Islington Council (202210715)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210715

Islington Council

25 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door, and the associated offer of compensation.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The property is a one bedroom maisonette on the second and third floors of a block of flats.
The resident became a leaseholder of the property on 11 July 2022. At the time of the repair and her complaint in April 2022, the resident held a secure tenancy for the property. Her occupation commenced on 23 March 2015.

Summary of events

On 7 March 2022, the resident reported that her front door was damaged or loose. The landlord raised a routine repair.
A contractor attended the resident’s home on 1 April 2022. The evidence provided shows that the contractor inspected the door and reported back on the works that were required. However, it is unclear if any repair works were carried out on 1 April 2022. Following the attendance, the resident called the landlord on 4 April 2022 and was advised that she would receive an appointment for the week commencing 11 April 2022.
A further order was raised on 14 April 2022 and passed to a specialist contractor. This had the following repair description:

“attend to wood front door, composite front door with UPVC door frame, spacing all around needs adjusting, top left corner of door from outside doesn’t sit in the frame properly, also big gap between door and frame half way lock side of over 10mm.”

Meanwhile, the resident continued to contact the landlord to try to establish when the repair would take place. The resident raised a formal complaint on 19 April 2022 as the repair remained outstanding. Within her complaint she queried the delay in passing the works to a specialist contractor. She also expressed concern about the failure to provide her with an appointment or an update in regard to the works to be carried out.
The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident and carried out an inspection on 26 April 2022. Following this inspection, it was agreed that the door should be replaced.
A reply to the resident’s stage one complaint was provided on 3 May 2022. In this, the landlord stated that:
1. A works order was issued on 1 April 2022. A contractor attended on 7 April to overhaul the door and recommended referral to a specialist contractor. The works were referred on 14 April 2022.
2. The door was inspected on 26 April 2022 and the works recommended were approved.
3. The contractor was to contact the resident to agree a date to commence the works.
The complaint was upheld. This was on the basis that there had been a delay in referring the work to a specialist contractor. The landlord offered an apology for the inconvenience that this had caused.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 May 2022 to express her dissatisfaction with the response. She advised that she wished to take the matter further.
Following an email exchange with the landlord’s customer services team, the resident sent an email on 9 May 2022 setting out the reasons for her dissatisfaction. She explained that:
1. She did not understand why it took two weeks to process an appointment when she was calling every day.
2. If her concerns about the front door had been listened to in 2018, she would not be in the (then) current position.
3. She was unhappy with the apology and believed that nothing changed.
On 10 May 2022 the landlord confirmed that it had escalated her complaint. While it acknowledged her dissatisfaction, it asked which part of the complaint the resident felt had not been addressed and what remedy she sought. The resident responded on 12 May 2022. She said she was unhappy with the delay, and that she considered the door should have been replaced in 2018.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 May 2022. It advised that due to a large number of requests it was unable to immediately investigate her complaint. It advised that her request had been logged and that a formal acknowledgement letter would be sent once the investigation began.
The works to supply and fit the door were completed on 20 June 2022. The works passed a post inspection on 1 July 2022. Also on 1 July 2022, the landlord provided an update to the resident via email about her complaint. This advised that this was a courtesy update and that it had not started its complaint investigation. The landlord confirmed again that a formal acknowledgement would follow.
Email contact between the resident and landlord shows that the resident chased a response to her complaint on 29 July 2022. The landlord responded the same day but was unable to give an update. It apologised for the delay and assured her that it was “working strenuously to reduce the wait times being experienced.” The resident responded directly asking for “a rough idea as to when the stage two would be completed”. The landlord responded on 1 August 2022 to advise that it could not confirm a timescale for its response.
The resident chased the matter again on 5 and 19 August 2022. The landlord responded on each occasion and said it was unable to advise when the stage two response would be provided.
The resident contacted this Service on 19 August 2022 for assistance. We asked the resident to provide a copy of the stage one response, and the landlord’s holding correspondence, so that we could chase the matter on the resident’s behalf. This was received on 14 September 2022.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 16 September 2022 requesting that it provide a stage two complaint response by 3 October 2022. We chased the matter on 14 October 2022, as the resident had not received a response, and asked the landlord to issue its stage two response within five working days.
