London Borough of Islington (202234917)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234917

Islington Council

28 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 1999. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident says he has informed the landlord that he is disabled under the Equality Act 2010 (‘the Act’), due to depression, anxiety, and severe long-term sarcoidosis (an inflammatory condition).
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 November 2022. He said he had contacted it previously on 29 September 2022 to ask about upgrading his radiators due to a chronic health condition. He advised he had received an email from the landlord which said that his request had been passed to its housing department to follow up. However, since that email, the resident said he had not received any contact and was still waiting for an appointment. He reminded the landlord of his disability.
On 23 November 2022, the landlord raised a job with its contractor to inspect and assess the radiators and heating system in the resident’s property. The contractor attempted a visit on 17 January 2023 but was unable to gain access. On 7 February 2023, the landlord asked for the resident’s contact number to arrange a further inspection.
The resident complained to the landlord on 7 March 2023. At the beginning of his complaint, he clarified that he was disabled. He said his disability related to depression and severe anxiety which made it difficult for him to engage and deal with people and situations. The resident also told the landlord in March 2023 that the radiator upgrade would help his physical health condition of sarcoidosis. In his complaint he said:
1. He had made a request to upgrade his radiators in September 2022. Since then, he had sent numerous emails to the landlord about the matter and complained to the chief executive on 1 February 2023.
2. In an email on 9 February 2023, the landlord said it would pass his request to the appropriate team. It had previously told him this in September 2022.
3. He wanted the landlord to inform him what progress had been made since September 2022.
4. He felt 6 months was sufficient time to execute a simple request and that the lack of response was “blatant discrimination”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 May 2023. It acknowledged the resident had made his complaint on 7 March 2023 and apologised for the delay and for failing to update him. It confirmed he had informed it on 29 September 2022 that he had a disability and had requested that his single panel radiators were upgraded to double panel radiators. It said it was aware he had been signposted to several different departments, but the radiators had not been replaced. It then said it would arrange for an inspection of the property to decide if the replacement was possible. After the inspection it committed to explaining the outcome, with reasons if the replacement of the radiators was not possible.
The resident escalated his complaint on 23 June 2023. He said:
1. He had sent 15 emails over an 8-month period about the upgrade of his radiators.
2. He had complained to the landlord about the matter, but it had not responded. He then had to contact the Ombudsman for assistance.
3. He felt he had been ignored by the landlord and his request had been “abandoned”.
4. He had supplied a letter from his doctor which outlined how the cold affected his health. Despite the landlord knowing that he was vulnerable, he felt this information had been ignored.
5. The landlord’s stage 1 response had “glossed over” his complaint and failed to hold anyone accountable. It also did not offer any compensation for the emotional stress and ill health he had suffered due to the landlord’s failure to handle his request appropriately.
6. The landlord had ignored his reasonable adjustment request, which was discriminatory and contravened the Act.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 June 2023. It said:
1. It apologised for the difficulties the resident had experienced in his attempts to have his radiators upgraded.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had a number of medical conditions that were exacerbated by cold weather, and that he had provided medical evidence confirming the conditions.
3. It accepted that the level of customer service and the lack of clarity the resident had received would have caused undue worry and stress.
4. It confirmed that its stage 1 response had focused on the next steps and had failed to acknowledge the difficulties the resident had experienced.
5. In response to a point raised by the resident, it appreciated that it would have been frustrating for him to have received communications in relation to broken heaters when in fact they were not broken.
6. It apologised that a number of emails had gone unanswered. At the time its repairs team was understaffed and could not respond to all contacts. It was recruiting to ensure this did not happen again.
7. Its contractor had inspected the resident’s property in October 2022. After the inspection it advised that the “radiators were the correct size and in fair condition”. It would conduct a further check of the radiators once the switch-on dates for the communal heating were confirmed (in winter 2024).
8. It believed the functionality of the radiators was not in dispute. It would only replace radiators when they were either leaking or not working. It apologised that this had not been explained to the resident earlier.
9. It advised that, as a disabled resident, he could contact the adult social care team to advise on his request. It apologised he had not been informed of this sooner.
10. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £200 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £50 for poor communication.
  2. £50 for its failure to manage the resident’s expectations.
  3. £100 for time and trouble.

