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

London Borough of Islington (202319984)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319984

Islington Council

26 February 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 of a leak.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since August 2014. She lives in the property, a 3-bedroom ground-floor flat, with her family. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident first reported a leak affecting her property in August 2022. The landlord inspected on 9 September 2022 and concluded that the leak was coming from one of the flats above. On 12 September 2022, it raised a work order to inspect the flat above, but this was not actioned.
  3. The resident raised her first stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 17 March 2023. She said she had reported the leak in 2022 and that it had become steadily worse. The landlord provided its response on 11 May 2023. It upheld the complaint due to its failure to action the leak repairs and for the delay in completing the remedial works to her bathroom. It offered £125 compensation. On 27 April 2023, it replaced a section of tiles in the resident’s bathroom. On 26 May 2023, the resident escalated her complaint because no work had taken place in the upstairs flat to fix the leak. Also, she said the tiles the landlord had recently replaced were coming off the wall. The landlord upheld the stage 2 complaint and increased its offer of compensation to £375.
  4. On 19 May 2023, the landlord inspected the flat above. It then conducted 3 further inspections of the resident’s property on 19 July 2023, 23 September 2023 and 19 October 2023. At each of its inspections it identified the upstairs flat as the source of the leak. The landlord completed repair work to the flat above on 15 December 2023. On 21 December 2023, the resident told the landlord it had not fixed the leak and that her bathroom continued to be damp.
  5. The resident raised a second stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 21 December 2023. She said:
    1. She had reported a leak in August 2022. Despite numerous plumbers, surveyors, and damp assessments, the leak had not been resolved.
    2. The landlord had upheld her previous complaint about the leak at each stage of its complaint handling procedure.
    3. She was continuing to experience large numbers of woodlice in the bathroom due to the damp conditions, and was now waiting on a further damp survey on 9 January 2024.
    4. The landlord had plastered the ceiling but after 5 weeks it was still wet. The painter had done “a terrible job” with the paint underneath showing through. They had repeatedly failed to come back to rectify the work.
    5. She felt it was unfair that the flat where the leak originated had received a new bathroom, but the landlord had not renewed her bathroom despite the damp affecting it.
    6. As an outcome she wanted the leak stopped and a new bathroom. If this was not possible, she wanted to be moved from the property.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 January 2024. It said:
    1. It acknowledged the resident had complained about an unresolved leak that had affected her property for over a year.
    2. It raised a job for a plastering repair on 21 December 2022 and attended on 2 February 2023 to do the work. The repairs were not possible during the visit because the leak was ongoing.
    3. A surveyor visited on 23 June 2023 to conduct a damp assessment of the bathroom. They found saturated external brickwork, damp ceiling plaster and peeling paintwork. The surveyor could not access the flats above to find the cause of the leak.
    4. The resident raised an emergency repair on 22 September 2023. A plumber attended but could not enter as no adult was present. The plumber returned the next day and found the leak was coming from a neighbouring property. The landlord could not disclose the repairs required in the neighbouring property due to data protection.
    5. A damp assessment on 19 October 2023 identified water staining and a leak above the resident’s bathroom ceiling.
    6. It repaired the leak in the neighbouring property on 23 October 2023. It raised an order to repair the resident’s bathroom ceiling on the same day. She notified it on 24 October 2024 that she wanted the bathroom replaced.
    7. It conducted a further damp assessment on 9 January 2024. The surveyor found:
      1. Flaking paint and damp salts on the bathroom ceiling.
      2. Blown tiles at the end of the bath.
      3. Peeling paint on the skirting board and left-hand wall.
      4. Missing grout on the right–hand wall.
      5. The sink had come away from the wall.
      6. Although damp patches were visible, the damp readings indicated a historical leak.
    8. The surveyor estimated 2.5 days to complete the work, which it had booked for 2 February 2024.
    9. It apologised for the delays and the inconvenience that the resident experienced. It upheld her complaint and awarded £358.30 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £208.30 for service failure and the delays between June 2023 and October 2023 (£41.66 per month).
      2. £150 for inconvenience, trouble and upset.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 January 2024. She accepted the compensation offered in its stage 1 response and asked to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord had not fixed the leak and that the property was still damp. She also reported that after another damp survey the landlord’s surveyor requested that the ceiling was painted again. The resident felt this would not solve the issue because the ceiling itself was still wet. The surveyor said all the bathroom tiles had to be removed, but she had not received an appointment for this work to take place. The resident said she wanted the source of the leak traced and the repair work completed. If this was not possible, she wanted the landlord to move her from the property.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 16 February 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and provided the following reasons:
    1. The leak was coming from another property, which contributed to the delay in having it fixed.
    2. It had booked an appointment for 31 January 2024, which it had later rebooked to 23 February 2024 due to an emergency. The work it planned to complete included painting the ceiling, walls, and a section of skirting board, re–tiling the walls around the bath, and renewing the bath sealant.
    3. It had booked an additional appointment for the surveyor to assess the damp issues in the bathroom on 11 March 2024. The surveyor would then report the findings back to its repairs team.
    4. It was satisfied that there was no requirement to renew the bathroom as it could be repaired to a satisfactory standard.
    5. It apologised that the repairs had taken longer than expected and appreciated the distress and inconvenience this had caused the resident.
    6. It offered additional compensation of £309, comprised of:
      1. £209 for delays between October 2023 – March 2024 (£41.66 per month).
      2. £50 for inconvenience.
      3. £50 for distress.

