Islington Council (202331972)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331972

Islington Council

30 September 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs (including water leaks, issues with electrics, and pests).
3. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident began an introductory tenancy on 10 July 2023. The resident lived with their child. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord is the freeholder for the properties above the resident.
On 6 November 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about multiple issues with the property since they started their tenancy. They said the outstanding issues were:
1. Condensation, mould, and fungus on the floors, walls, and ceilings in all the rooms.
2. Lights in the property were flashing and/or randomly turning on or off.
3. Mice were getting into the property from a hole in the boiler cupboard that the landlord had not repaired before the resident moved in.
4. There was low water pressure in the bathroom. They said they had told the landlord before moving to the property that they had a disability which meant they were unable to use a bath so needed a working shower.
5. The landlord had given the resident’s telephone number to the leaseholder of the neighbouring property in relation to a reported leak.
6. The resident’s new furniture had damp, mould, and fungus on it. They were having to wash their curtains weekly as they could not afford to buy new ones. They had needed to throw all their child’s toys away.
7. It had taken the landlord 3 days to repair the heating and hot water when it had failed.
8. The condition of the property was impacting on their and their child’s health.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 November 2023. It said:
1. The resident had reported a leak into their property on 22 September 2023. It had attended several times to investigate and had identified a leak from the above property. It had arranged a follow-on appointment for the resident and the above property which was scheduled for 24 November 2023.
2. A diagnostic surveyor had attended on 17 November 2023 to assess the damp and mould in the property. The surveyor had recommended remedial treatment and mould washes. These works were due to take place once the leak was resolved, but the landlord would review whether the mould washes could take place earlier.
3. It had attended on 2 October 2023 to make safe the electrics in the kitchen. It had reinstated the electrics on 5 October 2023. As the resident was reporting their lights were now flashing it would arrange for an electrician to attend and inspect the electrics.
4. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident by not having hot water or heating for 3 days.
5. It had attended on 12 October 2023 to inspect the water pressure. The reported pressure was within the expected level for a gravity fed water system. It noted that as the resident had stated they had difficulties using a bath it had forwarded the matter to its occupational therapy team.
6. It had forwarded the resident’s reports of mice to its pest control team. Once the pest treatment was completed it would arrange the required proofing works.
7. It said it was sorry to hear of the damage caused to the resident’s belongings and that it encourages all residents to have suitable contents insurance. It said if the resident did not have insurance they could make a claim via its public liability insurance.
8. It apologised that its repair system did not have a record of any registered disabilities for the resident. It had forwarded that matter and the resident’s housing concerns to its tenancy team.
9. It had upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £150 for the inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 21 November 2023. They said:
1. They were unhappy with the offered compensation of £150 as they had over £2000 of damage to their furniture.
2. When the surveyor had come to inspect it was too cold for them to stay in the property.
3. They had fungus growing on furniture and their child’s toys.
4. They were having to constantly clean with bleach as the property smelt badly of damp.
5. They repeated that the property’s condition was impacting on their health as well as their child’s health.
The landlord issued its final response on 19 December 2023. It said:
1. It had spoken to the resident on 12 December 2023. They had explained that their main concern was the damp and mould and their child’s health.
2. It had attended the resident’s property on 24 November 2023 to trace and investigate the leaks. Its roofing team would advise its repair team on any required repairs. It would contact the resident to schedule any needed appointments.
3. At the time it had spoken to the resident they had been staying in a hotel while the landlord carried out works to address the damp and mould. It had scheduled further works to take place on 9 January 2024.
4. It had booked an electrician appointment for 11 January 2024.
5. Its repair team had attended the resident’s property several times to inspect the heating and hot water but had not been able to identify a problem. It understood that the resident did not wish to schedule another appointment as they believed it would be a waste of time. It said if this was not correct then the resident should contact it and it would investigate this further.
6. It had advised the resident it could fit a pump to help with the low water pressure, but understood this was not affordable to them. It added that its housing team had recently received the resident’s medical form. It would now need to wait for the outcome of the medical officer’s assessment.
7. The resident had told it that pest control could only put a limited amount of poison down as the resident had a small child. It had spoken to the pest control team who had advised bait could be put in areas the resident’s child could not reach. It asked the resident to contact it if they wanted pest control to reattend.
8. It had contacted its insurance team for an update on the resident’s claim for damages to their belongings. It said it would update them as soon as it received a response, but that this was unlikely to be until the new year.
9. The housing team would be assessing the resident’s request to be rehoused once it had received all relevant information.
10. It had upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £600 in compensation. This comprised £300 for inconvenience and £300 for distress.
On 10 July 2024 the resident informed this service that they had ended their introductory tenancy.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can consider is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Under paragraph 41.d of the Scheme the Ombudsman has no power to investigate complaints about councils unless they are acting as a social landlord or a landlord under a long lease. The Ombudsman has no power to investigate complaints about councils where they are exercising statutory functions not related to it managing properties.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6.
Since the resident’s request to be rehoused falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 because they have reasonable preference, the Housing Ombudsman cannot review it. As a result, this element of the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident’s first contact with this service was approximately 1 week before the landlord issued its final response. Other than confirming they wanted this service to investigate their complaint, most of the resident’s contact relates to matters that occurred after the landlord’s final response. These matters related to ongoing as well as new repair issues, but the landlord could not reasonably have been aware of them during the complaints process.
There is no evidence these new matters have been raised as a complaint or have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns. If the resident wishes to pursue matters that occurred after the landlord’s final response of 19 December 2023 they should, in the first instance, raise them as a new complaint.
This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reported matters between the start of the resident’s tenancy and the landlord’s final response.

