From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Islington Council (202412203)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412203

Islington Council

17 April 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 how the landlord handled the residents reports of a damaged wall in the garden.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. In May 2021 the resident reported that a wall in her garden was wobbling and that she was concerned it would soon collapse. The landlord raised some works to address this on 27 May 2021. On 4 August 2022 the landlord raised identical works to inspect and repair the wall. It then raised these works again in September and November 2022.
  2. The resident complained on 31 January 2023 that the landlord had failed to attend and repair the wall. She raised another complaint about this on 24 May 2023. The landlord communicated with the resident sporadically about this over the coming months. However, it did not complete the works, and so she raised another complaint on 23 August 2023.
  3. On 7 September 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It explained that it had raised works on 11 August 2022 following the resident’s report on 4 August 2022. However, it acknowledged that it then cancelled these works as it raised them with the wrong team. It explained that its surveyors inspected the wall on 11 November 2022 and recommended some works to address it.
  4. The landlord explained that, following this visit, it failed to schedule an appointment to complete the works. It assured the resident it would contact her and agree on a date to do so. It apologised for the delays and poor communication and offered her £75 for any distress this caused, and £50 for poor customer service. The landlord also raised works to repair the wall on the same day.
  5. At some stage in November 2023 the landlord came to recognise that the wall was a party wall. It communicated internally about the implications of this and discussed possible ways forward throughout November 2023. On 1 March 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as the works remained outstanding.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 27 March 2024. It explained that it had realised the wall was a party wall following its stage 1 response, and that this had legal implications on how it could proceed. However, it acknowledged that it had incorrectly closed the case and failed to explain this to the resident. It explained it would attend within a week to inspect the wall and raise a repair. It offered the resident £100 for inconvenience and £100 for the time and effort she went to chasing the repair.
  7. In July 2024 the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She complained that the landlord had failed to repair the wall. She explained that, to resolve her complaint, she wanted the repairs completed and compensation for the delay. On 9 January 2025 the resident contacted us again and noted the repairs were still outstanding. On 24 March 2025 the landlord completed the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is typically within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 31 January 2023, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred before 31 January 2022 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.
  2. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from 31 January 2022 up until it completed the repairs in March 2025.

How the landlord handled the residents reports of a damaged wall in the garden.

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement sets out that the landlord was responsible for repairing and maintaining the wall in the garden. Its repairs policy sets out that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. We can see the resident reported the issue on 4 August 2022. Following this, the landlord raised repairs on this day, 23 September 2022, and 4 November 2022. It classified the works each time as a routine repair. However, it failed to follow through on any of these works orders. It should have completed this repair by 2 September 2022 as per its repairs policy. We cannot see any reasonable explanation for this delay in the records, and therefore we consider it was unjustified. We can also see no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about the reasons for this delay until her complaint of 24 May 2023. We consider it likely that this delay and poor communication caused the resident distress.
  3. Following the resident’s complaint on 24 May 2023, we can see the landlord began internally discussing that the wall was shared with a private property and the implications of this. However, these discussions then petered out by the end of June 2023, and it does not appear it reached any decision on how to proceed. It is unclear why the landlord stopped pursuing a solution to this once it realised it was a party wall, given it was still responsible for repairing it as per the occupancy agreement. We consider this contributed significantly to the ongoing delays.
  4. The resident complained again on 23 August 2023. In its 7 September 2023 stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the failings identified and assured the resident it would schedule the repairs with her. On the same day it raised the same repairs which it first raised in August 2022. It then took no action for the following 2 months. In November 2023 it resumed internal discussions about implications of the shared nature of the wall. We can see it also discussed facilitating a party wall agreement with the neighbour to progress the repairs.
  5. However, from 17 November 2023 it took no further action in relation to this. It also failed to communicate with the resident following its stage 2 response. While we recognise the repair may have been slightly more complex to organise given the wall was shared with the neighbour, this does not appear to be the cause of the delay. Instead, it appears that the landlord repeatedly failed to follow through on the necessary steps to progress the works, such as reaching a decision on whether it needed to serve notice to the neighbour to complete the works. In doing so it also failed to keep the resident informed about the status of these works. Given these works were first raised in August 2022, the landlord had significantly and unreasonably exceeded its repairs timescales by this point.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 March 2024. On 27 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged that it had incorrectly closed the repairs case following its stage 1 response. However, it explained that it would have to serve notice to the neighbour to complete the works since it was a shared wall, and that this played a role in the delay. It explained that it would attend to inspect the wall by the end of the week.
  7. We do not consider this was a reasonable explanation for the delay. While we accept the landlord may have reasonably considered that it needed to serve notice to progress the works, it should have done so by this point, especially given it was explicitly discussing whether to do so in November 2023.
  8. Following this complaint response it then took the landlord another 12 months to complete the repair. We can see no explanation in the records for this delay. Therefore, we consider it was unreasonable. The landlord’s policy obliged it to complete the repair by 2 September 2022, and it did so on 24 March 2025. Therefore, it exceeded its timescales by 649 working days. This delay is significant, and we can see the resident incurred sustained inconvenience and distress in chasing the landlord.
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay sums from £100 to £300 to remedy incurred time and trouble as a result of its failings. It also states that it will make payments between £100 and £300 for distress caused by its failings, and up to £1000 for severe or prolonged stress.
  10. The landlord has already offered the resident the following compensation:
    1. £75 for distress caused, and £50 for poor customer service, until 7 September 2023.
    2. £100 for inconvenience, and £100 for time and effort, incurred up until 27 March 2024.
  11. We do not consider this goes far enough to remedy the failures we have identified, and so we will order it pays the resident further compensation. We have considered the length of the delay, the landlord’s failure to honour the commitments it made at both stages 1 and 2 of the complaints process, the landlord’s repeated failure to progress things, and the sustained effort the resident was forced to go to in order to progress the works.
  12. In calculating the appropriate compensation figure we have also considered that the actual impact of the outstanding repair on the resident was negligible given she still had full use of her garden and the wall was still functional. Instead, the impact on the resident was mostly caused by the landlord’s poor handling of the repair and communication. With this all in mind, we will order the landlord to pay the resident £300 for inconvenience and £300 for distress as per its guidance. This is inclusive of the compensation it has already offered.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will address stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it is unable to do so it must send a holding response to explain the delay.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 31 January 2023. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge this. It then failed to acknowledge a further complaint she made on 24 May 2023. She complained again on 23 August 2023, and it issued a stage 1 response on 7 September 2023. Given she first complained on 31 January 2023, it should have issued this response by 14 February 2023. Therefore, its stage 1 response was 143 working days late. We can see no reasonable explanation for this delay in the records, and we consider it likely caused the resident distress. Therefore, as per the landlord’s complaints policy, we will order it pays her £200 to put right the inconvenience this caused her in forcing her to chase a response.
  3. We note the landlord addressed the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 1 March 2024 within its timescales.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a damaged wall in the garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £800, comprised of:
    1. £200 for complaint handling delays.
    2. £600 for its delays in completing the wall repair.
  2. This is inclusive of the £325 compensation the landlord has already offered. If the landlord has already paid this to the resident it is to evidence this and subtract it from the outstanding sum.
  3. The landlord is to evidence compliance with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this letter.