Events post internal complaints procedure

  1. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 7 March 2024. It said the ceiling still appeared to be wet “potentially from a leak above” and showed signs of damage. The landlord said it would ask its contractor to return to the flat above and investigate the matter. Once the visit had taken place it would complete the redecoration works in the resident’s property.
  2. The landlord inspected the upstairs flat on 4 June 2024. It confirmed all works were complete.
  3. The resident told us that she believes the leak has not been fixed. She said the landlord painted the bathroom ceiling 3 times but the staining continues to come through the paint. She is still experiencing problems with woodlice in her bathroom. The resident noted that the landlord’s surveyor visited again in January 2025 and told her they believe there is an issue with the external wall. She said she wants the landlord to find the source of the leak and repair it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident made her first complaint to the landlord on 17 March 2023. It provided its final response to this complaint on 26 June 2023. The resident did not escalate her case regarding these earlier complaints to the Ombudsman for investigation at the time. However, as the leak has continued through both sets of complaints, we have taken account of all events since her first report to the landlord in August 2022.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to rehouse her family. However, it is beyond our remit to order the landlord to offer immediate rehousing to the resident, or to prioritise her family over other applicants or tenants who need rehousing and who may be in a similar or greater need. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and best practice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

The repairs

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. A property with dampness and/or high humidity can pose threats to health from associated mould or fungal growths, resulting in the presence of a category 1 or 2 hazard. The principle underlying the HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle the landlord must ensure the dwelling is free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
  3. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure of the property in repair. This responsibility is reiterated in the landlord’s repairs guide and the resident’s tenancy agreement.
  4. The repairs guide confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing water leaks and water penetration issues. Where a survey is required to determine the cause of any reported issues, it aims to conduct the survey within 10 working days. The repairs guide states the landlord will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. If a maintenance problem recurs within 12 months of repairs being completed, it aims to visit and refix the problem within 5 working days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that disrepair payments range from £500 to £2,500 depending on the severity of the problem. It will offer between £100 and £300 for time and trouble, and between £100 and £1,000 for distress. The compensation guidance states that for each month of a delay after the work should have been completed, a guideline payment of £25 per month should be offered.
  6. The resident was not sure of the exact date she first raised the leak with the landlord. It states that it raised a work order to investigate the leak on 16 August 2022. It then conducted its first survey on 9 September 2022, 8 working days outside its 10 working day target. This was unsatisfactory given the nature of the issue. The surveyor stated that the leak was coming from a property above. Having reached this conclusion, the landlord would have been expected to carry out prompt investigation and repairs to that property, which it also owned. However, there is no evidence that it did so (or attempted to do so).
  7. Instead, without further investigation into the source of the leak, the landlord proceeded to arrange for the affected area of the resident’s bathroom to be re-tiled. Initially the tiler attended her property on 31 October 2022, but did not complete the work. The record states “did not complete the work because job raised incorrectly.” It was not until 5 months later, on 17 March 2022, that the tiler returned. Again, they were unable to complete the work. On this occasion it was because the landlord had ordered the wrong tiles. The delay was unreasonable and significantly outside the 20 day timeframe for routine repairs. The delays also caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident, who had to put up with a bathroom in poor repair.
  8. On 17 March 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the tiler had said the work to the bathroom could not be completed because “the infill was rotten due to continuing leak from the flat above”. The tiler also reported in the case notes that the resident was concerned about the leak, which she had reported numerous times. Despite the resident and tiler providing this information, the tiling went ahead on 27 April 2023. This is concerning and indicative of communication and/or record keeping issues. It also suggests that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was not sufficiently empathetic or supportive, as it did not take time to understand her position, explain its decision making, and provide reassurance (where appropriate).
  9. On 19 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord’s repair line whose call taker informed her that the landlord had visited the neighbouring property the same day. The landlord said it could not conduct any work in the flat above because the neighbour had installed their own tiles. The resident said she had spoken to the neighbour about this and that they disputed the landlord’s account. It has been difficult for us to establish what defects the landlord did find in the neighbour’s flat. Other than an emergency plumber, who noted tiles missing off the shower, there are no other inspection records of the property. On the same day, the landlord raised an order for a specialist leak team to investigate the upstairs flat. The records do not indicate if this was the inspection that took place that day or if it was an arrangement for a further inspection. However, the records do not refer to any subsequent inspection of this type. This led to an unclear situation for the resident, causing further confusion in her understanding of the landlord’s actions.
