Islington Council (202110854)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110854

Islington Council

18 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A pest infestation and proofing works.
2. Leaks and outstanding repairs to his individual property.
3. Communal repairs.
4. Fire safety concerns.
5. Requests for reasonable adjustments.
6. Concerns of conflict of interest and bias.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is owned by the local council. At the time of the complaint, the council used a Private Finance Initiative contract (PFI) to provide housing management services on its behalf. In April 2022, the contract finished and the property transferred back to the local council’s housing management function. For the purposes of this report we have referred to both the council and its earlier PFI organisation(s) as “the landlord”.
The property is a flat situated in a block comprised of similar properties. The landlord has recorded that the resident is vulnerable and has disabilities which include dyspraxia, Irlen syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and depression.
In 2016 the resident asked the landlord to move the boiler from the bedroom following a leak. The landlord said it would consider this, but it is not clear from the evidence provided whether the landlord replied to this request.
In 2017 the resident reported that a door frame needed adjusting, a loose banister, and window repair. He also asked the landlord to install a carbon monoxide alarm. The landlord said it was not required to provide a carbon monoxide alarm, it arranged for a repair to the door and window and asked for more information about the banister. The resident subsequently raised a complaint about this.
In July 2019, the landlord’s records say it first became aware of issues of a mice infestation in the property.
On 16 July 2020, the resident reported issues with the communal door. The landlord confirmed that works were completed to the communal front door on 17 July 2020.
In September 2020, the landlord said it recently completed an inspection of the property. It is unclear what specific works were identified from this visit. The landlord did say, however, that during this visit there was no mention of issues with mice.
On 30 April 2021, the resident raised a new complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident drew attention to the property condition when it was let to him and reported:
1. Boiler safety concerns
2. Leaks from dormer window
3. Window repairs
4. Fire door gaps
5. Damaged living room ceiling
6. Pests
7. Communal repairs
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 21 May 2021. The landlord said, in summary, that the property met voids standards when it was let to the resident, and that any repairs he had reported had been raised or were in the process of being completed following a survey visit it completed on 20 May 2021.
Following this survey, the landlord also identified for pest proofing to be completed. This included proofing to:
1. Kitchen units
2. Bedroom boiler
3. Water cylinder
4. Electric cupboards on landing
In May 2021, the resident asked that any telephone calls the landlord had with him were followed up in writing with an email. The landlord confirmed it would do this.
On 1 June 2021, the landlord communicated a repairs schedule to the resident for works to be completed throughout June 2021. This included works for pest proofing, leaks from dormer window, communal door adjustments, refixing a handrail
The landlord said scaffolding would be installed on 14 June 2021 and work trace the leak from the dormer window on 16 June 2021. After these visits, follow-on work was identified. The landlord completed two more visits in August and September 2021. The repairs to the dormer window and ceiling were completed in October 2021.
The landlord also arranged for the banister to be repaired. on 21 June 2021. Follow-on work was scheduled for 15 July 2021. The landlord was unable to gain access to the property on 15 July 2021. The follow-on work was completed in November 2023.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed that it had completed the proofing works to the cylinder, electric cupboards, and bedroom boiler on 22 June 2021 and to the kitchen on the 23 June 2021. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day and said that the proofing had only partially been done and more works had been identified.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint review letter following a phone call with the resident where he requested a review of its decision. In the stage 1 review letter, the landlord identified some service failures in the issues the resident raised. This was centred around miscommunication for repair appointments. The landlord also offered £100 towards a deep clean of the property but said the resident would have to arrange this himself.
On 17 September 2021, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident felt the landlord was handling his complaints and reports unfairly, it was breach in of the Equality Act, did not pay attention to his preferred method of contact, and was not taking his repair reports seriously. The resident also felt there was a conflict of interest by the staff in handling his reports.
On 8 June 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It offered £225 in compensation. This was comprised of:
1. £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint
2. £100 previously offered for a deep clean of the property
