Islington Council (202310224)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310224

Islington Council

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports about repair issues in the property;
2. complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since July 2022. The landlord is a local authority.
On 11 July 2022, the resident reported a number of repair issues with the property. These included an uneven floor, issues with water pressure, and broken windows. This service has not been provided with the resident’s initial report communication. The landlord inspected the property on 18 July 2022 and subsequently raised the necessary repairs.
The landlord has advised that its contractor attended on 20 July 2022, but there was no access. The resident has disputed this and noted no one attempted to call him. The landlord spoke with its contractor, who provided video evidence of their attendance. The contractor also advised they attempted to call the resident, but the number did not work.
The landlord attended on 25 July 2022 and completed some repairs to the window. It noted another window required works and it still needed to address the water pressure issues. It also raised works to fix the intercom.
On 18 August 2022, the resident reported a leak into his property from the roof. A roofer attended on 5 September 2022 and raised further works.
The resident made a formal complaint on 6 September 2022, about the delays to the works and the impact this had had on him. In particular, he noted that he considered the property was uninhabitable because the windows were stuck open and the issues with water pressure meant he could not bathe.
The landlord fixed the intercom on 16 September 2022 but noted it would complete further works to relocate it.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 21 September 2022, which included the following:
1. It provided a history of the repair issues and noted that works had been raised for the remaining window and water pressure issues.
2. Regarding the uneven floor, it advised it was arranging a further inspection and apologised that this had not been addressed sooner.
3. Regarding the roof, it confirmed this had not been an issue during the voids inspection. It also advised that the property met its letting standard when the resident moved in. It further advised that the roof would be fixed on 22 September 2022.
4. It apologised for the delays the resident had experienced and for its poor communication. It offered £50 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience and for the time and trouble chasing the issues.
On 23 September 2022, the resident requested that the complaint be escalated. He reiterated that he considered the property uninhabitable due to the window still being stuck open and the water issues. He also raised concerns that the door was not fire safe. On 3 October 2022, the landlord advised that it would not escalate the complaint until the repair issues had been fixed. It repeated this position on 19 October 2022.
Window works were completed on 6 October 2022, and the landlord’s plumber improved the water pressure on 10 October 2022. The floor was inspected on 15 December 2022, and works were raised to relay the floorboards. Further works to the water pressure were completed on 19 January 2023. The intercom was relocated on 31 January 2023.
On 2 February 2023, remedial works relating to the leak were raised. These were completed on 27 February 2023. The landlord attended on 7 March 2023 and noted that more works were needed to level the joists. The landlord’s contractor advised that the resident declined the works as he wanted a full floor replacement.
The resident again requested that the complaint be escalated on 24 May 2023. The landlord subsequently provided its stage two response on 9 June 2023. It simply stated that the issues raised at stage one had now been addressed and it had nothing further to add.
The resident subsequently expressed his dissatisfaction, and so the landlord provided a further formal response on 4 July 2023, which included the following:
1. It noted it had taken several months to finalise the intercom works, for which it apologised and offered £100 compensation.
2. Regarding the water pressure, it advised that the works had been completed. It also noted that the resident continued to experience issues with using the shower hose in the bath. The landlord advised that it had spoken with its building team, who confirmed that due to the age and design of the building, there was not sufficient pressure for this function.
3. Regarding the leak, it noted it had failed to keep the resident informed that the works had been completed. While it would subsequently have had to have waited for the property to dry out, this would usually only be a month, and so it apologised for the delay in raising the remedial internal works. It offered a further £100 compensation.
4. It noted that the resident had reported an issue with a radiator on 2 December 2022. It advised its contractors were unable to gain access on 15 December 2022 and that works were subsequently completed on 11 January 2023. It apologised for this delay and offered a further £50 compensation.
5. Regarding the floor, it advised its repairs team would contact the resident to reoffer the works previously suggested. However, it agreed that the uneven floor should have been addressed during the voids period. It advised that it did not consider that this meant the property was uninhabitable.
6. It offered a further £150 for the resident’s time and trouble. The total compensation offered was £400, in addition to the £50 at stage one.
Following the period of the complaint, the resident has continued to experience repair issues, including issues with mice. He has advised this service he wishes to be relocated to a new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his communications with this service, the resident has noted that he has experienced further repair issues beyond the period of the complaint, including issues with mice. He has also raised concerns that the property is not suitable for his needs. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints which have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. It is not evident that these issues have been formally responded to by the landlord. They are, therefore, outside of the scope of this investigation.
Additionally, the resident has noted that he wishes to be rehoused as part of the resolution to his complaint. The Ombudsman is unable to order that the landlord provide the resident with an alternative property. This is because the landlord’s properties are allocated on a needs basis, and the Ombudsman cannot order that this process be ignored to the detriment of other applicants. However, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide the resident with information about how to apply for an alternative property.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that routine repairs should be addressed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s void standards policy notes that it will take action where floor levels are uneven. It will also inspect the operation and state of repair of any windows in the property.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. A stage one response will be provided within 10 working days of a complaint. The policy notes that the landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint to stage two. A response should be given within 20 working days of an escalation request.

