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

Islington Council (202403261)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403261

Islington Council

20 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about housing points she had been awarded and the property bidding process.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the flat above, including associated damage and damp and mould.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation..

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. Part of the resident’s complaint concerns her housing allocation points awarded by the landlord and its management of the property bidding process. This is in the landlord’s role as a local authority. These areas of complaint fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) for consideration. As such under paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Scheme these areas of complaint are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If the resident wishes to pursue these specific matters further, she will need to refer them to the LGSCO for consideration.
  3. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
  4. In her initial complaint the resident stated her neighbour was causing her upset. This was due to him “screaming and shouting obscenities” through the night and day and “encouraging pigeons.” The neighbour had moved out the week prior, however. The landlord in its stage 1 response said it “was sorry to hear of the ASB experienced” but happy to see the “offending” neighbour had moved out. The resident did not raise any concerns with the landlord’s response in the escalation of her complaint. As such under paragraph 42.a. this area of complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority at the property. The property is a 2-storey, 1-bedroom maisonette on the third floor of a building owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident reported a leaks at her property on 15 February 2023 and 29 February 2024. The landlord identified on 2 March the leak was coming from the neighbour’s property. Despite completing repairs it was unable to comprehensively stop the leak through this period.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 8 March 2024. She raised a number of concerns about the neighbour living directly above her (the neighbour). These were a leak from her ceiling and a mouse infestation. She also said the neighbour was “screaming and shouting obscenities through the night” and “encouraging pigeons.” She believed he had moved out in the previous week.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 March 2024. It told her the following:
    1. Pest control was treating the neighbour’s property weekly now he had moved out. Up to moving out he had refused treatment, which meant the pest issue had spread to other properties. It had been unable to repair the leak at the neighbour’s property until the pest issue was resolved.
    2. It was “sorry to learn” of the ASB the resident experienced but was happy to see the offending neighbour had moved out. It offered total compensation of £1366.58. This was £400 for inconvenience, £400 for distress, £541.58 for the delay in resolving the leak and £25 for time and effort to complain.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 March 2024. She said there were inaccuracies in the landlord’s complaint response, and explained there was ongoing damp and mould which was making her asthma worse. She declined the landlord’s compensation which she said was an “insult.”
  6. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 23 April 2024. It explained it had resolved the mice problem by 22 April, but acknowledged it should have acted sooner. It apologised for errors in its previous response, explained it understood the leak had been resolved, and confirmed it would discuss remedial repairs with the resident. It declined the resident’s request for a rent rebate but increased its compensation to £1842 for its repair delays and the inconvenience and distress caused to her.
  7. The landlord completed all remedial repairs required at the resident’s property by 28 June 2024. The landlord rehoused the resident, and she moved out of the property at the start of August 2024. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said the landlord’s complaint responses were “conflicting,” and the same person responded to both complaints. She was never offered support or a decant and her mental and physical health suffered. In resolution, she wanted an apology for the landlord’s inaccuracies and compensation for what she “endured for 14 months”. She also asked that the landlord learn and improve.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

  1. The resident said that her health has suffered because of how the landlord handled her reports. In accordance with 42.f. of the Scheme the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced due to how the landlord handled the situation involving her property.
  2. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it offered total compensation of £1842, rounded up from £1841.58. £541.58 was attributed to the delay in resolving the leak. It is unclear which of the remaining £1300 it applied to each complaint definition. As such the Ombudsman has split this amount equally between the leak and pest issue. This equates to £650 for each issue and will be further assessed later in this report.

The resident’s reports of a leak from the flat above, including associated damage and damp and mould.

