Islington Council (202303320)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303320

Islington Council

23 May 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:
   1. Repairs required to the property, including the need to rehouse the resident.
   2. The resident’s reports of damage to household items caused by damp and mould.
   3. The formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a split-level maisonette, with 2 bedrooms and a bathroom on the top floor, above the kitchen and living room. The resident occupied the property with her 4 children.
3. The resident reported a leak to her living room ceiling on 16 August 2022. The landlord’s contractors attended several times throughout August and September 2022 to assess the cause of the leak and repair the living room ceiling.
4. The landlord conducted a survey on 12 September 2022, which established that there were leaks to the living room ceiling, both in the centre and corners of the room. There was a further leak above the window frame in one of the bedrooms. The frame was rotting and black mould was forming due to condensation and penetrating damp. An external window inspection in the second bedroom showed possible issues with the dressing and gully being blocked. Externally, the downpipe was in poor condition causing water to run down the wall. The landlord concluded the cause of the leaks was water penetration from the roof due to rain.
5. Following the survey, the landlord issued a Section 20 notice to neighbouring properties on 21 September 2022, as works and scaffolding were required. According to the resident, the scaffolding was erected in January 2023, but work did not commence until 28 March 2023.
6. On 27 March 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that the leak had still not been fixed. She explained there was mould in both bedrooms, and it was so bad in one room they were unable to use it, resulting in the whole family sharing the other bedroom. She said the property smelt of damp, there were insects everywhere, and it was freezing cold. She described the impact on her family, with no independent space for her children to play, sleep or do homework and attributed the conditions to a decline in her wellbeing, and her children’s health and subsequent school attendance. She claimed the landlord had told her the home was uninhabitable and she would be rehoused.
7. She sent a further email to the landlord on 24 April 2022, in which she reiterated her concerns and added that damage had been caused to her carpet and sofa.
8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 May 2023, when it upheld the complaint, based on its delays in progressing the works between October and December 2022 and the reoccurrence of the leak following repairs on 28 March 2023. It awarded £159 compensation, comprised of £25 for delays in its complaint handling, £83.32 (which it rounded up to £84) for its failure to progress repairs between October and December 2022, and £50 for the inconvenience caused.
9. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She said she had to repeatedly chase the landlord to act and felt ignored. She noted it had failed to resolve the issues, rehouse her, and store her furniture.
10. On 12 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for failing to rehouse her and acknowledged that surveyors had deemed the property uninhabitable. It said the housing and insurance teams would update her regarding the condition of the property and moving her furniture. It considered the offer of compensation awarded at stage 1 to be insufficient given the inconvenience caused, and increased this to £500.
11. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and the ongoing lack of contact and referred her complaint to this Service. She brought a disrepair claim against the landlord, which was settled out of court, with terms agreed in February 2024. This included a payment of £2,250 to the resident. The resident was also moved into temporary accommodation in mid-February 2024 and is awaiting a permanent offer of accommodation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

12. The resident submits that the landlord’s handling of the repairs impacted on her and her children’s mental state and caused her children to feel unwell, resulting in poor school attendance. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the family’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that their health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the family experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Repairs required to the property, including the need to rehouse the resident.

13. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair. This includes the external walls, doors, window frames and sills, as well as the drains, gutters, and pipes. The landlord is also responsible for the internal structure. The landlord’s repairs policy further clarifies its responsibility for repairing water leaks and water penetration issues.
14. The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 16 August 2022. She said she informed the landlord that water was coming in through the living room ceiling and the ceiling was coming down. According to the landlord’s repair log, it categorised this as an ‘emergency’ repair and the job notes indicate it attended the same day, with the leak traced to the gutter. The landlord’s repairs policy defines emergency repairs as including serious water leaks, to be responded to within 2 hours. While the response time was not specified in the landlord’s job notes, the landlord at least categorised the repair appropriately.
15. In her complaint, the resident claimed the landlord did not respond promptly to her initial reports. She said she called it twice and it told her it could not send anyone out. She noted she had to complain before the landlord attended and declared it unsafe. The resident did not clarify when it ultimately attended and whether this was within the day.
16. The Ombudsman appreciates it was frustrating for the resident that the landlord did not respond more promptly. However, in the absence of details of these conversations, and more specific information about when the landlord attended, it is not possible to determine fault in relation to its initial responsiveness.
17. The records show the landlord’s contractors attended on several occasions over the following month. There was some confusion about the source of the ceiling leak. Following the initial visit, a roofer attended on 19 August 2022 and suggested the poorly grouted bathroom tiles were responsible. A plumber attended on 22 August 2022 and reasserted that the ceiling leak was coming from the roof. A roofer then re-attended on 6 September 2022 and determined that scaffolding was needed to investigate further. On 12 September 2022 the survey was conducted, identifying leaks to the living room ceiling and by the bedroom window.
18. Given the source of the leaks was ultimately determined to be caused by water ingress from the roof, there is an indication the roofer did not conduct sufficient enquiries during their attendance on 19 August 2022. While this misdiagnosis caused a small delay, which came with some inconvenience to the resident, it is recognised that this did not have a significant impact in terms of timely resolution of the issue.
19. On 22 August 2022 the landlord’s contractors attended to take down the living room ceiling, reboard and plaster it. The Ombudsman appreciates that it may have been necessary to remove the ceiling promptly, due to the damage caused and risk posed. However, given the cause of the leak was still undetermined and unresolved, it is unsurprising that by the time of the survey on 12 September 2022, the ceiling was once again showing signs of water ingress.
20. Following the survey, the landlord issued a Section 20 notice to neighbouring properties. This was appropriate given scaffolding was to be erected. As outlined in its repairs policy, the landlord has a legal duty to consult in advance with leaseholders who own property in a block or estate that will be affected by the repairs. Given that the consultation period following a Section 20 notice is 30 days, there was an understandable delay in the repairs being progressed at this juncture.
21. In its stage 1 response, the landlord noted the works were approved on 23 December 2022. It is not clear why the approval came 3 months later, but the landlord acknowledged it had delayed for 2 months. While it compensated the resident for this, £84 is not considered sufficient redress given the level of detriment caused to the resident who was living with active leaks, damp and mould, and was unable to use her living room and bedroom. The landlord provided no explanation as to why it had delayed and what it would do to address this going forward. In fact, the delay went beyond this as work did not commence until 27 March 2023.
22. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said works were initially scheduled for 12 January 2023, but the resident did not grant access on this date, and again on 20 January 2023. In her escalation request, the resident refuted this and submitted that the contractors had failed to attend on a specified date and time.
23. The landlord’s policy states that its contractors will call a resident prior to arrival, and if the resident is not home, will leave a missed appointment card at the property and take a photograph of the front entrance. It is not possible to determine whether the resident failed to grant access or whether contractors failed to notify her of appointments. The landlord has provided no evidence it took the actions outlined in its policy, nor provided job notes to this affect. Again, it is not clear whether the landlord failed to keep such records or did not provide them for the purposes of the investigation. In either case, this is considered a failing. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, to ensure it follows best practice in that regard.
24. The resident claimed the scaffolding was erected at some point in January 2023. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated the works were re-scheduled for 10 March 2023, but were cancelled due to bad weather. While this was reasonable grounds for suspending the work, it failed to acknowledge or explain why it had not progressed repairs throughout February 2023 and up to this point. Works ultimately commenced on 28 March 2023 and the scaffolding was removed on 24 April 2023.
25. It is not clear what works took place during this time. Again, the landlord did not provide comprehensive job notes for the purposes of this investigation. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported the roof was still leaking on 18 April 2023. In her email of 24 April 2023 she reiterated that the leak was active and claimed the landlord had attempted a quick fix and simply painted the guttering. She said she had emailed 6 times in the previous 2 weeks, asking it to investigate the issues and respond to her. The landlord has provided no evidence it responded to this email and did not address its poor communication within the stage 1 response.
26. In its response the landlord claimed it had tried to conduct a damp assessment on 24 April 2023 but had no access. Again, the resident refuted that she had been informed of this appointment. The landlord’s repair log shows a survey listed on this date but there are no corresponding notes regarding this, so it has not been possible to verify. The landlord also said a post inspection was completed on 27 April 2023, but has provided no details of this.
27. Despite the lack of information about what works were undertaken, it is clear they were insufficient. The situation had been going on for 8 months at this stage. The resident was clear that the problem had not been resolved, yet the job was concluded and the scaffolding was removed. The lack of resolution with regard to the issues was perpetuated by the landlord’s poor communication, causing understandable frustration and distress to the resident.
28. The landlord’s response to the repairs was also somewhat confused. In her escalation request, the resident reported that it had sent contractors to address issues with the windows, even though the scaffolding was now down and the leak was still active. The job notes also show the landlord scheduled an appointment for a mould wash to be conducted on 25 May 2023, which was cancelled when the resident explained the leak was still active. This indicates a lack of understanding about the status of the repairs and a lack of coordination with regards the works. This was not only inefficient, but of further inconvenience to the resident who felt she was not being listened to and wanted the leak addressed as a priority.
29. By May 2023 the resident reported leaks in 4 different places, which were entering communal areas and the property below. She was clear about the impact the ongoing situation had on her and her family. The family were living in 1 bedroom, with damp and mould throughout the property, and a pungent smell and insects from the stagnant water.
