Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Islington (202301133)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301133

Islington Council

25 February 2025


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:
    1. Handling of reports of inappropriate motorbike parking.
    2. Handling of reports of a leak on 3 July 2023.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident experienced a leak from a neighboring property on 3 July 2023. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 July 2023, as such it is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s complaint was raised around this time.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 August 2023. It said the complaint was about a missed appointment to investigate a leak at the property. It said:
    1. The resident reported a leak on 3 July 2023. Its repairs team confirmed it would attend the neighboring property on 4 July 2023. Following this a routine repair, for 20 days, was raised for a plumber to attend the resident’s property. It arranged this appointment for 10 July 2023 but had no access. It raised a further routine appointment for 11 July 2023, rescheduled to 13 July 2023. It was unable to gain access.
    2. No further reports of leaks were made to it. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns that it did not act immediately and explained that as the neighboring property was leasehold it needed to give them an opportunity to investigate the leak before it could take further action. It was unable to disclose further information about this due to GDPR.
    3. It asked the resident to allow access so it could investigate the repair issue in more detail and said this was a routine part of any leak investigation. It told the resident who to contact if there was still an issue. It explained how it did not repair personal fixtures and fittings and told the resident to claim under her contents insurance.
    4. In response to concerns about the neighbour’s motorbike parking. It said it could only deal with complaints that occurred over the last 12 months. It passed the email to its Homes and Communities Team to action.
    5. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and said this was because the resident refused access to investigate the repair issue.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 August 2023. She said:
    1. She had several cracks on her bedroom and upper corridor ceiling which were first noticed in 2021 and had increased in size.
    2. The landlord did not tell her that a plumber would attend on 10 July 2023. This visit was unexpected. She then cancelled the appointment for 13 July 2023 as she felt insulted.
    3. The leak was deliberate and stopped in the early hours of 4 July 2023. She said the neighbour was a “repeat offender” and a previous leak was in May 2021. She told it about water damage to her curtains, floor and bed. She said it should have attended on the day the leak was reported and its delay meant the neighbour had a chance to conceal what they were doing to cause the leak.
    4. She said the same neighbour was a “repeat offender” of parking a motorbike near her fence. She first contacted the landlord about this in 2019 and provided a photo of the bike telling it that this was being dealt with under this Service’s reference 202227864.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 September 2023. It repeated its stage 1 response detailing its attempts to attend the property in July 2023 and said:
    1. It considered the resident’s email from 3 July 2023 as a non-emergency repair with a completion target of 20 working days. The resident’s contact was out of hours and the team did not deem the issue appropriate for same day. It could only attend issues that were considered severe and an emergency. It reminded the resident to detail the severity of the issue in future out of hours reports.
    2. It was unable to share the action taken by the neighbour due to data protection. It acknowledged that the resident felt a leak might reoccur and explained that it would be helpful for her to allow it to attend to determine if an underlying issue needed to be addressed. Its repair team would contact the resident to discuss the next steps.
    3. In relation to the parking issue, it had been in contact to explain the steps to take to get the matter addressed. It provided a number for the Housing Transport team to report parking issues.
    4. It partially upheld the complaint because it felt its repairs team could have taken more time to contact the resident so she was aware of what was happening about the issues raised. It awarded no compensation.
  6. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked this Service to consider her complaint further.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The Ombudsman has previously decided under case reference 202227864 (issued in May 2024) that the landlord’s handling of reports of inappropriate motorbike parking amounted to maladministration. The case considered the landlord’s stage 2 response from May 2023. The landlord was ordered to compensate the resident and it was recommended it conduct a review of its abandoned, nuisance and dangerous vehicle policy and associated procedures.
  3. Paragraph 42l of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman, has already decided upon.” After careful consideration of the information available, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of inappropriate motorbike parking is outside of jurisdiction as it has already been considered and decided upon by this Service. Should the resident have any new issues about this, she may consider raising it directly with the landlord in the first instance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. On 28 February 2024, the Ombudsman previously decided under case reference 202220148 that the landlord’s response to concerns about leaks amounted to no maladministration. The case included the assessment of issues up to the landlord’s stage 2 response from 12 December 2022.
  2. In July 2023, the resident raised a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of another leak. While the resident referred to a leak from May 2021, the scope of this investigation is limited to the landlord’s stage 2 response from 1 September 2023. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman, has already decided upon”. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the reported leak from July 2023 only and the impact this may have had on the resident.

