Islington Council (202223009)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223009

Islington Council

22 April 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 reports of water loss at the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 2014. The property is a 3-bedroom ground floor maisonette that she lives in with her family.
The resident notified the landlord on 5 February 2021 that she had no hot water in her property. On 18 February 2021 she reported a loss of water pressure.
The resident lodged an online complaint with the landlord on 25 March 2021. She said:
1. She had an issue with the water in her property that would cause the hot and cold water to stop running. The issue was affecting a number of properties in the block not just her own.
2. She had reported the issue to the landlord who had told her there was nothing it could do because the problem was spontaneous.
3. The lack of water had prevented the family undertaking basic hygiene measures such as bathing and washing dishes. Running water was a necessity and should be present so she could meet her family’s basic needs.
4. She wanted housing points added to her bidding account that would assist her to move to a property that had running water.
On 15 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as she had no hot water in her property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 April 2021. It listed the following points:
1. The resident had reported a loss of hot water on 5 February 2021. An electrician attended on 6 February 2021, they noted that problems with the water were affecting more than 1 property. An engineer conducted a follow up visit on 3 March 2021 they checked all taps and found no issues.
2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s explanation that the issue was temperamental and that it could have resolved itself by the time the engineers arrived.
3. It had not raised any work orders for other properties with the same issue. However, it acknowledged another property had also reported a partial loss of water on 5 February 2021.
4. The operative advised that the landlord needed to check the communal water tanks on the estate. It had arranged an appointment for 23 April 2021 for this to happen.
5. It could not offer bidding points as this was not within the remit of the repairs team. She could contact the responsible team for further advice on requesting a move. It partially upheld her complaint due to the time it had taken to arrange an inspection of the communal water tanks.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response. She escalated her complaint on 27 May 2022, she said:
1. At the time of writing, she had no running cold water throughout the property. It was unacceptable that the landlord expected her to pay rent when the water would stop flowing without any notice.
2. Other properties had the issue and had been visited by the landlord, but it expected residents to live with the problem.
3. She had a 9-month-old baby and her children were going without baths because there was no running water. She refused to live with the problem any longer and expected a senior member of the landlord’s staff to take responsibility for the problem.
On 9 June 2021, the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. It reproduced the resident’s escalation request and summarised its stage 1 response. It included the following additional points:
1. The operatives who visited on 23 April 2021 and inspected the tank stated that it appeared to be working OK. They found a valve in the tank half closed, which they had opened. They think this may have solved the problem. They were unable to check as the resident and her neighbour were not home.
2. During a call with the landlord on 28 May 2021 she had confirmed the water was back on in the property.
3. The repairs team had advised the loss of pressure could be caused by the amount of building work going on in the city, but it could also be caused by other factors.
4. She had reported low water pressure on 8 June 2021. It had raised a routine repair order and arranged an appointment for 15 June 2021 for the repairs team to attend.
5. It advised the resident she could escalate her complaint to the chief executive stage if she was not satisfied with the response.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported the partial or total loss of hot water in her property 6 times between 24 December 2021 and 19 February 2022. On each occasion an engineer visited the property but was unable to rectify the issue.
On 20 February 2022, the landlord attended the resident’s property. It accessed the cold-water tank on the roof that serves the block. It removed debris from inside the ball valve mechanism, which resolved the problem with the water supply.
The resident made a complaint via the landlord’s online complaint form on 13 March 2022. She listed the following points:
1. She and her family had suffered for years with issues surrounding the flow of hot and cold water to her property.
2. On numerous occasions the hot and cold water to the bathroom and kitchen would stop. She always had cold water to the kitchen sink as the supply for this tap comes from the street. The hot water to the bathroom and kitchen taps was supplied from the water tank at the top of the building. She shares the supply with the resident’s above her, because she was on the ground floor, she was worst affected.
3. She and her family had to go without adequate washing facilities because of the problem. The absence of hot water had caused significant stress and disagreements within her family. During this period, she had a newborn baby and neither of them were able to wash properly.