3. £25 for failing to reply to an email
In its stage 2 response, the landlord also said that the proofing work to the cylinder was completed on 14 July 2021 and additional proofing to the property completed on 13 September 2021.
After the landlord issued its final response to the complaint, it continued to carry out visits to the property to address the pest infestations and outstanding repairs works until they were successfully resolved. The last pest control visit took place in October 2023 and the landlord said that proofing was completed in February 2024.
It is noted that the resident was temporarily moved (decanted) to a hotel in January 2024 whilst as a result of no heating and hot water due to a new issue with the boiler.
The resident is seeking the following resolution to his complaint:
1. Compensation in recognition of the issues he has raised
2. A kitchen upgrade
3. Rent reductions for the period of time when the pest issues and repairs have been outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation will focus on events from 30 April 2020. This was 12 months before the resident requested to raise a complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process. Whilst the historical issues provide context to the complaint, and we can see that the resident logged an earlier complaint about issues in his property in 2017 at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure; section 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This historical complaint did not fully complete the landlord’s complaints procedure and was not actively pursued until 2021. The complaints process restarted in 2021; therefore, it is fair to consider events from 12 months prior to this date. In addition, landlords are not expected to keep detailed repair records indefinitely and there is unlikely to be enough information from the earlier period for us to carry out a fair and accurate investigation at this stage.
The Ombudsman notes that since the landlord’s complaints process ended the resident has reported new problems with the boiler. Any new issues should first complete the landlord’s complaints procedure before the Housing Ombudsman can investigate the matter. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and to ensure an equitable approach to our investigations for everyone approaching this service. The resident may then be able to refer these new matters to the Housing Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his complaint. Our investigation will focus on the complaint issues which were raised as a formal complaint to the landlord and were considered through the landlord’s complaints process.
In the complaint, the resident said the landlord was in breach the Equality Act 2010 because it did not make reasonable adjustments he requested due to his disabilities. It is not within the remit of this service to determine if the landlord breached the Equality Act. It is for the courts to determine this and whether any adjustments (requested or provided) were reasonable. However, we can investigate whether a landlord has properly considered whether it would be able to make the adjustments the resident requested and whether it explained its decision clearly to the resident.
In the resident’s complaint, he accused staff members of holding a conflict of interest and bias in their interactions with him. In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This service will not interfere with employment matters. Therefore, we would not order the landlord to take disciplinary action against any individual staff members, but we can consider what actions the landlord took in response to the resident’s concerns and determine whether this was proportionate including whether it took reasonable steps to put right any errors for the resident.
In his correspondence with the landlord, the resident said there had been a data breach because he received a report with an unknown contact number on it. The landlord addressed and responded to this outside of its complaints process. We are unable to adjudicate on this matter, as this is not under the remit of this Service. Paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme explains that we cannot consider complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body. The resident may wish to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if he wishes to pursue this matter further. The ICO can investigate alleged data breaches.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s pest control policy confirms when pests are reported, the landlord will offer an appointment to visit and complete a treatment within 3 working days of it being reported. The policy states the landlord will continue to attend until the issue is resolved.
In addition to this, the landlord’s repairs policy indicates that routine works will be completed within 20 days. Whilst the policy does not specify a clear timescale for pest proofing, it is reasonable to suggest that proofing works would fall into this timescale for completion.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy offers 3 timescales for different types of repairs:
1. Emergency – 2 hours
2. Urgent – 24 hours
3. Routine – 20 working days
The policy also says for more complex repairs, including roofing repairs and some leaks, the process should take up to 20 working days to complete, especially if scaffolding is required. The landlord says its residents can check on the status of work at any stage of the process.

