London Borough of Islington (202338740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338740

Islington Council

13 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s concerns about insurance claims.
2. the resident’s concerns about a service charge increase.
3. the resident’s reports of a leak affecting the property and subsequent internal damage.
This Service has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder, and the landlord is the freeholder of the 2- bedroom flat which is on the second floor. The resident has held the lease since 31 January 2000. The resident does not reside at the property but sublets. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord has not reported any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord said the resident reported a leak from the roof affecting her property internally on or around 23 February 2022. The landlord’s records show it completed repair works to the roof on 21 June 2022.
The resident reported a leak affecting the living room ceiling of the property on 1 November 2022.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 12 January 2023. She said:
1. there was damp inside the property which came back every time it rained.
2. the problem was recurring. She said the landlord had previously cleared the drains but not resolved the issue, despite her raising a complaint. She believed it was a structural problem.
3. she was losing tenants and had to pay for plastering and decorating multiple times.
4. she was unhappy with the council’s building insurance which she said would not pay out as they said the landlord had not fixed the problem.
5. her service charge had increased by £110 per month.
6. she had sent the landlord an independent damp report and wanted a surveyor to investigate.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 16 January 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response on 26 January 2023, it:
1. acknowledged a delay in the follow up appointment on 9 May 2022, after the resident reported a leak on 23 February 2022. It confirmed it had completed the works.
2. confirmed it had erected scaffolding after the resident reported a leak on 1 November 2022. It said it had asked the repairs team to contact the resident to arrange follow up works.
3. upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged a service failure for the delay in carrying out repairs outside its timeframes. It apologised for the inconvenience.
4. explained the resident’s stage 2 escalation rights. It said the resident should request this within 1 month.
A diagnostic surveyor attended the property on 21 February 2023. He confirmed previous temporary repairs were defective and there were multiple actions needed to complete the repairs.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint by email on 3 March 2023. She said:
1. someone recently visited the property, but the landlord had not told her who attended or the outcome of the visit.
2. her tenants were seeking compensation, and she was worried about her rental income.
3. she had to spend thousands of pounds on redecorating and plastering.
4. the insurance did not cover the landlord’s failures in fixing the leaks.
5. she wanted to know who to speak to as she was worried about hers and her family’s future welfare.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 3 May 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response on 2 June 2023, it:
1. apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and offered £25 for this.
2. confirmed it previously upheld and offered compensation for a complaint from the resident on 1 April 2021 and completed related works on 29 April 2021.
3. said a diagnostic surveyor had inspected the property and roof and outlined the outcome of the inspection. It apologised that it had not updated the resident following the inspection.
4. confirmed it completed works on 24 April 2023 and these passed the post inspection.
5. said it did not carry out remedial works in leaseholder homes.
6. said the resident needed to pursue her claim with the insurer. It said insurance problems were outside the remit of the complaint process.
7. noted the costs the resident had incurred and confirmed it had shared the repair and complaint history with its insurance manager.
8. offered compensation of £25 for its delayed stage 2 complaint response, £958 for the length of time taken to complete works, £300 for time and effort, and £300 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident contacted us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The resident told us that the landlord has completed effective repairs to outstanding leaks. The resident has requested increased compensation including compensation for loss of income and decorating expenses.

Jurisdiction

Insurance claims

The resident raised concerns about related insurance claims at both stages of her complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that insurance issues were outside the remit of its complaints process. The resident told us she had made various successful insurance claims but was unhappy about a delay in one of the claims.
Paragraph 42. j. of the Scheme states: “42. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: j. fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the acts or omissions by the landlord in its management of social housing. The Financial Ombudsman Service is better placed to deal with disputes about insurance claims. We therefore find that this element of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction. However, the resident may wish to seek advice from the Financial Ombudsman about this part of her complaint.

Service charge increase

The resident raised concerns about the increase in her service charge at both stages of her complaint.
Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states: “42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: d. concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.
We therefore find that this element of the resident’s complaint is outside our jurisdiction. However, the resident may wish to seek advice from the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) about this part of her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note that there is a history of the resident reporting leaks and damp since 2020. The landlord addressed the resident’s previous reports of leaks and damp in a stage 1 complaint response of 1 April 2021. The landlord provided escalation information in this letter. There is no evidence that the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure, or to this Service.
We may not consider complaints which a resident brings to us before exhausting a landlord’s complaint procedure, or complaints which the resident did not bring to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within 12 months. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and subsequent internal damage from 23 February 2022 onwards.
We note that the resident reported a repair on 15 May 2023, after the landlord completed repair works on 24 April 2023. This repair was not addressed in the landlord’s complaint’s procedure. We also note that the resident reported further repairs after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 2 June 2023.
In the interest of fairness, this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before we are involved. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress these as a new formal complaint if required.
The resident told the landlord she had lost rental income because of the internal damage. The resident said she wanted compensation for this. The Ombudsman is unable to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these. However, we have assessed whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s compensation request in line with its policy and procedure and followed good practice when reaching its decisions. The resident may wish to obtain independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue damages for losses, such as loss of income.

