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

London Borough of Islington (202329251)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329251

London Borough of Islington

23 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports about the repair of her front door, renewal of a gas cooker hose and installing double radiators.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. She lives in a 3-bed house.
  2. The landlord’s evidence indicates the resident has reported a range of issues to the landlord, including ones with her front door, a gas cooker hose and radiators. However, the evidence does not show the precise nature of the issues leading up to her complaint.
  3. On 15 August 2023, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord about a number of unresolved repair issues including her front door. The landlord treated this as a formal complaint. From 24 August to early September 2023, the resident amended her complaint to include matters such as her gas cooker pipe and radiators.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 12 September 2023. It said following its inspection on 24 August 2023, it had found no issues with the matters the resident had reported. However, while it found the front door worked properly, due to the resident’s security concerns it said it would re-adjust the lock (which the resident declined).
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 5 October 2023. She repeated her original concerns and did not provide any new information. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 November 2023. It said while the resident had declined the agreed lock adjustment, it would however carry out additional works including for the front door. It said it would not install the double radiators. It apologised for any poor communication or repair delays.
  6. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 6 December 2023. She said that as an outcome for her complaint she wanted a new front door and double radiators, and a renewed gas cooker hose from the landlord.
  7. The landlord has provided evidence that shows it has continued to arrange property repairs following the completion of the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep in repair external doors and installations for room heating. Its repairs and maintenance policy sets out its 4 repair priorities from emergency within 2 hours to routine repairs within 20 working days. It also says the landlord is responsible for repairing pipe work and appliances installed by it, while residents are responsible for repairing and replacing own their appliances at their own cost.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the repair of her front door, renewal of a gas cooker hose and installing double radiators

  1. The resident complained her front door was not secure, and gaps let out heat. On 12 September 2023 the landlord issued its initial complaint response saying after inspecting the door, it found it was “fully functional”. It agreed to adjust the lock due to the resident’s concerns but said it would not replace the door. The evidence shows the landlord inspected the door on 24 August 2023 and while it found no issues, it arranged a lock adjustment for the resident’s “peace of mind”.
  2. The evidence shows the resident declined the lock works on 13 September 2023 visit as she said a new door frame was needed instead. By inspecting the door in a timely way, the landlord appropriately followed its policy both in term of timescales but also its obligations to keep in repair external doors. It also showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously by arranging the lock works.
  3. The landlord’s final complaint response on 6 November 2023 said the resident had refused the lock adjustment works, so it would not carry out any further such works. It did however agree to repair a gap around the door at a visit arranged for 16 November 2023. The evidence shows the resident cancelled the November visit without rescheduling it.
  4. The evidence also shows the landlord has responded to further reports about the front door including by inspecting it again on 11 July 2024 and completing works to fill a gap on 8 August 2024. It has shown that it has appropriately followed up on reports and accordingly taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
  5. The resident complained that the landlord would not renew her gas cooker hose which she said it had previously replaced with a smaller one (it is not apparent when this is alleged to have happened). She also said that in 2021 she installed a new cooker. The landlord’s final complaint response confirmed the resident was responsible for the gas cooker and pipes.
  6. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said one of the outcomes she was seeking was a renewed cooker hose.  However the evidence and her own information shows the cooker hose issue was dealt with and resolved in 2021. The resident has told the Service this issue was resolved after installing her own gas cooker in 2021. In any case, as the landlord had not installed the resident’s new cooker, it was appropriate for it to ask the resident to deal with any cooker issues herself, which accurately reflected its policy.
  7. The resident complained the landlord had replaced double radiators in her home with single ones. She did not say when this happened, and it is not apparent from the evidence.  The landlord’s complaint responses said there was no evidence supporting the need for double radiators. The resident has also told the Service she has installed 2 double radiators but requires 2 more in her home. There is no evidence of when the landlord installed the single radiators or when the resident installed the double ones. The evidence, however, shows that at the 24 August 2023 inspection, the landlord considered the resident’s “areas of concern”. At this time, it did not identify the need for double radiators. Its complaint responses reflected the fact that it had inspected the property in response to the resident’s concerns and found no need for changes.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses were reasonable. It had shown it was responsive to the resident’s concerns by undertaking a full inspection on 24 August 2023. Further, it followed up on issues such as the front door lock adjustment for the resident’s “peace of mind” rather than for a substantive repair issue. While the evidence does not indicate service failings, the landlord also apologised for its poor communication and repair delays which also reflected its commitment to building trust with the resident. The complaint was resolved with the landlord’s responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repair of her front door, renewal of a gas cooker hose and installing double radiators.