The landlord responded to this Service on 17 October 2022. In its response it advised that:
1. The work to replace the door was completed on 20 June 2022.
2. A post-inspection was completed on 1 July 2022.
3. There had been no further service requests for the front door since completion of the works.
4. As the outstanding issues which formed part of the reasons for the stage two escalation request had been resolved, it would respond to the resident in the next 20 working days.
A stage two response was provided by the landlord to the resident on 21 October 2022. This acknowledged that she had escalated her complaint on 9 May 2022 for the following reasons:
1. The length of time it had taken to arrange an appointment, despite her daily chase up enquiries throughout April 2022.
2. That she had first reported the problem with the broken front door in 2018, and considered that she had not been listened to.
3. That although she had received apologies, nothing had changed.
In its reply the landlord:
1. Acknowledged and apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint at this stage. In recognition of the delay it offered £75 compensation.
2. Confirmed that the resident had advised that the front door had been replaced in either 2016 or 2017 and considered the works to have been done poorly.
3. Confirmed that it had reviewed its historic repair records for the previous five years. Having done so, it was unable to confirm that it had replaced the door, as the resident claimed. It had checked with its major works team who also had no record of the door being replaced. Works were planned in 2015 to fit a thumb turn lock and a self-closing device but these works were refused by the resident at the time.
4. Noted repairs were carried out to the door in 2018, but that it had not received any further reports until 2022.
5. Confirmed that the inspection of door had been carried out on 26 April 2022. A new door was fitted on 20 June 2022.
6. Advised that a new door usually takes approximately eight weeks to manufacture.
7. Partially upheld the complaint as the level of service provided in 2022 was not up to standard. However, it did not find any evidence that the issue had been outstanding since 2018.
The landlord recognised in its response that the resident had said that she did not want an apology. It explained that, while it noted her comments, it would always issue an apology where the level of service had not met its standards. The landlord also offered a further £75 in consideration of the time and trouble taken by the resident in raising her complaint. This provided a total of £150 compensation.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, expressing her dissatisfaction with its communication, the time taken to respond to her and to complete the repair. She requested that this Service investigate her concerns further.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s housing repair guide establishes its responsibility, in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, to keep the structure and outside the property in repair, including external doors.
The guide sets out response times based on the category of repair:
1. Emergency repair, where there is an immediate danger to a person or a risk of serious damage to the property should be attended within 2 hours to make the area safe.
2. Urgent repairs should be attended to within 24 and are categorised as those that affect the resident’s day-to-day living.
3. Routine repairs, covers non-urgent repairs and will be scheduled for the next available appointment. These have a target of 20 working days.
4. Planned repairs, covers high value repair jobs which are often complicated to complete. These should be completed within 60 working days.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy, in place at the time of the complaint, sets out how it will deal with complaints. The landlord operates a two stage procedure. At stage one, the policy states that “the first stage and first stage review is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated”. The second stage is the Chief Executive stage which is handled by the landlord’s corporate central complaints team.
In terms of timescales, the policy states that a complaint should be acknowledged within three calendar days, and a response should be sent within 21 calendar days of receipt of the complaint. If the complainant requests the escalation of their complaint, it can be dealt with as a stage one review. Once a stage one response and a stage one review has been completed, and if the complainant remains unhappy, the matter will be referred to the corporate central complaints team so that a review of the complaint can take place. A full response should then be issued within 28 calendar days of receiving the complaint.
The landlord published an updated complaints policy on its website on 23 March 2023. This provides updated complaint stages and timeframes for dealing with stage one and stage two complaints which correspond with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s compensation guidance advises that where a complaint has been upheld “it is appropriate that the council should take action to rectify any problems that are due to mistakes or negligence…”
The aim of this guidance is to resolve issues at the earliest opportunity. It recognises that compensation may not always be financial but that it should be appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of an individual complaint.
This guidance provides a framework for financial compensation and advises that “we should be mindful that the compensation should reflect the injustice that the complainant has experienced”.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the resident’s front door