Events post internal complaints procedure

After a no access visit on 15 February 2024, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 10 May 2024. It found that the radiators were operating as expected. The resident chased the landlord for an update on the inspection on 23August 2024. He was told his query would be forwarded to the customer solutions team which would investigate and reply directly. Having not heard from the landlord, the resident emailed its chief executive on 16 September 2024. He said wanted to make a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of the case. He said he did not receive a response to that complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told us he believes the landlord has failed in its duty to consider his request for a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act and has discriminated against him. Under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. It is not our role to establish whether a landlord has breached the Act. However, we can decide whether a landlord failed to take account of its duties under the Act. We can also assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about discrimination.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment

The Act protects individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. It requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations in doing so.
In the landlord’s response to our request for evidence in this case it confirmed that it did not have a reasonable adjustments or vulnerabilities policy, but that both were in development.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it will offer between £100 and £300 for the time and trouble associated with a failure, and between £100 and £1,000 for distress.
The resident first contacted the landlord about his request to upgrade his radiators on 29 September 2022. The landlord arranged for its contractor to visit in October 2022, which it referred to in its stage 2 response. In describing the inspection, the landlord said “[the contractor] visited your home in October 2022 and advised the council that the radiators were the correct size and in fair condition”. The resident disputes the inspection took place. He said he did not let the operative into the flat because they had said they had come due to issues with no hot water and heating. The landlord has not provided any records relating to this inspection. It is therefore unclear to us what information it has based its findings on.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place. The lack of records relating to the inspection in October 2022 therefore points to a record keeping failure by the landlord.
The resident said he refused the inspection because the contractor had attended for reasons that he believed were outside his request. His request was for the radiators to be upgraded. He did not say that they were not working, rather that they did not produce the heat he required because of his health condition. While we understand the resident’s frustration, it was appropriate for the landlord, as part of its investigation, to assess the current heating system. However, it would have been helpful if it had taken the time to properly understand the resident’s request and to inform the operative undertaking the visit. Had it done so, the inspection likely would have gone ahead and helped prevent the unnecessary delay that followed.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 21 November 2022. He informed it of his disabilities and chronic health condition and again requested an upgrade of the radiators in his property. In a positive and timely step, the landlord sent an internal email 2 days later, on 23 November 2022, requesting an assessment of the heating system. On 20 January 2023, it chased its contractor asking for an update as the inspection had not taken place. The contractor then attended on 24 January 2023 but was unable to gain access. A delay of 2 months to attempt to conduct the inspection was unreasonable. Further, the landlord has not provided any records indicating when and how it informed the resident or explained the purpose of the inspection, which would have been appropriate given the result of the previous visit. It has also not shown if it communicated with the resident during the 2-month delay or informed him of the reasons for the delay. This is unsatisfactory.
On 7 February 2023, the landlord contacted the resident about the missed appointment and asked for his contact number. He responded and asked what the purpose of the appointment was. There is no evidence that the landlord answered this query. This was a failure and a missed opportunity to engage with the resident and clarify the reasons for its investigation. In an internal email on 17 February 2023, the landlord stated that it would only replace the radiators if the heat loss calculations implied they were undersized. This indicates that it was still considering the heating system only, and failing to consider the specific and individual needs of the resident.
Having not received a response to his query, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 March 2023, in which he said he felt he was being discriminated against. He then wrote a further email on 13 March 2023. In the email he made a formal request for the landlord to upgrade his radiators as a reasonable adjustment. He again provided information surrounding his disability and the impact that insufficient heating had on his chronic health condition. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this email, indicating further communication failures. This likely caused the resident to feel frustrated and unheard.
The landlord is entitled to refuse a requested adjustment if it is not ‘reasonable’. However, before refusing, it has a duty to consider the request. The duty arises when there is a connection between the disability and the adjustment. The resident provided the landlord with a letter from his GP on 31 March 2022 which outlined his health condition and the impact of the cold. The letter detailed that “the cold weather can make it harder to breathe, triggers headaches, fatigue, pain, and reduces muscular flexibility.” The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response it had received the letter. However, it failed to acknowledge the fact that the resident had made a request for a reasonable adjustment in either of its complaint responses. This indicates that key information may not have been accounted for in its decision making.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would only replace the radiators if they were leaking or not working. This shows a continued misunderstanding of the resident’s request and its own responsibilities around reasonable adjustments. After being contacted by the resident, a member of staff from the landlord’s seasonal health intervention network sent an internal email. In the email they confirmed their understanding that previous tests and heat loss calculations had taken place, but said that the tests “don’t take into consideration the client’s particular health needs”. Upon receiving this advice, we would have expected the landlord to engage with the resident to discuss his health condition and to understand his health needs and related heating requirements. Unreasonably, it failed to do so.
