Islington Council (202221202)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221202

Islington Council

13 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. antisocial behaviour (ASB);
2. issues with the intercom system, and communal lift.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy that began in 2011. The property is a third floor maisonette. It has an intercom system that is intended to allow communication and remote access to the communal entrances of the block. The block has 2 lifts.
The resident works from home and her job involves regular deliveries to her property. She described her parent, who also lives in the property, as a stroke and brain tumour patient with walking difficulties. The resident’s parent receives medication deliveries, and other medical visits. The landlord was aware of the parent’s vulnerabilities.
In December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that one of the lifts remained faulty, and that the issues with her intercom had worsened. She described the difficulties that this was causing, including with a paramedic attendance for her parent. She regularly reported either continuations or recurrences of these issues, up to and beyond her completion of the landlord’s complaint process in September 2023. The landlord raised numerous jobs through this period for the lift, and the communal, and the resident’s own, intercom systems. The resultant job reports either identified further works or stated that the item had been left in working order, but the resident said that the issues persisted or reoccurred throughout.
The resident made 3 complaints to the landlord, all of which concerned the lift, and her intercom and associated communal access issues. Her complaints made in December 2022 and March 2023 were closed at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process, awarding her compensation totalling £75 for late complaint responses and £300 for repair delays and resulting inconvenience. The resident’s complaint made in June 2023 was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s process the following month. The landlord issued her its final response on 15 September 2023. It summarised the works it had done to try to resolve the intercom and lift issues. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the long running issues, and it offered the resident £150 compensation for this and £25 for its late response.
The resident continued to make reports of mainly intercom and associated communal access issues to the landlord through to November 2024. On 18 November 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident following its visit to her that morning. It said that it had tested the intercom system and communal access with her, and it had confirmed them to be “working perfectly”.
At the outset of this investigation, the landlord told the Ombudsman that the intercom system remained in good working order. The resident advised us that the ASB from youths causing nuisance, which she had also reported to the landlord, had somewhat improved, and the lift issues had been “resolved for now”. She said that the intercom system would often work on the day that the landlord attended but would then stop and need to be reported again. She stated her belief that there was “still no permanent solution”, and she asked that the Ombudsman investigate the landlord’s handling of all related matters.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. Paragraph 42 of the Scheme outlines complaint matters which the Ombudsman may not consider.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
The resident reported groups of youths causing ASB at the block to the landlord at the beginning of 2023. Her reports indicated that this was a resumption of historical issues. The evidence suggested that the issues ended or abated around March 2023. The resident’s complaint, which completed stage 2 of the landlord’s process, was made on 25 June 2023. It concerned persistent issues with her intercom system and the lift. This was also the case with both of her previous stage 1 complaints. Neither the resident’s formal complaint, nor the landlord’s responses, referred to ASB.
The resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s complaints process in September 2023. She reported to the landlord that the youths had returned towards the end of 2023, and she continued to make similar reports thereafter. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s view that the resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports did not form part of the complaint that has been considered, and so have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Accordingly, the Ombudsman rules this element of the complaint outside of our jurisdiction, in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme.

