Islington Council (202303706)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303706

Islington Council

28 March 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. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
   2. The resident’s request to be reimbursed for gardening maintenance and wall plastering works undertaken in the property by her.
   3. The associated complaints including the resident’s complaint that it had discriminated against her.

Jurisdiction

2. 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, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has complained about discrimination against her by the landlord. Section 114 (1) of the Equality Act 2010, states the county court has the jurisdiction to decide if there has been ‘discrimination’ or other prohibited conduct. This Service cannot investigate complaints where discrimination is alleged as we cannot make a binding decision that this has occurred, as this would be a matter for the Courts. However, we can investigate whether the landlord has treated and responded to their complaint appropriately. The resident is therefore advised to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue her complaint about discrimination.
4. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out under paragraph 42 (a) and  (l), that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
   1. Were made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
   2. Seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
5. Having reviewed the evidence provided to this Service, the Ombudsman notes that the resident’s complaint about ASB caused by her neighbour had not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. This Service is therefore unable to investigate the complaint. Both the landlord and resident have been made aware, and the landlord has been advised to respond to the resident’s complaint. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate.
6. With regards to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the garden maintenance and wall plastering undertaken in the property by her. The Ombudsman notes from the evidence that these are historical complaints that had been investigated by this Service under reference 201914645 and 202012618.
7. On 26 July 2022 the resident complained that the landlord should reimburse a sum of £10,000 incurred, over 6 and a half years, in the maintenance of the garden when the cost should have been shared with the other residents. The Ombudsman had previously investigated the resident’s complaint about the garden maintenance under case reference 201914645. The investigation examined the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the neighbours were not assisting with maintaining the shared front garden at the property. This Service determined on 30 September 2020 that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about the garden maintenance.
8. As part of her request for reimbursement, the resident said the landlord should pay her back £5,500 spent on plastering the walls in the property due to the poor quality of works carried out to the vents. On 29 October 2021, the Ombudsman determined under case reference 202012618, that there was reasonable redress, by the landlord, in its handling of works to the air vents in the resident’s property. The investigation also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of works and plastering works that the resident said she had carried out and associated costs.
9. In accordance with paragraph 42 (l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s request to be reimbursed for gardening maintenance and wall plastering undertaken in the property by her, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. Any further reference to events relating to the complaints outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction are for context only.

Background and summary of events

Background

10. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She has resided in the property, a 2-bedroom, first floor flat, since 2015. The landlord told this Service that the resident’s child has known vulnerabilities. 

Policies and procedural documents

11. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it will make refund and compensation payments to residents who have been affected by failures to meet reasonable levels of service delivery.
12. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it would not investigate any complaints that have already been addressed through its complaints procedure or have been investigated by the Ombudsman. It operates a 2-stage complaints procedure where it will aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 21 days and stage 2 complaints within 28 days.

