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

Islington Council (202305267)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305267

Islington Council

29 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. The resident’s concerns that the property is not suitable for her family’s needs.
    2. The resident’s reports about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas.
    3. Repairs to the defective entry door, reports of anti-social behaviour in the communal areas and the lack of CCTV.
    4. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat.
  2. A problem with the magnet on the main door to the block was reported to the landlord on 9 March 2022. The resident also raised concerns to the landlord on 16 March about youths congregating. After several jobs were raised and then cancelled, the repair was carried out on 4 April.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 23 June 2022, in which she raised concerns about the cleanliness of the lift and block as a whole, as well as non-residents entering the block and leaving rubbish.
  4. A further problem with the main door was reported on 27 July 2022, which was repaired on 1 August.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 August 2022. It explained that it had experienced an IT issue and had only just recovered her complaint email. It confirmed it had now logged the complaint and would respond by 25 August.
  6. It sent its response on 25 August 2022, in which it offered £25 compensation for the delayed response. It acknowledged that the main door had taken longer than normal to fix, but said that the problem with youths and non-residents entering the building was only an issue while the main door was broken. It said she should keep a diary for a 2 month period if it was still a problem.
  7. It noted that she had asked why there was no CCTV in the block, but did not provide an answer to this question. It said that cleaning inspections had been carried out, and there were some areas of concern, which it would be reviewing and setting an action plan.
  8. On 3 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to ask for her complaint to be escalated. She said that the door was broken for a long time, and there were still non-residents ringing her bell. She said she had a young child with a disability who needed extra care, especially in communal areas.
  9. She said that she did not see the lift and stairway being cleaned often and there were often marks and bad smells. She also mentioned an incident several years earlier where a man was attacked and blood was not cleaned up for several weeks. She said she did not feel safe living there and the situation was having an impact on her mental health. She also said the signage in the block said CCTV was active, which was misleading.
  10. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 May 2023, in which it apologised for the delayed response and offered £100 compensation for this. It reiterated its position from its stage 1 response that it had no evidence of any anti-social behaviour (ASB) issues other than when the door was broken. It said that it could not investigate the issue about the clean-up after an attack due to the time that had lapsed.
  11. The landlord said it had reviewed its caretaker inspection reports for the previous 6 months, and all had been graded as A or B, or all clear and satisfactory. Finally, it said that certain criteria had to be met for CCTV to be installed, as it has finite resources, and there would likely be a cost to residents.
  12. The resident remained unhappy with this response, and contacted this Service on 26 May 2023 to ask us to investigate. She said that the communal areas, particularly the lift, were dirty and she often had to use the stairs with her disabled son. Her buzzer gets rung at unsociable hours and this along with the lack of CCTV made her feel unsafe, especially as she was heavily pregnant. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and complaint handling, and also said that her property had been deemed unsuitable following a family and child assessment.

Assessment and findings

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, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. According to paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  3. In her complaint to this Service, the resident raised a concern about the property’s suitability for her family. This Service has seen no evidence that this was raised with the landlord as part of her complaint, or that it has investigated this issue. For this reason, and in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, her complaint about the property’s suitability for her family’s needs falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If she still wishes for this issue to be investigated, she would need to raise this with the landlord.

Scope of the investigation

  1. According to paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.
  2. As part of her complaint about communal area cleanliness, the resident referred to an incident several years earlier, where someone was attacked and the blood was not cleaned up for several weeks. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident raised this with the landlord before she raised it as part of this complaint. Therefore this issue was not raised in time, as it was raised several years after it happened, and it has not been considered as part of the investigation into the landlord’s handling of cleaning in the communal areas. This position is reflected in the landlord’s stage 2 response which confirmed that it would not be able to investigate this historical issue.

Standard of cleaning in the communal areas

  1. The landlord’s caretaker manual sets out its obligations in relation to the cleaning of communal areas. It says that its aim is that no area should fall below a B standard, but that when assessing cleanliness the frequency of scheduled cleaning for the area should be taken into consideration, as it may be that the area is nearing the end of its cleaning cycle.
  2. The resident raised concerns about the cleanliness of the communal areas, in particular the stairwells and lift, in her complaint of 23 June 2022. The landlord has provided copies of its caretaker inspection reports from January 2023 to 14 December 2023. It has not provided any earlier inspection reports to demonstrate that it was monitoring cleanliness in the lead up to the resident raising the complaint.
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said during a recent inspection of 12 August 2022 the communal areas were found to be clean, however this Service has not seen a copy of this inspection report.
  4. The landlord has not provided a copy of the cleaning schedule, so it is not possible to determine at what point in the cleaning cycle the inspections were carried out. It has provided 4 inspection reports from before it issued its stage 2 response on 4 May 2023, 3 of which were graded A or B overall, but did have some areas that fell below this standard. And its last inspection before the stage 2 response, in April 2023 more than 30% of areas graded below B, despite it rating the overall grade as A.
  5. Since it issued its stage 2 response, all the inspection reports it has provided have scored 70% or less, with a number of areas graded C for unsatisfactory, or D for service failure. The landlord has acknowledged in its communication with this Service that these inspections have been ‘indifferent at best’ and that caretaking needs to be addressed further. However it has not demonstrated how it intends to address or monitor this.
  6. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas. The inspection reports it has provided show that at every inspection there were areas that fell below the minimum standard set out in its caretaker manual. Whilst it has now acknowledged that there are issues with its caretaking, it did not properly acknowledge this during its internal complaints process, or take any action to resolve the issue.
  7. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her, in particular by her having to use the stairs with her disabled child when she felt the lift was unfit for use.
  8. An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out a review of its caretaker process, including the frequency and standard of cleaning, and provide a copy of its report to the resident and this Service.