The landlord’s handling of the pest infestation and proofing

The landlord’s pest control logs indicate that the landlord first became aware of a mice infestation at the property on 12 July 2019. The landlord’s pest control service attended a further 6 times following this initial report, with the most recent visit taking place on 27 October 2023.
After the landlord identified the required proofing works from the survey on 20 May 2021, it said it completed the works by 25 June 2021. The resident told the landlord that the works had only partially been completed and he was told that follow-on work was required.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, but we do not have evidence from the landlord’s records to confirm this. Regardless of whether or not the proofing works had been completed, the pests were still an issue in the property and the landlord should have continued to assist the resident and explained the next steps for managing this. This lack of information would have caused further delays and resulted in the resident chasing the landlord for information in July and August 2021.
The landlord said it completed additional proofing works in September 2021. However, it is noted that the resident was still experiencing issues relating to pests as his reports continued up until October 2023. In addition to this, it is noted that the landlord was completing new pest proofing works in November 2023, January and February 2024 which indicates that the schedule of proofing works was not sufficiently completed following its earlier visits and what it said in its stage 2 complaint response. This was inappropriate and it has taken a disproportionate amount of time for the proofing works to be completed to a satisfactory standard.
The resident explained the impact of the infestation and the delays to complete the proofing work. This included anxiety about fire risks in the building due to the infestation and concerns about his personal items becoming contaminated. This would have been distressing for the resident, particularly when considered in the context of his vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation and pest proofing.
In recognition of the delays, the time taken to complete the proofing works, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay him £400 in compensation. When assessing an appropriate amount of compensation, the Ombudsman considers the overall distress and inconvenience caused, vulnerabilities, and the length of time taken to resolve. The compensation ordered is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website. The guidance states that compensation payments within this range can be made where there is a finding of maladministration by the landlord for issues which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord did not acknowledge its own failings or take sufficient action to put things right for the resident. In addition to this, the landlord is ordered to write an apology to the resident for the delays in completing the proofing works.
In his correspondence with this service, the resident has indicated that pests continue to be a problem in the property. Whilst the landlord has advised us that all proofing works have now been completed, and no further reports of pests have been received, a recommendation is being made for the landlord to follow up on this with the resident and arrange a further pest control visit to assess whether any further works are required.
This Service has noted the resident has asked the landlord to bring forward a kitchen upgrade to his property as a result of the infestation issues. This has not been considered within the context of this investigation as this request was raised after the landlord had completed its complaints process. Therefore, we will not order the landlord to do this. However, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to respond to the resident’s request about this.
The resident has also asked for a rent reduction covering the duration of his tenancy. The Ombudsman can order compensation equal to a rent rebate where there is evidence that a resident was unable to safely use all or a significant part of their property due to issues which the landlord took too long to resolve. We would generally not consider a rent reduction for any period when the resident was given appropriate alternative accommodation.
Whilst we recognise the resident did have repair and infestation issues in the property and this was distressing for him, there is no evidence that the property was unsafe for him to occupy or was unusable. The Ombudsman has, however, awarded compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delays to complete the proofing repairs, as outlined above.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the window, ceiling, banister and plastering

Throughout the complaint, the resident reported a number of repairs to the property. This included:
1. Leak from dormer window and damaged ceiling in living room
2. A banister repair and plastering
For ease of reading, these have been split into sub-headings below.

A leak from a window and damaged ceiling in living room:

The resident said that the landlord had attempted to complete repairs to the window in 2020. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the works completed at this time. Following the survey it completed in May 2021; it identified works to be completed and communicated a schedule to the resident. This was reasonable. However, it is noted that some of the subsequent visits did not resolve the issue in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy. This meant the work to complete the repair was delayed causing inconvenience for the resident.
The resident said that when operatives turned up to complete the repair they did not have sufficient time to complete it. This meant the repair was rearranged again. This was not appropriate, and by this stage the landlord would have a good understanding of the works required and the time needed to complete the repair to the required standard.

Banister repair and plastering follow-on work

The landlord arranged for the banister to be repaired on the 21 June 2021. At this visit, follow-on work was identified to complete plastering works to holes in the wall from where the banister was. This was arranged for 15 July 2021, but the landlord did not gain access to complete the repair. The follow-on work was fully completed in November 2023. The length of time taken from the point of the works being identified to full completion was disproportionately long. Whilst it is noted that the landlord was unable to gain access on an appointment it arranged, it had multiple opportunities to rearrange this sooner than November 2023 and there is no evidence that it attempted to do so.
The landlord has not provided this service with repairs logs from the time of the complaint, when issues were specifically reported, and the outcome of repair visits. As such, it is difficult to pinpoint when these issues were reported and what earlier courses of action it took to resolve the repairs. Whilst it has provided later repairs logs, relating to the most recent works it has completed, the earlier repair logs are important to understand the actions and outcomes of each visit. This is indicative of issues relating to poor record keeping and poor documentation by the landlord.
In October 2023, the Housing Ombudsman published a special investigation report on the landlord. Whilst the issues outlined in this complaint both pre-date and were ongoing at the time of the special report investigation, the report drew the landlord’s attention to issues with ineffective repairs appointments, incomplete repairs records and complaints handling. This is an element which has stood out in this particular case. The resident regularly explained this to the landlord and shared his frustrations when repairs operatives were attending without sufficient time to complete works and the landlord was attempting repairs multiple times for the same thing. The resident felt he was not being listened to about this, which would have been understandably frustrating for him and resulted in repairs regularly being rescheduled. This has been considered when assessing compensation for distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s errors in handling the repairs, as detailed further below. If the landlord had not been the subject of a special investigation at the time of this complaint, then we would ask the landlord to complete a comprehensive case review of this complaint. However, we have not recommended this because these issues were already covered in the special investigation and the landlord has carried out a wider review following this special investigation.