Intercom system and lift

The landlord’s housing repairs guide explained how it prioritised jobs, and the target repair attendance timescales for each priority. It stated that non-urgent repairs were classed as ‘routine’ priority and would be attended within 20 working days. It said that, if the works needed to be “repeated due to a problem with the work done originally or a failure of a part used”, the job would be raised as a ‘recall’ priority and attended within 5 working days.
The landlord provided separate communal repairs logs for both the block’s intercom system and lift, and a third property specific repair log for the resident’s own intercom. The logs detailed the jobs raised from around mid-2022 to mid-2024 and were further supported by individual attendance records.
The logs and records evidenced the landlord’s mostly timely attendance of repairs. Most jobs were raised on a ‘routine’ priority with the vast majority attended either the same or within a few days. This was well within the timeframe of the landlord’s guide (it is acknowledged that many of the repairs were communal, reported by multiple sources, and may have occurred without the resident’s knowledge). The logs and records also detailed the outcome of each repair attendance. On some occasions follow on works were necessary, but many recorded either “no fault found” or that the item had been left in working order.
However, the logs also evidenced the very high volume of attendances over the period either side of, and including, the resident’s complaint. The resident’s emails to the landlord over this protracted period described the considerable inconvenience that the often intermittent, but persistent issues with the intercom and lift were causing. This was particularly the case with her intercom system, which impacted both her ability to work, and her vulnerable parent’s medical visits and medication deliveries.
While the landlord’s records evidenced its mostly timely responses, they also demonstrated what appeared to be its reactive approach. The resident remained in very regular contact with the landlord throughout, which knew of her parent’s vulnerabilities. The landlord would therefore have likely been well aware of the significant time, trouble, and distress being experienced by her and her parent.
In such protracted circumstances, it would be expected that the landlord would evidence its consideration of how it might achieve a long term solution, rather than implement a succession of often timely, but temporary, fixes. It would be further expected that the landlord would keep the resident informed to this regard, provide appropriate assurances, and manage her expectations. The landlord’s complaint handling has been separately assessed below, but it represented an ideal opportunity to do this.
The landlord did not dispute how protracted the matters had been, nor their impact on the resident and her parent. However, it failed to demonstrate its consideration of potential longer term solutions, or that it offered the resident associated assurances. It was understandable that this left the resident feeling that there was no end in sight to the issues, and that she would be suffering and reporting recurrences indefinitely. This remains the resident’s impression at the time of this investigation. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of lift and intercom issues for this and the following reasons.
The landlord’s repair log stated that 11 jobs were raised for the lifts in the resident’s block between May and August 2022 (the reported issues came from a variety of sources). The resident reported issues with her intercom to the landlord in September 2022. The landlord’s logs stated that all 11 lift jobs were attended the same day. The majority resulted in the lift being left in working order but follow on works were appropriately raised where needed. The landlord attended the resident’s intercom issue 2 working days after she had reported it. It again recorded that it was left in working order.
As such, the landlord acted within the timeframes of its guide, which was largely the case over the following 2 years. Nevertheless, as was also the case over the following 2 years, the regularity of the issues, the frequency of repairs, and the volume of contacts that the resident found it necessary to make, would have caused her significant inconvenience and frustration.
This was evident in early December 2022, when the resident reported worsening issues with her intercom, and that the lift had been “faulty for months”. The resident made her first complaint about the matter to the landlord a few days later. She described the impact that the issues were having regarding her parent’s medical vulnerabilities, and on her ability to accept visitors, or deliveries for her job.
The landlord raised works for the intercom and lifts. It made numerous attendances over December 2022 and January 2023 which, while still within the timeframes of its guide, were less timely than the rest of the period assessed.
It was also notable that, from December 2022, the resident found it necessary to contact the landlord to report or chase issues with either her intercom, the lift, or both, in every month until November 2024. This further demonstrated the undue time and trouble that she experienced.
From February to June 2023, the landlord’s log stated that it had raised and attended 10 jobs for the lift, and 7 for either the communal or the resident’s intercom system. As above, it stated that each job was attended on the same day or within a few days. However, the resident stated in her June 2023 complaint that the lift door had been getting jammed for weeks, and that her intercom was still not working. The landlord’s stage 1 response the following month acknowledged that each of the June 2023 lift repair attendances were reported back as successfully completed, but that it had taken “multiple visits to resolve the problem”.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response a few days later. She highlighted the impact of the continuing intercom and lift issues. She emphasised her parent’s health and mobility issues, and the difficulties it caused them being unable to allow access to the block via the intercom for their medication deliveries.
Over the remainder of July and August 2023, the landlord’s log stated that it had raised and attended a further 2 lift and 3 intercom jobs (2 communal intercom, 1 specific to the resident). It is acknowledged that, during this time, the landlord identified that a communal intercom control panel had been vandalised, which necessitated obtaining parts for repair.
Nevertheless, it was unreasonable that the resident found it necessary to chase the landlord for progress updates on 19 and 31 July, and 9 and 17 August 2023. As she had multiple times over the previous months, she explained the confusion, inconvenience, and trouble being caused with visitors and delivery drivers being unsure which entrance to use, or why they were unable to get an intercom response or access.
Given the duration and persistence of the issues, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider temporary signage, or other measures to mitigate these problems. This could also have demonstrated that the landlord had considered the resident’s parent’s vulnerabilities.
It would have been further appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the duration and persistence of the issues to the resident, demonstrate its consideration of potentially longer term solutions, and inform her accordingly. In doing so, even in the absence of a ready remedy, the landlord could have provided her with assurance of its commitment to fully resolve the matters, and that her reports were being taken seriously. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order concerning this, in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We have ordered the landlord to do so by reviewing its handling of the resident’s reports since 2022, considering what assurance it can offer regarding her intercom’s ongoing functionality, and write to her and the Ombudsman with the outcome.
The landlord instead continued the cycle of raising and attending jobs, and stating that the issue had been resolved, until the resident chased or reported them again a short while later. The landlord’s often timely, but reactive, approach would have given the resident little confidence that a longer term resolution would be achieved. It also failed to demonstrate that it had appropriately considered her parent’s vulnerabilities. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
It was notable that many of the jobs on the landlord’s repairs logs were closed as attended with “no fault found”. This was reflected in the resident’s distress with the intermittent, but regular, nature of the faults. She described the significant difficulties that the intercom and access issues caused to her and her parent. She further described the frustration at suffering and reporting this, only for the intercom, on occasions, to begin temporarily working again when the landlord attended.
In such circumstances, it would again be expected that the landlord would demonstrate its consideration of the duration and persistence of the issues and provide assurance to the resident regarding its longer term intentions. Instead, the landlord’s records suggested that “no fault found” jobs were simply closed with no such assurance offered to the resident. It was therefore understandable that the resident felt trapped in this cycle, and that her and her parent would be suffering these difficulties indefinitely.
This was further evidenced when the resident continued to dispute that her intercom was working after the conclusion of her complaint in September 2023. The landlord raised a further job, which it again attended in a very timely manner at the end of that month. However, the following month the resident told us that the intercom and communal access issues all remained, and “in fact it has gotten even worse”.
From October 2023, through until the end of the repairs logs seen by the Ombudsman in April 2024, there were a further 7 intercom, and 17 lift jobs raised and attended. The resident’s frequent contact to the landlord through this period, and up to November 2024, described the time, trouble, and distress she experienced. As above, at the time of this investigation the resident stated that her intercom and the lifts were currently working, but expressed her doubt that this would remain the case.

