Islington Council (202346506)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346506

Islington Council

28 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 handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress to the property.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 30 September 2011. The landlord is a local authority. The property is described as a 1-bedroom property on the 13th floor of a high-rise building.
  2. The resident has a mental health condition.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 January 2024 that there was water ingress into the property each winter when it rained. The resident advised that the same situation had occurred 3 years earlier and the water ingress had been ongoing since 2016. She had painted the ceiling but damp had returned and ruined the paintwork. For 8 years, she had not received a resolution to the water ingress to the property. The resident concluded by saying that there was now a leak from the window and that a video was attached. The video has not been supplied to this Service.
  4. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 25 January 2024. It explained that it was aware of reports of water ingress since 2016 during periods of heavy rainfall. Since 2018, works orders had been raised regarding water ingress through the roof and it accepted that repairs had been undertaken but the situation was not resolved. A roofer had attended that month and works were ongoing, which would be monitored by its repairs management. Furthermore, it had arranged for a surveyor to attend in February 2024 to inspect the property and raise any necessary repairs. It concluded by saying that the complaint was upheld and awarded compensation of £300, made up of £150 for inconvenience and £150 for distress experienced.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 4 February 2024. She explained that the compensation awarded did not acknowledge the distress and inconvenience she experienced from the leak into the living room. The resident said that she had paid over £1,000 in decoration costs and had to throw furniture away only for the mould to re-appear. In addition, the leak into the living room caused water seepage near an electrical socket and the landlord had not considered the impact of the leak on her health. The resident described the landlord’s attitude as dismissive and reported that the property was not habitable. She concluded by stating that her preferred outcome was for the repair to be resolved and for the compensation to be reviewed.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 February 2024. It contacted the resident on 1 March 2024 to request an extension to provide its complaint response by 8 March 2024.
  7. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 8 March 2024, thanking the resident for agreeing to an extension. The key findings were:
    1. The resident had experienced various unrelated leaks into the property.
    2. It recognised the distress, inconvenience and impact on the resident’s mental health due to the water ingress.
    3. Following a damp assessment by a diagnostic surveyor, a works order had been raised for 11 March 2024 for a roofer to the check the lounge window for water ingress.
    4. A point of contact had been provided and the central complaints team would ensure that the roofers attended.
    5. The resident could make a liability claim if she did not have insurance. It agreed to provide assistance in completing the claim form if required by the targeted tenancy team.
    6. It concluded that the complaint was upheld and made a compensation award of £825. This was broken down as £300 that it awarded at stage 1 of its complaints process (for inconvenience experienced), £500 for distress experienced and £25 for a complaint handling failure.
  8. After the complaint process ended, the following happened:
    1. An asbestos report on 15 April 2024 confirmed that the living room ceiling did not have asbestos.
    2. A works order was raised on 10 July 2024 to stain block the ceiling. As the resident was not available on 11 July 2024, the stain block and painting of the ceiling was rearranged for 22 July 2024.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service. The resident expressed that her preferred outcome was for the repairs to be carried out and compensation to be offered to reflect her experiences.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is accepted that there is a history of water ingress into the property. The resident made a complaint to the landlord for which it provided a final complaint response in May 2021. There is no evidence that the resident escalated that complaint to this Service although her Member of Parliament received a copy of the final complaint response.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that the complaint which is the subject of this investigation was made to the landlord in January 2024. Our investigation will be focused on the landlord’s handling of those reports on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable investigation period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (paragraphs 42b and 42c) and considering the available evidence. Reference to events that occurred prior to this are made in this report to provide context only.
  3. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or determine whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

a. be fair;

b. put things right;

c. learn from outcomes.

  1. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress to the property.