Carbon monoxide monitor

In his complaint, the resident also requested for the landlord to provide a carbon monoxide alarm given the boiler was located in the bedroom or for the boiler to be relocated. The landlord made enquiries and confirmed that because the boiler was a sealed appliance and takes air from external sources then there was no risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. The landlord also explained the boiler is annually serviced and checked for issues. The landlord’s contractor also gave the resident advice to contact the council directly, referencing its new strategy to provide carbon monoxide alarms in all of its properties. Whilst we understand the resident’s concerns about this, the landlord made reasonable enquiries to address this concern as part of the resident’s complaint and provided proportionate advice. The landlord is not required to move the boiler, but it is recommended that it follows up with the resident to give more information on when it is expecting to fit a carbon monoxide monitor in his property, if it has not yet done so.
In recognition of the delays to complete the repair works to his individual property, and the inconvenience caused to the resident by having to regularly chase the landlord for updates and information on the progress of the repairs, and for the resident’s time and trouble, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation. The amount ordered is line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above.

The landlord’s handling of the communal repairs

When the resident reported issues about the communal front door on 16 July 2020, the landlord logged an emergency repair. The landlord attended this on the same day and the landlord emailed the resident on the 17 July 2020 to confirm that work had been completed. This was in accordance with its repairs policy and was therefore reasonable.
When the resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 30 April 2021, he said the communal door would sometimes get stuck. In response the landlord arranged for the door to be inspected. On 1 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and provided an appointment for the communal door to be assessed on 21 June 2021. The landlord also said that it completed a repair to the communal lights upon receipt of the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 30 April 2021. This repair was completed on 10 May 2021.
On each occasion the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of communal repairs and arranged for them to be repaired or inspected in line with the approach outlined in its repairs procedures and guidance. Therefore, there is no evidence of maladministration by the landlord with regards to its handling of the communal repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns

When the resident reported issues about the communal front door in July 2020, he also raised concerns about the door to his individual property and told the landlord there was a gap at the bottom. The landlord arranged for this to be assessed, and confirmed that the resident’s individual door needed replacing. The landlord appears to have replaced the door in August 2020 but said that some further work was needed. There is a lack of evidence to confirm that the landlord completed the follow up work to the door. It is not clear why the follow up work was not completed, so this appears to be unreasonable.
In his stage 1 complaint, the resident told the landlord he was concerned about fire safety in his property because his front door did not have the right fire accessories on it, including a handle and fire strips. The resident said he had to open the door by using the key when it was in the lock. The resident also asked for his electric cupboard to be checked.
The landlord responded to these concerns in its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that the front door was replaced on 14 August 2020 and when it recently inspected the property no issues were identified with the front door. As such, it did not uphold this part of the resident’s complaint.
After the stage 1 was issued, the resident continued to raise his concerns about fire safety due to the door and the electric cupboard. The landlord then later communicated a repairs schedule to the resident, to install a handle on the door and an intumescent strip to the electric cupboard on the 12 July 2021.
Whilst the landlord responded to the resident’s fire safety concerns at stage 1, it appears to have later changed its position around this. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to reconsider its position, it would have been inconvenient for the resident to have to challenge the landlord’s position on this to get things done.
In its stage 2 investigation, the landlord did not consider its handling of the fire safety concerns and how this was investigated at stage 1. It also remains unclear, based on the evidence seen by this service, if a fire strip was considered or identified for the front door. This is a service failure as the landlord should have clarified its position.
The landlord is therefore ordered to apologise to the resident and acknowledge its delays in considering the resident’s concerns about fire safety, and for its failure to consider this in its stage 2 response. It is also recommended that the landlord follows up on this, and the wider points related to the repairs issues outlined in this report, by completing an independent inspection of the property to assess any hazards in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), to enable the resident to raise any further concerns he might still have about fire safety. This recommendation is being made as a result of the unclear position within the evidence seen by this service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments

When the resident asked for the landlord to implement his request for email only correspondence in 2017, it did so promptly. From this point onwards, it would have been fair for the resident to expect that communication with him would take place by email and this information would be known across the landlord’s services. Whilst the landlord did hold some telephone calls with the resident, these were agreed in advance and the landlord would follow up with a summary of the call to the resident. The evidence indicates that the landlord accommodated the resident’s request for email contact when it became aware of it.
On 14 July 2021, the resident requested that the landlord respond to his emails in a specific way so he could effectively track responses. This included breaking his emails up into specific points so he could understand them clearly. The landlord responded to this request on the same day and confirmed it was doing its best to meet his requests. It also explained that it was responding to emails quicker than average. The landlord’s complaint responses were also issued under sub-headings. The resident acknowledged that the landlord was trying to accommodate his communication requests.
It is clear that the landlord made reasonable efforts to meet the resident’s adjustments requests through its communications with him and in its handling of the complaint when it became aware of them. There was no indication of maladministration in this element of the resident’s complaint.
It is also noted that the resident has requested, in March 2023, that letters issued to him are provided on peach coloured paper. It is not clear, however, if the resident received an answer to this request. As this request was made after the landlord’s complaint process concluded in June 2022, it is outside the scope of the Ombudsman’s current investigation, and therefore we will not award compensation for the landlord’s failure to respond to the request. The resident may be able to escalate this as a separate complaint with the landlord if he wishes to. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation for the landlord to follow up on this point and confirm if it is able to meet this request. If the landlord is unable to provide letters on peach coloured paper it should explain to the resident why it cannot provide this and if possible it should suggests alternatives to assist the resident with accessing its service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s allegations of a conflict of interest and bias by its staff members.

