Islington Council (202223387)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223387

Islington Council

16 October 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 a leak into the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder with the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat. There are two stories of flats above the resident’s property. The resident has young children who live in the property with her.
On 3 November 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She said that:
1. On 31 May 2022, she had reported that there was a leak coming through the roof of her children’s bedroom. A plumber attended on 8 June 2022, but the repair was then closed without the resident being informed of this.
2. On 15 and 16 August 2022, there was further extensive leaking into her children’s bedroom. On 25 August 2022, a roofer unblocked a drain on the roof, however this did not resolve the leak. Another appointment was booked for 13 September 2022, for the drainage team to check the stack pipes which drained the roof internally down through the flats above the resident’s property. An operative attended this appointment, but the resident was told that the appointment would need to be rebooked for 29 September 2022, as it was a two-person job.
3. The drainage team said it could not find a leak from the stack pipes on the roof but said that the stack pipes in the two top flats would need to be checked.
4. The roof was supposed to be sealed on 25 October 2022, but the operatives who attended this appointment left within an hour.
5. The leaks into her children’s bedroom had continued and as the leak was near the ceiling light, the resident was concerned about the safety of the electrics.
6. She wanted the landlord to confirm that the roof had been sealed properly and that the stack pipes in the top floor flats would be checked.
On 15 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. She said that the drainage team had carried out a further inspection and had told her it believed the leak was caused by a defect linking the roof drain to the network of stack pipes. She asked the landlord to confirm when it planned to access the top floor flats which is where the leak was believed to be coming from. She said that the leak was getting worse.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 November 2022. It said that:
1. Its drainage team had carried out a number of inspections and had contacted the residents in the upstairs flats to carry out a further investigation and it would let the resident know the outcome of this.
2. It apologised that the resident’s home had been affected by the leak and for the inconvenience this had caused her.
3. Residents should have contents insurance to cover any damage to personal possessions. As a leaseholder, the resident had leaseholder insurance paid for through her service charge to cover damage to fixtures and fittings. The landlord sent the resident the leaseholder insurer’s details and advised that she make a claim within 90 days of the incident.
4. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that her home had again been affected by a leak, but that the defect initially reported by the resident had now been resolved and remedial works had been completed.
On 19 November 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She said that:
1. She had raised the leak repeatedly since initially reporting it in May 2022. Each time she had reported the issue, there had been a delay of around two weeks in the landlord assessing the property and further delays once a works order was raised.
2. The landlord’s operatives had not completed any work on 13 September 2022, and had not attended on 10 November 2022. She had taken time off work for these appointments.
3. The landlord had not taken any further action in relation to checking the communal stack pipes.
4. None of the actions taken thus far by the landlord had resolved the issue and the leak had got worse. The defect was not resolved, nor were the remedial works completed as the landlord had stated in its stage 1 response. The leak now affected 2 rooms in the property and there was extensive damage to the walls and plasterwork. The ceiling was starting to buckle.
5. She had made a claim to the leaseholder insurance, however there was a £100 excess to pay for the claim. The damage to her carpets and furnishings would come out of her contents insurance which also had an excess to pay and would result in an increase in her insurance premiums. She would bear the cost of the leak as the repairs and the insurance was covered by her service charge.
6. She was concerned for the health of her two young children as they had had prolonged exposure to the damp and mould caused by the leak.
7. She wanted the leak to be repaired satisfactorily. She asked for compensation for the delays in repairing the leak which had led to the damage getting worse, and for loss of earnings as well as the inconvenience caused.
The resident sent the landlord a video of the leak on 23 November 2022 to show how bad the leak became when it rained. This service has seen a copy of this video which shows a continuous stream of water leaking into the resident’s children’s bedroom.
On 21 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to follow up on the escalation of her complaint as the email she had sent on 18 November 2022, had bounced back saying that the member of staff she had sent it to, was no longer employed by the landlord. The resident said that the leak was now affecting 2 separate rooms and water was coming into the property even when it was not raining.
The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement of her stage 2 complaint on 23 December 2023.
On 16 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and offered her £25 compensation for this.
2. Appointments to remedy the leak were made for 13 and 15 December 2022, to repair the main stack pipe, however it was unable to gain access, so further appointments were booked. The leak was repaired on 20 January 2023.
3. Its repairs team had confirmed the 2 missed appointments. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for this.