4. After seeing how upset she was, an emergency repairs engineer arranged an inspection of the water tank. This inspection uncovered an object in the ball valve, which had been causing the tank to drain quicker than it could fill.
5. She was upset that the problem had been so easily fixed. She expected to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused by the issue.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 4 April 2022. It listed the following points:
1. It had raised a work order on 6 January 2022 for a plumber to investigate the loss of water at the resident’s property. A plumber visited within 24 hours. They cleared an airlock in the pipes and restored the water supply.
2. This attempt did not resolve the defect. Operatives visited again on 14 and 19 February 2022. The operatives had emptied the water tank and conducted the works required to clear the airlock. The water to the property was restored and there have been no reports of loss of water since.
3. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised for the loss of water and the inconvenience this had caused.
4. The loss of water at the resident’s property was not due to the works or omissions by the repairs team. It would not offer compensation as it had not identified a service failure.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 April 2022. She said the first time she had reported the issue was October 2014, she was therefore disappointed the landlord had only partially upheld her complaint. She stated:
1. When she reported the issue to the housing repairs team, they would record it incorrectly as a problem with the boiler and send a gas engineer. She would then have to raise an emergency repair to ensure a plumber attended. This had added to the stress and frustration of the situation and increased the time it took to have the water restored.
2. Most of the time she would not report the issue, she would wait for 24 hours for the water to come back on. Or she would follow the steps the plumbers had shown her to pressurise the taps to remove airlocks. Sometimes this had worked other times it had not.
3. She had listed 23 service request numbers between 23 October 2014 and 19 February 2022 that were associated with her reports of loss of hot water at the property.
4. She had made a complaint in 2021. She had been told that there was a valve in the water tank that had been partially closed. The landlord fixed this issue, which should have prevented the problem happening again. This was not the case, the issue continued and became more frequent.
5. She had made a call for an emergency repair on 19 February 2022. The engineer that visited could not get the water back on. It was a bank holiday weekend which meant she would be without water for 3 days. She had been visibly upset at the continuing issue and having three children in the property. The engineer was aware it was an ongoing issue and assured her he would raise a request for a detailed inspection of the water tank.
6. That investigation found a stone in the ball valve which was removed. Since then, there had been no issues with the water.
7. The absence of water meant her family had to go without basic hygiene measures on numerous occasions. She has young children and a teenage daughter who were all affected by the absence of water. She herself had a caesarean operation and was unable to keep her wound clean. The landlord’s disregard had left her feeling dehumanised and demoralised.
8. She had repeatedly called the repairs line who would send someone to undertake a temporary fix which would often last no more than 24 hours. If the landlord had conducted a proper investigation the issue could have been resolved much earlier.
9. She felt that it was irrelevant the landlord had resolved the matter. She expected compensation for the landlord’s errors and the length of time she had been without hot water.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 March 2023. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in providing the response and listed the resident’s reasons for escalating her complaint. It listed the following points:
1. She had called the landlord on numerous occasions to report ongoing issues with the hot water in her property. She had initially been told the issue was due to a valve in the water tank being partially closed. This had been incorrect, and the problem had continued.
2. After an emergency call out a stone was located in the ball valve, which caused the water to drain quicker than the tank could fill. This is what had caused the loss of hot water.
3. In the stage 1 response it had said that the works or omissions were not to blame for the loss of water. This was somewhat correct. It acknowledged that it may have been an oversight by the repairs team. If the matter had been fully investigated it would have been resolved sooner.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said it understood her frustration with the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue. It apologised and acknowledged the inconvenience and hygiene concerns the family experienced because of being without hot water.
5. It offered compensation totalling £400 for service failure, it was comprised of:
  1. £100 for the poor management of repairs.
  2. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
  3. £100 for the delayed stage 2 response.
The resident brought her complaint to us on 14 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The complaint the resident brought to our service was in relation to the loss of water in her property and the formal complaint she made on 13 March 2022. During the Ombudsman’s investigation it became clear that the resident had previously made a complaint about the same issue on 26 March 2021. Upon request the landlord provided copies of the resident’s complaint and its complaint responses, which we have included in the background section above.
