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

London Borough of Islington (202323888)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323888

Islington Council

16 May 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 landlords handling of the resident’s requests for it to:
    1. Repair plaster in the hallway.
    2. Relocate the fuse box.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and the landlord is a council. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat, and the resident has lived there since 2021. The landlord told us the resident is registered disabled and suffers with anxiety.
  2. In March 2023 the resident reported that plaster in the hallway was crumbling. An operative attended on 11 April 2023 and it was later decided that a survey was needed, but this did not happen. The resident complained about this on 11 May 2023. She expressed concern that the wall was unstable and that dust from the damaged plaster was affecting her asthma. She also complained about the height of the fuse box in the hall and the cupboard it was housed in. She said it was a hazard and people had banged their heads on it.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 5 June 2023 said it had arranged for a diagnostic surveyor to assess the walls on 20 June 2022 (2023). It apologised for the delay in doing so. It signposted the resident to the targeted tenancy team to discuss adaptations to the fuse box.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 20 June 2023, saying the fuse box was old and there was a live water pipe running above it. She said there had been a lack of communication and the repairs team were dismissive.
  5. The landlord inspected the hall on 20 June 2023 and found the plaster needed replacing. Its stage 2 response of 5 September 2023 said the plaster would be repaired on 29 August 2023 (although this date had already passed) and the fuse box would be assessed on 7 September 2023. It apologised for delays completing repairs and poor communication, offering £150 compensation.
  6. The fuse box inspection on 7 September 2023 found it was in good working order. The electrical inspector did not comment on whether its height was hazardous or whether the water pipe posed a risk. While there is evidence the landlord was considering a joint survey visit on 10 October 2023, we have not seen evidence this went ahead.
  7. It was not until 13 May 2024 that all the issues were inspected. The inspection found the fuse box (and storage cupboard) was positioned at a hazardous height and should be moved. It was also recommended that plaster and pipework in the hallway should be replaced and the hallway should then be redecorated.
  8. The electric work was completed on 10 June 2024 and the plaster work and re-decorating was completed the following week. We do not know when the pipework was completed but the resident has told us she is satisfied with the remedial work. However, she remains unhappy with the time taken to complete the repairs. She said the issues were only resolved when she sought the help of her local councillor. She would like to be compensated for the delay and time and effort taken to resolve matters.

Assessment and findings

Repair of the Plaster

  1. The landlord has not provided records of the resident’s initial report of crumbling plaster in March 2023, or its attendance on 11 April 2023. However, its repair policy says it is responsible for the internal structure and it aims to complete any routine repairs (such as damaged plaster) within 20 working days. It goes on to say that it aims to complete diagnostic surveys within 10 working days (from when it is found that one is required).
  2. Given that a contractor attended on 11 April 2023, the resident should have expected any diagnostic survey to take place within 10 working days of this date. It was not until 20 June 2023 that this happened, 48 working days later. Although the landlord apologised that a surveyor had not assessed the wall in its stage 1 response, there is no evidence it considered awarding compensation for this. Its compensation policy says it can award payments of up to £300 for distress caused by the complaint issue. The unreasonable delay arranging to survey the plaster, and failure to consider whether redress was appropriate, amount to maladministration.
  3. The diagnostic surveyor who attended on 20 June 2023 reported the plaster on the right-hand side of the entrance hall had blown and needed to be renewed. However, records of the planned visit of 29 August 2023 are conflicting. One suggests it was a planned joint visit to inspect the plaster and electrics, and the stage 2 response says it was to replace the plaster. Either way, we have not seen evidence of what happened on this date and the plaster was not replaced.
  4. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged significant repair delays in its stage 2 response. This was seemingly in respect of the repairs to the plaster and the inspection of the fuse box, as it noted these issues remained outstanding. It said the plaster would be replaced on 29 August 2023, but this date had already passed when the response was issued.
  5. The landlord awarded a total of £150 compensation for various identified failings, but did not provide a breakdown of how this sum was calculated. For the purposes of this investigation, we have allocated £75 to the repair delays (with the remaining £75 attributed to poor communication). This award was not proportionate redress for the identified failings in the repairs process. It did not reflect the prolonged period that the resident lived with the wall in its poor condition. Further, she was still unaware of when the plaster would be fixed. These failures amount to maladministration.
  6. Although efforts were made to repair the plaster in October 2023, records show the resident declined the work at that time. This is understandable as she correctly believed the fuse box would need re-locating and this would result in further plaster work in the hall. It was, therefore, logical for her to ask for the plastering to be completed at the same time as the electrical repairs. The landlord should have co-ordinated the works to ensure this happened.
  7. It is positive that the remedial work was completed in June 2024 to a standard the resident was happy with. However, this was 15 months after she reported the wall was crumbling. An order is made to compensate the resident £300 for this (inclusive of any payment previously made for this issue). This is in line with our remedies guidance for instances when the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the full detriment to the resident.