In raising her complaint in 2022, the resident reported that the repair to her front door had been outstanding since 2018. In its review of her complaint at stage two the landlord considered this element of her complaint, despite the time that had elapsed. As such, this Service has also considered the available evidence in regard to the repair history for the property. The landlord has provided its repair records for the property, covering the period October 2017 to January 2023.
The repair records show that in June and July 2018, three separate orders were raised for repairs to be carried out to the front door of the resident’s home. The first two of these were raised as emergencies on 24 June 2018 and 2 July 2018, as the front door would not open.
Feedback following attendance to these emergencies records that “the door has been badly fitted and the framework fitted into blown brickwork” and that “the door is twisted and bowed”. A follow up repair to “overhaul front door, lock and fix frame was raised on 3 July 2018. Works were completed on 9 July 2018 with a description of “overhaul door and refit frame and seal around door frame.”
No further repair reports are recorded in regard to the door following conclusion of the works on 9 July 2018, until the report made by the resident on 7 March 2022. In the intervening four years the resident was in contact with the landlord in relation to other repairs within her home. The record provided shows that plumbing, roofing and gas repairs were carried out over this time.
The resident’s comments that repairs to the door had been outstanding since 2018 are acknowledged. However, the evidence that is available does not demonstrate that the landlord had been made aware that there was an outstanding repair between July 2018 and March 2022.There is a responsibility on the resident to inform the landlord of repairs that are required within her home. Had the works carried out in 2018 not resolved the issue with the door, it was incumbent on the resident to make further repair requests of the landlord. As no repairs for the front door were reported until March 2022, the landlord could not reasonably have been aware that there was a problem with the door, or that there was a repair outstanding.
Following the resident’s report in March 2022, a job was raised – and attended – on 1 April 2022. This met the landlord’s target for routine repairs of 20 working days. However, follow on works were recommended as a result of this initial attendance. The landlord’s stage two reply advises that consideration was initially given to these works being undertaken by its in-house contractor and that an appointment had been scheduled for 12 April 2022.
This does not appear to have been communicated with the resident. The evidence shows that the resident had made a number of calls to the landlord from 4 April 2022 onwards. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided her with an update and to explain that, at the time, it had referred the matter to its in-house contractor. It is unclear why the landlord did not take such action; however that it did not, was a failing in its handling of the repair. As a result, the resident was left to chase the matter and was unaware of what was happening with the repair. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s in-house contractor was unable to keep the appointment, and the resident was informed that the works had been passed to a specialist contractor on 14 April 2022.
Once the repair had been passed to the specialist contractor, the landlord handed over responsibility for arranging the appointment with the resident. The specialist contractor attended on 26 April 2022. Following inspection, it recommended the replacement of the door. This required a new door to be manufactured. Records do not confirm what was communicated to the resident about the timescales for these works. In its stage two response the landlord advises that the manufacture of a new door takes approximately eight weeks. However, this information was missing from the landlord’s stage one reply of 3 May 2022. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have informed the resident of the likely timescales at this time, especially given that she had been chasing the repair.
The completion of the repair on 20 June 2022 is reflective of an eight week wait for the new door to be manufactured. However, there were delays in progressing the necessary works following attendance by the first contractor. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this when it responded to the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay in progressing the repair.
The evidence provided does not show that the landlord communicated effectively with the resident. Had it taken a proactive approach in managing the repair and in its communication with the resident, some of the inconvenience, time and trouble which she experienced may have been avoided.
At stage two of the complaints procedure, the landlord offered a total of £150 compensation, £75 of which was for “the time and effort to complain and make enquiries”.
In communication with this Service, the resident advised that she was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer. She said that she did not consider the amount to be sufficient given the stress caused to her, and the time and effort she had to make in chasing the repair.
Under the heading of time and trouble, the landlord’s compensation guidance recognises that many complaints start out as service requests but become complaints where the landlord has failed to take reasonable steps to address issues. It also recognises the escalation of complaints where appropriate remedies have not been offered at the earliest stage. This provides compensation within a range of between £100 and £300.
No offer of compensation was made by the landlord at stage one of its complaints process despite it acknowledging that there had been a delay in passing the repair to a specialist contractor. It is not known whether any part of the £75 offer of compensation at stage two was intended to compensate the resident for the time and effort expended in chasing the repair, as well as that associated with her complaint. However, the offer was not proportionate in line with the landlord’s own guidance, the delay in initially progressing the repair or the landlord’s poor communication with the resident.
Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and the circumstances of the complaint, the Ombudsman has ordered a more fitting sum of compensation, aimed at putting things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one within its published timescales. It appropriately acknowledged that there had been a failing with regards to progression of the repair to the resident’s front door. However, it failed to explain what action it would be taking next in relation to the repair. It did not tell the resident that a new door needed to be manufactured or highlight the timescale for this. Given the evidence that is available, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shared this with the resident within its stage one response. That the landlord did not take such steps was a failing in its handling of the complaint, and a missed opportunity to try to put things right.
Within the landlord’s stage one response there are dates included regarding when repairs were raised and contractors attended, which differ from the repair records provided and the dates subsequently set out in the stage two reply. However, aside from a lack of clarity, there does not appear to have been any detriment to the resident as a result of this.
It is important that there is clarity in the landlord’s record keeping and that this is accurately reflected within its complaint responses. Care should be taken when drafting complaint responses so that they are accurate and evidence-based, and any failings can be clearly identified.
