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

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202305280)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305280

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited

28 November 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 request for repairs to the wet room in the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which began in January 1997. The property is described as a 5-bedroom maisonette. The resident has physical disabilities. The resident’s daughter acts as his representative. They are both referred to as the resident in this report.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 May 2022 and reported a leak from the wet room. On 17 May 2022 it recommended that the wet room required new tiling as the tiles were damaged and causing the leak. The landlord further noted on 9 June 2022 that decoration works were needed following the leak. The resident continued to report concerns about the leak between July and September 2022.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 October 2022. He complained about the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused due to the delay in resolving the leak. He said he had fallen and sustained injuries while using the bath because the wet room was unusable. Between November and December 2022, the landlord and the contractor tried to find the source of the leak.
  4. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 15 December 2022. It said its contractors offered to investigate the leak by removing the tiles on 8 November 2022, but the resident initially refused. The landlord said the works were later agreed and had been booked in for 20 December 2022 to investigate the leak and resolve it. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience. It also said it was sorry for the delay in responding to the complaint. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
  5. The contractor visited the property on 21 December 2022, but they were unable to rectify the leak. The resident continued to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. Between 22 and 23 February 2023, he said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He requested the escalation of the complaint to stage 2 on 24 February 2023. He said he was fed up with constantly having to request updates from the landlord.
  6. The landlord informed the resident on 29 March 2023 that it had instructed the contractors to replace the wet room due to the ongoing leak. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 3 April 2023. It advised the resident that the works required to the property had been referred to its contractor, who would make the necessary arrangements. It had also arranged for a manager to oversee the works to ensure they were carried out to his satisfaction. It offered £400 as a gesture of good will for time and trouble and inconvenience caused. A works completion document dated 3 July 2023 indicated that the landlord replaced the wet room on this day.
  7. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 23 November 2023. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation. He said the compensation did not reflect the impact of the handling of the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concern that the leak to the wet room was first reported to the landlord in 2021. Going by the information available, the resident reported a leak around 12 July 2021 and this was attended by the landlord in August 2021. There is evidence of further contact by the resident about remedial works to the affected areas and issues with the electric shower temperature in the property. The resident made these reports between August and December 2021. However, we have not seen any reports about the leak from the repairs log until 3 May 2022.
  2. The resident informed this Service on 12 November 2024, that he expressed dissatisfaction about the repairs by telephone in 2021, but the landlord addressed it verbally. There is no evidence that he requested the escalation of this earlier complaint to stage 2, or that the complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. We have ascertained from the evidence that the resident raised a formal complaint on 18 October 2022. Therefore, this investigation focusses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from May 2022 onwards, that were investigated under its complaints process. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  3. The Service notes the resident’s comments regarding his health and the impact caused by the delays during the course of his complaints. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causations of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair request to the wet room in the property