 

 

Relocation of the fuse box

  1. The landlord did not take the resident’s concerns about the height of the fuse box seriously at stage 1 and signposted her to another department that dealt with adaptations. The resident was not asking for an adaptation due to her disability. She had asked for the fuse box to be moved, and reported injuries, due to its height. The landlord should have dealt with this in line with its repair policy and arranged for someone to attend within 20 working days. The resident was right to be concerned about this as it was later confirmed the location of the fuse box was unsuitable.
  2. The resident raised further issues about the condition and safety of the fuse box in her stage 2 complaint, but it was not until 7 September 2023 that an appointment was made to inspect it. This was 84 working days after it was first reported and significantly outside the 20-working day time limit. The landlord apologised for the repairs delays in its stage 2 response and awarded compensation for this. As stated above, we have attributed £75 of the landlord’s offer to this failure in service. Again, this was not sufficient redress for the identified failings. These failures amount to maladministration.
  3. While it is positive the inspection of 7 September 2023 found the fuse box to be in good working order, there is no record that the landlord inspected its height or location to the water pipe at that point. This did not happen until 13 May 2024, when it found the fuse box was at head height, which was a hazard and the pipework needed to be replaced.
  4. The delay in surveying the fuse box and pipework and completing the subsequent repairs was unreasonable. The repair records do not show whether the pipework posed a risk to the fuse box as the resident reported. However, there is no evidence the landlord addressed her concerns about this or provided any reassurance that the electrics were safe whilst the water pipe was running above it. It is understandable that the resident was worried, particularly as she suffers with anxiety. This could have been avoided if the landlord had dealt with the repairs in an acceptable time and in line with its repairs policy.
  5. The delay repairing the fuse box also impacted the repairs to the plaster. Again, this meant the resident was living with hazards for an unreasonable amount of time. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the relocation of the fuse box. An order is made for it to pay the resident £300 (inclusive of any payment previously made for this issue). This is because the landlord has not recognised the full extent of the delays or the impact of these on the resident. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance in such circumstances.

 

Landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint

  1. The landlord dealt with the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 20 working days, in line with its complaint policy. However, it did not address her concerns that crumbling plaster was affecting her health. It is beyond our remit to establish a direct link between the disrepair of the plaster and the resident’s health, but the landlord should have considered any vulnerabilities and disabilities when responding to this aspect of the complaint, in accordance with its complaint policy. There is no evidence it did and this was a service failure.
  2. Although the resident tried to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 20 June 2023, the landlord did not reply until 5 September 2023, 55 working days later. It should have replied within 20 working days and this was a service failure.
  3. It is positive that the landlord awarded compensation for its poor communication (as stated above, we have attributed £75 to this element). However, this did not reflect that there was no completion date scheduled for the repairs at the time of the stage 2 response. We would have expected the landlord to update the resident as to when repairs would be completed, but have seen no evidence of this. The resident told us she had to involve her local councillor to progress repairs. The failure to keep the resident updated alone would have presented a service failure. However, as it was an extension of the poor complaint handling already evidenced above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint overall.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can make an award of between £100 to £300 for the time and trouble taken to pursue a complaint. We therefore make an order for it to pay the resident £150 for the poor complaint handling (inclusive of any payment previously made for this issue). We consider this compensation more appropriate to reflect the level of time and inconvenience the resident experienced. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for when a resident has been adversely affected and the landlord’s offer is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Requests for it to repair plaster in the hallway.
    2. Requests for it to relocate the fuse box.
    3. Associated formal complaint.

 

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £750 compensation (inclusive of the £150 previously offered) as follows:
      1. £300 for its delay handling repairs to the plaster in the hallway.
      2. £300 for its delay in relocating the fuse box.
      3. £150 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.