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

Islington Council (202400195)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400195

Islington Council

20 January 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 response to the resident’s request to replace the front door.
  2. This service has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. decision not to conduct a further inspection of the resident’s front door.
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom flat, located on the ground floor of a building. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to her mental health, which include anxiety and depression, conditions that the landlord is aware of.
  2. The resident has been represented by her son, who has raised the complaint on her behalf. For ease of reference, this report will use ‘the resident’ to refer to both the resident and her son.
  3. On 19 October 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that her front door was not secure. She asked that the landlord replace the door, explaining that the door had 2 large glass panels that allowed passers-by to see through. She also noted that she did not have a key for the deadlock on the door and was concerned about how easily the property could be broken into.
  4. The resident also raised additional concerns about burglaries in the area, which had been highlighted by police notices to residents. She described seeing her neighbour forcibly entering their property after misplacing their keys, which she felt demonstrated the poor condition of her own front door. Additionally, the resident explained that her anxiety was worsened by living on the ground floor with a front door that was not secure.
  5. On 21 November 2023, the landlord’s operative inspected the resident’s front door. The operative found no damage to the door or frame but noted the locks were positioned close together rather than spaced out. During the visit, the operative fitted a new deadlock to the door.
  6. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 January 2024. She referenced the earlier inspection of her front door, stating that the landlord’s operative had confirmed the door was not safe and had taken measurements during the visit. She complained that no one had contacted her since the operative’s visit and reiterated her previously raised safety concerns.
  7. On 30 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It stated that no damage had been identified during the earlier inspection of the resident’s front door and, as a result, no further actions had been taken regarding the door. However, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the glass panels in the door and said that it would arrange for a repairs supervisor to conduct another inspection.
  8. On 1 February 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She reported that during the earlier inspection of her front door, the landlord’s operative had mentioned a sexual assault incident involving a property with a similar door, causing her even more worry. The resident said the operative informed her that doors with glass panels were unsuitable for ground-floor flats.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 28 February 2024. It upheld the findings of its stage 1 complaint response but said that it would not proceed with a further inspection of the resident’s front door. The landlord explained that its repairs management team had determined her door was safe, secure, and did not require replacement.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to this service on 4 April 2024, stating that the landlord had failed in its duty to keep her safe and that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns.

Assessment and findings

Legal obligations and policy framework

  1. Landlords must consider the condition and safety of their properties using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), a risk-based framework aimed at identifying and minimising potential health and safety hazards. Under HHSRS, landlords have a duty to ensure properties are secure against unauthorised entry and maintain overall safety. When potential hazards are identified, landlords are expected to take preventative measures and implement improvement works as a priority to address these issues, in line with their obligations under HHSRS.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in good repair, which includes external doors. If residents wish to change their front doors, they must follow the landlord’s ‘tenant alteration’ process prior to starting any works. However, the landlord will not be responsible for any repairs, maintenance, or replacement of the alterations.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that where a repair presents an immediate danger to the resident, it will attend within 2 hours to make the situation safe. The policy describes urgent repairs as repairs that affect a resident’s day-to-day living and will be responded to within 24 hours. Non-urgent repairs are responded to within 20 working days.
  4. The Equality Act 2010 establishes a legal framework to protect individual rights and promote equality of opportunity. As a public body, the landlord must follow the provisions of the Act, including its legal duty to make reasonable adjustments when a provision, criterion, or practice places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared to individuals without a disability. While it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, as this is a matter better suited for a court to decide, we can assess whether the landlord has appropriately considered its obligations under the Act in addressing the resident’s concerns.
  5. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the front door

  1. Following the resident’s report on 19 October 2023, that her front door was not secure, the landlord arranged an inspection 24 working days later. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s safety concerns and the impact on her anxiety, her report did not indicate an immediate danger. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to address the reported issue within its routine repair timescales. Although the inspection took place 4 days beyond these timescales, this minor delay did not appear to significantly impact the landlord’s initial handling of the matter. Overall, the landlord’s response at this stage was reasonable.
  2. The landlord’s records confirm that during the inspection, its operative found no damage to the resident’s front door or frame. However, as the resident reported that she did not have a key to the deadlock, it was appropriate for the operative to fit a new deadlock during the inspection. This demonstrated a proactive approach by the landlord to address the resident’s security concerns and mitigate any potential security risks, in line with its obligations. Although the operative observed that the locks on the door were positioned close together, the operative’s notes did not indicate that this compromised the door’s security. Given that the operative was qualified to assess the condition of the door, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on this professional judgement and decide that replacement of the door was not necessary.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 December 2023, stating that she was waiting to be contacted by the landlord after the operative had taken measurements of the front door during the previous inspection. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident understood this to mean that the landlord would take further steps to address her concerns about the door, there is no evidence in the landlord’s records to confirm this. As an impartial service, the Ombudsman bases decisions solely on the available evidence. In situations where there is insufficient documentary evidence to verify what occurred, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord failed in its obligations or require it to take action to put right its failure. Still, we recognise the resident’s perception of events, and the landlord should be mindful of how its actions and communication may impact residents’ understanding of planned works. To improve clarity and trust, the landlord should provide residents with a written summary of the outcome of its inspections. This approach would align with good practice guidance and help ensure residents are kept informed.
  4. Finally, the landlord’s records indicate that the resident’s tenancy officer explained that if she wished to replace her front door, she could do so at her own cost by following the tenant alteration process. This was a reasonable suggestion, as it provided the resident with the opportunity to pursue her preference for replacing the door while ensuring that any changes adhered to the landlord’s policies and standards for property alterations. It is important to distinguish between a repair and an improvement in this situation. A repair involves restoring the door to ensure it is secure and functional, which is the landlord’s responsibility. An improvement, such as replacing the door to meet higher specifications or for personal preference, goes beyond the landlord’s obligations unless required by its policies. By offering this option, the landlord appropriately balanced its responsibility to maintain the property in good repair, with the resident’s desire for a modification that went beyond the landlord’s obligations.
  5. Overall, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was in line with its obligations. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the distress and upset the situation has caused the resident, the landlord’s actions were appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the front door.