  1. The landlord has not denied in correspondence its responsibility for the reported leak at the property. The landlord’s repairs policy prioritise repairs as follows:
    1. Emergency repairs, where the is an immediate danger to a person or risk of serious ongoing damage to the property. It will respond within 2 hours to make the area or appliance safe. If it cannot fix the problem, it will make an appointment to visit again.
    2. Urgent repairs, used for repairs that affect a resident’s day-to-day living. It will respond within 24 hours.
    3. Routine repairs, for non-urgent repairs. It will attend on the next available appointment but within 20 working days.
  2. In her complaint of 8 March 2024 the resident raised concerns about the leak in her property. She said she had lived in substandard conditions for 13 months with water coming through her ceiling from February 2023. In its complaint response of 22 March 2024 the landlord detailed its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from February 2023 onwards. For the most part the information provided by the landlord was accurate. It also appropriately apologised for the “distress and inconvenience caused.” However there were some failings in its approach it did not acknowledge.
  3. The resident reported a leak on 15 February 2023 which she described as “slow”. The landlord arranged and failed to attend an appointment for 16 February. The resident was forced to chase this the same day. The landlord apologised to the resident offering appointments at the start of March 2023.
  4. On 19 May 2023 the landlord arranged for the neighbour to move out and it believed it could resolve the leak from the property once this took place. Its approach to take further action once this had taken place was reasonable. However, the neighbour would choose not to move out on 19 May. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of alternate steps the landlord took in consideration of this.
  5. Following this the resident reported on 11 June 2023 water was coming through and was “dirty and unsanitary”. It is unclear what steps the landlord was taking at this stage. It took steps to make the lighting safe on 25 September following a further report from the resident. It disconnected the light but was unable to reinstate the light as the neighbour was not providing the necessary access. Following this there is no record of any action taken by the landlord for a considerable time to resolve the leak at the neighbour’s property. The landlord failed to address this period in its complaint response.
  6. On 29 February 2024, the resident reported water was leaking from the ceiling into the cooker and lighting. The following day the resident reported the leak had worsened and she could not use her kitchen. The neighbour had moved out at that point and the landlord was able to get access to resolve the leak, which it did between 17 and 22 April.
  7. The landlord had difficulty in accessing the neighbour’s property to resolve the leak. This was also made more difficult by the condition of the neighbour’s property. However, there is no evidence of it taking further action at the neighbour’s property following this for a considerable period between 25 September 2023 and 17 April 2024. This far exceeded the timescale in the landlord’s policy and prolonged the impact of the leak on the resident. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response it should have acted sooner to gain access to the neighbour’s property and repair the leak.
  8. The landlord’s policy states should a resident’s property be flooded it will carry out works to “restore the property to a condition it can be lived in.” In its stage 2 response, it confirmed it would survey and then complete remedial work at the property as the leak was repaired. It appropriately completed all such work to make good the property by 28 June 2024. This was completed in a reasonable timescale following the resolution of the leak.
  9. The resident complained about the damp and mould the leak had caused. The landlord explained this would be resolved in its remedial work. It did not explain any consideration it had given towards temporarily addressing the mould issue while the source of the problem still unresolved. The resident reported damp and mould on 11 June 2023 and 18 March 2024. The landlord’s policy confirms it aims to focus on resolving the root cause of the issue. However, its website confirms its resolution of damp and mould will be individual to each case and could include mould washes or ventilation. There is no evidence the landlord considered any temporary measures between 24 April 2023 and 31 May 2024. Waiting until the source of the problem was resolved was essential for any major remedial works, but the landlord’s failure to consider temporary measures was not reasonable, especially given she had explained on several occasions that the damp and mould was affecting her health.
  10. In her complaint the resident stated the situation in her property was “unsanitary.” She had reported on 15 and 22 February, 30 May, and 11 June 2023 water leaking into her property was “smelly”, “brown”, “dirty” and “unsanitary” to describe the water leaking into her property. The landlord’s policy states if a flood involves foul water or sewage, it will “disinfect the affected flooring.” It later established in April 2024 that the leak was from a washing machine valve. It is unclear if the leak was “foul water.” However, the landlord was unaware of this, inhibiting its decision regarding whether it should disinfect the flooring. As such the resident was left to manage the impact of the “dirty” water in her property. The landlord failed to address this failure to abide by its policy in its complaint response.
  11. The landlord’s policy states where a resident’s property is flooded it may provide temporary lighting. This is dependent on the extent of the damage caused. The resident complained she did not have a working kitchen light over a prolonged period. The landlord disconnected the resident’s kitchen light on 25 September 2023 but did not provide temporary lighting until 1 March 2024. This was an inappropriate amount of time to leave the resident without lighting in her kitchen. In its stage 2 response, it apologised for stating in its stage 1 response the light had been fixed. However, it did not apologise for its failure to provide the temporary lighting for a prolonged period.
  12. In her complaint the resident was concerned she did not have a working smoke detector in her kitchen from 1 March 2024. The landlord’s policy states its smoke alarms have a “long life battery” in case of power failure. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about her smoke detector in its complaint response. If it was certain the smoke detector was still working, it should have explained this or taken appropriate action if not. Its failure to do so caused uncertainty to the resident over her safety at the property.
  13. In her complaint escalation the resident said the landlord made a number of inaccuracies in its stage 1 complaint response about the status of the light repair, and whether she had been placed in temporary accommodation. The landlord acknowledged, corrected and apologised for these in its complaint responses or separately shortly afterwards.
  14. In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident was concerned the same person dealt with both stages of her complaint. The evidence shows that different officers and teams wrote the responses.
  15. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord appropriately increased its offer of compensation from £1366.58 to £1842. The landlord awarded the resident compensation of £541.58 for the leak. This was £41.66 per month for 13 weeks from March 2023 to April 2024. It is uncertain how the landlord reached the monthly figure. However, the amount awarded per month was reasonable as it exceeded the £25 per month for delays in its compensation policy. The additional £650 for inconvenience, distress and time and trouble to claim awarded by the landlord was in accordance with its Compensation Policy.
  16. The landlord appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns with a rent rebate and damage to her possessions in its complaint response. It effectively explained the conditions of the resident’s tenancy as to why it could not award a rent rebate. It directed the resident to its insurer for damage to her property. This was appropriate in order for the insurer to make a liability decision on any claim the resident may have made. It is unclear if the resident raised such a claim with the insurer.
  17. In summary the landlord was reactive and responded appropriately and in line with its policy each time the resident reported a leak in her property. The landlord had significant difficulty in accessing the neighbour’s property, which was the source of the leak. However, it did not act proactively in this regard, which led to prolonged periods of impact on the resident. There were a number of secondary effects of the leak that were overlooked by the landlord. This included its failure to provide temporary lighting for an extended period, cleaning her flooring or temporarily addressing damp and mould at the property. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns about her smoke alarm. These omissions mean that the landlord did not fully acknowledge and remedy its failings and the resident’s complaint.

