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

London Borough of Islington (202324831)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324831

London Borough of Islington

8 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of pigeon guano on the communal area outside his back door.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property since 12 November 2012. The property is a ground floor studio flat within a block. The resident has told us that he has medical issues associated with long covid which means that he is housebound for most of the time.
  2. The landlord asked a contractor to provide a quote for pigeon spikes in June 2021. There is evidence that it chased another quotation for pigeon control in September 2021.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 January 2022 to discuss the ongoing issue with bird guano outside the back door of the property which led to the communal garden area. He said that it made the area outside the door impossible to use and that it was a health hazard. He said that the droppings would hit the floor and deflect onto his windows and back door. He said that the landlord did not clean the area and asked it to do so, and to find a resolution to the ongoing issue.
  4. The landlord responded on 10 February 2022. It said that it would clean the area and get a quote for pigeon netting. It said it would add this request to the list of funding requests for the estate.
  5. On 15 August 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord about the bird guano. He said that it had been looking into the problem for over a year and the caretaker had tried to clean it away but it was still an issue. He said he wanted the landlord to put up pigeon netting on the balconies above but it had said there was no funding for this.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 August 2022 and responded on 30 August 2022. It said that:
    1. Netting was the most effective way of repelling pigeons. However, it did not currently have budget available to install this.
    2. It would revisit the possibility of installing netting when it completed cyclical works at the property which were due to start in 2023.
    3. If any projects arose before the cyclical works started it could look to apply for funding for netting as part of this.
    4. The estate champion for his area was aware of his concerns and was able to assist with applying for funding if any suitable projects arose.
    5. Until it found a permanent solution the caretaker would continue to clear the guano once a week.
    6. It did not uphold his complaint.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 30 September 2022. He said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response because he was unable to use the space outside his door like the rest of his neighbours on the ground floor. He said that if he remained too long in the area the bird droppings would land on him.
  8. The landlord confirmed that it had received the resident’s request on 3 October 2022 and advised him that there would be a delay in providing a response. On 15 February 2023 it advised him that it would respond within 20 working days.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 27 February 2023. It said that:
    1. It apologised for the delay in responding to his stage 2 complaint.
    2. Following a telephone conversation with him on 24 February 2023 it had investigated what it could do. While it understood his frustration there was no budget for bird netting. It had therefore decided that the best route would be to do the work through the cyclical maintenance budget as netting the whole block would affect leaseholder’s service charge. The next cyclical programmed works for the block would now be in 2027-2028.
    3. It would review the cleaning of the area to see if it could be cleaned more frequently and thoroughly.
    4. It did not uphold the complaint but it offered £100 compensation for the delayed response to his stage 2 complaint and a further £100 for the time and trouble he had taken to clean the area himself.
  10. In July 2025 the resident told us that the landlord is not cleaning the affected area outside his back door regularly and effectively and the problem is ongoing. He said that the situation has made him want to sell the property.

