London Borough of Islington (202422140)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422140

Islington Council

30 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling, including its monitoring and communication, tone regarding repair access arrangements and the level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette on an estate. The landlord has recorded that the resident has asthma.
The resident has reported leaks annually since at least 2017 and the landlord has done works each time. In 2021, she reported leaks again. The landlord’s contractor did some works and in early 2022, the landlord closed the repair after it did not get access for further works. In August 2022, the resident made a previous complaint, which the landlord responded to in September 2022 at stage 1 and received an email bounceback.
In April 2023, the resident made a new complaint after recently chasing and seeing the previous response for the first time. She raised dissatisfaction that the landlord did not attempt to re-send the previous response after the bounceback. She disputed aspects of the previous response and felt it unfairly blamed her for not providing access. She said that she and her daughter continued to be impacted by leaks.
The landlord raised repairs for the leaks and a damp inspection. In June 2023, the contractor completed some balcony door works after a May 2023 inspection, while the damp inspection outcome is unclear.
In October 2023, the resident chased a response to her complaint. She also said leaks had happened again. The landlord raised a further repair for the leaks and another damp inspection.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 6 November 2023.
1. It apologised that it forgot to post the previous response after a bounceback.
2. It detailed some historic and recent events and noted there were no leak reports after the balcony door works in June 2023.
3. It said the contractors had been asked to return to inspect and carry out relevant work after the October 2023 report. It had also scheduled another damp inspection due to the lack of information for the previous one.
4. It apologised for poor communication and complaint handling from April 2023. It explained that when she complained it had focused on resolving the leaks and progressing the works completed in June 2023.
5. It offered £2,916.48 compensation, which included for the delay repairing the leaks between 4 August 2021 and 30 November 2023.
The resident escalated the complaint. She was dissatisfied the landlord did not acknowledge leaks were ongoing since 2012. She was dissatisfied it did not acknowledge the impact on her and her daughter, including their health. She wanted to know its plan if leaks continued.
On 10 November 2023, the landlord and contractor inspected. The landlord and contractor recommended some external works and the landlord identified some internal works for when the external works were complete. The landlord and contractor then did a dye test on 13 December 2023, the contractor did some of the discussed external works on 28 December 2023, and the contractor quoted for the remaining external works on 11 January 2024.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 15 January 2024.
1. It apologised for the resident’s experience but said it had nothing to add to its stage 1 response as it felt this was comprehensive.
2. It noted there had been no leaks since works on 28 December 2023 and detailed how to report leaks if these happened again.
3. It said its stage 1 compensation award was miscalculated and should have been £2,716.48. It apologised for this and offered £2,758.14 as the leak repair took another month.
The resident later reported further leaks around March and June 2024, the balcony floor was resurfaced in November 2024, and some pointing to the balcony was done in March 2025.
The landlord recently says it called the resident in late April 2025 and she confirmed there were no leaks, damp or mould. It says there are no outstanding repairs in the property.
The resident recently says that her bedroom has not had any light for years and no internal works have been done to her bedrooms. When she brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she restated her dissatisfaction that the landlord’s response and compensation did not acknowledge leaks were ongoing since 2012, did not acknowledge the impact on her and her daughter’s health, and did not set out a plan if leaks continued.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident complains that leaks have happened since 2012. The Ombudsman has not considered events back to 2012, as we expect complaints to be made in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of when the issue complained about happened. In this case, the Ombudsman considers events from August 2021, given the timings of the resident’s complaints in August 2022 and April 2023. This also reflects from when the landlord considered the matters.
The resident also complains about the impact on her and her daughter’s health, and we understand how distressing these concerns are for her. She has been informed we cannot determine liability for the impact on health, but that we can assess the landlord’s service and any overall distress and inconvenience that has been caused. The resident has the option to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect further.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks

After the resident reported leaks in August 2021, the landlord’s contractor inspected in September 2021. The contractor noted there were still leaks to a bedroom and they suspected this was because balcony door thresholds had been screwed through. The contractor quoted for balcony door works in November 2021 but failed to get access on several occasions when it visited to do them. This led the landlord to close the repair in early 2022 and internally request for the resident to be told to re-raise the repair when able to provide access.
The resident then made a previous complaint in August 2022 and the landlord responded in September 2022. It said the repair was previously closed due to a lack of access from her neighbour to erect scaffold, and it had requested internal action to help obtain access from her neighbour.
The resident complained again in April 2023. The landlord’s contractor inspected in May 2023 and completed balcony door works in June 2023. The resident then reported further leaks in October 2023 and the landlord’s November stage 1 response acknowledged service issues and delays, awarded compensation, and arranged inspections.