  10. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have a clear audit trail with details of attendances at the property and what work was carried out. Recording such information ensures that it can review its actions in the event of a complaint, and provide independent bodies such as the Ombudsman with evidence as necessary. 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.
  11. On 26 and 31 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and informed it that the leak was ongoing. She said the new tiles were coming off the wall and that the ceiling was in a “horrible state”. It would be general knowledge within repair services that any form of tiling, decoration, repair or other finish should not be undertaken while the materials to which they are to be applied remain damp or wet. Proceeding with the repair works in this manner indicated issues with communication, decision making and/or staff competence. The failed repairs added to the frustration experienced by the resident. They also caused further deterioration in the landlord-tenant relationship, as well as a loss of confidence in the landlord’s processes.
  12. In her email on 31 May 2023, the resident told the landlord its repair line, plumbers and surveyors had given her conflicting advice on the cause of the damp and the completion of the repairs. She said she felt it was unacceptable to have waited a year without a resolution to the issues, and informed the landlord that her child was asthmatic and that she also had health issues. She asked for a response that detailed when it would complete the work. The landlord failed to respond to this communication, leaving the resident feeling unheard. There is also no evidence that it recorded her household’s vulnerabilities or considered them in its decision making, such as by carrying out a risk assessment, which is a further failure.
  13. The landlord’s first survey, in September 2022, had stated that the leak was from a property above the resident’s flat. The inspection on 19 July 2023 concluded the same. The notes from the inspection stated, “found salt staining and saturation of the [external] brickwork outside the bathrooms” of the resident’s flat and upstairs flat. The surveyor concluded “there is a leak coming from either of the flats above. This is possibly due to defective wall tiling within the bathrooms or a leaking service or waste pipe from the upstairs bathrooms, which is also tracking down the exterior wall”. However, the landlord failed to take effective action to investigate the leak. The resident had to call an emergency plumber on 9 September 2023, causing her further time and trouble as well as the ongoing distress associated with the damp in her property. The plumber again identified the flat upstairs as the source of the leak. At this point there was significant evidence from 3 inspections that pointed to the upstairs flat. Despite this, the landlord conducted an additional survey of the resident’s property on 19 October 2023, which she found frustrating.
  14. The records supplied to this investigation show that the landlord began work in the flat upstairs to resolve the leak in October 2023. This was 14 months after it had raised its original work order. The landlord confirmed that it owned the property where the leak originated. It therefore had a right of entry to conduct the repairs and should not have faced any undue delay. The time period involved was unacceptable and caused considerable uncertainty and inconvenience for the resident. It is recognised that complex repairs involving a diagnostic element, a trial and error approach, and/or multiple properties/contractors may take longer than the landlord’s usual or routine timescales to resolve. In such situations we would expect the landlord to keep the resident regularly updated, consider interim measures to reduce impact, and not unreasonably delay steps that may advance progress on the repairs.
  15. In her stage 1 complaint on 21 December 2023, the resident told the landlord that it had not fixed the leak. She said the ceiling was still wet, 5 weeks after being plastered, and “looks worse than ever”. She also reported an ongoing infestation of woodlice. The landlord conducted a further survey on 9 January 2024. The notes listed the following observations:
    1. The bathroom had flaking paint on the ceiling and damp salts in certain areas.
    2. The tiles along the end of the bath were coming off the wall.
    3. The paint was peeling off the skirting board and left hand wall.
    4. Grouting on the wall and sink had come away.
  16. The survey concluded, “work may have been undertaken when the walls and ceiling were still saturated”. The surveyor’s findings and comments indicate that the landlord missed an opportunity to learn from its earlier mistakes when it retiled the damp wall. The failed repairs caused the resident additional upset in an already stressful situation.
  17. After further delays, the work was conducted in the resident’s property on 23 February 2024. In a post works inspection on 7 March 2024, the surveyor said the ceiling still appeared to be wet, “potentially from a leak above”, and was also damaged. These findings indicated the repairs were inadequate. As such, the landlord failed to comply with its repairs policy where it aimed to fix a recurring maintenance problem within 5 working days. The surveyor advised they would ask the contractor to return to the flat above and investigate the matter.
  18. On 4 June 2024, the landlord inspected the upstairs flat and confirmed all works were complete. This continues to be disputed by the resident, who believes the leak has not been repaired. She told us that the damp staining on the external brickwork identified by the surveyors is still present. The staining in her ceiling returned and had to be repainted in December 2024, with another survey carried out in January 2025. We would have expected the landlord’s records to detail the source of the leak and to confirm it had been repaired. This information is not present. Given the ongoing issues being experienced by the resident, it is reasonable to conclude that the leak has not been repaired, and/or that the landlord has sealed the moisture in the fabric of the building by conducting the repairs before the materials below were sufficiently dry. We have therefore made an order for an independent investigation of the resident’s property and the damp affecting the external brickwork.
  19. The resident has asked on several occasions for her bathroom to be replaced. The landlord has refused on the grounds that it can provide adequate repairs. However, it has failed to deliver on this commitment as evidenced by the need to continually redo repairs already carried out. We have made an order below for the landlord to re-assess its decision about replacement of the bathroom based on the findings of the independent assessment.