The resident’s formal complaint made in 2021 did not progress to the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process. It has been included in the investigation as it provides detail on the associated timescales and the impact on the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling process and record keeping have been the subject of an in-depth investigation by the Ombudsman that made recommendations for change. This change has been implemented by the landlord. For this reason we have not made any procedural orders in relation to complaint handling or record keeping.
The resident has stated that she first complained about the hot water in 2014. She provided a list of service requests in her stage 2 escalation on 21 April 2022. The list details the service request number and the date, the description of the service request is absent. The landlord changed its records management system in 2017, which means it has no records prior to this date. The resident’s first complaint in 2021 pointed to a loss of water on 5 February 2021, this is also the earliest record held by the landlord. Whilst we are not doubting the resident’s statements, we must progress on the evidence available. The investigation will focus on the loss of water between 5 February 2021 and 20 February 2022.

The landlord’s handling of reports of water loss at the resident’s property.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to keep in repair the installations for the supply of water. This obligation is recognised in the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s housing repairs guide. In the guide the loss of hot water is classed as an emergency repair requiring action within 24 hours.
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. An intermittent or inadequate supply of hot and cold water to every sink, basin and bath could contribute to the presence of a category 1 or 2 hazard. The specific hazards associated with this defect are food safety and personal hygiene. 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, a dwelling should be free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
On 5 February 2021, the resident reported no hot water at her property. In line with the landlord’s response timescales an operative visited the property within 24 hours. They were unable to find the problem but advised the landlord that the communal water tanks should be checked. The resident made 2 further reports to the landlord and lodged a formal complaint before it arranged an inspection of the tanks. The landlord was aware there were very young children in the property and of the adverse impact the absence of water was having on the resident. The delay in arranging this inspection was unreasonable.
At the inspection on 23 April 2024 the operative told the landlord it had opened a valve in the tank and that they thought it “may” solve the problem. This wording would indicate they were not sure their actions would resolve the issue. The resident reported the loss of water again on 27 May 2021. She reported the loss of water again on 8 June 2021. This is evidence that the measures taken on 23 April 2021 had not worked. The landlord was aware the issue was intermittent and that its previous fix had failed. It was unreasonable to arrange a responsive repairs request for 15 June 2021. It should have immediately arranged for a thorough investigation to determine the cause of the problem.
There were no reports by the resident between 8 June 2021 and December 2021. When asked about this gap in reporting, the resident advised us she had given up calling the landlord and having to wait for operatives to come to her property and not be able to fix the problem. She had begun to put up with it as normal life and would take her children to her mother’s house to bathe them. She had also realised that if she left the water for 24 hours it would sometimes come back on. However, consistently losing water without notice was extremely frustrating and caused significant distress and frustration with all members of her family.
The resident reported the water again on 24 December 2021, which meant she was without hot water over Christmas Day, this was unacceptable. She made 2 further reports in January 2022 and again in February 2022. On each of these occasions an operative visited within 24 hours. The landlord has not submitted records to demonstrate what actions were taken during these inspections. However, the resident reports the operatives continually told her the problem was airlocks within the pipes.
The resident reported that the call centre regularly categorised her reports of no hot water as a boiler issue and would send a gas engineer. This is supported by a number of the emergency call out records. The engineers would arrive and then tell her she needed a plumber. This was unreasonable, the landlord should have procedures in place to identify the problems reported and send the relevant trades person. Repeatedly sending the incorrect professional caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident.
In its notes for this investigation the landlord stated that the plumbers would not have known that the ball valve in the communal tank contained debris. The resident repeatedly told the landlord that her neighbours had also experienced the problem. In its complaint responses it told her that nobody else had reported the issue. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have checked with the neighbours, however, it has not shown any evidence that it did this. This may have pointed toward a problem with the water tanks rather than focusing on her property. In addition, the fact that the problem had been continuing for so many months and that there were young children in the property should have prompted a thorough investigation much earlier. The evidence shows that the operatives who inspected the tanks on 20 February 2022 resolved the issue on the same day. This demonstrates that an earlier inspection by a competent person would have resolved the issue within an acceptable timescale.