The landlord’s surveyor and contractor inspected on 10 November 2023. The landlord’s surveyor and contractor recommended works to fill gaps by the balcony door and remove a row of balcony floor tiles and do resealing. The landlord’s surveyor also recommended a dye test after works and then some internal works. These were:
1. Right Bedroom:
  1. Fill crack to ceiling 3LM
  2. Stain block plasterboard ceiling where affected 2M2
2. Left Bedroom:
  1. Fill crack to ceiling 3LM
  2. Stain block plasterboard ceiling where affected
  3. Scrape back effloresce to ceiling where affected by rear wall and light fitting, skim coat and decorate in these areas 4M2
  4. Hack, bond, skim and decorate rear wall right side by window where affected and top window reveal where affected 3M2
The landlord and contractor did a dye test on 13 December 2023 which found small drops of water were coming through a bedroom ceiling which may be through sides of the balcony doorframe. On 28 December 2023, the contractor completed works to fill holes between cladding and the balcony door, and on 11 January 2024 they quoted to remove the balcony flooring and apply a liquid coat.
The landlord’s January 2024 stage 2 response upheld the stage 1 and advised the resident to report further leaks if she experienced them after the 28 December 2023 works. The evidence shows the quoted works were later done in November 2024 and some pointing was done in March 2025, after which the landlord says it has confirmed there are no current leaks, damp or mould.
The resident raised dissatisfaction that the compensation did not reflect the impact. She raised dissatisfaction that the previous September stage 1 response seemed to blame her for lack of access. She raised dissatisfaction that the landlord did not set out a satisfactory plan to resolve the issue and expected her to continually phone its repairs line. She raised dissatisfaction with subsequent events and said that she had to take additional time off work later in 2024, as she was told the last surveyor had left and there were no notes to refer to.
The landlord’s responses after the resident’s April 2023 complaint show it sought to address her concerns. It acknowledged there were service issues and delays repairing the leaks. This was reasonable as it is evident there were lengthy delays and issues such as missed visits and appointments arranged at short notice, which were inconvenient to the resident given she works. It took action to complete the June 2023 works and arrange inspections after further leaks reports. This was appropriate and shows it took reasonably timely action.
The landlord also sought to award appropriate compensation. An amount of £1,208.14 for delays between 4 August 2021 and 28 December 2023 reflects the £500 its policy says it may award per year of delay. An amount of £800 total for distress and inconvenience shows it appropriately sought to acknowledge the impact on the resident. It appropriately considered unusable room compensation and confirmed rooms were habitable at a visit. We cannot determine if a property is uninhabitable but the landlord showed it took reasonable steps to consider if it was. This offered reasonable remedy for many aspects, given the scope of our investigation set out at paragraphs 14 and 15. However, the landlord’s response was not entirely satisfactory.
The contractor identified the works to the balcony door by September 2021 and was trying to progress these when the repair was closed in early 2022 due to no access from the resident. These were the works eventually done in June 2023. The landlord saying in September 2022 that it needed access from a neighbour was inaccurate and any action it took for the repair then, such as contact the neighbour, therefore did little to progress matters. This was a missed opportunity to progress repairs and resolve matters 9 months earlier. The landlord acknowledged general delays but does not show it satisfactorily acknowledged specific potential learning from what happened, such as ensuring actions reflected the current status of issues.
The landlord’s 15 January 2024 stage 2 response said works on 28 December 2023 represented the repairs to stop the leaks. These related to the filling of gaps by the balcony door. This is not satisfactory, as further works were recommended at the November 2023 inspection. These were to remove a row of balcony floor tiles, do resealing, do a dye test after works, and then do internal works. The contractor later quoted on 11 January 2024 to remove the balcony flooring and apply a liquid coat. This shows an intention to do further works after the 28 December 2023 works. However, the evidence suggests there was a lack of sufficient oversight and communication for these that contributed to further poor handling and delays.
The application of a liquid coat to the balcony flooring was later done in November 2024, 12 months after this was recommended and the resident was told this would be done, and 10 months after the January 2024 quote. The landlord did not refer to this recommendation at all in its stage 2 response. It also does not subsequently show the recommendation was satisfactorily handled, to show that such a lengthy delay was reasonable. If the plan for these works changed, it also does not show it effectively communicated this to the resident, as she queried in March 2024 why works had not been done in line with what she was told.
The landlord’s November 2023 inspection recommended testing the effectiveness of works through dye tests. Given the resident’s reports of leaks since at least 2017, this would have been good practice and helped provide reassurance to both her and the landlord that leaks were resolved. Such testing is not evident after works such as the 28 December 2023 works.
The lack of evidence for a clear approach for the further recommendations is not satisfactory, particularly since the landlord’s surveyor made them as they believed the centre of the balcony had a defect causing water ingress to a bedroom light fitting. This was separate to defects near the doorframe. From this, while it is not clear the frequency and impact of any subsequent leaks were significant, the landlord unreasonably delayed in the works and does not show it did enough to avoid further leaks the resident experienced such as around March and June 2024.
The landlord’s surveyor also recommended to do internal bedroom works when dye tests had confirmed repairs had stopped the leaks. These are outlined at paragraph 19.a. of this report. This was appropriate, given the acknowledged repairs delays will have contributed to ceiling and wall damage observed in the November 2023 inspection. However, the landlord says there are no outstanding repairs. It is not satisfactory that the evidence and the resident’s account shows recommended internal works have been outstanding for 18 months.