Assessment and findings

Pigeons

  1. The property is on the ground floor and has a back door which leads directly onto a communal area. The pigeons are flying over this area to reach a balcony or roof above the property.
  2. The lease does not specify whose responsibility it would be to address a pest problem at the property and the landlord’s pest control specification does not include pigeons. The landlord would not be obliged under its repair obligations set out in the lease and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to install netting because this would be classed as an improvement and not a repair.
  3. The landlord does, however, have an obligation to remedy any category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Domestic hygiene, pests, and refuse is one of the defined hazards, and therefore, the landlord was obliged to consider whether the pigeons nesting and the consequent mess amounted to a hazard that it needed to remedy.
  4. This Service cannot decide whether a category 1 hazard or a statutory nuisance existed in this case. The landlord is a local authority which would have the responsibility to assess this under the HHSRS and Environmental Protection Act. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord requested an assessment by a suitably qualified member of staff.
  5. There is evidence that the resident reported the issue in 2021 because the landlord asked for a quotation for pigeon spikes. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord followed up on this, or that it informed the resident of the outcome of the enquiry and the reason for any decisions it made. This cost him time and trouble because he had to contact it again.
  6. The resident called and emailed the landlord in January 2022 and told it that he thought the pigeon mess was a health hazard. The landlord arranged for the area to be cleaned promptly which was an appropriate action to take. However, the resident told it that the problem was so bad that within a few days the guano was building up again. We have seen no evidence that the landlord assessed the severity of the issue. Had it done so and fed back the outcome to the resident it would not only be fulfilling its obligations, but the resident would have also felt reassured that it was taking the matter seriously. This failure caused the resident distress because he felt that the issue was a health hazard.
  7. In an email dated 10 February 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had requested a quote for netting. However, in an internal email the next day it said that it already had a quote for £8,000. The resident responded to the landlord on 13 February 2022 and 27 February 2022, but we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to these emails at all to let him know the outcome of its decision about the quote. This caused him further distress and cost him further time and trouble because he then raised a stage 1 complaint.
  8. The stage 1 complaint response said that the landlord would consider including pigeon netting for the whole block in cyclical work planned for 2023. However, by the time the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint it said that it had now changed this to 2027-2028. We have seen no evidence that the landlord communicated this change to the resident prior to this although it must have been aware of it. This communications failure meant that his expectations were raised for longer than necessary which caused him further distress.
  9. In an internal email dated 17 August 2022, the landlord confirmed that the resident was the only one out of 19 flats on the ground floor to complain about pigeon mess. The resident also confirmed that his was the only property with the issue and that all other residents on the ground floor could use the communal area outside their flats for seating. Therefore, it is apparent that the pigeon problem was originating from above his property. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated this to find the exact source of the problem.
  10. It is possible that another resident above was feeding the pigeons or that something else was attracting them. But the only option that the landlord communicated to the resident that it had considered was to fit netting to the whole block. Given the cost of this option and an uncertain need for netting of the entire block it is unclear why alternative more cost-effective measures were not considered. The landlord’s failure over several years to investigate any other possible solutions or explain to the resident why this was the only option it considered caused extended delays in finding a resolution and created further distress.
  11. The landlord’s caretaker services document states that estate services and caretakers are responsible for the daily maintenance and repair of the communal space in the landlord’s managed blocks. It says that caretakers will regularly complete cleaning tasks to keep blocks a safe and clean place to visit.
  12. The landlord has provided caretaker inspection reports for the block the resident lives in. These show that the caretaker should sweep all paths, roadways, and courtyards each week. The inspection reports all state that this is done but do not mention that any pigeon droppings have been cleared. The photographs provided to show the task is complete do not appear to include the area that the resident has highlighted because there is a different type of paving on this area to that in the photographs. The landlord’s failure to monitor ongoing cleaning of the pigeon droppings has caused the resident further distress, especially considering that he now spends most of his time at home and may be more susceptible to infection.
  13. Due to the landlord’s poor communication, failure to consider any alternative other than netting the whole block, and failure to ensure that it cleaned the area as promised there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of pigeon guano.
  14. Despite the landlord not upholding the complaint it offered £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident by his clearing up the pigeon guano. However, this was not proportionate to the distress, time, and trouble he experienced as a result of its failings. The issue was on-going for several years, remains unresolved, and due to the nature of the building the resident cannot resolve the issue himself. We have therefore ordered it to pay him £500 compensation to reflect this. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code in place at the time of the complaint (the Code) said that landlords must respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days of it being escalated.
  2. The landlord took 104 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint. This delay and failure to follow the Code meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused him distress and inconvenience. It also delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
  3. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience this caused. We consider this offer to be reasonable redress in the circumstances. We have recommended that the landlord pays this sum of compensation if it has not already done so. We also recommend that it reviews the complaint handling in this case to ensure that the learning gained from the paragraph 49 investigation completed in 2023 has been embedded.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pigeon guano outside his back door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its complaint handling failure.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay £600 compensation directly to the resident comprising:
    1. £500 for the distress, time, and trouble caused by its handling of his reports of pigeon guano.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his complaint.
    3. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200. Therefore £200 should be deducted from this amount if already paid.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must arrange an HHSRS inspection of the affected area. It must inform the resident of the outcome of this within 2 weeks and commit to taking any necessary action within a reasonable timeframe.
  4. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must investigate the properties and structure above the area of guano to find out where the pigeons are roosting. It should find out if there are any obvious reasons for this and obtain advice on any potential solutions. Within a further 2 weeks it must feedback the outcome of this to the resident in writing. This should include full explanations of any solutions with reasoning why it cannot carry out specific work if applicable.
  5. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a supervisor should meet with the resident on site to advise what cleaning will take place. The landlord must then ensure that it cleans the area effectively once a week as promised. It must post inspect the work after the first clean and monitor the cleaning for a further 4 weeks. The landlord must also give the resident a named contact of a supervisor that he can speak to directly if the cleaning is not completed as promised.
  6. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered for the distress caused by its handling of his complaint if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should review the complaint handling in this case to ensure that the learning gained from the paragraph 49 investigation completed in 2023 has been embedded.
  3. The resident has told us that the landlord has expressed an interest in buying back leasehold properties in the area. It should contact the resident to let him know if this is an option they can offer him.