Islington Council (202301453)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301453

Islington Council

24 July 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 handling of fence repairs.

Background

  1. The landlord is a local authority. The resident’s wife was a secure tenant of the landlord until she passed away in December 2021. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of April 2023, it outlined the steps required for the resident or his daughter to apply for succession of the tenancy. While no evidence has been provided of a subsequent succession, neither party has questioned the resident’s occupancy of the property or his ability to bring this complaint as a tenant of the landlord (in accordance with paragraph 25(a) of the Scheme). The Ombudsman has therefore proceeded with its investigation on the basis that the resident and/or his daughter now has the requisite landlord/tenant relationship with the landlord.
  2. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette with a garden, which backs on to a public outdoor space with a large tree (the tree). The garden and public area are separated by fencing. For the purposes of this report, the resident and his daughter are both referred to as ‘the resident’.
  3. On 24 October 2022 the resident submits that he reported part of the tree had fallen into his garden and damaged his fence during a storm. He said the local authority visited the property (no evidence provided to confirm when this was). Following the visit, it is not clear what action was taken by the local authority.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 January 2023 that he had reported the damaged fence on multiple occasions but nothing had been done. He said 2 local authority staff had visited and told him it would deal with the tree as a matter of urgency but nothing had happened. He said the tree blocked the exit from his kitchen to the garden and the damaged fence left him exposed to trespass, antisocial behaviour (ASB) and was a safety risk. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 2 days later.
  5. On 6 February 2023 the landlord emailed an external contractor about the tree and sent its stage 1 response to the resident. It explained that, while it was not within the remit of its in-house repairs team to remove the tree, it had asked another contractor to contact the resident directly and complete the work. It confirmed that it would then repair the fence once the tree had been removed.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 February 2023 to escalate the complaint. He said he had not been contacted by the contractor, the tree was a fire hazard and safety risk, and he had not been able to enjoy the garden which affected his mental health. 
  7. Internal landlord emails over the following days said it had not raised a fence repair, as the tree needed to be removed before a repair could be completed. Another email said it had not received a response from the contractor to the email of 6 February 2023.
  8. In the landlord’s email to the resident of 24 February 2023 it apologised for the prolonged delay and confirmed that it had asked the contractor to remove the tree and had not been informed it had not been done. It had therefore since asked an alternative contractor to undertake the work.
  9. The alternative contractor removed the tree the following day and the landlord visited on 28 February 2023 and raised a fence repair work order. However, this was done incorrectly due to an administration error, so its contractor did not attend as planned.
  10. It is not clear what prompted a second visit, but the landlord visited again on 29 March 2023. Dated photographs show the chopped-up tree moved from the garden to the public grass area on the other side of the fence. It re-raised the repair the following day and asked for it to be assigned to an operative. The landlord ultimately completed the fence repairs on 3 April 2023.
  11. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 4 April 2023 it apologised for the impact of the delays and awarded £225 compensation (£25 for the delay issuing the stage 2 response and £200 for the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Between December 2022 and June 2023, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which allows us to conduct investigations beyond individual complaints to establish whether there is any evidence of a systemic failing within a landlord. It reviewed 30 cases brought to the Ombudsman and identified common points of failure such as cross-cutting issues (working effectively with both internal and external agencies/departments) and handling of disrepair. The report made recommendations for improvements to be made in relation to communication, management of repairs, and record keeping. The report was published in October 2023 and can be viewed here Islington Council P49 Report.
  2. The events in this case took place shortly before, during, and after the period covered by the report, and some of the findings are relevant to this case and are referred to herein. We have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those already made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report. It is worth noting that, since October 2023, this Service has investigated 10 complaints about the landlord, with less than half now resulting in a finding of some level of maladministration, which suggests the landlord has made improvements.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about local authorities in so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing (acting in their role as ‘landlord’). All other complaints about local authorities fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  4. This Service does not doubt the resident’s account that he reported the fallen tree to the local authority on multiple occasions between October 2022 and January 2023, but there is no evidence to confirm that he did so specifically to the landlord. There are also no details of when or who from the local authority initially attended. On that basis, the Ombudsman cannot say that the landlord was aware of the tree or should have taken action prior to the formal complaint being made to it January 2023. Therefore, this investigation is focused on the landlord’s actions between 23 January and 3 April 2023. If the resident wishes to pursue a complaint about the actions of any other local authority department, he may wish to contact the LGSCO.
  5. The resident has also told the landlord about the impact of not being able to use his garden on his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt these comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. He may wish to seek independent advice if he considers his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Landlord’s handling of fence repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for fences that are its responsibility to maintain. It says routine repairs should be responded to by its contractor in 20 working days and an appointment given. It says some repairs require an inspection first.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can award between £100-£300 for time and trouble caused by it not taking reasonable steps to address an issue. It has the same range for distress caused to a resident.
  3. Following the complaint, the landlord initially acted promptly and requested its contractor remove the tree. However, there is no evidence it took ownership of the situation, followed up and chased a response, or raised a work order for the repair, which was a failing. The Ombudsman’s special report identified that a “lack of clear ownership [of issues including repairs] contributed to problems drifting and persisting.”
  4. It should therefore be noted that it is the landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) that is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to accept responsibility, monitor the situation including ensuring its contractor removed the tree and that necessary repairs were raised. With that in mind, it should have done more to monitor and follow up with both the resident and the contractor, rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a failing.
  5. The special report also identified a “consistent failure to communicate with residents promptly, appropriately and clearly” which the evidence suggests applied in this case. The landlord said the contractor would contact the resident but there is no evidence it did so. The resident lived with raised expectations that the tree would be removed and fence repaired between the stage 1 response and escalating the complaint 11 working days later, which caused further inconvenience.
  6. It is not clear what happened with the repair raised on 28 February 2023, or what prompted the landlord to attend on 29 March 2023 and raise the repair again. However, the landlord did not attend within its 20-working day policy by 28 March 2023, which was a further failing. Whilst it is accepted that it could not complete the repair without the tree being moved, had a repair been raised when the stage 1 response was issued, it would have attended by 6 March 2023. This would have avoided some of the delays and ensured the situation was monitored effectively.
  7. The special report also found the landlord’s approach “tended to be reactive rather than proactive.” There are multiple examples where this is relevant to this case. The landlord initially acted promptly to address the complaint by asking the contractor attend to remove the tree and, again, within days of the complaint escalation, it acted promptly in arranging an alternative contractor to remove the tree 4 working days later. Finally, after it raised the fence repair for the second time, it attended promptly 3 days later and completed the repairs. However, this approach was not an effective or reasonable way to manage the repair as it took the resident chasing or escalating his complaint to prompt the landlord to take action.
  8. In this case, the resident’s garden was left unsecure for approximately 5 months, with the landlord being aware of this for at least 2 months. Following the complaint, it took 48 working days for the fence to be repaired, which was a significant delay. The evidence shows that communication and administration failures and the landlord not taking responsibility, contributed to the delays in removing the tree and repairing the fence. This ultimately caused the resident distress over a protracted period due to the perceived risk of ASB, safety fears, and being unable to use and enjoy his garden. Further, it caused inconvenience by him having to chase for updates and his expectations not being managed effectively, which was a further failing.
  9. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right; and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident and its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by this Service’s investigation. The landlord’s handling of the situation therefore amounts to maladministration and an order is made for the landlord to pay £400 compensation (less the £225 awarded at stage 2 if this has already been paid) to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the fence repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £400 compensation (less £225 if this has already been paid).
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.