30. The Ombudsman considers it a significant failing on the part of the landlord that it allowed these issues to perpetuate. While this Service appreciates the repairs were potentially complex and extensive, the landlord delayed unnecessarily in progressing the works, and appeared to conclude them without resolution. There is no evidence it put appropriate interim measures in place, such as a dehumidifier, which was offered only following the final response. It was not responsive when the resident raised concerns and her complaint did not serve to prompt awareness or acknowledgement of the extent of its failures and the severity of the resident’s living situation. This resulted in avoidable, ongoing distress for the resident who remained in ‘uninhabitable’ living conditions.
31. The LTA as amended by the ‘The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018’ requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation. While the LTA does not define ‘fit for human habitation’, consideration should be given to factors including repair, freedom from damp, and ventilation. The ‘Decent Homes Standard’ also requires that a home must meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing, be in a reasonable state of repair, have reasonably modern facilities and services, and provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
32. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that its diagnostic surveyors had established the home was uninhabitable and, due to this and the major works required, had accepted that a permanent move was necessary. The diagnostic survey was conducted in September 2022, some 10 months earlier. It is not clear why the request for a permanent move was not then progressed internally and why efforts were undertaken to conduct repairs with the resident in situ.
33. The complaint handler noted the surveyors had contacted the housing team to request a permanent move, but it is unclear when. Following the complaint response, a ‘major works transfer request’ was completed, which stated, under the section ‘date passed to legal repair team’, that a legal live repair case had been raised on 22 September 2022, but there was ‘no reply from the legal repairs team to service requests about this’.
34. According to the landlord’s policy, requests for a transfer are based on the recommendations of a diagnostic surveyor or legal repair team. This must then be signed off by the high value repairs panel (HVRP) and points are awarded to assist the resident with a move, or depending on severity, they are provided with temporary accommodation. There is no evidence the case was heard by the HVRP and the resident indicated to this Service that she received no additional points, stating she had no priority for homes she bid on.
35. There appears to have been a lack of ownership of the issue, whether by the housing team or legal repair team. This should not have resulted in the process stalling and further efforts should have been taken to chase the matter up. This indicates poor interdepartmental liaison or that adequate processes were not in place to identify drift. The resident had been clear in her initial complaint and subsequent correspondence that she had been told she would be rehoused. This should have prompted the landlord to investigate why this had not happened, take stock of the scope of works, and progress the move, prior to the final response.
36. Given that, in its final response, the landlord acknowledged the resident should have been rehoused, the hope was that it would then progress the move. However, despite stating in its final response that she would be contacted within a week, the resident contacted this Service 3 weeks later and said she was still to hear from the landlord. 
37. Records provided by the landlord show it conducted a further survey in August 2023, which concluded the leaks were still active and a full inspection of the roof and removal of the ceiling was required. The repair log indicates some works were raised in October and November 2023, but full details of what this entailed were not stated. Ultimately, in February 2024, the resident was moved into temporary accommodation.
38. Having already failed the resident, the fact that the landlord allowed her to remain in the property with the issues unresolved for a further 8 months, was unacceptable. The resident had, by this stage, endured active leaks, damp and mould, a pungent smell, and been without the use of the living room and 1 bedroom, for 18 months.
39. In February 2024 the resident settled a legal disrepair claim with the landlord, with it agreeing to compensate her at a sum of £2,250. This was paid in addition to the £475 offered in its final response for its failures with regards the repairs (the total compensation offered in its final response was £500, with £25 of this for complaint handing failures). Combined, it awarded £2,725 for disrepair. This was a significant sum, that went some way to redressing the detriment caused. While the details of how the compensation was calculated is not known, this represents approximately 25% of the rent throughout the period of disrepair.
40. The Ombudsman considers this an appropriate sum based on loss of amenities, given the living room and bedroom were uninhabitable throughout this period. However, a further sum is considered appropriate to adequately reflect the additional detriment caused, due to the level of overcrowding this resulted in, with 5 people sleeping in 1 bedroom. This is also to reflect the ongoing failure to move the resident. For these reasons, the landlord should pay further compensation of £1,275.
41. Overall, the landlord’s failures amount to severe maladministration. With regards the repairs, the landlord delayed unnecessarily, failed to resolve the issues once works had commenced, was not responsive, and its approach was confused and fragmented at times. It delayed in rehousing the resident and missed several opportunities to address this, even after acknowledging its error. This was to the significant detriment of the resident and her family. That they had to endure these conditions was avoidable and a consequence of the landlord’s failings.
42. The Ombudsman carried out a special investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which was published in October 2023. This found systemic issues with regards disrepair, including unreasonable delays, ineffective appointments and poor communication. It also identified a tendency towards a lack of clear ownership which contributed to problems drifting and persisting. It noted the approach to resolution could be disjointed, with no team or individual taking responsibility for moving a situation forward. These issues all appeared within the landlord’s handling of this case.
43. The report also identified issues with the landlord’s record keeping, as indicated to have been the case in this investigation. It is not clear whether the landlord did not provide full records for the purposes of this investigation, or did not keep them. The landlord is reminded it should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
44. The Ombudsman’s post-monitoring team are satisfied with actions undertaken by the landlord, in response to 21 recommendations made within the special investigation report. This includes implementation of a procedure setting out the mitigation steps contractors are required to take in more complex repair situations and setting up a ‘complex repairs team’. It has updated its repairs policy, which is due for approval, to contain a clear escalation pathway if repairs are delayed, ensure senior involvement and oversight, and processes to ensure all relevant teams within the landlord work together in a resolution-focussed way. It has provided training to staff on how to communicate clearly and appropriately with residents about who will do what, why and when. It has also implemented an action plan arising from a pulse survey to staff, to help enable and empower services to work effectively together.
45. As a result, no further orders have been made with regard these issues. However, the landlord is recommended to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. It should write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report and issue further compensation as detailed above.

