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

Islington Council (202313242)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313242

Islington Council

14 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 work to the resident’s kitchen after a leak.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom second-floor flat in a block. The landlord is a local authority and freeholder of the flat. The landlord has no known health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. During contact with us on 30 January 2025 the resident said his health had deteriorated and he was waiting for a heart bypass. He said he was keen to secure a move.
  2. On 1 October 2022 the resident reported flooding in his kitchen. Water overflowed from the sink due to heavy rainfall effecting the block’s drains. He reported damage to his kitchen units, flooring, and tiles. Between October 2022 to January 2023 the landlord accessed the block’s roof, completed a CCTV inspection of the drains and soil pipes, jetted them, and removed plastic bottles causing a blockage. It inspected the resident’s kitchen and recommended replacing it. It started this work on 17 March 2023.
  3. On 25 April 2023 the resident made a complaint. The kitchen work had already taken over 5 weeks and he described poor workmanship. He said he could not use the kitchen, was washing up in the bathroom, and having to pay for takeaways. He said the flood damaged his dishwasher, cooker, and kitchen items. He expected the landlord to compensate him.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 19 May 2023. In which, it:
    1. said sorry for its delayed complaint response
    2. summarised its repairs and identified learning for its contractor to clear away rubbish from communal areas
    3. advised him to claim on his own insurance or contact its team for it to consider a claim for damaged possessions
    4. said sorry for the delays and the inconvenience caused
    5. offered £683.30 compensation
  5. On 14 June 2023 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He was unhappy with the landlord’s view of the repair timeline and its compensation offer. He had asked his local councillor on 20 April 2023 to help progress the repairs, which the landlord had completed on 1 June 2023. He felt it had not fully considered the distress and inconvenience, nor added laundry, heating, and food costs.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 final response on 11 July 2023. It agreed it could have spoken with him from November 2022. It apologised for the delay and accepted the inconvenience caused by this and the extra time to correct workmanship. It upheld his complaint and increased its offer of compensation to £858.38.
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He wanted it to pay him for additional electricity costs, damaged personal items, and a rent reduction due to the time he says he could not use his kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In contact with us in 2024 the resident referred to issues with external damp and mould, a water tank, and a hole in the flat’s wall. He did not raise these in his original complaint. Nor were they part of the landlord’s final complaint response on 11 July 2023.
  2. We can only consider matters that have completed the landlord’s ICP. This is for the landlord to have opportunity to respond. Or put things right. We encourage the resident to raise these issues with the landlord if he has not already done so.
  3. In contact with us in January 2025 he said the landlord’s handling of his complaint caused him stress. He also thought it should pay him for expenses and water damaged electrical goods and possessions.
  4. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor award damages. Whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. Our role is to investigate if the landlord acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice. Or ask the landlord to provide him its insurance details if he would like to pursue a claim.
  5. Our decisions consider whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. If we find failure by a landlord, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of work to the resident’s kitchen after a leak