4. If the resident could provide evidence of the excess she had paid on her contents insurance claim, it would reimburse this cost. It advised the resident to speak to her insurance company regarding an increase in the cost of any premiums.
5. It acknowledged the time it took to complete the repairs and offered the resident £150 compensation for this.
On 17 February 2023, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. She said that what turned out to be a simple repair was allowed to escalate and caused extensive damage to her property. She was self-employed and had to take 15 days off work to attend repair appointments. She said she suffered emotional stress and that the compensation offered was not satisfactory. She said she was seeking £2000 compensation. She asked that the landlord improve its process for dealing with repairs.
The resident has told this service that when it rained, she was having to empty several 20 litre buckets of water a day and that this prevented her leaving the property for fear of the buckets overflowing when no-one was in. This service has also seen photos of the damage caused by the leak. She said over time the leak affected the living room, the hallway and a room used for storage as well as the children’s bedroom. She said that over the winter she was not able to use electricity in the parts of the property affected by the leak for a period of 2 months and that her children were not able to use their bedroom for the duration of the period that the leak occurred (7.5 months).
The resident has told this service that although the issue is now fully repaired and the damage to her flat has been made good, some damp and mould has returned. She said she was seeking £5000 in compensation in lost earnings, for damage to belongings and for mental distress.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that she is seeking compensation for loss of earnings. This service will not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, the Ombudsman can consider time, trouble and inconvenience caused where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.
The resident has mentioned in her complaint that she was concerned about the impact the damp resulting from the leak may have had on her children’s health. She has also told this service about the stress she suffered, throughout the period that the leak affected her property. This service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her children’s health (and it is accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health). Nor does it doubt the stress she suffered. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health and her children’s health. This service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her children’s health.
As the resident’s reports of further damp and mould in the property have not been escalated via the landlord’s complaint procedure, these have not been considered in this assessment. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. The resident is encouraged to report the damp and mould to the landlord so that it can establish whether the cause of the damp and mould falls within its obligations to repair. If she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she can complain to it. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s lease agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and the resident. The landlord is responsible for keeping the external structure of the building in good repair including communal pipes. The resident is responsible for repairs to the interior of the property. Any repairs that the leaseholder is responsible for is covered by a leaseholder insurance which the resident pays for through her service charge.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the timescales in which it will attend to repairs it is responsible for, as follows:
1. Emergency repairs where there is an immediate danger to a person or serious risk of damage to the property, it will make the area safe within two hours.
2. Urgent repairs where there are issues that affect a tenant’s day-to-day living, it will respond to in 24 hours.
3. Routine repairs where there are repairs that need to be completed by the next scheduled programme of works, it will respond to in 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaint’s process has two stages. At stage 1, it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and will respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 days and will respond within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the leak

It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord.
After first reporting the issue at the end of May 2022, the resident did not raise the issue again until the start of August 2022 as the weather had been dry over June and July 2022, therefore neither the resident nor the landlord would have been aware that the leak had not been resolved by the initial repairs the landlord had carried out.
This service acknowledges that the landlord sent out operatives on multiple occasions to attempt to determine the cause of the issue and carried out repairs to the roof. The landlord’s repairs log shows that on 29 September 2022, after carrying out a CCTV survey of the communal stack pipes and finding these to be clear, the landlord’s operatives recommended that boxing was removed in the flats above the resident’s to trace the leak. However, it took a further 4 months before the root cause of the leak was identified and repaired.
In its stage 1 complaint response issued on 17 November 2022, the landlord said that the defect reported by the resident had been resolved and remedial works had been completed. This was incorrect. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident repeatedly reported that the leak had not been resolved. The landlord’s response will have caused the resident frustration and concern, particularly given the severity of the leak when it rained and the fact it was now affecting other parts of the property.
The landlord’s repair log shows that when the resident initially reported the leak, it treated the issue as an emergency and urgent repair which under its repairs policy, set out above, it should respond to in 2 hours-24 hours. However, from August 2022, her reports were treated as routine repairs, which have a 20-working day response time and the landlord took between a week to over 2 weeks to attend to these reports. Given the severity of the leak and the number of times the resident reported the issue as ongoing, the landlord should have continued to treat this as an urgent repair in line with its policy, which states that repairs affecting a resident’s day-to-day living should be treated as urgent.
