Islington Council (202308662)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308662

Islington Council

4 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 response to the resident’s request for:
1. Emergency accommodation.
2. Compensation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 9 January 2023. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a converted house.
The landlord’s records show that the resident has mental health and mobility issues and a neurological disorder.
The landlord works in partnership with a number of organisations to manage its tenanted and leasehold properties in the borough. The group is referred to as the managing agent for the purposes of this report.
The resident experienced a complete power outage on Sunday 30 April 2023. The managing agent attended the property the same day and identified that a fuse needed to be replaced. However, it was unable to source the part until Tuesday 2 May because the Monday was a bank holiday.
The resident was advised to contact the landlord to request temporary accommodation which was provided that night and continued until the fuse was replaced on 2 May. On 3 May the resident emailed the landlord to provide evidence of the costs she incurred as a result of the loss of power. On 26 May the landlord’s insurance company emailed the resident to confirm that it had rejected her claim.
On 1 May 2023 the resident emailed the managing agent to make a formal complaint, as follows:
1. Her food and medicine were expiring in the fridge. She could not use her electric shower and could not sleep in the property. She was visually impaired due to a neurological condition which meant she could not see in the dark. She said the landlord’s treatment of a vulnerable tenant and child was “unacceptable.”
2. She added that when she called its out of hours service the call handler was unable to tell her the process for residents who needed emergency accommodation. They then hung up on her and the call was terminated. She was concerned that there was no process in place.
The managing agent provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 May 2023, the main points being:
1. Its head of operations for repairs had been advised about the issue, including that its out of hours team could not source the part on a bank holiday weekend. The resident was subsequently advised to contact the landlord to request emergency accommodation until it could restore power.
2. On 3 May the resident provided receipts and a list of costs incurred. The landlord’s compensation policy did not make provision for it to reimburse costs as that was an insurance matter. It advised the resident to submit a claim to her home contents insurers.
3. Alternatively, if the resident believed she had a claim against it she could complete the attached claim form and return it setting out why she felt it was at fault.
On 11 May 2023 the resident emailed the managing agent to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 9 June 2023, as follows:
1. It said a response was issued on 22 May 2023 upholding the complaint. It had offered compensation for the issues raised as well as advice on what to do if she was unhappy with the findings.
2. Its out of hours team directed the resident to contact the relevant team to request temporary accommodation.
3. It was of the view that it was reasonable to direct or request a resident to make arrangements for their accommodation if they have capacity. It acknowledged that the resident had a disability however, there was no evidence that she was not able to make arrangements accordingly.
4. It was satisfied that there was an adequate decant process in place for residents in an emergency.
5. The resident’s request for compensation was outside of its complaints process. She had been given appropriate advice to claim under her home contents insurance. In addition, a public liability form had been provided for the resident to complete if she wished.
6. It had been unable to locate the resident’s call to its call handler where she alleged the call was terminated for which it apologised.
7. The complaint was not upheld.
The resident completed a webform for this Service on 9 June 2023. She said she remained concerned about the lack of process to decant residents. She also remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her request for compensation. The complaint became one we could investigate on 9 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The managing agent’s temporary accommodation policy and procedures says:
1. As all its managed properties are the landlord’s tenants, the provision of emergency temporary accommodation is its responsibility, not that of the managing agent.
2. Requests for the provision of emergency temporary accommodation must be made on its emergency temporary accommodation referral form and emailed to its housing aid centre, by its housing services team. The referral must be authorised by a manager in the housing services team.
The managing agent’s website sets out that:
1. Residents can make a complaint which will be responded to within 10 working days.
2. If residents remain dissatisfied they can escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the process.
3. Stage 2 complaints are considered by the landlord’s complaints team.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It also says that it will not investigate complaints about claims for damages or compensation.
The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out that it will not consider damages to property and personal items which should be covered as an insurance claim or by an insurance policy.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for emergency accommodation.