In the same internal email chain on 6 February 2024, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to follow up the no access inspection on 24 January 2023. The delay and failure to follow up on the inspection, which it committed to in the stage 1 response, was unacceptable and caused significant delays in considering the resident’s request.
After these emails, the landlord committed to undertaking another inspection which it attempted on 15 February 2024. Again, as with the previous no access visit, the landlord has failed to provide any records to show how it notified the resident of the inspection, how much notice he was given, and whether it explained the purpose of the visit. This indicates further issues with the landlord’s communication and record keeping practices.
After further communication with the resident, the contractor arranged an inspection that took place on 10 May 2024. The instructions to the contractor were partially written in capital letters and read as follows: “PLEASE RECORD AND NOTE LOTS OF INFORMATION, PLEASE BE DETAILED. Please survey the property and provide a report on the condition of the radiators and valves. Please check heat loss calculations for each room recording operating temperatures and confirm within the report if the existing radiators are working properly and if they are correctly sized.”
Disappointingly, the operative’s inspection notes were brief and gave no indication that they had carried out the specific requests of the landlord. The notes stated: “Attended site gained access to flat checked over all rads where possible … temperature is more than sufficient no double panel rads required all rads working in order.” The operative apparently did not take any temperatures, conduct any heat loss calculations, or measure the size of the radiators. This was supported by the resident, who said that the operative had only “felt” the living room radiator and took photographs of the other radiators with his phone. The inspection unacceptably failed to accurately assess the heating system and did not deliver any of the critical information requested by the landlord. After receiving the report and noting the deficiencies, we would have expected it to raise the issues with the contractor and require a repeat inspection, but it failed to do so.
The landlord also did not communicate the results of the inspection to the resident, which was unfair in the circumstances. He contacted it on 23 August 2024 and asked when the results of the survey undertaken by the contractor would be passed to the landlord. His enquiry was acknowledged the same day. The landlord said it would pass his query to the customer solutions team which would “investigate further and get back to him”. This did not happen. The resident contacted the landlord again 3 months later, on 20 November 2024, to report that nobody had been in touch with him about the inspection. Again, the landlord did not respond to him. Given that it had acknowledged its previous communication failures in the complaint responses, these further failures were unacceptable. The inadequate communication caused ongoing frustration and inconvenience to the resident and led to a further deterioration in his trust in the landlord’s processes.
As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord to provide information on the resident’s vulnerabilities. It told us that it had no information on file. This response shows that the landlord had failed to sufficiently engage with the resident to gain an awareness of his specific situation and to understand the health needs underpinning his request. Without completing this important step, the landlord was unable to adequately consider the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment. It was not enough for it to measure the heating in terms of its suitability for the non-disabled person; it must consider whether it was sufficient for the resident in view of his individual circumstances. It could only acquire this understanding through discussions with the resident and reviewing his medical needs. If the landlord required specialist advice or guidance in responding to the resident’s request, such as an Occupational Therapy assessment, it should have identified this and sought input from relevant internal departments or third party agencies.
The resident first raised his request in September 2022. Unacceptably, 30 months later, he is still waiting for an adequate response from the landlord. Throughout the timeline of the complaint, the landlord has exhibited poor communication and demonstrated issues with its record keeping in relation to inspections and the resident’s vulnerabilities. Its contractor has failed to follow specific instructions and conducted a substandard inspection that was not addressed. Its lack of engagement was inappropriate given its legal obligations and the significance of the issue to the resident. Overall, the landlord has failed to evidence that it has adequately explored the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment, which has led to a finding of severe maladministration.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation. As a result of our investigation, we do not believe that the amount offered was sufficient. In line with the landlord’s policy, we have increased the compensation to £1,000, made up of £200 for time and trouble and £800 for distress. This amount includes the £200 offered in the stage 2 response. Our award is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there have been significant failures causing physical and/or emotional impact.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days and send a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will acknowledge escalation requests within 3 working days and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation.
We note that the resident said he initially complained to the landlord’s chief executive on 1 February 2023. In the absence of any documentary evidence relating to this, we have been unable to assess the landlord’s response. However, under the landlord’s policy, it should have treated any expression of dissatisfaction from the resident as a complaint and responded accordingly
The resident raised another complaint on 7 March 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or provide a response, which was a failure to comply with its own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’). This caused ongoing frustration and inconvenience for the resident and led to him contacting this Service to follow up with the landlord on his behalf.
The landlord later issued its stage 1 response on 30 May 2023, 6 working days after we had asked it to do so. This was within the 10-day response time in the landlord’s policy. In its response the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its initial failure to respond to the resident’s complaint. Further, the response did not address a number of the resident’s complaint points, including the landlord’s poor communication and his assertion that he was being discriminated against. This was an additional failure to comply with the Code, which requires landlords to address all complaint points put forward. In addition, the landlord did not apologise or offer any compensation for its failings.