  1. The landlord agrees to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises under the tenancy agreement. This includes installations for sanitation and supply of water that it has provided. It will aim to complete repairs right first time and within 28 calendar days for all non-emergency repairs requests. The landlord’s repair records indicate that it carried out an inspection of the property within the stated timeframe in its policy. Following the resident’s report on 3 May 2022, the landlord noted that the contractor would attend the same day. Its contractors also reported on 17 May 2022 that the wet room required new tiling, as the tiles were damaged and causing the leak. The landlord’s actions at this stage were appropriate.
  2. Although the landlord or its contractors carried out an initial investigation in May 2022, there is no evidence that it completed the works suggested to the wet room. This Service has also not seen records of appointments or confirmation of works carried out to resolve the leak in the wet room. The resident contacted the landlord regarding the leak in July, September and October 2022. On 18 October, he complained that he was frustrated and disappointed with the service he received from the landlord. He said although the contractors had visited a few times, the leak had not been rectified. He said he was last told that a water pump needed to be ordered, but he had not received further updates. This meant that the resident waited for the repairs to the wet room from May to October 2023 with no clear plan or resolution agreed. This is unreasonable.
  3. The landlord promises to deliver a continuously improving and responsive repairs and maintenance service, by making sure that day to day repair is carried out on time, to a high standard that residents are satisfied with. The contractors carried out further investigations between November 2022 and February 2023 to find the source of the leak, but these were unsuccessful. This Service notes that communication between the landlord and contractor was slow which contributed to the delays in resolving the repair. On 11 November 2022, the contractor said it had carried out several investigations, but it had not been able to locate where the leak was coming from. It asked the landlord for permission to cut the tiles to access the pump and connection. The landlord responded on 22 November 2022, but this was only after a prompt from the contractor for a response. This is not appropriate. We have seen that the landlord was unable to complete the repair at first attempt, but it failed to take proactive steps to resolve it in a timely manner. This meant that it did not manage the resident’s expectations causing further distress and inconvenience to him.
  4. The investigation of the leak to the wet room was poorly coordinated and communication with the resident and contractor was poor. In its stage 1 response to the resident on 15 December 2022, the landlord said the contractors would attend on 20 December 2022 to investigate further. It apologised for the resident’s experience and said training would be carried out to improve service provision to its residents in the future. It also said the complaint would be monitored until the works had been completed.
  5. The contractor provided feedback to the landlord on its visit to the property on 21 December 2022. It advised the landlord that after cutting through the tiles it was unable to resolve the leak. It concluded that the installation of the wet room appeared to be the problem, and it asked the landlord for urgent directions on the next steps. The evidence shows the landlord did not follow up on this or respond until 22 February 2023 which led to further delays. This was after the resident asked for an update and said no one had visited in weeks. At this stage, the landlord appeared to revisit its earlier suggestion (from 17 May 2022) to renew the tiles in the wet room. The landlord failed to make good on promises made in its stage 1 response and missed further opportunities to put things right at the earliest opportunity.
  6. Due to further delays experienced by the resident, he requested the escalation of his complaint to stage 2 on 24 February 2023. Although the landlord suggested changing the tiles, we have not seen evidence that it followed up on this. The contractors attended on 28 February 2023 to investigate a blockage to the wet room but said it was unable to resolve it. The landlord did not request an update until 13 March 2023. This is further evidence of its poor management of the case which led to unnecessary delays and inconvenience to the resident. On 24 March 2023 the contractors asked the landlord to make a final decision on whether a survey should be done for a new wet room to be installed.
  7. Under the Equality Act 2010 the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. The resident advised the landlord on 18 October 2022 and February 2023 that he fell whilst trying to use the bath in the property. During its investigation of the leak, the landlord failed to consider the impact of the longstanding and overdue repair to the resident. The resident advised the landlord that the loss of use of his wet room put him at a disadvantage and a risk to his safety due to his disability. However, the landlord failed to assess the risks to the resident or consider if reasonable adjustments were necessary to manage these risks.
  8. The landlord said in its repairs policy that it is committed to delivering a high standard repair and maintenance service which meets the diverse needs of local communities and will achieve this by treating people fairly and taking the nine protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010 into consideration in all aspects of the repair service, including access to the service. After reviewing the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair request, this Service has not seen evidence that it considered the resident’s vulnerability even when he explained how the delay to the repairs was affecting him. This was observed throughout the life of this case. This is not appropriate.
  9. On 29 March 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience he had experienced. It said it would instruct the contractors to replace the wet room due to the issues he had been experiencing since it was installed. It responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 3 April 2023 and assured him that a manager would monitor the works to completion. It offered £400 as a gesture of good will for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused.
  10. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offer up to £400 where there is high impact and high effort to resolve an issue, failure to communicate and follow its policy. It will also consider the below factors when making offers of compensation:
    1. The severity of the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered and whether this was reasonably foreseeable by it.
    2. The household vulnerabilities, including age or disability, where it is aware of these vulnerabilities.
    3. Offer compensation over £400 if deemed fair and reasonable to do so.
    4. Offer 25% of the weekly rent as compensation for loss of use of bathroom which is payable after 48 hours.
  11. However, it is unclear if this is to be paid on a weekly basis for the duration of the period of inconvenience or a one off payment.
  12. There is evidence of significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs. He incurred time and trouble in chasing up the landlord for over 12 months due to the poor communication. The landlord failed to monitor the repairs in a proactive manner, which led to missed opportunities in preventing further detriment to the resident. It did not consider the resident’s vulnerability or assess if any support could be provided while it was trying to resolve the leak. There is evidence of some learning, though late in the process. The landlord decided to renew the wet room on 29 March 2023, but there were further delays as the works were completed around July 2023. The resident contacted this Service for assistance due to the delays during this period. The resident reported the repair on 3 May 2022, but it took approximately 14 months to resolve. This fell far outside the 28 calendar days stated in its repairs policy for resolving routine repairs. Taking the above into account, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not in line with the considerations set out in its own compensation policy, and the amount did not take into account the full extent and cumulative impact of the failings identified on the resident. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the overall failings amount to maladministration. An order will be made to address this.