Communication

  1. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 17 March 2023, she told the landlord that she had been emailing and calling it but rarely received a response. The absence of communication records in the landlord’s evidence supports the resident’s statement. At the beginning of this investigation, the landlord provided the following responses to our request for specific documents:
    1. Copies of correspondence or information provided by the resident relating to this leak and their ongoing attempts to resolve the matter – “no information on file”.
    2. An explanation of any delays in relation to the repairs – “N/A”.
    3. Copies of any information provided to the resident about how this issue was being addressed – “N/A”.
    4. All internal correspondence and telephone contact notes concerning the resident’s reports – “information not held”.
  2. It is unclear why the landlord does not possess the information and communications requested above. Throughout the timeline of the complaint there have been a number of inspections, surveys and repairs. There will also have been numerous reports from the resident which generated those inspections, surveys and actions. There would have inevitably been communications in the form of system entries, telephone records, emails and/or letters generated as a result. However, as previously highlighted, we have been provided with only limited records of communication between the parties.
  3. This Service expects landlords to have in place, apply and monitor their own communication key performance indicators, to ensure residents are communicated with and responded to as required. This helps deliver clear, effective, and timely communication, which is essential to an effective repairs and complaints handling process. As such, we would have expected the landlord to have been in regular communication with the resident, providing updates on its investigations and next steps. She experienced inconvenience and took extra time and trouble to contact the landlord on numerous occasions. The lack of communication affected the resident’s confidence in the landlord and she lost faith that it was taking the severity of her situation seriously.

