London Borough of Islington (202320156)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320156

Islington Council

30 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of external repairs to brickwork and a window frame.

Background

The resident has a leasehold agreement with the landlord, which began on 12 October 1987. The landlord is a local authority. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor. The resident has no known vulnerabilities.
On 18 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about external damage to the property, the key points were as follows:
1. On 2 November 2022, she reported damage to brickwork and a window frame caused by scaffolding, as well as a satellite dish misplaced on the side of the property upon removal of the scaffolding.
2. The landlord asked the wrong contractor to contact her about the damage, as it had not caused this.
3. The landlord had not contacted her since she reported the issue.
4. She would arrange for a contractor to remove the satellite dish and repair the damaged brickwork, then bill the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 January 2023 and issued a stage 1 complaint response on 2 February 2023, the key points were as follows:
1. A contractor attended on 25 January 2023 to remove the satellite dish and fill the holes but one of the resident’s neighbours was not home so it would return on 7 February 2023.
2. The property recently had work carried out for the surrounding gas pipes, so it would contact the relevant contractor and then the resident to discuss this and resolve the damage caused.
3. It partly upheld the complaint about damage caused due to a lack of communication to resolve the matter.
4. It apologised for the level of service received.
On 5 February 2023, the resident told the landlord that she did not understand why it only partly upheld her complaint. Due to being dissatisfied, she asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 13 March 2023, the key points were as follows:
1. The landlord had not responded to her contact on 5 February 2023.
2. She wanted to escalate the brickwork and window frame element of her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 30 March 2023 and issued a stage 2 response on 15 May 2023, the key points were as follows:
1. It apologised and offered £25 compensation for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response.
2. The resident had contacted it several times, and it had failed to make a call back on 12 May 2023.
3. It would update the resident by the end of the week.
4. It offered a further £250 compensation to apologise for the delays, inconvenience, trouble and upset caused, with the service received falling below the expected standard.
5. The landlord upheld the complaint due to continued delays and its lack of contact.
6. It confirmed the resident could contact the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 September 2023. The complaint became one that we could consider on 24 May 2024.

Events Post Internal Complaints Process

The resident chased an update and further compensation on 22 May 2023. The landlord booked an appointment to survey the damage on 26 May 2023 and offered a further £50 compensation, which the resident accepted.
The landlord scheduled an appointment to complete works on 24 June 2024. It told us that, although the damage was to its property, it would award an additional £400 compensation to recognise that a further year had passed since it said it would complete the works.
On 19 May 2025, the resident told us that the landlord had completed the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation will consider events from when the resident first complained on 18 January 2023 up to 24 June 2024, which is when the landlord carried out a further review of the complaint.
The resident says this complaint has impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Policies and procedures

The lease says the landlord is responsible for window frames and external walls.
The landlord’s housing repairs guide says it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1, it will acknowledge the complaint within 3 calendar days and respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it will acknowledge the complaint within 3 calendar days and respond within a further 20 working days.

Landlord’s handling of external repairs

The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, this Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The resident says she reported external damage to the brickwork and a window frame on 2 November 2022, and a misplaced satellite dish that prevented the window from opening. Due to receiving no response, she raised a formal complaint on 18 January 2023. Neither party has provided evidence of any contact prior to the complaint. Therefore, it is not possible for us to make a determination on this point.
The resident chased a response to her escalation request via webform, which the landlord acknowledged on 30 March 2023. This was 14 calendar days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy, which is a failing and likely caused the resident inconvenience.
The landlord says a gas company, which was not one of its contractors, most likely damaged the brickwork and window frame after identifying that the internal gas risers in the block of flats needed updating. The gas company said it would make good any damage caused during the works, but the landlord was unable to request this due to the length of time that had passed. The landlord says it did not identify the correct company responsible for the damage during the complaints process, which is a failing. The landlord needs to ensure it identifies repairs correctly; not doing so caused a further delay for the resident.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The lack of evidence may be due to poor record keeping.
It was not until 15 May 2023 that the landlord issued a stage 2 response. This was 9 working days outside the timeframe in its complaints policy and is another failing that likely frustrated the resident. The landlord offered £25 compensation for the delay in responding at stage 2 and £250 compensation for the delays, inconvenience, trouble and upset caused due to failing to complete the repairs. While the landlord’s handling of the issue could have been better, it offered compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. The offer of compensation in this instance was reasonable and highlights the landlord’s commitment to try to put things right.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would provide an update regarding the repairs by the end of the week, but it did not do this. This is a failing, as we would expect landlords to communicate effectively with residents, especially where contact arrangements have been promised. The lack of contact likely prompted the resident to chase an update and tell the landlord that £275 compensation was not enough.
In response, the landlord offered a further £50, which the resident accepted. The offer of further compensation was reasonable as the landlord reflected on its further failings and, again, highlighted its commitment to put things right.
The resident continued to chase the landlord, which eventually arranged to repair the damaged brickwork and window frame more than a year after its stage 2 response, on 24 June 2024.
This Service’s spotlight report on repairs makes recommendations about delivering a good repairs service, which should be a high priority for landlords. In this case, the damaged brickwork and window frame did not impact the use of the property. However, the failure to undertake repairs can cause stress and frustration, and damage a resident’s ongoing relationship with their landlord.
Due to the delay in completing the repairs, the landlord conducted a review and said it would provide an additional £400 compensation. The total compensation offered falls in line with our remedies guidance, in recognition of failings that have adversely affected a resident but without any permanent impact. However, this has not prevented a finding of maladministration given the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs sooner and a compensation order has been made that is reflective of the offer made by the landlord. Section 5.3 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states a process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable but, in the circumstances, given the delay, it was appropriate of the landlord to consider whether further compensation was necessary.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of external repairs.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay compensation totalling £725 it has already offered to the resident, comprised as follows:
  1. £25 for the delay in responding at stage 2
  2. £250 for the delays, inconvenience, trouble and upset caused due to failing to complete the repairs
  3. £50 for failing to update the resident regarding the repairs following its stage 2 response
  4. £400 for failing to complete the repairs until more than a year after its stage 2 response
3. The landlord must make these payments directly to the resident, less any amount/s already paid.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.

Recommendation

The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).