In his complaints to the landlord, the resident said there was a conflict of interest by the landlord’s staff and bias in its complaints handling.
The resident requested that a specific staff member did not visit his property to assess repairs issues and asked the landlord to appoint an independent surveyor once the repairs to the property were completed. The landlord agreed to this request and an independent surveyor attempted to contact the resident to arrange an appointment in November 2021. However, this appointment did not take place because the resident was self-isolating at the time during the Covid-19 pandemic and the appointment was not rearranged. The landlord should have rearranged the appointment and its failure to do so meant the work remained outstanding for longer than it should have been.
When the property transferred back to the local council in April 2022, the landlord advised that alternative arrangements would be made to inspect it. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised this and asked the resident to confirm his availability for a new survey. It was appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to recognise the resident’s concerns about potential conflicts of interest and assess this by offering an independent survey of the property and ensuring that the specific staff member did not attend the resident’s home.
There was a delay between the resident requesting an independent survey and the landlord agreeing to the offer through its complaints procedures. The transfer of the properties back to the local council then appears to have been another factor in further delaying this offer being progressed but this does not explain the full extent of the delay. The delay would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident as he was awaiting the survey for longer than he should have been.
The resident also said there was bias in the complaints handling process by specific staff members of the landlord. The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s concerns but as an impartial service we can only base our decisions on the evidence available and we can only conclude that there was maladministration by the landlord if there is evidence to confirm this. There is no evidence aside from the resident’s account to suggest there was any bias in the landlord’s complaints handling. The landlord sought to demonstrate this by explaining to the resident how it adapted its processes to ensure the resident could have his say and provide new information. At each stage of the resident’s complaint a new complaints handler investigated his concerns. It is, however, noted that the landlord sought input into its complaint responses from a staff member whom the resident requested was not included in his case. Whilst the resident was dissatisfied with this, it is important to highlight that when a landlord is investigating a complaint it will need to seek input from all those involved, including staff members who the resident has complained about. However, they should not be involved in making decisions about the complaint or communicating the outcome to the resident. The landlord followed this approach and there is no evidence to suggest that the staff members the resident complained about were involved in the complaint investigation aside from providing information to the complaint handlers upon request.
In addition, the resident said that the staff member visited the property after his request for them not to be included. Whilst the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of whether the staff member did or did not visit the address, it is noted that the landlord did not make any further enquiries with the resident about this. The lack of an investigation about this was a failing and would have added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience as he may have felt the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
In summary, whilst the landlord initially handled the resident’s concerns about conflicts of interest appropriately, it did not respond to his concern about a staff member visiting his property when he had asked for them not to. There were also delays in the landlord arranging an independent survey following allegations of bias. This was a service failure. As a result of these issues, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £100 in compensation. The amount ordered is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaint procedure says it aims to responds to complaints within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage 2.
At both stages of the complaint there were delays in issuing the response to the resident:
1. Stage 1 issued 4 days late
2. Stage 2 issued 161 days late
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 17 September 2021. The landlord first acknowledged receipt of the resident’s escalation request on 24 September 2021 and issued its response on 8 June 2022. Whilst the stage 1 delay was minor, the stage 2 delay was significant. This was further compounded by the landlord sending both informal and formal stage 2 acknowledgements and holding letters at various points. Whilst it is good that the landlord kept in contact with the resident about the complaint, the amount of holding letters could have been frustrating and confusing for the resident.
The landlord also failed to realise that the resident had already completed stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. On 23 September 2021, the landlord told the resident that stage 1 of the procedure had to be completed before he could escalate the complaint to stage 2. However, his complaint had already completed stage 1 by this point. It seems the landlord’s staff were unaware of this and the resident clarified that to the landlord in an email on the same day. This caused further confusion and inconvenience to the resident.
It is also noted that the landlord included a “stage 1 review” within its complaints process before it moved to the formal stage 2. These additional stages make complaints procedures more complicated than they need to be. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaints processes. The Code confirms that landlord should have a 2 stage complaint process and they should not add additional stages. The landlord, however, recognised the delay in issuing the stage 2 response and offered £100 compensation for the delay which was appropriate.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s £100 compensation offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and was a reasonable offer to make. Whilst the delayed stage 2 response would have caused significant inconvenience, there was no permanent impact with regards to the complaint. As such the amount the landlord offered is reflective of the time and trouble and delays in addressing the resident’s complaint.
The landlord also offered an additional £100 towards a deep clean of the resident’s carpet in recognition of some damage caused to it during the works it completed. The landlord made it clear that it was not responsible for the carpet, but in an attempt to resolve the complaint it offered a £100 towards the cleaning costs. This was a fair offer as the landlord was expected to put right damage caused by its contractors although it would not usually be responsible for cleaning carpets.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was
1. Maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation and proofing works
2. service failure with regards to the landlord’s handing of the resident’s:
  1. reports of leaks and repairs affecting his individual property.
  2. fire safety concerns.
  3. Reports of a conflict of interest and bias.
3. no maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of:
  1. the communal repairs.
  2. the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress with regards to its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman by the same date:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £825 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £225 already offered through its complaints procedure, if this has not already been paid
  2. An additional £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in dealing with and completing the pest proofing works
  3. An additional £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the banister and ceiling repairs
  4. An additional £100 for the failure to make reasonable enquiries in response to the resident’s concerns of conflicts of interest.
2. Write an apology letter to the resident, in recognition of the delays to complete the pest proofing, repairs to the resident’s dormer window, living room ceiling and banister. The landlord should also apologise for its handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord follows up on the resident’s request from March 2023 to provide letters it issues on different coloured paper. If it cannot accommodate this request it should explain the reasons why and if possible suggest alternatives to assist the resident with accessing its service.
It is recommended the landlord provides the resident with information relating to the provision of a carbon monoxide alarm, if it has not already done so.
It is recommended the landlord contacts the resident to provide an answer to his questions about an early kitchen upgrade.
It is recommended that the landlord arranges 2 independent inspections:
1. An independent HHSRS inspection to assess the resident’s property and communal areas for any further fire safety related matters and to consider any wider hazards that may need addressing.
2. An independent property inspection to assess for any additional or outstanding repairs that may need completing within the resident’s individual property.
It is recommended that the landlord completes a further pest control visit to the resident’s individual property, this in recognition of the resident indicating that there continues to be a mice problem in the property and area.