Islington Council (202224799)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224799

Islington Council

19 August 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident shared the property with his wife and 3 children. The landlord held no record of vulnerabilities for the resident.
4. On 13 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that his boiler was losing pressure and there was no heating or hot water in the property. The landlord said it would attend to the repair within 24 hours. On 14 January 2023, the resident called the landlord because no one had called him about the repair. He said he was disabled, and he had a child with severe asthma. The landlord confirmed that an operative would attend that day. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended twice on that day. The landlord’s repair records referred to a leak but there is no record of repairs it carried out.
5. On 15 January 2023, the resident called the landlord and reported that 2 engineers attended the previous day. He said that the first engineer did not know what to do and the second engineer did not have tools but recommended that the resident buy a clip and stop the leak himself. The resident confirmed that the leak had stopped, and he turned off everything, but the leak had “bloated” and damaged his flooring.
6. On 16 January 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord because the engineers who attended did not carry out any repair, he had been left without proper heating or hot water, and his flooring had been damaged by the leak. He had been left with temporary heaters but was concerned about the cost of running them. 
7. On 30 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint. It acknowledged that the resident had a loss of heating and hot water and said it would award compensation in line with its policy. It signposted the resident to make a claim for his flooring through its public liability insurance. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident however, it said it completed the repair in a timely manner and it would complete a follow-on repair on 1 February 2023. 
8. On 30 January 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He did not agree that the landlord completed the repair in a timely manner. He said that the landlord had not completed any repair which resulted in damage to his flooring.   
9. On 14 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the repair. It said that when it first attended the repair on 14 January 2023 it isolated and drained the central heating system. It said that it visited again on the same day and when it found that the central heating system had been refilled, it drained the system again. It left the resident with 2 fan heaters and noted that he had hot water from the immersion heater. It returned and completed the repair on 9 February 2023 within its timeframe of 20 working days.
10. It acknowledged that it had visited his property twice in February before it completed the repair and offered £25 for this inconvenience. It apologised because it had not paid the resident compensation for loss of hot water and heating that it offered at stage 1. It offered £25 for the delay in providing compensation and said that it would provide this compensation in the near future. It also noted that the resident had made a claim from its insurer for the damaged flooring.  
11. When the resident brought the complaint to this Service on 18 May 2023, he remained unhappy because the landlord’s insurance company refused his claim for the replacement flooring. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to replace the damaged flooring and compensation for the time, stress, and inconvenience caused.
12. When the landlord provided evidence to this Service, it advised that it had made a further offer of compensation of £764.60. It paid this compensation on 27 February 2024. This offer was broken down as: 
    • £25 for delay in compensation offer.
    • £25 inconvenience of follow–on repair visits.
    • £25 for late complaint response
    • £189.60 for loss of heating and hot water for 20 days.
    • £300 Inconvenience and distress for delayed compensation payments.
    • £200 Ex-gratia payment for replacement of flooring.
13. This Service recognises that the landlord reviewed the complaint after the resident brought her complaint to this Service and made an improved offer. However, because it increased the offer after the complaint was duly made, reasonable redress is not an outcome that this Service can consider. This is because the landlord should have thoroughly reviewed its compensation at stage 2.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

14. It is evident that the loss of heating and hot water was distressing for the resident. The evidence shows that he made a threat to the landlord, and it obtained an injunction against the resident. This investigation has not assessed the behaviour of the resident but has focussed on the landlord’s response to the substantive issue and its complaint handling.
15. After the stage 2 complaint response the resident advised this Service that the landlord’s insurance company refused his claim for replacement flooring. This investigation cannot draw conclusions as to why the claim was refused. This Service does not make binding decisions on matters such as, negligence or liability. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. Our focus in this case is on how the landlord responded to the resident’s initial concerns and their complaint and whether this response was reasonable and fair in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.

16. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will treat reports of loss of heating or hot water as urgent and respond within 24 hours. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay £9.48 per day to residents for loss of both heating and hot water. 
17. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will not make payments of compensation in cases where damage to belongings is not the responsibility of the landlord. In such cases residents must make claims against their own insurance policy or, where necessary reclaim their costs through the Small Claims Court. In cases where damage to belongings occurs due to the landlord’s negligence, residents must claim against its public liability insurance by making a request in writing or by completing the relevant claim.
18. When investigating a complaint, this Service considers 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 the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.
19. Based on the evidence, the landlord responded appropriately within its timescales of 24 hours when it received a report of a loss of heating and hot water. The resident’s complaint was not about the response times, rather, the lack of repair completed by the landlord when it did attend.
20. In his complaint the resident said that 2 operatives attended his property on 14 January 2023, but neither carried out any repair to a leak, which subsequently damaged his flooring. The resident has been consistent in his reports to the landlord’s repair team and throughout his complaint that the landlord failed to repair the leak on 14 January 2023. The landlord stated that both operatives isolated and drained the heating system on 14 January 2023, before further works could be complete. This disputed version of events was the core of the complaint.
21. The landlord’s repair records do not specify any work completed by its operatives on 14 January 2023. The job description for the first repair states “Gas repair no heating and no hot water affecting the whole property”. The job description for the second repair states “Gas repair water leak cannot contain location”. The section for appointment notes and appointment resolution notes are blank. The landlord’s repair records provide no indication of what work its operatives carried out on 14 January 2023. This is a record keeping failure.
22. On 16 January 2023, the landlord’s repair records show a follow-on work order which states “leak found on the central heating system pipework next to the front door. 1x 15mm slip coupling compression or re–run pipework. 3 hours worked. 2x fan heaters left with the tenant”. This record does not show that the operative drained the system or demonstrate any remedial action taken by the operatives to stop the leak.
23. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord referred to its repair records. It noted that an uncontainable leak was reported on 14 January 2023, but it did not say that the operative drained the system or took any remedial action to address the leak. Given that the complaint was about a leak that damaged the resident’s flooring, this Service would expect the landlord to explain what it done to contain the leak in its complaint response.
24. There is a significant difference between the outcomes of the stage 1 complaint investigation and the stage 2 complaint investigation. Both investigations refer to the landlord’s repair records. The stage 1 complaint response does not mention any remedial action taken by its operatives to contain the leak and referred the resident to its insurers to claim for the damaged flooring. The stage 2 complaint investigation was clear that its operatives took remedial action to stop the leak.    
25. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that the first operative attended at around 12pm on 14 January 2023 and “isolated and drained down the central heating system”. The second operative attended at around 4pm on 14 January 2023 and the landlord stated, “I am advised he found the central heating system had been refilled … the system was drained down again”. It concluded that it took appropriate remedial action to contain the leak.
26. The landlord obtained evidence from its contractor during the stage 2 investigation. The contractor said that on both visits on 14 January 2023 it drained the central heating system. It said that the resident refilled the system in between these visits which caused the leak to get worse. It would be reasonable to expect the contractor to have highlighted this issue with the landlord at the time it occurred rather than 2 months later during a complaint investigation.
27. After the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the contractor provided 2 images from the first visit. It said that the first image showed the leak on the wooden flooring. The second image showed dry pipework which it said demonstrated that it had drained the system. In the second image the flooring has been lifted. The images are not time stamped and are of different locations of the pipework. This evidence is not conclusive.
28. After the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the contractor also provided its own repair records. The resident reported the damage to his flooring on Sunday 15 January 2023 at 11:31am, saying that the landlord’s operatives failed to repair the leak the previous day. On 15 January 2023 at 2pm, the contractor updated its records to show that the second operative drained the central heating system. This record did not match the repair records held by the landlord.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint concluded that it was not responsible for the damaged flooring. This conclusion was based on what the contractor said happened after the event. The evidence provided by the contractor did not clearly demonstrate what action its operatives took when it attended the resident’s property. Furthermore, the evidence provided to the landlord after the complaint investigation was inconclusive.
30. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its repair works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regards to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlord has failed to show how it satisfied itself even when it had an opportunity to do so within its complaint response. This is a failing in its handling of the matter.  
31. After the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it offered a discretionary payment of £200 towards the cost of replacing the damaged flooring in the hallway stating that “only this area was damaged and not the entire flat as claimed by the complainant”. In his initial complaint, the resident reported that the leak damaged the flooring throughout the flat. He subsequently advised the landlord that the flooring is connected and cannot be amended or partially done.
32. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it surveyed the floor after the leak. It is not clear to this Service how the landlord arrived at the conclusion that the leak was limited to the hallway. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the flooring throughout the flat may have been affected by the leak. An order has been made below to put things right for the resident in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance.
33. After the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £189.60 to the resident for the loss of heating and hot water for 20 days in line with its compensation policy. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident was without heating and hot water between 13 January 2023 and 9 February 2023, a period of 27 days. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay compensation of 27 days in line with its compensation policy. 
34. After the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord made an offer of £300 for distress and inconvenience due to the delay in providing compensation. This was a reasonable offer to address that element of the resident’s complaint, however, as the offer was made after the complaint was duly made with this Service, reasonable redress is not a finding we can make.
35. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak. This is because the landlord failed to demonstrate that it took remedial action to contain the leak when it was on notice. This failing caused the resident financial loss in the form of his damaged flooring, and distress and inconvenience. It also failed to properly calculate its compensation for loss of heating and hot water. An order has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance to put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling. 

36. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
37. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response 12 working days beyond its timescales. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a service failure. It is noted that the landlord was investigating the complaint and chasing a response from its contractors which contributed to the delay. However, it did not acknowledge or apologise for its delay in its stage 2 complaint response, nor did it provide a reason to the resident for the delay. After its stage 2 complaint response the landlord made an offer of £25 for this delay.
38. The landlord’s complaint handling process should be used as an opportunity to put things right for the resident if it identified any failings in its handling of the substantive issue. The landlord’s complaint investigation was inappropriate. It relied on what its contractor said happened after the event, rather than on its repair records. There was no contemporaneous evidence that the resident refilled the central heating system, or that its contractor drained the system. Based on the evidence the landlord reviewed, it was not reasonable to conclude that its contractors had definitely contained the leak.
39. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to acknowledge or apologise for its delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response, and its complaint investigation was inappropriate. This caused further distress to the resident. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.  

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

42. It is ordered for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
43. It is ordered that a qualified person survey the resident’s floor to assess the damage caused by the leak and provide a schedule of works to replace or repair the flooring to the same standard it was in before the leak occurred.
44. If the resident has already replaced the flooring. The surveyor should assess and agree an amount with the resident that would have put the resident back to the same position before the leak occurred. If the landlord has already paid the £200 discretionary payment for replacement flooring, this can be deducted from the amount.
45. It is ordered that the landlord pay compensation of £730.96, compromising:
    1. £255.96 for loss of hot water and heating for a period of 27 days.
    2. £300 for distress and inconvenience for its delay in paying compensation,
    3. £25 for delay in compensation offer.
    4. £25 inconvenience of follow on repair visits.
    5. £25 for late complaint response.
    6. £100 distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
46. If the landlord has already paid £564.60 compensation it offered, this can be deducted from the amount. The landlord’s discretionary offer of £200 has been addressed separately in paragraph 44.
47. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.