The landlord’s handling of repairs (including water leaks, issues with electrics, and pests)

The landlord’s repair policy states:
1. Emergency repairs are those where there is an immediate danger to a person or risk of serious ongoing damage to the property. It will attend these within 2 hours.
2. Urgent repairs are those which affect a resident’s day-to-day living, such as no heating or hot water. It will attend these within 24 hours.
3. Routine repairs cover non-urgent repairs. It will attend these within 20 working days.
There are several work orders relating to leaks into the resident’s property:
1. The landlord raised the initial work order for the leak on 22 September 2023 and appears to have prioritised it as routine. This was in line with its repair policy.
2. The landlord contacted the leaseholder of the above flat (the ‘flat’) on 29 September 2023 to inform them of the leak and ask that they urgently rectify it. The repair record notes the leaseholder responded to the landlord the same day to advise that they were unable to find any leaks in their property. The landlord advised them to speak with the resident to see if the leak was still ongoing and, if so, to call a plumber. The landlord then cancelled the work order.
3. The landlord raised a further work order for the leak on 2 October 2023 which it prioritised as urgent. It attended the same day and noted visible droplets on the resident’s kitchen ceiling. It recorded this had only just started and that it was due to condensation from the cooker below the affected area. It also visited the flat. It identified a wet area under the flat’s kitchen sink and washing machine. The work order records the landlord would ask the leaseholder to fix the issues.
4. There is a record of the leaseholder of the flat contacting the landlord on 24 October 2023 to advise plumbers had attended but had been unable to find a leak. The leaseholder also advised that there had previously been leak issues into the resident’s property from their balcony and that of the next-door property. The landlord attended to inspect these balconies on 25 October 2023. It is not recorded that any issues with the balconies were found; however, the landlord did note a slight leak from the kitchen sink tap and waste in the flat. It advised the leaseholder to replace these as soon as possible. It also checked the ceiling in the resident’s property which was dry.
5. A work order was raised on 27 October 2023 for a leak to the resident’s living room ceiling. This was prioritised as urgent. The landlord attended the same day and noted the leak had stopped, but further investigation was necessary as water may be leaking from the balcony above. The landlord also visited the flat and noted the wet area under the kitchen sink was no longer present.
6. The landlord raised a further work order on 6 November 2023 for leaks to the resident’s bedroom and living room ceilings. This was prioritised as urgent. The landlord attended the same day and again noted the intermittent leak into the living room was likely from the balconies above. It visited the flat and noted that the wastepipe in the hallway had not been exposed. It recommended it contact the leaseholder of the flat to request their permission to remove the boxing around the pipe so it could be checked for leaks and/or to carry out a dye test to see if dye came through to the resident’s property.
7. The landlord checked the balcony of the flat on 17 November 2023. It did not identify any visible defects, but noted paving slabs had been laid on the concrete surface. It wrote to the leaseholder of the flat on 20 November 2023 to ask they contact it to arrange a suitable time for a roofer to attend to check under the paving slabs and ensure there were no defects.
8. The landlord, having obtained permission to carry out works in the flat, attended on 24 November 2023. It identified a slight leak from the waste pipe. It tightened the leaking connection and advised the leaseholder they should contact a plumber as the entire pipe might need replacing. It checked the ceiling of the resident’s flat which was dry.
The landlord’s prioritisation of the resident’s reports of leaks and its response times were in line with its repairs policy. Its actions in dealing with the reports were generally reasonable. The exception to this is the decision to cancel the resident’s initial report and asking the leaseholder of the flat to contact the resident to see if the leak was ongoing. It would have been preferable for the landlord to have contacted the resident directly to ask this question and to update them on its decision to cancel the work order. However, there is no evidence this failing had a significant adverse impact on the resident.
The landlord’s actions in attending on 2 October 2023 as an emergency repair to make the electrics in the kitchen safe and then reconnecting them on 5 October 2023 were appropriate and in line with its repair policy.
There is no evidence the resident reported any further issues with their electrics until their stage 1 complaint. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response there is no evidence it took the action it said it would. In its final response it confirmed it had booked an electrician appointment but provided no explanation for why this had not happened sooner. This was not appropriate.
The appointment for the electrician to attend would have been within the landlord’s repair policy if the issue had been reported on or shortly before the date the final response was issued (19 December 2023). However, as the resident had reported this issue on 6 November 2023 the landlord’s handling was not appropriate.
The landlord has provided evidence that it attended the resident’s property on several occasions to inspect the heating and hot water. It did identify issues with air in the heating system and faulty radiator valves, but it resolved these and, on each occasion, recorded it had tested the system which was operating correctly. There is no evidence of a systemic failure with the resident’s heating or hot water that the landlord failed to identify or repair. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its complaint responses that there had been a 3-day delay in one of its repairs.
It was appropriate for the landlord to have tested the water pressure at the resident’s property. Having identified the water pressure was within the expected range for the resident’s system, it was reasonable for it to have offered the option of fitting a pump to improve pressure and to have referred the matter to its occupational therapy team for further consideration.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged and apologised that it had failed to record details of the resident’s disabilities. It took reasonable steps to rectify this failing.
There is no evidence of reports of pests before the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord, as part of its handling of the complaint, to pass this matter to its pest control team.
While the landlord has not provided evidence that pest control visited the resident, its final response does indicate the resident told it about advice they had been given by pest control. On this basis, the Ombudsman considers it is reasonable to conclude that pest control had contacted the resident about their issue.
It is unclear why the pest control team did not directly provide the resident with other options. However, the landlord’s actions in consulting internally and then explaining pest control could re-attend to place bait/poison in areas the child would be unable to reach was reasonable.
In summary, while the landlord’s handling of repairs was broadly in line with its repair policy and it took reasonable actions in most instances, there were some failings and areas where its handling could have been improved. It did uphold the resident’s complaint at both stages and apologise that the level of service it had provided did not meet the resident’s expectations or the standard it aspires to.
The available evidence indicates that the landlord had, at the time of its final response, either resolved the outstanding repair issues or was taking reasonable action to do so. Its offer of £600 compensation was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, a reasonable sum to acknowledge and address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