The resident’s reports of a pest infestation.

  1. In her complaint the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of long running pest problems in her home, which were connected to the same problem in the neighbour’s property. The landlord acknowledged the issue had remained unresolved for a long period, and the access difficulties it had faced had hampered its ability to inspect and resolve it. It confirmed that now it had full access its pest control service was actively inspecting and treating the neighbour’s property and had also already attended the resident’s home. Despite that it agreed that the matter had caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and had a “dramatic impact” on her life. It also acknowledged it should have acted sooner to gain access to the neighbour’s property and resolve the source of the problem. It apologised, and offered her compensation of £650  
  2. The evidence confirms that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was poor, even with the difficult access problems it had with the neighbour’s property. In its complaint responses the landlord demonstrated that it recognised this, and also the significant impact the issue had on the resident. It provided explanations, but did not use the access issue to mitigate its own responsibility. It apologised unreservedly, and, while acknowledging compensation could not undo the impact on the resident, it offered an amount of compensation which was broadly in line with level of distress it acknowledged its failings had caused. There is no denying the clear frustration and distress the resident was experiencing. The landlord’s complaint responses showed an appropriate level of accountability, and the apologies, explanations, and compensation it offered were reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about housing points she had been awarded and the property bidding process is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from her neighbour is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of a leak from the flat above, including associated damage and damp and mould.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.

Orders

  1. Within 5 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £300 for its incomplete responses to the resident’s reports of leaks.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord must also pay (or re-offer) the £1842 compensation it previously offered the resident.