Woodlice

  1. The resident told the landlord in her first complaint that she had a woodlouse and drain fly infestation in her bathroom. On 12 May 2023, 37 working days later, it sent her pest control leaflets and told her that its pest control service did not treat these types of pests. In an internal email on 26 June 2023, the landlord confirmed that the pest issues being experienced by the resident were a result of the damp issues in her property. The landlord told her in its stage 2 response on the same day that the pests “do not fall within our remit to be treated which I understand you have been advised previously, so I would not be able to advise you further”. This remained its position throughout the complaint.
  2. While the landlord was entitled to act in accordance with its applicable policy, its response was both unsympathetic and unhelpful. The resident told it in her stage 1 complaint that she always had woodlice in and on her bath. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided some assistance to the resident. For example, it could have offered to refund the cost of any materials she had to purchase or offered to treat the pests as a gesture of goodwill. As a local authority landlord it could also have liaised internally with its pest control officer/department and passed on any advice or resources (although it did provide some leaflets). Having to constantly deal with woodlice in her bathroom caused the resident ongoing distress for a period exceeding 2 years.

Conclusion

  1. The landlord’s failures in this case have led to a finding of severe maladministration. There were excessive delays from the start of the case. The landlord recognised these delays in its first complaint response in May 2023. However, the delays continued until the time of the stage 2 complaint response in which it again acknowledged the delays but still failed to take timely action. This resulted in the resident having to make a new complaint. The landlord’s actions to resolve the leak have been ineffectual and the repairs to the resident’s property have had to be repeated several times as a result. It has also failed to show that it recognised or considered the resident’s family’s vulnerabilities in its decision making. In addition, its response to the resident’s concerns about the pest issues she was having to deal with was unsympathetic and unhelpful. Overall, the landlord did not learn from its mistakes and did not put things right for the resident. For the reasons above we have awarded additional compensation.
  2. In calculating the level of compensation that we consider is due, we have taken account of the landlord’s applicable policy and the awards it made. During the period investigated, the landlord awarded £1,042.30 compensation as follows:
    1. 11 May 2023 – £125 (increased to £375 on 26 June 2023)
    2. 19 June 2024 – £358.30
    3. 16 February 2024 – £309
  3. The landlord’s method of awarding compensation was confusing. Its initial award of £125 in May 2023 did not adequately reflect the 8–month delay and errors that had occurred up to that point. While the landlord increased the sum in its stage 2 response by £250 in June 2023, we consider the amount remained insufficient as the delay was ongoing and the problem remained unresolved. Relatedly, in the second stage 2 response in February 2024, the heading “revised compensation award” was used. This indicated that the landlord had lowered its stage 1 offer in January 2024, from £358.30 to £309. However, the resident has told us she was paid both amounts. 
  4. It is similarly unclear from which part of the compensation guidance the amount of £41.66 per month for delays originated. The headings used for the compensation amounts differed across the complaint responses, which has made it difficult to understand exactly what amount was being awarded and for which element. A more consistent approach would have improved this aspect. Taking all the available information into account, and to recognise the failures that have arisen since August 2022, we have made an award of £2,100 compensation. This is inclusive of any compensation already paid. In line with the applicable categories in the landlord’s compensation guidance, our award comprises:
    1. £1,000 for disrepair.
    2. £300 for time and trouble.
    3. £300 for distress and inconvenience.
    4. £500 for delays (20 months at £25 per month, calculated from June 2023 to January 2025 when a survey confirmed there remained an issue with the external wall).
  5. The amount is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance recommends awards of this level where there have been serious failings by the landlord, which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology from its chief executive to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident £2,100 compensation for the disrepair, delays, distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced. This sum is inclusive of the money already offered/paid. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.
  2. Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must arrange for a comprehensive and thorough independent inspection of the damp affecting the resident’s bathroom and any properties that are a potential source of the moisture/leak. The inspection must also investigate the damp staining on the external brickwork between the bathrooms of the first–floor flat and the resident’s property. The inspection should be undertaken by a suitably qualified specialist, independent of the landlord, its contractor, and their previous investigations. The resulting inspection report must be shared with the resident and this Service, and should provide conclusions on the following:
    1. Whether or not a leak continues to affect the resident’s property.
    2. Whether moisture has been trapped behind the external finishes of the resident’s bathroom.
    3. What is the cause of the damp staining on the external brickwork.
    4. Details of any further work required.
  3. Within 4 weeks of receiving the inspection report, the landlord must:
    1. Reconsider replacing the resident’s bathroom on the basis of the recommendations made in the report. It should inform the resident and this Service of its decision and reasoning.
    2. Provide to the resident and this Service a timebound schedule of any works identified in the surveyor’s report.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits specified.