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

Islington Council (202228839)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228839

Islington Council

24 February 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of reports of noise transference from the property above.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of the property, which is a one-bedroom maisonette. The landlord is a council.
  2. On 22 August 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she had cracks in her ceiling, and that there was noise transferring from the property above including creaking floorboards. The landlord inspected the property on 4 October 2022 and said it needed to investigate the noise issues further, and that the property above was due to become ‘void’ or empty. The resident asked on 6 October 2022 if it would complete repairs before the new neighbour above moved in. On 9 October 2022 she emailed the landlord again and said the previous neighbour had moved out, and the new neighbour had moved in on 7 October 2022, but it had not completed any repairs to the floorboards.
  3. The resident used the landlord’s online complaints form on 18 October 2022 to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. Having been told on 4 October 2022 that the landlord would carry out repairs, including soundproofing, to the property above before the new neighbour moved in but this had not happened.
    2. The landlord not having made a list of repairs and not having completed these repairs before the new neighbour moved in. She had tried to contact it about this but had been given an incorrect email address and had not been able to speak to it on the telephone.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day. The resident emailed it again on 20 and 25 October 2022 to chase a response to her previous emails and asked it to investigate the floorboards of the property above. In an internal email on 1 November 2022 the landlord asked to raise an inspection for the property above. It provided its stage 1 response on 2 November 2022, and said it:
    1. Had inspected the property, agreed to repair cracks in her ceiling, and that its surveyor said the property above was due to become void following the inspection on 4 October 2022.
    2. Had not raised any repairs for the property above and no void works had been planned and apologised for this. However, it said it could not say any more due to the General Data Protection Regulations 2018 (GDPR).
    3. Was arranging an inspection of the floorboards in the property above, but that installing soundproofing was considered an improvement and not a repair. Therefore, it was not a service it offered.
    4. Upheld the complaint, due to its delays in arranging an inspection because of her concerns about squeaky floorboards in the property above. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for inconvenience, time and effort and said how she could escalate her complaint if she wished to.
  5. On 4 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said she was not happy with its response and asked when it would inspect the floorboards. She emailed it 3 further times in November 2023 to chase a response and explain further why she was dissatisfied. The landlord’s records say it inspected the floorboards of the property above on 6 December 2022 and said they were creaking in the living room. On 9 January 2023 the landlord attended the property above and said the old soundproofing under the floorboards was broken. The resident emailed the landlord again on 10 January 2023 to chase a response to her emails. It replied that day and:
    1. Apologised for its delay in reply and offered £25 additional compensation.
    2. Said it had inspected the floorboards in the property above and had passed this to a repairs supervisor. It said it could not say what works it had done due to GDPR, but that it had raised follow-on works.
    3. Said how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 March 2023 and asked to escalate her complaint. She said it had given her incorrect information and it had inspected 3 times but not given her any assurances that it would resolve the issue. She asked it to arrange an inspection with both her and the neighbour, so that it could hear the noise transference for itself. She also said its complaints process had been exhausting and there had been a lack of communication. The landlord provided it stage 2 response on 6 July 2023, in which it:
    1. Said it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 12 June 2023.
    2. Explained it had not been able to share “a detailed report about works carried out” in the property above due to GDPR. However, it confirmed it had identified defects contributing to the noise transference, had arranged repairs, and that these should be completed by the end of the month.
    3. Partially upheld the complaint and apologised. It offered £200 compensation for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.
  7. On 5 October 2023 the landlord’s records say it raised a repair to its contractor to complete repairs to the floorboards and stairs in the property above. The landlord confirmed it completed these repairs on 1 December 2023. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 March 2024 and asked for it to reinspect the property and the property above, as she still had concerns about noise transference. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the situation has impacted her ability to sleep, and her mental health. She also explained her ongoing concerns about the property’s ceiling and the landlord’s lack of and poor communication.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise transference from the property above