It is an obligation of the landlord’s membership of the Ombudsman’s scheme that it must manage complaints from residents in accordance with its published procedure or, where this is not possible, within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s complaints procedure must be compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
There were significant delays in providing the stage two response. It took almost six months from the resident’s initial request for the landlord to escalate her complaint. This far exceeds the timescales in the landlord’s own procedure in place at the time, or the Code.
The landlord advised in its initial acknowledgement of the complaint that it was facing a large volume of escalated complaints which would lead to a delay in commencing its investigation. It did not, however, offer any timeframe within which the resident could reasonably expect a response or establish a framework for providing the resident with regular updates.
As a result, the resident was left to chase her complaint with the landlord on a number of occasions. While the landlord did respond to the resident’s enquiries, the landlord was not proactive in providing the resident with updates. It is acknowledged that the landlord may not have been able to provide a timeframe within which it would begin considering the complaint at stage two of its process. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to agree to update the resident at regular intervals – for example, fortnightly. This would have provided the resident with reassurance that the landlord was aware that the stage two response was outstanding, and that it had not forgotten about the matter. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing in its complaint handling, which caused the resident additional time and trouble.
Within its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in undertaking its investigation. It concluded that “it is hoped that lessons can be learned when things go wrong and that customers will see an improvement, particularly when reports and recommendations are made as to what can be done to provide a better service.” There was, however, no evidence presented to the resident that changes were to be made to its complaint handling to address the severe delays that she had faced. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide some explanation of the measures that it was taking to ensure that similar delays were not experienced by the resident, and other complainants, in the future.
At stage two of the complaints procedure, the landlord offered a total of £150 compensation comprised of:
1. £75 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. £75 for the time and effort to complain and make enquiries.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that where there is a delay an offer of £25 per month should be considered for delays beyond the “service statutory period”. The landlord’s complaints policy sets a target of 28 calendar days to respond to a complaint at stage two. From receipt of the resident’s complaint until it provided a response on 21 October 2022 a total of 166 calendar days elapsed. A period of almost five months outside its published timescale.
The landlord did not set out its basis for compensation in its complaint response, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord acted reasonably in deciding to offer £75 for the extensive delay, and not £25 per month in line with its guidance.
It is noted that the landlord also offered £75 compensation in other complaints considered around this time, where there were delays in providing a stage two response. It is noted that this sum was offered for differing periods of delay. This indicates that rather than giving due consideration to its compensation guidance and the individual circumstances of the complaint, the landlord may have fettered its discretion and applied a set level of compensation for delays at stage two. A relevant order has been made to the landlord in this matter.
It is not known whether the additional £75 for “the time and effort to complain and make enquiries” was intended as redress for time expended chasing the repair or the complaint. However, even if considered only for time expended chasing the complaint, the sum offered is not in line with the range set out in the landlord’s compensation guidance. There is no evidence that the landlord acted reasonably in offering a lower level of compensation in this complaint.
Given the lengthy delay in the handling of the complaint, the inconvenience, time and trouble caused the resident, and the failure to reassure the resident of recommendations for improvement, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which was not put right by its offer of compensation.
Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and the circumstances of the complaint, an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation which is appropriate to its complaint handling failings in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door, and the associated offer of compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There is no evidence that the resident had reported an outstanding repair to the landlord between 2018 and March 2022. However, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of her repair request, raised on 7 March 2022. There were delays in initially attending to the repair, raising the follow up works required and then passing these over to an appropriate contractor.
The landlord’s communication with the resident in regard to this repair was not proactive and did not provide her with a clear timeframe within which the works would be completed. Had it done so, it would have removed the need for the resident to have to continually chase the works and could have led to the complaint being resolved at stage one. The landlord did not follow its own guidance in regard to the level of compensation offered to the resident for the delay.
The complaint was significantly delayed at stage two of the landlord’s process. No regular communication with the resident was initiated by the landlord, and it did not provide any timescales for its complaint response. All contact was reactive to direct chases and enquiries from the resident.
The delay in providing a response extended beyond the resident’s contact with this Service. The time taken to provide the formal response was not reasonable in these circumstances.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident a total of £425 compensation, comprising:
  1. £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in providing the stage two complaint response.
  2. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing updates on the repair to her front door.
  3. £200 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing updates on her escalated complaint.
  4. The landlord’s offer of £150 compensation should be deducted from the above total, if already paid.
  5. Provide confirmation to this service that this payment has been made.
Within the next six weeks, considering the failings in this case, the landlord should review its approach to:
1. Keeping residents updated where there are delays in complaint responses.
2. The time taken to respond to complaints at stage two.
3. Compensation offered for delays and time and trouble.
The landlord should share the outcome of the above review with this Service, also within six weeks. This review should as a minimum include:
1. Any planned changes to its approach, including any staff training, will reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
2. Any changes already made in its approach, including any staff training which has taken place, will reduce (or has reduced) the likelihood of similar failings happening again.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide a reminder to complaint handling staff that complaint responses should accurately reflect the information contained within its records.