Handling of reports of a leak on 3 July 2023

  1. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for the internal structure of the property. It says a resident must allow it access to carry out repairs. The landlord’s housing repair guide repeats these points and says a resident has a duty to give it reasonable access to allow it to carry out its repair responsibilities and it will give at least 24 hours’ notice of its need to gain access. It details its repairs priorities as:
    1. Emergency repair. Where there is an immediate danger to a person or risk of serious ongoing damage to the property. This will be responded to within 2 hours.
    2. Urgent repair. Where the repair affects day-to-day living including no heating or hot water. This will be responded to within 24 hours.
    3. Routine repair. Non-urgent repairs that do not pose a risk to health and safety. To be responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s housing repair guide also explains its out of hours service provides an emergency repairs service only. It says for these appointments it will attend and “make safe”.
  3. On 3 July 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was experiencing a leak from a neighbouring property. It is not disputed that the leak was raised out of hours. In an email from the same day, the resident asked if the landlord would investigate what the neighbour was doing to cause the leak and acknowledged that the landlord had spoken to the neighbour. It was reasonable for the landlord to have spoken to the neighbour at that time.
  4. It is understood that following the leak on 3 July 2023, the landlord raised a routine repair. This was in line with its policy as its assessment found the leak did not meet its emergency repair timeframe.
  5. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 10 July 2023. This timeframe was appropriate. However, it did not give the resident prior notice of its appointment. While this was not in line with its policy, it did make further appointments for 11 and 13 July 2023, where it contacted the resident in advance. The landlord’s quick action when making further appointments, on balance, would have limited the impact of the resident not being informed of the appointment from 10 July 2023. It is noted that following 3 July 2023, it received no further reports of leaks but continued to attempt to arrange access to the property. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. It is clear that the resident feels strongly that the landlord should have attended on 3 July 2023 to investigate the leak and said she felt the leak was deliberately caused by the neighbour. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the landlord’s decision to not attend the property on 3 July 2023 was in line with its policy. Furthermore, its out of hours service was limited to attending and “make safe”, it is unlikely that this would have involved an investigation at that time either. However, the evidence shows it appropriately contacted the neighbour when it was made aware of the leak and the leak was resolved (early hours of 4 July 2023). It also appropriately attempted to investigate the leak as part of its routine repair timeframe in asking the resident for access to the property.
  7. It is understood that the landlord made further attempts to visit the resident’s property in August 2023. On 18 August 2023 the landlord told the resident that she would be in breach of her tenancy by not allowing it access. It is acknowledged that the resident said she was caused some distress in receiving this contact. However, the landlord’s decision to remind the resident of her obligations under the tenancy agreement was within its remit to decide.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the reports of a leak on 3 July 2023 was in line with its policy. While it did not tell the resident of its appointment on 10 July 2023 in advance, it notified her of appointments made shortly after this date. When considering this, the landlord’s actions limited any impact. Furthermore, it appropriately recognised this within its stage 2 response and apologised.
  9. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately explained how it considered the issue as a non-emergency and detailed its out of hours process. It acted reasonably in telling the resident that it would need to attend to determine any underlying issues in response to her concerns about another leak in the future. It also appropriately raised the issue with its repairs team. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak on 3 July 2023.
  10. It is noted that the resident understandably has concerns of reoccurring leaks. It is important to explain that historic leaks were not within the scope of this investigation. In a previous decision issued by the Ombudsman in February 2024 (report 202220148) a recommendation was made for the landlord to consider wider circumstances around leaks at the property. As such, no further recommendations have been made.
  11. Within the resident’s escalation request from 3 August 2023, she told the landlord of damage to items, including curtains, flooring and her bed. On 28 August 2023 she said that some of the damage was caused by a previous leak. The report issued in February 2024 (202220148) made a recommendation for the landlord to include information about its approach to insurance claims for damaged items. Given the timeframe of events, no further recommendation has been made in relation to damaged items either.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42l of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of reports of inappropriate motorbike parking is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak on 3 July 2023.