The resident has explained that they and their child have experienced health problems due to the condition of the property. When there is injury or a pre-existing medical condition has been exacerbated, the courts have the benefit of independent medical experts. They can provide reports or evidence which set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial. In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions about the cause of any health problems based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers.
Neither the resident nor the landlord has provided evidence which clearly indicates when the issues of damp and mould were first reported. The earliest relevant repair record is dated 27 October 2023 and is for a surveyor to carry out an assessment for damp and mould as well as condensation. The surveyor attended on 17 November 2023. This was in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
The inspection report identified some small areas of damp and mould in the living room, both bedrooms and the kitchen. It included details of temperature and moisture readings taken during the inspection. The surveyor stated there was no damp and mould in the bathroom, hallway (including cupboards), or in bedroom cupboards. The surveyor concluded that there were ongoing heating issues in the property but noted a heating engineer was due to attend the following week. They also noted that further works were due to take place in the above flat to check for leaks in the waste pipe. They recommended repair works to take place after the landlord had fixed the heating and leaks. These included mould treatments, re-plastering affected areas and re-painting. The report states the landlord confirmed these works with the resident.
There is a clear difference between the levels of damp and mould described by the resident and that recorded by the surveyor. The Ombudsman can only make decisions based on the evidence that is available. In this case, there is no documentary evidence that supports the resident’s description of the condition of their property or contradicts the inspection report. The Ombudsman therefore considers it is reasonable to accept the inspection report as an accurate record of the property on 17 November 2023.
It was reasonable for the landlord, in their stage 1 response, to take note of the resident’s concerns and make an internal request to have the mould treatments done as soon as possible. The landlord’s records indicate it completed part of the required works on 12 December 2023. A follow up appointment to complete the remaining works was booked for 9 January 2024. This was in line with its policies.
The resident visited the landlord’s offices on 8 December 2023. They advised they did not feel they were able to remain in the property due to the impact on their and their child’s health. The landlord’s record of the visit notes that the normal process would be for the repairs team to request temporary accommodation. In this case it took the decision to request temporary accommodation immediately and follow up with the repairs team afterwards. This was a reasonable approach to take.
The damp and mould inspection did not identify any clear failings by the landlord which may have contributed to the condition of the property. Nor, as set out in the section above, were there any significant failings in its handling of repairs to leaks or heating and hot water. On this basis, the Ombudsman considers it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that a claim for damaged belongings should be made through their own contents insurance. It was reasonable for the landlord to additionally advise that the resident could make a claim against its public liability insurance.
The landlord’s final response confirms the resident had made a claim against the landlord’s insurance. It would have been preferable if the landlord had provided an update on the progress of the claim. However, the Ombudsman is mindful that the time of year may have impacted on available resources and that it would not have been appropriate to delay issuing the final response. The Ombudsman therefore considers it was reasonable for the landlord to advise it would provide an update as soon as it was able.
The landlord should note it could have improved its response by providing a date by which it intended to contact the resident. This would have given the resident a clear measure against which they could hold the landlord to account.
In summary, the available evidence demonstrates that the landlord had taken appropriate actions in line with its damp and mould policy. It was reasonable for it to rely on the findings and recommendations of its surveyor. At the time of its final response it was taking reasonable steps to remedy the identified issues.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s re-housing request is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.