its residents, to ensure that similar failures do not occur in the future.
    3. Review its complaint handling policy and procedures, and any relevant staff training, in order to make sure that similar failures in its complaint handling do not occur in the future.

Recommendation

  1. That the landlord review what the position is with regards the resident’s report of repair to his ceiling and if necessary carry out an inspection to establish whether there are any repairs required to the ceiling for which it is responsible.