A recording of a telephone call from the managing agent to the resident made on 30 April 2023 shows it called the resident to advise that the fuse could not be fixed until Tuesday. It suggested that if the resident could not stay with family and friends that she call her landlord to ask for assistance. The resident advised that she called the landlord at 9.00pm and was advised that they could not help. She confirmed she had no one to stay with.
The resident raised a concern that her medication was not being stored in the correct conditions due to lack of power. The call handler again suggested that she contact her landlord. A reference number was provided to enable the resident to provide that to the landlord so that it could contact the managing agent to get the job details.
The resident’s email to the landlord of 1 May 2023 confirmed that it had provided her with emergency accommodation from 30 April to 2 May, when the power was restored. However, she was concerned there was no procedure in place to decant residents in an emergency situation.
An internal email dated 2 May 2023, confirmed the out of hours service contacted the managing agent’s head of operations for repairs at 9:00pm on 30 April. They advised the contractor to tell the resident to contact the landlord to request emergency accommodation.
In a telephone call with this Service on 3 December 2024 the resident said that following her request for emergency accommodation she ended up in a verbal back and forth between the landlord and the managing agent. She said at one point she contacted social services to ask for their intervention. She said that eventually she spoke to a man who was able to get her request approved.
This investigation has not been provided with evidence relating to the resident’s contact with the landlord to request emergency accommodation which is a record keeping failure.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
There is no evidence that the managing agent followed its temporary accommodation policy and procedure. This caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble because the onus was put on her to make the necessary arrangements. This compounded the distress she already felt due to the power outage which was unreasonable.
The policy and procedure document does not set out whether it applies to requests made during office hours and out of hours. For example, it does not set out who the referral form should be sent to and how it will be authorised outside of office hours. The policy and procedure lacks clarity which is inappropriate.
The resident’s email of 1 May 2023 also reported her dissatisfaction about the conduct of a member of the managing agent’s call handling team.
An internal email dated 12 June 2023 requested a recording of the call. However, the one that was provided was the call referred to above, not the call where the resident alleged the call handler hung up. A further internal email dated 6 December confirmed the call could not be traced and that no one of that name was working on the night in question.
This Service does not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
There was service failure in the landlord’s response because the failure was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.

On 3 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to provide evidence of costs incurred including taxis, meals and the cost of replacing the contents of her fridge and freezer. She also requested compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord attached a public liability form with its stage 1 complaint response of 11 May 2023.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord’s insurance company emailed the resident to confirm that it had received the resident’s public liability claim form. It concluded that it was “not at fault for the fuse failing” and that there was no failure of service. It denied liability and rejected the resident’s claim for £115.
An internal email dated 12 June 2023 confirmed that the costs had been submitted to its insurers but they were rejected and this could not be overturned by the complaints process. This was appropriately in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord’s advice to the resident to make a claim on its insurance policy was appropriate and in line with its compensation guidance. Therefore there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident’s stage 1 response was issued by the managing agent on 11 May 2023. It signposted the resident to contact it if she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. It said it would then contact the resident again within 10 working days from receiving the response. The stage 2 complaint response was issued by the landlord, not the managing agent, on 9 June 2023.
The landlord’s complaints policy does not make reference to the managing agent. However, this investigation has noted that its website sets out how residents can raise a complaint about its services. The resident’s complaint was appropriately processed in line with this procedure.
The stage 1 response did not set out that the landlord would provide the stage 2 complaint response if the complaint was escalated. Therefore, it missed an opportunity to clearly set out the stage 2 process which was inappropriate.
The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that residents are more likely to be satisfied with the complaint handling if the person dealing with their complaint is competent and efficient.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 9 June 2023 said that a “full comprehensive response” was issued to the resident on 22 May 2023, upholding her complaint. It said the resident was awarded compensation for the issues raised.
This is incorrect because it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 May 2023. Furthermore, the complaint was not upheld and no compensation was awarded. This was a failure which caused confusion regarding one of the key outcomes of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In an email to this Service on 2 December 2024 the landlord confirmed that it only issued a single stage 1 response which was dated 11 May 2023. Therefore it assumed there was an error and the incorrect date was cited in its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s failure amounts to service failure because it was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for emergency accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £150 compensation comprised of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its response to the resident’s request for emergency accommodation.
  2. £50 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failure.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review to ensure that the managing agent’s temporary accommodation policy and procedure sets out its response to out of hours requests for temporary accommodation.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider reviewing its corporate complaints policy to set out the distinction between its response to complaints made directly to it or to its managing agent. This will provide greater clarity and avoid any future confusion for its residents.