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, and its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure of the property, which includes its internal structure. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It categorises repairs under its policy as either emergency (repair within 24 hours), routine (repair within 20 working days), or planned (repair within 60 working days). It defines routine repairs as non-urgent, and planned repairs as high value or complex repairs to complete. Under its policy it says its surveyor may need to inspect some repair types due to complexity. If it needs to do this, it will attempt to complete the survey within 10 working days.
  2. When the resident first reported noise transference from the property above, and creaking floorboards, the landlord correctly said it would investigate this. It may have been reasonable for it to ordinarily say it would wait for an upcoming void period. However, it was incorrect in stating this, as there was no void period, which it should have known would be the case at that time. This led the resident to reasonably expect investigation, and repairs would take place promptly, and the landlord failed to manage her expectations or communicate clearly with her about this. Instead, the landlord failed to reply to her calls and emails, which led her to make her stage 1 complaint.
  3. The landlord failed to raise an inspection for the property above until 1 November 2022, after being made aware of the issue on 4 October 2022, and did not inspect until 6 December 2022. This was outside of its 10-working day policy timeframe for inspections. Within its stage 1 response it confirmed it had not raised any repairs, which is understandable as it had not inspected at that point. While it was correct for it to say GDPR meant it could not disclose information about the neighbour’s tenancy type, it is difficult to see repairs information about the property above, owned by the landlord, would be personal information related to the neighbour under GDPR. There also appears to be some confusion within the complaint and response about soundproofing, and while the landlord’s policy may be to not add soundproofing, it would be required to repair any damaged soundproofing already present.
  4. Following its inspection of the property above the landlord correctly raised a repair for the floorboards. When it attended on 9 January 2023, however, it said it needed a supervisor without providing an explanation within its records. In its reply to the resident on 10 January 2023 it correctly confirmed it had inspected. However, it said due to GDPR it could not say what repairs it had completed. This response was misleading, as it had not completed any repairs at that time, and this was a failing in communication. It did say it had raised follow-on works, but there is no evidence that it had, which was a further failing. Within its stage 2 response the landlord again said GDPR prevented it from providing a detailed report. The resident had simply asked for a timeframe for repairs, which was a reasonable request, and did not involve GDPR. The landlord said it would complete repairs that month, but it failed to do so.
  5. There is no evidence the landlord had raised repairs until 5 October 2023, one year after the resident had first reported the issue. It completed them on 1 December 2023. This was well outside its routine or planned repairs timeframes under its repairs policy, and far in excess of any notion of a reasonable timeframe.
  6. Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered compensation of £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its delays and failings. 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 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 with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  7. There was maladministration. The resident had reported an issue with noise transference from the property above, caused by a defect or repairs issue. The landlord delayed in inspecting and repairing the issue, gave incorrect or misleading information to the resident, and its communications with her were poor. This led to frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in trying to get it to repair the issue. To reflect the impact, an order has been made that the landlord pay £500 compensation (inclusive of its offer at stage 2) to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 18 October 2022, and the landlord acknowledged it the following day, in line with its policy timeframe. It provided its stage 1 response on 2 November 2022, which was within its 10 working days policy timeframe and in compliance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time.
  2. When the resident emailed the landlord on 4 November 2022, she clearly expressed that she was dissatisfied with its response, although she did not specifically say she wanted to escalate her complaint. While paragraph 5.9 of the Code says landlords must progress a complaint to stage 2 if “all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction”, paragraph 5.11 says “landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2…at the request of the resident”. However, the landlord failed to reply at all, until 10 January 2023, which was a failing. It should have replied much sooner and confirmed with the resident whether she wanted to escalate her complaint. Instead, it effectively provided an additional stage 1 response, not provided for under its complaints policy.
  3. The resident asked clearly to escalate her complaint on 8 March 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged escalation which was a failing. Within its stage 2 response it said it had escalated the complaint on 12 June 2023, 3 months later, which was a significant failing. It provided its stage 2 response 18 working days after that date, but 83 working days after the resident had requested escalation. This was a failing to provide its response within its 20-working day timeframe and a breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Code. The landlord also failed to recognise, acknowledge, apologise for, or offer any remedy for its complaint handling failings, which was a further significant failing.
  4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its delays, lack of and poor communication, and failure to recognise this, led to further inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble for the resident in pursuing her complaint. To reflect the impact on the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 compensation to her, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of reports of noise transference from the property above.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the maladministration detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £700 compensation made up of:
      1. £500 (inclusive of its £200 stage 2 offer) for the frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused for the resident by its failings in handling reports of noise transference.
      2. £200 for the inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused for the resident by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Complete an inspection of the property, and the property above, during the same appointment to check for noise transference and any further cracking to the property’s ceilings. If further repairs are required, the landlord is to arrange these.
    4. Confirm compliance with these Orders to this Service.

Paragraph 49 investigation

  1. The Ombudsman completed a special investigation report in October 2023 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included “a tendency towards a lack of clear ownership, which contributes to problems drifting and persisting”, silo working, poor communication and complaint handling failings, which are mirrored in this report. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling. As the events of the current complaint took place before the time of that investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made in addition to those made within the special report.