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof, gutters, drains, and pipes. The landlord accepts this obligation in its housing repairs guide.
  2. The landlord’s housing repairs guide says it will attend an emergency repair within 2 hours. It will attend an urgent repair in 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s repairs guide also states where damage has occurred due to the landlord’s negligence, resident’s may claim against its public liability insurance.
  4. The guide reminds residents of their responsibility to insure themselves against any loss or damage to the contents of their home due to theft, flooding or accidental damage.
  5. The guide states if a resident suffers a flood in their home, dependent on the extent of the damage caused, it may provide temporary lighting, heating, and cooking facilities.
  6. Neither party disputes heavy rainfall affected the capability of the block’s drainage and caused the resident’s flood. The resident says he told the landlord of similar floods in the block and that he believed roofing work in 2016 responsible.
  7. The landlord has supplied repair records for the resident’s flat and block. The evidence shows it responded to drainage work for other flats between 2017 to 2022. We have not identified any repair requests by the resident regarding similar issues. It is therefore reasonable the landlord was only able to respond to his repair once notified.
  8. The landlord completed an appointment to the resident on 12 October 2023. This was appropriate and within its 20 working day responsive repair time. The flash flood would have caused the resident distress. But severe weather caused the damage and not an active leak. This was outside of the landlord’s control.
  9. The landlord wanted to inspect the block’s roof and drains to remove the risk of another flood before replacing the resident’s kitchen. This was reasonable, and it met its obligations under LTA 1985.
  10. The landlord recommended a kitchen replacement in October 2022. But accepted it did not explain the start date of March 2023 until 23 January 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 response accepted and apologised for this communication failure. It should ensure it learns from this to prevent something similar in future.
  11. The landlord started to renew the resident’s kitchen on 17 March 2023 and finished on 24 April 2023. A post work inspection on 9 May 2023 accepted the resident’s concerns of poor workmanship. It instructed its contractor to return. This delayed the final completion date to 1 June 2023. It was reasonable that the resident described facing inconvenience due to this delay. But the landlord’s actions to redo the work demonstrated its efforts to put things right.
  12. The resident sought redress for his flood damaged items and extra costs. The landlord’s housing repairs guide states its position on insurance. It is reasonable for it to have reminded the resident of his responsibility to insure himself against such losses. We will consider how the landlord’s complaint response dealt with the repair and delays. But if he feels negligence caused the flood, we encourage him to make an insurance claim to the landlord’s public liability insurer.
  13. The resident says he lost use of the kitchen, needed to wash up in his bathroom, and had additional food, laundry, and heating costs. The landlord does not dispute delays caused him inconvenience and a period without a fully fitted kitchen. But it disputes him being unable to access the kitchen for the duration of 17 March 2023 to 1 June 2023. Its position is the kitchen suffered defects prior to 17 March 2023 but it remained accessible. Also, it accepts the need for it to return on 9 May 2023 delayed its final completion date. But it was satisfied he could access the kitchen while it continued its work. The resident disputes this.
  14. We are satisfied with the landlord’s response about insurance claims. And that it considered additional costs in its offer of redress. But it has not shown it considered its housing repair guide, nor that it asked if he needed any temporary cooking facilities while it did the required kitchen work.
  15. It was the resident’s responsibility to replace his own electrical goods or make an insurance claim. However, the landlord should have considered the resident’s needs as per its policy. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to ensure its staff are aware of this policy point.
  16. The landlord’s stage 2 response showed it accepted the resident’s view he faced delays due to poor communication and workmanship. It fixed the blockages and agreed to renew his kitchen. It apologised and accepted delays had caused him inconvenience. It offered £783.28. Made up of a £300 discretionary contribution for food costs. £150 for the inconvenienced caused. And £333.28 for the repair delays based on £41.66 per month between October 2022 to June 2023.
  17. When there has been an admission of failure, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
  18. The landlord has shown it accepted its service fell short. It took steps to ensure it corrected poor workmanship and shared learning with its contractor. It apologised and offered of £783.28. This is in line with our remedies guidance. We would therefore have made a finding of maladministration but for the steps it took to put things right. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.
  19. There is a 10p calculation error in the landlord’s stage 2 response. Typo errors happen and this does not cause detriment to the resident in this case. But we encourage the landlord to thoroughly check future sums.

Complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) 1 April 2022 sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states landlords must send a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states it must send a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It is appropriate the landlord’s relevant complaints policy (March 2023) references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 25 April 2023. The landlord should have acknowledged this by 3 May 2023 and sent a stage 1 response by 11 May 2023.
  3. The evidence in the resident’s complaint email clearly shows the landlord spoke to him by phone. However, we have been unable to identify any formal acknowledgement of his stage 1 complaint.
  4. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its late stage 1 complaint response. It offered £25 for the delay of 6 working days. This demonstrated the landlord recognised its failure and it took steps to put things right.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 2 working days. It sent its stage 2 final response in 19 working days, on 11 July 2023. These actions were appropriate and in line with the expectations of its complaints policy.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 final response was satisfied with its stage 1 response and the process used to consider compensation. Though, it recognised it could have considered the delays from November 2022 rather than from February 2023. Therefore, it offered additional compensation for the repair delay and a further £50 for the resident’s time and trouble raising the stage 2 complaint. This was a total of £75 for the landlord’s complaint handling.
  7. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord considered the resident’s feedback regarding the timeline of events. The stage 2 demonstrated a thorough investigation in to the delays and the resident’s experience.
  8. Based on our findings, the landlord generally followed the Code. Where it did not, it apologised and offered remedies. While the detriment of a short complaint handling delay is minimal, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident redress.
  9. The landlord’s offer was consistent with our guidance on remedies where its actions caused inconvenience for a short duration. It is therefore our finding that the landlord’s apology and offer of £75 provided the resident with reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of work to the resident’s kitchen after a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord reoffer the resident £858.28, if not already paid.
  2. We recommend the landlord ensures it staff are aware of paragraph 19.1 of its housing repairs guide. It may benefit from ensuring staff consider when to offer alternative cooking facilities after a flood.
  3. We recommend the landlord provides the resident with information about its own home contents insurance scheme.
  4. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to ensure its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect his current circumstances. And offer support with his housing options if it has not done so already.