Events after the internal complaints process

  1. Around 18 October 2024, the landlord informed this Service that it is in the process of changing to a new housing management system. It said it had learned from previous complaints, that its systems for recording resident interactions, repairs requests, and complaints had not been fit for purpose and were not able to easily provide accessible records and residents history. On this basis we have not made any orders or recommendations to the landlord in respect of improvements to its service and processed. However the landlord is encouraged to consider the outcomes of this investigation and incorporate any additional learning from it into its ongoing service improvement work.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint was delayed. The resident raised the complaint on 18 October 2022, and it responded on 15 December 2022. According to its complaints policy (effective September 2022), it would aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receiving the complaint. It further stated that the complainant will be informed if the response time needs to be extended. The landlord responded approximate 43 working days after the complaint was received which means it did not adhere to the timescales published in its complaints policy.
  2. From the evidence available, it failed to acknowledge the complaint. The resident requested an update and an acknowledgement of the complaint by the landlord on 12 December 2022. The landlord failed to provide an explanation for the delays. This means it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. This would have caused the resident some frustration and inconvenience. Although the landlord apologised for the delay, it failed to offer compensation or provide any explanation for its decision not to.
  3. The landlord acknowledged there were failures in how the resident’s repair request had been handled. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused. It said feedback from its handling of the case had been passed to a manager to ensure training could be provided to staff. Due to the above, it is unreasonable that the landlord decided not to uphold the complaint following its admission of the failures. The landlord assured the resident that the complaint would be monitored until the works had been completed. We have not seen evidence that it followed up the case or provided updates to the resident. This is not appropriate.
  4. The resident requested the escalation of the complaint to stage 2 on 24 February 2023. It should have responded within 20 working days of receiving it, in line with its complaints policy. However, it responded on 3 April 2023, 26 working days after the complaint was received. We have not seen evidence that it acknowledged the complaint or advised the resident of a delay in responding to the complaint. Its policy allows for payments of up to £100 for poor complaint handling but it did not consider if this was applicable in this case. This is not appropriate. The response stated that the resident’s complaint was dated 1 November 2022. The stage 1 response was dated 15 December 2022, and the resident requested the escalation of the complaint on 24 February 2023. This would have been confusing for the resident.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the complaint and it apologised for the inconvenience. Aside from the delay, the response failed to provide a clear explanation of actions taken since the resident requested the repair or reasons for the extended delay and why it failed to follow up on promises made in the stage 1 response. It agreed actions at both stages of the complaints process, but it delayed in following these up. These are significant failings, which left the resident in a complaints process with no clear timescale for actions to be completed.
  6. Overall, the landlord failed to adhere to its policies. It did not monitor the actions and promises made and it failed to put things right for the resident through its complaints process. Due to the above the failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling amount to maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the wet room.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out the following actions:
    1. A senior manager of the landlord is to apologise in writing to the resident for failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £1250 broken down as:
      1. £400 offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already paid it.
      2. £500 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the repairs.
      3. £350 for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaints handling.
  2. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide training to the relevant staff who handle complaints which should focus on:
    1. Ensuring individual circumstances such as vulnerabilities are considered when dealing with complaints and offering remedies.
    2. Complaint handling in line with this Service’s complaint handling code (the Code) and its internal complaints policy.
    3. The dates and content of the training should be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. Review its compensation policy to provide clarity on compensation for loss of use of rooms. It currently states that a certain percentage of a resident’s weekly rent would be awarded but it does not specify if this would be a one-off payment or paid for the duration of the inconvenience. This could result in confusion for staff and residents as well as inconsistencies in practice.