Conclusions

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the intercom and lift issues because:
1. The landlord was aware of persistent issues with the intercom or lifts from mid-2022 until November 2024.
2. It was also aware of the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household, and the inconvenience and distress that the matter caused her.
3. Its repairs records evidenced that it did in the main respond well within the timeframes of its guide. However, its reactive approach left the resident feeling that there was no end in sight to the faults and temporary fixes.
4. The resident found it necessary to make further reports, or chase the landlord for updates, every month for around 2 years.
5. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it offered her appropriate assurance of its commitment to find long term solutions, considered her household’s vulnerabilities, nor managed her expectations.
The landlord did not dispute how protracted the issues had been, nor the inconvenience caused to the resident and her parent. However, its offers of £300 and £150 compensation to the resident for this were not proportionate to recognise these issues in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Our remedies guidance recognises the fact that ‘aggravating factors’ will make the emotional impact experienced by an individual unique to them. The effect on the resident’s job, and her parent’s vulnerabilities, significantly worsened the impact of the landlord’s failings. The resident experienced time, trouble, and distress over a prolonged period.
The Ombudsman has therefore made a compensation order of £800 for the maladministration identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of intercom and lift issues, and we have ordered the landlord to issue a further apology. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards in this range where “there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident”. This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation awards of £300 and £150 (if those awards were paid to the resident, they should be deducted from the £800).