  1. Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. This includes the roof and windows to the building. Section 9A of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also implies a term in the tenancy agreement that the property is fit for human habitation at the time of the tenancy being granted and throughout the lifetime of the tenancy. Both legal obligations are triggered when the landlord is notified of an issue; the landlord then has a reasonable period of time to carry out works for which it is liable.
  2. The landlord’s evidence shows that the resident reported water ingress through the lounge window on 11 January 2024. The landlord has told this Service that the resident had not made any reports of water ingress in the previous year albeit there had been previous roof leak jobs. Once the landlord was made aware of the repair, it was reasonable for it to arrange for an inspection of the resident’s property.
  3. A damp assessment took place on 9 February 2024, 21 working days after the resident notified the landlord of the water ingress into the property. The landlord’s repair policy states that routine repairs will be completed in 20 working days. Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s previous reports of water ingress, it should have prioritised the inspection to ensure that this, and any necessary repairs, were completed within 20 working days to meet its repairs timescales. If it had done so, this would have given the resident reassurance that it had taken her reports seriously.
  4. The surveyor inspection found that the building was made of a concrete frame construction with cladding panels and UPVC windows. There were no visible defects, however there was staining to the lounge ceiling above the rear wall. The resident advised the diagnostic surveyor that she had noticed the staining around 6 months earlier. When the diagnostic surveyor tested the area, it was found to be dry and the surveyor concluded this was likely historic. The diagnostic surveyor also assessed that there was no evidence of damp or mould in any other rooms or cupboards. They concluded that the water ingress could be due to the stone window lintel. Therefore, as there was only one flat affected, instead of erecting scaffolding, it would be practical for a 2-person abseiler to check around the lintels for evidence of water ingress. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the inspection report that it received from its diagnostic surveyor who had determined that the cause of the water ingress was likely to be through the external fabric of the building.
  5. The landlord (in its initial complaint response) advised that roofers had attended regarding a leak that had affected the 14th floor of the building and the situation was being monitored by its repairs management. Given the landlord’s awareness of the defects to the roof and that the resident’s property was located on the floor below, it would have been reasonable for the diagnostic surveyor’s inspection of the resident’s property to consider whether the faults with the roof were related to the water ingress reported by her. The inspection report makes no reference to, and therefore does not appear to consider, whether the staining on the lounge ceiling could be related to the roof leak that was being monitored. This was not reasonable as the landlord (in its final complaint response) stated that the resident’s property had experienced water ingress over a prolonged period of time and a more comprehensive survey should have been undertaken to satisfy all parties that a full diagnosis had been made.
  6. While it is accepted that roof repairs can be complex, it is evident that an opportunity was missed at the surveyor’s visit to explain to the resident whether the roof repairs (whether concluded or ongoing) had in part caused the water ingress that she experienced. This would have provided reassurance to the resident as to whether the identified defects were the reason she was experiencing water ingress into her property. A recommendation is made about this below.
  7. The landlord has provided pictures to this Service to evidence external works completed to the building on 3 June 2024. This involved the raking out and repointing of the mastic to the windows and the raking out and repointing of the brickwork to a corner of the block. From the date of the surveyor’s inspection, it took 84 working days for the works to be completed on 3 June 2024. This represents an unreasonable delay.
  8. The landlord submission to this Service has not given reasons for the delay in carrying out the works. Also, the landlord’s final complaint response stated that a point of contact had been provided but it is not evident that the resident was kept updated or informed of the actions it was taking to resolve the water penetration into the property.
  9. Once the external works were completed, the landlord arranged a mutually convenient appointment with the resident for 22 July 2024 for a stain block and redecoration of the lounge ceiling. It was reasonable for the landlord to make good the decoration to the lounge ceiling caused by the water ingress.
  10. The resident expressed that the water ingress had caused damage to her belongings and to the lounge ceiling. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed that the resident could make a claim for damage to her belongings and signposted her to make a public liability claim for this. The landlord also explained to the resident how she could obtain assistance to help make the claim. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether the landlord or its contractors have been negligent as this is a matter more appropriately considered by an insurance or legal process. Nevertheless, it was reasonable of the landlord to refer the resident to make a public liability claim.
  11. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In its final complaint response, the landlord made an overall compensation award of £825. This was broken down as £300 for inconvenience, £500 for distress and £25 for its complaint handling failures. The landlord’s compensation policy says that for distress, including the vulnerability of the adult and the extent of the landlord’s failure to act, it may make a compensation award of £500 (pro rata) to £2,000.
  12. Overall, the landlord has accepted that its service provision to the resident should have been better. It acted appropriately by not only recognising its failures but also apologising to the resident and offering compensation. In this case, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s compensation award in light of the facts of the case and the available evidence.
  13. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be concluded within 20 working days and the repairs carried out to the property exceeded this. There were communication failures in keeping the resident updated and informing her whether the roof repairs to the 14th floor were related or contributed to the reported water ingress. It is noted that, since the complaint, there has not been a further report of water ingress by the resident and a mutually convenient appointment was arranged to carry out the decoration to the lounge ceiling. Given all the circumstances of the case, including the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions, the landlord’s apology and compensation awards warrants a finding of reasonable redress. The compensation was within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there have been failings that had a significant impact on a resident and is therefore considered proportionate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress to the property.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident the £825 compensation it offered through its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress finding is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord should write to the resident to:
    1. Give an update on the block roof repairs that it had undertaken.
    2. Explain whether the roof leak contributed to, or was related to, the water ingress that she experienced.
    3. Say whether any further action is required to resolve her reports of water ingress into the property.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with 4 weeks to confirm its intentions in regard to the recommendations.