The records provided by the landlord show that it did respond to a number of reports within the 24 hours required. However, it did not conduct the follow up inspections with sufficient focus on diagnosing and solving the problem. For the resident to be left for 12 months with an intermittent water supply was unacceptable. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water loss at her property.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records can result in the landlord’s complaints processes not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out steps a landlord can take to improve in this area.
The landlord’s records provided to this investigation do not provide sufficient information. A number of inspection records have little information present, the records for 24 December 2021, 6 January 2022 and 14 February 2022 merely state “cleared airlock”. There were inspections on 16 January 2022 and 15 April 2022. There are no notes for either of the inspections. There should be notes that clearly out line what the operatives inspected, what their findings were, what actions were taken or what future actions were proposed. The landlord has also mentioned visits on 6 February 2021 and 15 June 2021 in its complaint responses, however there are no records to show these inspections happened. It would be reasonable for 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.
The resident provided a list of service requests as part of her stage 2 escalation in April 2022 that she said were related to the loss of water. The landlord has been unable to provide any context for 4 of these records between 2018 and 2020. This is a failing.
Clear record keeping and information management is a core function of a repairs service and are essential for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s record keeping failures amount to maladministration.

Complaint handling

In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
At the time of the complaint the landlord had a 3 stage complaints process, stage 1, stage 1 review and the chief executive’s stage. It committed to acknowledging stage 1 complaints within 3 calendar days (excluding bank holidays) and would provide a response within 21 calendar days of receipt. Escalations to the stage 1 review would be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 10 working days. At the chief executive stage, complaints would be acknowledged within 3 calendar days and responded to within 28 calendar days.
The policy states that the landlord will admit when it has been at fault, it will aim to put things right by acknowledging mistakes, apologising for them and providing an explanation for why things went wrong. This should happen at the earliest possible point in the process.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the required timescales. In her complaint she made it clear that she had been “suffering with the problem for years”. The complaint response only dealt with the resident’s reports of water loss from 6 January 2022, it unreasonably disregarded the report from 24 December 2021 and did not mention the resident’s previous reports going back to February 2021.
In its evidence to us the landlord said that most of the resident’s complaints were in “reference to a repair carried out a few days before her complaint was submitted on 13 March 2022.” The preceding paragraph and her stage 1 complaint show this statement to be incorrect. The landlord’s view demonstrates a failure to acknowledge and learn from its mistakes.
The response did not offer any redress because the landlord felt the issue was not as a result of its actions or omissions. This was unreasonable and a failure to recognise that it had not met the requirements of the legislation or its own repairs policy. The response lacked empathy and understanding and was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity as required by its complaints policy.
The response at the chief executive stage was issued 315 calendar days after the resident’s escalation. This was significantly beyond the 28 calendar days required by the landlord’s complaints policy and the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This delay was unacceptable and prolonged the resident’s dissatisfaction and her ability to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman.
In its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately recognised that the issue had been going on for a prolonged period of time and that it should have fully investigated the matter sooner. It demonstrated empathy and apologised for its failings. It offered the resident £400 compensation. The offer was insufficient and did not constitute reasonable redress. The sum did not align with the failures the landlord had acknowledged or the significant adverse impact on the resident. It also did not demonstrate that it had complied with its compensation policy. An additional order for compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance has been made.
Overall, the landlord failed to put things right for the resident and did not learn from its mistakes. Considering the failings in its complaint responses it is the Ombudsman’s decision that the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports of the loss of water at the resident’s property.
2. Record keeping.
3. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide an apology from a senior member of staff at directorate level for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,200. This is inclusive of the £400 already offered. It must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears. It is comprised of:
3. £600 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of loss of water at her property.
4. £100 for the distress inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s record keeping.
5. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales specified.