Leak and internal damage

The lease states it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair, clean, and keep in good repair and condition the structure of the building, roofs, gutters, rainwater and soil pipes, drain channels, water courses, and the exterior and interior walls which the resident is not liable for.
The lease states it is the resident’s responsibility to repair, maintain, cleanse, and keep in good repair the internal non-structural walls, and the plaster or material on ceilings, walls, and interior faces of external or dividing walls.
The landlord’s housing repairs guide states:
1. if the same maintenance problem reoccurs within 12 months, it will treat this as a recall, which should be completed within 5 working days.
2. it should complete routine non urgent repairs within 20 working days. Some jobs will need an inspection first.
3. it will advise residents when a survey is needed and will complete surveys within 10 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs outlines good practice. Landlords should agree actions and timescales for responding in line with their policies and obligations and confirm these in writing. Landlords should inform residents of any delays and explain why these are necessary.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould sets out good practice. The report recommends landlords clearly communicate diagnoses and share information to make sure the resident understands the next steps. It recommends landlords explain why, if works cannot be completed at an initial appointment and set a clear timetable of works.
When the resident reported a leak affecting her internal walls on 23 February 2022, she told the landlord it was a recurring repair. The landlord categorised the repair as a 20-dayroutine repair. Given that the resident said the issue was a recurring repair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether the repair fell within its recall repair timescales.
The landlord reported it was unable to access the property on 1 March 2022. We do not have enough evidence to assess why this appointment did not happen. Following this missed appointment, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged another appointment in line with the timescales set out in its repairs guide. There is no evidence that it booked another appointment to inspect the roof until 9 May 2022. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether any interim action was required, such as temporary repairs, to mitigate the effects of the leak in the meantime. Given the resident had informed the landlord that there was a leak affecting the internal walls, this was unreasonable.
The landlord said it identified it needed scaffolding on 9 May 2022, raised scaffolding works on 24 May 2022 and erected scaffolding on 6 June 2022. The landlord’s repairs guide does not give timescales as to how long intermediate works such as scaffolding should take. The evidence shows the landlord completed repairs to the roof on 21 June 2022, 81 working days after the resident reported the repair. This was outside the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs guide. This was not appropriate.
There is no evidence of the reason for the delays, or that the landlord kept the resident updated during this period. Even with the need for scaffolding, the delays and lack of updates to the resident were not reasonable or in line with the landlord’s repairs guide. This was not appropriate.
The resident reported a leak affecting the living room ceiling of the property on 1 November 2022. The landlord categorised this as a routine 20-day repair. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed if this fell within its recall repair timescales because of the repair completed on 21 June 2022.
The landlord reported that it needed scaffolding on 15 November 2022. It raised a scaffolding works order on 10 December 2022. It erected scaffolding on 19 January 2023, 65 days after the resident reported a leak. The landlord raised works for a surveyor inspection on 13 February 2023, 25 days after it erected scaffolding. There is no evidence of the reason for the delays in raising and completing works, or that it communicated this to the resident. This was not reasonable or in line with the landlord’s repairs guide.
A diagnostic surveyor carried out an inspection on 21 February 2023. We do not have any evidence that the landlord updated the resident about this inspection until its stage 2 response, which was not reasonable. The survey highlighted that:
1. various defective roof repairs caused leaks into the resident’s living room, where there was damp and water stains.
2. defective flash band meant works were needed to make sure it was watertight.
3. fibreglass allowed water to enter and needed to be removed and renewed.
4. the guttering needed clearing.
5. there was some defective pointing and broken brick which may have required works.
The evidence shows the landlord completed repairs on 24 April 2023, 43 working days after the surveyor’s inspection. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs guide and was not appropriate. It would have been helpful for the landlord to keep the resident updated, including informing her of any delays, the reason for these, and when it had completed the works.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states:
1. when the landlord upholds a complaint, it should rectify any problems which occurred due to mistakes or negligence. The aim is to return the complainant to the situation they would have been in had the problem not occurred.
2. often a direct form of compensation such as redecorating a room that has been damaged when the landlord has failed to repair a leak in a neighbouring property is more appropriate than a financial payment.
The landlord’s complaints policy excludes:
1. claims for damages or compensation. It says these should be dealt with as an insurance claim.
2. situations when an alternative remedy is more appropriate. It says the landlord should advise customers of this.
The landlord acknowledged there were delays in the length of time taken for it to repair leaks between May 2021 and April 2023. The resident told the landlord that she had to pay for plastering and redecorating when she reported the repairs, and at both stages of her complaint. The landlord told the resident it did not carry out remedial works in leaseholder homes in stage 2 of its complaint’s response. The landlord’s compensation guidance does not exclude such remedial action and suggests that redecorating a room when it has failed to repair a leak may be appropriate.