The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the two appointments that its contractors did not attend. It has offered the resident £50 compensation for these missed appointments. However, the resident told the landlord that on at least two occasions, its operatives attended for less than an hour, causing her concern that they had not carried out repairs to a satisfactory standard. On another occasion she was told that emergency appointments to attend to the leak had been cancelled. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said there were 2 occasions on which it could not gain access to the upstairs flat to carry-out the necessary repairs. However, this is not recorded on the landlord’s repairs log and this service has not seen evidence to show that it provided an update to the resident at the time. These delays and lack of information may have given the resident the impression that nothing was being done to resolve the leak.
The landlord acted reasonably in advising the resident to make a claim on her leaseholder’s building insurance for the internal damage to her property, the electrics and making good the property after the repairs. This is because the leaseholder insurance is designed to cover these types of issues and the landlord would not be expected to pay claims which would be covered under the leaseholder insurance. This would not be seen as an effective use of the landlord’s limited resources as a social landlord.
However, it did not address her concerns about the damp and mould in her flat and her worry about the impact this was having on her children’s health. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to look at whether it could take any steps to support the resident and/or refer her to other agencies who may be able to provide support. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to advise her that she could pursue a personal injury claim with its liability insurer should she wish to do so for damage to her children’s health. The landlord should pass on its insurer’s details to the resident now so she can make a claim if she wants to. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it.
The landlord has told this service although the resident would need to make a claim on her leaseholder’s insurance in relation to the damp and mould, it should have addressed the resident’s concerns and has said it will offer the resident £150 additional compensation in view of this. However, it has not informed the resident of this.
The volume of water leaking into the property when it rained, will have caused the resident significant distress and worry. Furthermore, the fact that the resident’s children could not use their bedroom and the resident could not use the electricity in the rooms affected by the leak for a period of two months over the winter, would have caused the resident considerable trouble and inconvenience.
The resident has told this service that she decided to replace the carpet and furnishings damaged by the leak rather than make a claim on her contents insurance as doing so would have resulted in an increase in her insurance premium. It is understandable that the resident made this decision. However, the landlord would not be expected to refund any excess as no claim was made to the resident’s contents insurance. However, the resident has said that she had to pay an excess of £100 on her leaseholder’s insurance. The landlord should consider refunding this amount of £100 if it has not done so already.
The resident complained that she is paying for the repairs through her service charge. The terms of the lease set out that the landlord is entitled to charge residents for the cost of repairs it carries out through the service charge. Therefore, the landlord has not acted unfairly or unlawfully in this regard, and we would not ask the landlord to pay for repairs without applying the cost to the service charge.
The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for its failures to carry out the necessary repairs to the resident’s home. It has offered £150 compensation for these delays. However, this offer is not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation and does not adequately compensate the resident for the distress, time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors in this case.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. The guidance states that where maladministration has been identified that significantly affected the resident, compensation of up to £1000 should be considered. In the opinion of this service, the landlord should offer the resident an additional £400 for its delays in completing the repair to the leak. This amount is in addition to the £200 compensation already offered to the resident through the landlord’s complaints process and the £150 compensation not yet offered to the resident for its failure to address her concern about the damp and mould, bringing the total compensation for this aspect of the complaint to £750.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s escalation of her complaint sent on 18 November 2022, until 16 February 2023. This exceeded the timescales for responding to stage 2 complaints outlined in its complaint policy, set out above, by two months. It is accepted that a member of staff left the organisation, however there is clear evidence that the resident copied-in the landlord’s customer service email, therefore the landlord should have picked up and acted upon her escalation request.
The landlord apologised for this delay. It offered the resident £25 compensation for the length of time it took to respond to her stage 2 complaint. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this error and offer compensation, the compensation offered for this aspect of the complaint does not fully reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience, this delay will have caused the resident.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where maladministration has been identified that adversely affected the resident and not been fully put right, £100-£600 should be considered. The landlord should offer the resident an additional £125 compensation for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint. This is in addition to the £25 already offered to the resident for the delays in its complaint handling, bringing the total compensation for this aspect of the complaint to £150.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the leak into the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that it provides evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. £400 for its delays in the handling of the repairs. This is in addition to the £200 already offered through its complaint process and the £150 it told this service it would offer for its failures to address the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould.
2. £125 for its failure in the handling of the associated complaint. This is in addition to the £25 already offered through its complaint process.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord refund the resident the excess on her leaseholder insurance claim, should she provide evidence of this.
It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with details of how to contact its liability insurer (if it has one) so she can make a claim for damage to her children’s health if she wishes to do so.