Damage to household items caused by damp and mould.

46. The resident submits that, because of the leaks, damp and mould, her personal items sustained damage, including her carpets and furniture. The resident raised this in her stage 1 complaint and, in its response, the landlord directed the resident to make a claim via her own home insurance policy.
47. The landlord’s ‘refunds, compensation and remedies policy’ states that, in cases where damage to belongings occurs due to its negligence, residents must claim against its public liability insurance. The landlord bears some responsibility for not safeguarding her belongings by resolving the issues promptly, or by moving her and her belongings out of the property, at an earlier opportunity. It, therefore, directed her inappropriately.
48. It appears the landlord later accepted it was responsible for moving her items out of the property. In its stage 2 response, it apologised that she had not been contacted with regards her items being stored and for any further damage caused. It said it would arrange for the insurance team to contact her within a week. The resident contacted this Service after 3 weeks from the date of the final response and said she had received no contact from the landlord.
49. The landlord has since arranged for the resident’s items to be stored, but her sofa remains in the property. She has also received an insurance claim form from the landlord but has not submitted this as she needs support to do so. She said the landlord has not been responsive to her enquiries about this. The Ombudsman has not seen correspondence to this effect so cannot comment but asks the landlord to contact the resident and provide the necessary support.
50. The Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s initial failure to appropriately direct the resident to its insurer and for delays in arranging for her items to be stored. While the Ombudsman cannot determine whether this resulted in further damage, it caused the resident undue stress, for which it should pay £100 in compensation.

Handling of the formal complaint

51. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 March 2023 and it responded on 12 May 2023, after 31 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), requires that it responds to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. Its response, therefore, represented a delay.
52. Review of the landlord’s records suggests the reason for the delay was an initial failure to log the complaint. The resident contacted the landlord again on 24 April 2023, chasing up a response, following which the complaint was logged and responded to within a further 11 working days. This delay compounded her frustration, given she considered the landlord unresponsive to her requests regarding the repairs and rehousing.
53. The landlord appropriately apologised for this and offered compensation of £25. However, the response failed to explain why there had been a delay. It also failed to address her claim that she had been told she would be rehoused, and her concerns that it had been unresponsive. The resident had been clear about the impact the situation was having on her and her family, which was not sufficiently acknowledged or empathised with.
54. The resident escalated the complaint the same day and the response was issued within 21 working days. The landlord’s policy, in line with the Code, requires that it responds within 20 working days. While this was marginally late, this is not considered a significant delay. The response addressed her complaint points, including the requirement to rehouse her, and displayed empathy for the impact the situation was having on her.
55. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 1, for which it should compensate the resident a further £50, considering the distress and frustration caused.
56. Complaint handling issues were also identified as part of the special investigation report into the landlord. The landlord has updated the Ombudsman that it is restructuring its complaints function which will take some time. It is reviewing its complaints process to improve the quality of responses and has implemented a quality assurance checklist for responses. It has also trained all staff on complaint handling. As a result, no further orders are made in that regard.

Determination

57. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs required to the property, including the need to rehouse the resident.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
       1. Reports of damage to household items caused by damp and mould.
       2. Formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

58. Within 4 weeks of this report:
    1. The landlord must pay the resident £1,425 compensation (£1,275 for distress caused by its handling of the repairs, £100 for its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to household items, and £50 for issues in its complaint handling).
    2. The landlord must write a letter to the resident, acknowledging and apologising for the failures identified in this report and explaining how it intends to ensure these are not repeated.

Recommendations

59. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and self-assess against its recommendations. Going forward it should ensure that complete and auditable records are kept showing what action it has taken in relation to repair works.
    2. Contact the resident and offer any necessary support with regards completion of the insurance claim for damages.