Repairs

Following the resident’s initial reports in early July 2022, the landlord attended on 18 July 2022 to carry out an initial inspection. This was within a reasonable timeframe. It also sought to begin some of the works on 20 July 2022, which was also within the timeframes of its repair policy.
The resident has disputed that there was an attempt at access on 20 July 2022 and has also noted that if the contractor had tried to use the intercom, this was broken and the contractor should have known this. The landlord carried out a reasonable investigation of this concern. The contractor provided the evidence of video evidence of them attempting to use the intercom and that they were able to hear it ringing in the property. They also tried to call but did not have a working number. While it was unfortunate that this visit was unsuccessful, it is evident that a genuine attempt was made and the landlord carried out a reasonable investigation of the resident’s concern.
While the landlord subsequently carried out some repairs on 25 July 2022, it is not disputed that further repairs were needed. While the landlord acknowledged this at the time, it did not provide specific timeframes for the completion of the works. The Ombudsman understands that it can be reasonable for some works to take longer than the timeframes given in a landlord’s policy, such as when specialist contractors or equipment are necessary. However, in such circumstances, the landlord should provide an explanation and updated timeframes at the earliest opportunity. It did not do this in this instance, which would have been frustrating for the resident.
Given that there were delays, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this in its stage one response and that it apologised for the resultant distress and inconvenience. It was also appropriate that it offered some compensation to reflect the impact caused. The landlord’s offers of compensation are discussed further below. However, given that the resident had also raised concerns as part of his complaint that the issue he had raised had made the property uninhabitable, the landlord missed the opportunity to address this in its stage one response. This meant the resident had to invest further time and trouble raising these concerns.
While the resident was of the opinion the property was uninhabitable, this service has not been provided with a professional opinion from the surveyor who assessed the property that the property was fundamentally uninhabitable. However, the landlord failed to provide its position on this at any time, aside from noting that the uneven floor would not amount to making the property uninhabitable.
Where a resident has raised concerns that he cannot bathe, while it is appropriate to raise works to address the issue, the landlord should also consider what intermediate steps it could take. This could include discussing alternative bathing options with the resident. It is not evident that it did this, which was another missed opportunity for the landlord to put the resident at the heart of its service delivery.
Similarly, given that the resident raised concerns that the damage to the window made the property unsafe, the landlord should have discussed this further and given its position on any intermediate action it could take. Once again, it did not do this.
Following the stage one response, it is evident that some repairs, such as the initial roof repairs, were completed within a reasonable timeframe. However, others, such as the intercom, took several months to address without a clear reason why. Once again, the landlord should have explained why there was a delay and provided good communication until the completion of the delayed works, but it did not. This would have been distressing for the resident. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did offer £50 in relation to the delays to works to a radiator.
Regarding the roof repairs, while the initial repairs were completed satisfactorily, the landlord has acknowledged that it subsequently failed to follow up on the repairs or raise the subsequent redecoration works within a reasonable timeframe. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised for this in its stage two response and offered compensation.
In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged several errors and offered compensation. In addition to the £50 for delays offered at stage one, it offered £100 for the delays to the intercom, £100 for the delays to the remedial works following the roof repair, and £50 for delays to radiator works. It additionally offered £150 for the resident’s overall time and trouble. While it was appropriate that it offered compensation for the issues it identified, there were a number of failings not covered in its offer. In particular, the delays to works to the windows, floor, and intercom, which were still incomplete over a year after they were initially reported, without a reasonable explanation. Additionally, the landlord’s communication throughout was poor, in particular its failure to address the resident’s concerns about habitability at the earliest opportunity or offer any intermediate assistance.
Given the above identified failings, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £1,000 compensation has been made, being £500 for the delays across all of the repair works, £250 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by poor communication, and £250 for the resident’s time and trouble chasing all of the issues. This order replaces the landlord’s offer of £450.
The Ombudsman notes that the relationship between the resident and the landlord has been impacted by issues raised in the complaint, and as a result, there has been a breakdown in communication about the ongoing repair issues. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to contact the resident and enquire about any outstanding repair issues and provide its position accordingly.

Complaints handling

As noted above, the landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord should provide its stage one response within 10 working days of a resident’s complaint. In this case, the resident made a formal complaint on 6 September 2022, and the landlord provided its stage one response on 21 September 2022. This was within 10 working days, and so was in line with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s policy also notes that an escalation should not be unreasonably refused. This service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) notes that landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint unless there is a valid reason. A valid reason includes where a complaint is out of time, legal proceedings have been issued, or where a complaint has already been addressed. Outstanding works is not considered a valid reason to not escalate a complaint. While compliance with the Code was not yet mandatory at the time of this complaint, it nevertheless sets out best practice which the landlord would be expected to follow.
In this case, when the resident requested for his complaint to be escalated on 23 September 2022, the landlord refused and advised it would only escalate the complaint once the works were completed. The resident subsequently noted that some works had been delayed; however, the landlord repeated it would not escalate the complaint. It took until May 2023 for the landlord to accept the escalation request.
This approach was not in line with the landlord’s policy or with the Code. This meant the resident was unreasonably denied a more senior overview of his concerns. He was also prevented from referring his complaint to this service at the earliest opportunity. He subsequently had to invest time and trouble chasing the landlord for an escalated response at a later date.
When the landlord eventually provided a stage two response, it simply restated the findings of the stage one response. Given that the stage one response was provided some 10 months prior, during which subsequent issues had occurred, this represented a failure to satisfactorily investigate the complaint.
It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord chose to revisit its position prior to the intervention of this service. Its second stage two response appropriately considered the outstanding issues and made an offer of compensation. It failed, however, to identify that its stage two process had not been correctly followed, and it did not offer an apology or compensation for this.
In summary, while the landlord’s stage one response was in line with its policy, its approach at stage two was not. This caused unreasonable delay to the resolution of the complaint and caused the resident additional time and trouble. While the landlord appropriately revisited its stage two response, it missed the opportunity to apologise for its complaint handling failings.
Given the above, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £250 compensation has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
1. response to the resident’s reports about repair issues in the property;
2. complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,250, comprising:
1. £1,000 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings relating to the repairs;
2. £250 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £450. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident and include the following:
1. Provide the resident with information about how to apply for an alternative property.
2. Enquire about any outstanding repair issues and provide its position accordingly.