Summary of events

13. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 July 2022 about her online review. It asked to raise any new issues it had not previously investigated. The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord the same day. She said:
    1. The landlord should reimburse £10,000 spent on garden maintenance due to the neighbour’s refusal to share the responsibility. She said the landlord led her to believe she would still be responsible if the other neighbour opted out. She was only recently advised that the maintenance should have been shared 4 ways.
    2. She asked the landlord to pay her back £5,500 she had spent on replastering works due to poorly installed vents in the property.
    3. The landlord should re-open its investigation of ASB caused by the neighbour.
14. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 9 August 2022. It said:
    1. Her complaint about gardening maintenance and plastering works were historical issues which it had previously addressed.
    2. It would look into further concerns raised about ASB.
15. The landlord and the resident communicated in several emails between 22 August 2022 and 26 September 2022. During this period they discussed her concerns about the upkeep of the communal garden and ASB. She reiterated her request for reimbursement of additional costs incurred in works already carried out. The landlord responded that it had followed its complaints procedure and the matter had been referred to this Service.
16. On 1 October 2022, the resident complained about the issues previously raised at stage 1. She also said:
    1. The landlord’s application and enforcement of policies had been discriminatory for over 6 years as it had favoured her neighbour, to hers and her child’s detriment.
    2. The landlord both directly and indirectly discriminated against her under part 4 of the Equalities Act 2010 in how it responded to her complaint about ASB the works she had carried out in the property and the maintenance of the communal garden.
    3. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, so the landlord would have been justified in applying its policies in a way that would favour her over other residents due to her disability in order to remove or reduce disadvantages or meet the needs of a tenant with the protected characteristic.
17. The landlord met with the resident on 10 October 2022 to discuss her ongoing concerns.
18. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 14 October 2022. It said:
    1. It had previously taken legal action against the neighbour in February 2022.
    2. It had continued to communicate with her and followed the correct procedures in its handling of her complaints about ASB and found no evidence to suggest any form of discrimination as alleged.
    3. It took legal action against the neighbour and enforced the tenancy conditions because it had reason to do so.
    4. It did not publish any equality information, but it would shortly be publishing performance information on its website, in line with the recent changes being made in the sector by the Social Housing Regulator.
19. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 15 October 2022. She said:
    1. She was frustrated that the landlord’s response had failed to acknowledge the concerns raised or justify its reasons for not offering compensation.
    2. The landlord had not offered a satisfactory explanation to her concerns about discrimination.
    3. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s investigation about her complaint anti-social behaviour.
20. The resident and the landlord communicated in several emails between 27 October and 21 December 2022, about ASB and the maintenance of the communal garden.
21. On 28 April 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint received on 15 October 2022. It said:
    1. It had previously responded to the issues raised and explained why it was unable to reimburse her for internal plastering and works to the communal garden.
    2. It was also unable to identify any evidence of either direct or indirect discrimination due to her disability.
    3. It would like to offer £175 for the time and trouble caused to the resident for the delay in responding to the complaint.

Post complaint summary of events

22. The resident informed this Service in June 2023 that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s overall handling of her concerns.

Assessment and findings

23. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. be fair
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes.
24. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The associated complaints including the resident’s complaint that it had discriminated against her.

25. As noted earlier in this report, the resident’s complaint about the maintenance of the communal garden and plastering works had previously been investigated by this Service. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord advised, in its stage 1 and 2 responses, that the complaints were historical and that it was unable to look into her request to be reimbursed for works done.
26. With regards to the resident’s complaint about the discrimination, it addressed this in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses accordingly. It advised her that it conducted a fair investigation of the issues she complained about and had previously taken action regarding her reports of ASB and other matters. It concluded that following its investigation it had found no evidence of discrimination against her by its organisation.
27. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 15 October 2022. However, it responded to the complaint on 28 April 2023, approximately 6 months after it was received. This is not acceptable, especially since this Service has not seen evidence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. There is also no evidence that the landlord sent a written acknowledgement of the complaint or updates on the progress of the investigation or a request for an extension. This extended delay would have caused the resident some distress and frustration and prevented her from escalating her complaint to this Service.
28. Furthermore, the landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about ASB. This is not in line with the landlord’s complaints handling policy or this Service’s complaint handling code (the Code). This would have caused the resident some confusion and uncertainty.
29. There is some evidence of learning by the landlord, as it acknowledged it did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the timescales published in its complaints handling policy. It apologised for this error and offered £175 for the inconvenience this had caused her. It did not, however, offer a detailed explanation of what happened and why things went wrong as noted in its complaint policy. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the offer of compensation did not fully compensate for the inconvenience the resident would have experienced during the 6-month period. Considering the above, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints including the resident’s complaint that it had discriminated against her.
30. In response to our request for information, the landlord informed this Service on 8 January 2024, that it would investigate the ASB and offered the resident £150 for the inconvenience.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate.
32. In accordance with paragraph 42 (l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s request to be reimbursed for gardening maintenance and wall plastering undertaken in the property by her, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint including the resident’s complaint that it had discriminated against her.

Reasons

34. The landlord’s response to the resident regarding historical issues raised by her was reasonable. There was a 6-month delay by the landlord in responding to the stage 2 complaint. It acknowledged the delay, apologised to the resident, and offered her compensation. It addressed her concerns about discrimination, but it failed to provide a full response to the other issues raised in the stage 2 complaint.

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the sum £100 for the inconvenience caused to her due to the failure in its complaint handling.
    2. Share this report with staff who deal with complaints and emphasise the importance of adhering to its complaints policy and this Service’s complaint handling code.