Overall, while the landlord went a long way to remedy issues and delays and it is not evident that the property has been uninhabitable, its response about the leaks was not satisfactory. It did not show it acknowledged its missed opportunity to progress repairs in August 2022. It did not demonstrate it had a clear approach for the November 2023 recommendations to show its handling of these was reasonable. It took 12 months to do balcony works recommended in November 2023 and internal works also recommended then remain outstanding. This will have caused distress and frustration to the resident.
The above leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response about leaks. We order it to pay a further amount of compensation which considers our and the landlord’s remedies guidelines, the further delays, and the evidenced distress and inconvenience to the resident. We also order the landlord to take some action in relation to the outstanding repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling, including its monitoring and communication, tone regarding repair access arrangements and the level of compensation offered

The resident made a previous complaint in August 2022, which the landlord responded to in September 2022, but failed to re-send when it received an email bounce back. There were then delays from April 2023, when the resident complained again, to November 2023, when it eventually provided a stage 1 response. This was after the resident had chased multiple times and a delay of 7 months, which is not satisfactory. This will have caused time and trouble and distress and inconvenience to the resident and undermined her confidence in the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was therefore appropriate to acknowledge the poor communication and delays in its complaint handling. It was also appropriate to award compensation, which totalled £650 for time and effort, not re-sending the 2022 response, and the delays.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s tone and felt it blamed her for delays. The landlord’s November 2023 stage 1 shows it acknowledged this and sought to explain how previous reports of no access reflected its records, which seems accurate. In the complaint timeframe, there were some issues with visits, but it is not evident these caused significant delay, and the resident was given the opportunity to rearrange them.
The landlord’s response and compensation for delays and distress and inconvenience overall reasonably addressed this aspect. It also generally shows it appropriately sought to acknowledge and put right the complaint, through practical action and compensation in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. However, the landlord’s complaint handling was not entirely satisfactory.
The landlord’s previous September 2022 stage 1 response was inaccurate to say access issues with a neighbour had delayed the repair. It did not reflect the current status of the repair that works near the balcony door were needed, which only required access from the resident. This is not appropriate given this was in the context of a complaint. The landlord does not show it acknowledged learning to ensure its responses are accurate and reflect the current status of issues.
The landlord’s November 2023 stage 1 was provided with a lengthy delay, which it explained was because it had focused on resolving the repairs. The landlord did not respond in line with its complaint procedure and unreasonably delayed a response for repairs to be completed, particularly if this is not agreed with a complainant. The landlord does not show it acknowledged any learning to ensure it responded in a timelier manner going forward.
The landlord’s January 2024 stage 2 response should also have shown it considered the other November 2023 recommendations, established their status, and communicated the position on them clearly to the resident. This would have been appropriate given the recommendations, the resident’s concerns about the impact of the issues and how long they had gone on for, and her request for an action plan.
The stage 2 response’s advice to report further leaks if they happened also does not come across as entirely reasonable, given the November 2023 inspection recommended proactive action and not just reactive action. It should show it advised this after it had established that the recommended dye tests were completed.
Overall, while the landlord went a long way to remedy issues with its complaint handling, this was not satisfactory. Its 2022 stage 1 response was inaccurate. It did not satisfactorily acknowledge appropriate learning. Its January 2024 stage 2 response lacked sufficient detail and reassurance given the circumstances and the resident’s concerns. This will have understandably further undermined her confidence and led her to feel isolated and unsupported as she says.
This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We order it to pay a further amount of compensation in line with our remedies guidelines to recognise the further distress that the resident will have been caused by its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, including its monitoring and communication, tone regarding repair access arrangements and the level of compensation offered.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks, apologise to the resident for the issues identified with its handling.
The landlord must, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £750 in recognition of the further delays and distress and inconvenience caused to her by its handling. This comprises £600 for the leaks, and £150 for the complaint handling. This is in addition to the £2,758.14 the landlord originally offered, which it should pay if it has not already.
The landlord must, within 4 weeks, contact the resident to make an appointment to progress the internal works identified in November 2023:
1. Right Bedroom:
  1. Fill crack to ceiling 3LM
  2. Stain block plasterboard ceiling where affected 2M2
2. Left Bedroom:
  1. Fill crack to ceiling 3LM
  2. Stain block plasterboard ceiling where affected
  3. Scrape back effloresce to ceiling where affected by rear wall and light fitting, skim coat and decorate in these areas 4M2
  4. Hack, bond, skim and decorate rear wall right side by window where affected and top window reveal where affected 3M2
The landlord must, within 4 weeks, contact the resident to make an appointment to progress repairs to restore the lighting to her bedroom.
The landlord must provided evidence of compliance with the above orders no later than 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review how it effectively manages and monitors similar recurrent leak repairs. As part of this, it is recommended to review whether its current processes allow sufficient centralised oversight of surveyor recommendations for similar repairs, to ensure that these are recorded and progressed in a timely manner.
The landlord is recommended to review its complaint handling and:
1. ensure that it responds to and escalates complaints in accordance with its complaint procedure and our Complaint Handling Code.
2. ensure that it sufficiently considers and addresses recent repairs and recommendations in all its responses.