In its subsequent stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the shortcomings of the stage 1 response and offered an apology. This was a positive step. However, it did not specifically acknowledge the resident reasonable adjustment request or provide an answer to the request. It made an offer of compensation but did not clarify whether this was for its complaint handling failures or the substantive element of the resident’s complaint. It also included reference to the inspection in 2023, which the resident disputes took place.
The discrimination element of the resident’s complaint was a serious allegation and warranted a proper response from the landlord. However, it is our opinion that it failed to answer or adequately respond to the resident’s claims of discrimination in both stages of the complaint. As explained earlier in the report, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination in relation to whether discrimination occurred. However, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss the resident’s relevant protected characteristic(s) directly with him and ask him to explain how he had been affected by its actions. It should have demonstrated that it conducted a thorough investigation into his concerns about discrimination (for example, by speaking to relevant members of staff and reviewing records) and clearly explained its decision making with reference to the level of available evidence. Its failure to fully do so could have been perceived by the resident to minimise or undermine what he no doubt felt were legitimate and serious concerns.
On 16 September 2024, the resident wrote to the chief executive’s office to raise a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of the radiator upgrade request. The available evidence indicates that he did not receive a response, which was unreasonable. The resident then contacted the landlord again on 4 November 2024. He said he had not heard back and asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord responded on 7 November 2024, saying it had already provided a response to the complaint (at stage 1) in April 2023. It confirmed it would ask the customer solutions team to contact him.
It is noted that the landlord had provided a stage 1 response on 23 April 2023. The resident did not escalate the complaint at that time. For this reason, that complaint response has not formed part of this investigation. The resident may choose to refer this complaint to the Ombudsman for separate investigation once it has completed the landlord’s complaints process. A recommendation has been made in relation to this.
However, the complaint the resident made on 16 September 2024 concerned the inspection that took place on 10 May 2024. He said:
1. He had had several negative experiences with the contractor. He believed it had been dishonest in the past about attending his property and performing work.
2. On 10 May 2024, the operative had told him that the radiators would be replaced. He felt this was dishonest, as a member of the landlord’s staff had informed him that the operative’s report indicated the radiators were fine.
3. He had been told that the inspection was “inadequate”, but had not received a formal response from the landlord on the outcome of the inspection.
The landlord’s complaints policy adopts the Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. The resident had expressed he was dissatisfied and had stated that he was making a complaint. However, his complaint was not registered or acknowledged, which was a failure to comply with the Code and the landlord’s policy.
Despite the landlord telling the resident, in its email on 7 November 2024, that the customer solutions team would contact him, it did not. He therefore sent another email on 20 November 2024 and said he was still awaiting contact. He informed this Service on 13 March 2025 that he still has not received a response. The landlord’s communication was therefore inappropriate. Even if it believed it had previously responded to the complaint, it should have contacted the resident to explain its reasoning and to understand his position. Additionally, the landlord failed to update him on the inspection that was central to its investigation and the resident’s request. Given the circumstances of the case, this was unreasonable, and led to further time, trouble and ongoing frustration for the resident.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling has been poor. It failed to register the resident’s initial complaint and had to be asked to do so by the Ombudsman. The complaint response issued did not satisfactorily address the points raised, acknowledge the complaint handling failures, or offer an apology or other form of redress. The landlord then failed to register a further complaint and did engage or communicate with the resident on the reasons why. Due to these failures, we have found maladministration in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s offer of compensation in its stage 2 response on 24 July 2023 did not clarify which parts of the award related to complaint handling and which related to the substantive element of the resident’s complaint. We have therefore made an additional award, in line with the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance, of £200. This is comprised of £100 for time and trouble and £100 for distress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from its chief executive to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £1,200 in compensation. This sum is inclusive of the £200 already offered. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.
  2. £200 for the distress, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Meet with the resident to obtain specific information related to his health conditions and disabilities and agree with him how this should be recorded on its systems. It must then update its records accordingly, and confirm to him that it has done so.
2. Discuss with the resident his reasonable adjustment request and his needs relating to heating because of his disability.
3. If necessary, seek input from the relevant Occupational Therapy service, adult social care, or other agencies as appropriate.
4. If necessary, inspect and assess the heating system in the resident’s property. During the inspection (if conducted) the operative must make and retain accurate records of their findings, any measurements, tests and test results. Following the inspection (if conducted) a detailed update must be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman. If an inspection is not considered necessary, an explanation must be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman.
5. Provide a written response to the resident’s reasonable adjustment request. The request must state the landlord’s decision with supporting reasons. A copy of the response must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits specified.

Recommendations

The landlord should allow the resident the opportunity to escalate the complaint it responded to on 23 April 2023 or make a new complaint in relation to any outstanding matters. Due to the circumstances of the case, it should not unreasonably refuse to accept a complaint or escalation request on the basis of the length of time that has passed.