Repairs to the entry door

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy shows that it is responsible for maintaining all external doors. It logged the issue with the entry door as a U24 category, meaning that it should be responded to within 24 hours. This category is used for repairs that affect a tenant’s day to day living, such as something which presents a significant risk to the safety of residents. Given the resident’s reports of youths congregating, and non-residents gaining access to the building, this category was appropriate.
  2. A problem with the magnet on the main door to the block was reported to the landlord on 9 March 2022. It attended on 11 March 2022 but its records do not show what, if any, work was completed. A further job was logged on 16 March, when the resident made the landlord aware that youths were congregating and making her feel unsafe. This job, and a further one logged the next day were both cancelled. A final job was logged on 31 March, with a repair being carried out on 4 April.
  3. The landlord has said that the delay was due to a delay in a contractor attending, however its notes do not make it clear why the issue could not be fixed on 11 March 2022. Its notes also do not explain why several jobs were closed down, before the final job was logged almost 2 weeks later. It failed to complete the repair in line with its policy, based on the priority category, and its records do not provide any reasonable explanation for the delay.
  4. The landlord’s records show that a further problem with the intercom for the main door was reported on 27 July 2022, which was fixed on 1 August. Its records do not show what priority this repair was given, however the records do not show any concerns about ASB at this time, therefore a timeframe of 3 working days for the repair was not unreasonable at this time.
  5. The landlord said in its complaint responses that it had no reports of ASB outside of the timeframe where the door was not working. In its stage 1 response it asked the resident to keep diary sheets for 2 months if she was experiencing ASB. In her escalation request she said that her buzzer was being pressed by non-residents at unsociable hours. This Service has seen no evidence that she has provided the landlord with a diary of these incidents, or reported it to its ASB line, therefore, the landlord did not act unreasonably in not logging an ASB case at that time.
  6. The resident said that she felt it was misleading that there are signs in the building that say CCTV is active, but this is not the case. The landlord has said the reason for the signage is that there is CCTV across the wider estate. It explained that CCTV has been considered, but there have been few reported problems in this building, so CCTV was placed in blocks where ASB was being reported.
  7. The landlord’s policy does not say that there is any requirement for there to be CCTV, and as signage can be used as a deterrent, it is not unreasonable for the landlord to have placed CCTV signage in all of its buildings even if it is only present in some.
  8. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the defective entry door, reports of anti-social behaviour in the communal areas and the lack of CCTV. Whilst it is not required to provide CCTV in all of its buildings, and there is no evidence of ASB being reported, outside of the time when the door was not working, there was a delay to the repair to the entry door in March 2022.
  9. It logged the repair as a 24 hour priority, but did not complete it within this time, with no explanation in its records for the delay. It was aware of the resident’s concerns about unauthorised people being able to gain entry into the building, and should have completed the repair in line with its policy timescale.
  10. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in repairing the main entry door.
  11. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to monitor reports of ASB in the building and periodically review the need for CCTV.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus and took too long.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says that at stage 1 it will acknowledge complaints within 3 calendar days and provide a response within 10 working days. At stage 2 it says it will provide a response within 20 working days.
  3. The resident raised  her complaint via the landlord’s webform on 23 June 2022. The landlord’s internal records show this was forwarded to a mailbox for it to be picked up, and the landlord has said that an issue with this mailbox meant the email was not routed correctly. The complaint was not logged until 11 August, when it sent an acknowledgement email to the resident.
  4. It then provided it stage 1 response on 25 August 2022. Whilst this was within 10 working days of the landlord logging the complaint, it was 45 working days from when the complaint was raised, which represented an unreasonable delay. In its response it did explain the delay and apologised for this, and it offered £25 compensation at this stage.
  5. The resident requested the complaint be escalated on 3 November 2022. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this request, and it did not provide any update to the resident before sending its stage 2 response on 4 May 2023, 125 working days after she requested the escalation. Its response apologised for the delay, although it did not provide any explanation for it, and offered the resident £100 compensation.
  6. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the issue satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress, which included an apology and an offer of compensation, was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  7. Whilst the landlord should have responded to the complaint in line with the timeframes set out in its policy, it has accepted this during its internal complaints process.
  8. The Ombudsman is of the view that the compensation offered by the landlord for failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, and was therefore reasonable. As such, the Ombudsman considers there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  9. Recommendations have been made for the landlord to pay the resident the £125 compensation offered during its internal complaints process, and for it to carry out a review of its complaint logging process to ensure that complaints are logged and responded to in line with its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her concerns that the property is not suitable for her family’s needs is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the defective entry door, reports of anti-social behaviour in the communal areas and the lack of CCTV.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord to pay the resident £350 of compensation, broken down as follows:
    1. £250 in relation to the cleanliness of the communal areas.
    2. £100 in relation to the repairs to the entry door.
  2. The landlord to carry out a review of its caretaker process, including the frequency and standard of cleaning, and provide a copy of its review to the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of this report.
  3. The landlord to evidence compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales detailed.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord to monitor reports of ASB in the building and periodically review the need for CCTV.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident the £125 compensation offered during its internal complaints process in relation to delays in its complaint responses, if this has not already been paid.
  3. The landlord to carry out a review of its complaint logging process to ensure that all complaints are logged and responded to in line with its complaints policy.