The landlord’s decision not to conduct a further inspection of the resident’s front door

  1. The resident highlighted in both complaints that the current front door heightened her anxiety. Given the resident’s vulnerability, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to demonstrate sensitivity and a commitment to supporting the resident’s well-being, even in the absence of an obligation to replace the door. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the glass panels in the door and the recent burglaries in the area. It also agreed to arrange a further inspection of the door by a supervisor, demonstrating a reasonable effort to provide additional reassurance.
  2. However, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord reversed its initial decision and informed the resident that a further inspection was no longer necessary. This change in approach was inappropriate, as the landlord raised the resident’s expectations and then failed to fulfil the commitment it made during the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, available on our website, emphasises the importance of landlords fulfilling commitments made in complaint responses, and stresses that agreed remedies or actions should be implemented promptly and effectively. The landlord’s decision to cancel the inspection likely undermined the resident’s trust in the complaints process and may have left her feeling dismissed, particularly as her safety and well-being were central to her complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman has therefore determined that there was service failure in the landlord’s decision not to carry out a further inspection of the resident’s front door. This finding is based on the landlord’s change of approach after making a commitment to the resident. As the landlord has demonstrated that it has investigated the resident’s concerns and is satisfied that the front door is secure, the Ombudsman will not make an order for the landlord to conduct another inspection. However, the landlord must provide appropriate redress to address the impact of its failings on the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our Service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. Where there has been a determination of service failure, the guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy from £50 to £100 in cases where we identify a single or limited number of minor failings in the landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by raising the resident’s expectations and then failing to fulfil the commitment it made to inspect the front door.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 January 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 13 working days later. While this was slightly outside of the landlord’s published timescales for responding to stage 1 complaints, the delay did not have a substantial effect on the landlord’s handling of the complaint or the outcome for the resident.
  2. The resident stated in her stage 1 complaint that the front door was ‘flimsy’ and that the glass panels made the property vulnerable to break-ins. However, neither of the landlord’s complaint responses addressed these specific concerns. The complaints process should be a tool for explaining and clarifying decisions to help resolve disputes promptly. Landlords must ensure their responses are specific, clear, and directly address the issues raised, so that residents feel they are being listened to.
  3. In this case, the landlord should have used its complaint responses to confirm that it was satisfied the resident’s front door’s material was robust and complied with building regulations for durability and security. Furthermore, the landlord should have clarified that, while the door contained glass panels, the type of glass used met necessary building regulations and was likely more resistant to breakage. This may have provided reassurance to the resident and demonstrated that the landlord had fully considered her concerns.
  4. The resident stated in her stage 2 complaint that during the inspection of her front door, the operative informed her of a sexual assault incident that occurred in a similar property. While the Ombudsman does not take a position on the appropriateness of a staff member’s actions in such cases, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s claim by discussing them with the staff member involved and engaging further with the resident to clarify her concerns. Given the resident’s anxiety, this approach would have shown due regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities, demonstrating transparency, fairness, and a commitment to addressing the resident’s concerns thoroughly.
  5. Given the landlord’s failure to fully address the resident’s concerns in both of its complaint responses, the Ombudsman has determined service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her complaint.
  7. The landlord must issue a further written response to the resident that directly addresses her concerns about the quality of the front door and vulnerability of the glass panels. The response should confirm whether the door and the glass panels comply with the relevant building regulations for durability and security.
  8. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider whether any further reasonable adjustments can be offered to address the resident’s privacy concerns regarding the glass panels in the front door.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the front door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s decision not to conduct a further inspection of the resident’s front door.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. pay the resident the following compensation:
      1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by raising the resident’s expectations and then failing to fulfil the commitment it made to inspect the front door
      2. £100 for its poor handling of her complaint
    2. issue a further written response to the resident that directly addresses her concerns about the quality of the front door and vulnerability of the glass panels. The response should confirm whether the door and the glass panels comply with the relevant building regulations for durability and security
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider whether any further reasonable adjustments can be offered to address the resident’s privacy concerns regarding the glass panels in the front door.