Complaint handling

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy stated that it operated a 2-stage process and that complaints, and escalation requests, would be acknowledged within 3 working days. It said that complaint responses would be issued within 10 and 20 workings days, at stages 1 and 2, respectively. It explained that, having issued its stage 1 response, residents had 1 calendar month to request an escalation to stage 2.
The policy stated that responses to complaints that had been upheld should explain “what happened and why things went wrong”. It further stated that the response should include “where appropriate, details of the measures to be taken to prevent a recurrence of the problem”.
The resident’s first complaint concerning her intercom system and the lift, was made on 12 December 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 January 2023, which was 28 working days later, contrary to its policy’s 10-working-day stage 1 response timeframe. The resident made a further complaint about the same issues on 11 March 2023. The landlord’s decision to handle the matter as new stage 1 complaint, rather than escalate her previous complaint to stage 2, was in line with its policy’s requirement for it to do so for fresh expressions of dissatisfaction that did not seek to escalate an earlier complaint.
However, the landlord then took almost 12 weeks to issue its second stage 1 response, on 1 June 2023, contrary to its policy’s above timeframe. It is acknowledged that the landlord apologised and made offers of £50 and £25 compensation, respectively, for its delayed handling of both of the resident’s first two complaints. This was proportionate to recognise the delays in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends awards in this range in recognition of time and trouble from such delays in getting matters resolved.
The resident expressed her continued dissatisfaction with the same matters less than one calendar month later on 25 June 2023. It is therefore unclear why the landlord handled it as a third separate stage 1 complaint, rather than escalate her second complaint to stage 2, in line with its policy’s requirement for it to do so when requested. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it considered this, nor that it offered any form of explanation to the resident. Nevertheless, it was the resident’s third complaint that was subsequently escalated to stage 2 and exhausted the landlord’s procedure.
The resident made her third complaint about the intercom and lift issues on 25 June 2023. The landlord handled it at stage 1 in relatively timely manner by responding to this 3 working days after its policy’s 10-working-day timeframe on 13 July 2023, but there was an unexplained delay in it escalating it to stage 2. This is because it responded to the stage 2 complaint made on 19 July 2023 after 41 working days on 15 September 2023, contrary to its policy’s 20-working-day stage 2 response timeframe. The landlord did not dispute the inconvenience the resident had experienced from this delay, and it appropriately offered her redress of £25 compensation for this. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the redress was not proportionate to the time, trouble, and distress that the resident had experienced from the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The landlord’s complaint responses offered the resident appropriate apologies, but they reflected its reactive approach to the matter itself. The resident had made clear that, after several months of disruptive issues, she was seeking a permanent resolution. The landlord’s responses described the actions it had taken to date, but they offered little assurance to the resident that a longer term solution would be achieved. As such, it failed to advise the resident of the measures it would take to prevent a recurrence, in line with its policy. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s June 2023 stage 1 complaint in line with the timeframes of its policy. It stage 1 response on 13 July 2023 appropriately apologised for the inconvenience the resident had experienced. It accepted that the issues had taken longer to resolve than it would aim for, and it upheld her complaint. However, despite this, and as it later recognised at stage 2, it failed to offer the resident appropriate redress.
Furthermore, the landlord’s response would have done little to assure the resident that anything had changed, or that the cycle of reporting issues, repairs attendances, followed by further issues, would end. This was evident when the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response on 19 July 2023. She emphasised the ongoing impact of the issues on her and her parent, and her frustration that after so many months there were “still no permanent fixes or solutions”.
As detailed in the assessment above, that was the first of 4 occasions in July and August 2023 that the resident expressed her continued dissatisfaction to the landlord following its stage 1 response. It was unreasonable that it took until the fourth of these contacts, on 17 August 2023, for the landlord to recognise the resident’s clear dissatisfaction as a complaint escalation request.
From that date, the landlord did then acknowledge and respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in line with the timeframes of its policy. However, the additional month of chasing required for the resident to get to that point, at a time when she was already experiencing significant distress, would have added to her time and trouble.
The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response on 15 September 2023. It was again appropriate for it to apologise for the inconvenience, and to acknowledge the difficulties the intercom issues had caused to her parent’s medication deliveries. It provided a further summary of its actions, similar to what it had done at stage 1. It stated that the lifts had been functional since July 2023, and it advised of its forthcoming repair to the vandalised intercom panel.
However, as above, the resident’s complaint presented the landlord with an ideal opportunity to demonstrate that it took her concerns seriously, had considered longer term options to resolve the persistent issues, and to provide assurance, while managing her expectations. It was a failing that the landlord did not take this opportunity. A further £100 compensation has therefore been ordered for the above failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation for findings of up to this amount for service failure from such delays in getting matters resolved.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her intercom system, and the communal lift.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 6 weeks, the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident £900 total compensation made up of:
  1. £800 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the intercom and lift issues.
  2. £100 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
  3. This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation awards of £300 and £150 (if those awards were paid to the resident, they should be deducted from the £900).
  4. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against arrears where they exist.
3. Reviews its handling of the resident’s reports since 2022, considers what assurance it can offer regarding her intercom’s ongoing functionality, and writes to the resident and the Ombudsman with its findings.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.