Internal repairs including plastering and redecorating are the resident’s responsibility under the lease. It is in line with the landlord’s complaints policy that claims for damages or compensation may be dealt with as an insurance claim or through another remedy. However, when the landlord upheld its complaint, it would have been reasonable and in line with its policies for it to:
1. consider if any problems had occurred due to its failings and if so, identify how to return the resident to the situation she would have been in, had the problem not occurred.
2. consider whether a financial or a direct form of compensation was appropriate for plastering and redecorating and explain its reasoning to the resident, with reference to its relevant policies.
3. consider whether an award of compensation for loss of rental income was appropriate and explain its reasoning to the resident with reference to its relevant policies.
4. inform the resident if it thought an alternative remedy was more appropriate.
In summary, there were failures of service by the landlord as it:
1. did not comply with its repairs guide.
2. unreasonably delayed in raising and completing works and did not consider interim measures.
3. did not communicate updates, delays, or the reasons for them to the resident.
4. did not consider the reported impact of the internal damage when deciding on compensation or explain its reasoning with reference to its policies.
The landlord’s compensation guidance suggests compensation of:
1. £100 to £300 for time and effort.
2. £100 to £300 for distress (up to £1000 if prolonged)
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged a delay in the follow up appointment after 1 March 2022. It acknowledged a delay in carrying out repairs within its timeframes and apologised for the inconvenience. It did not offer any compensation or show learning from the complaint.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord addressed its lack of communication following the surveyor’s inspection on 21 February 2023. It offered £958 compensation for the time taken to complete works between May 2021 and April 2023. It offered £300 for time and effort and £300 for stress and inconvenience.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for some delays and lack of communication. Its offer of compensation showed an attempt to put things right. However, it failed to address all the failures identified in this investigation. It did not acknowledge its failure to consider or refer to its relevant policies. It did not acknowledge or apologise for all the delays, explain the reasons for them or show that it had learnt from them. It also failed to show clear learning from its lack of communication with the resident. After identifying failures at stage 1, the landlord did not keep the resident informed or set a clear timetable of works.
In line with our remedies’ guidance, the total compensation offered was proportionate. However, we cannot find reasonable redress. This is because the landlord did not acknowledge multiple failures in its complaint responses. And because it did not show learning from outcomes, in line with our dispute resolution principles.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and internal damage. We have ordered the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified and to set out its learning from the complaint. The landlord should reoffer the compensation of £1,558, if this has not already been paid.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint stated:
1. it would only accept stage 2 escalations after it completed all the issues raised at stage 1, including completion of any outstanding work.
2. once it accepted the stage 2 escalation, it would acknowledge it within 3 days and respond within 20 working days excluding bank holidays.
The Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) stated:
1. landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay.
2. stage 2 complaint responses must be issued within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy was not in line with the Code. This was because:
1. it did not accept complaints to stage 2 until it had completed outstanding works.
2. its deadline to respond to stage 2 complaints ran from the date it accepted the complaint to stage 2, not the date it received an escalation request.
This caused unreasonable delay and obstructed access to the landlord’s complaints procedure and this Service.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 3 March 2024. She chased the complaint in an email to the landlord on 28 April 2023. The landlord accepted the complaint to stage 2 on 3 May 2023, once it had completed outstanding works. It sent a response on 6 June 2023, 63 working days after the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This was not in line with the Code. This was a failure of service and was likely to cause distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that responses should address all the complainant’s concerns. The policy excludes:
1. appeals to tribunals such as service charges.
2. claims for damages or compensation which should be dealt with as an insurance claim.
3. situations when an alternative remedy is more appropriate.
The resident raised concerns about loss of tenants and/or rental income. The landlord did not specifically acknowledge the resident’s concerns about loss of income in its complaint responses. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address all elements of the complaint, including whether any issues were excluded, and explain the reasons for its decisions in line with its policies. That it did not, was not in line with its policy.
In summary, there were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s escalation request. The landlord did not address all elements of the complaint or explain if they were excluded. This would have caused the resident uncertainty while she waited for a resolution to her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged its delay in issuing a stage 2 response and tried to put things right by offering the resident £25 compensation. We note that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy in line with the current Complaint Handling Code. However, we find that the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified and their impact on the resident. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
In line with our remedies’ guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This includes the £25 already offered, which can be deducted from the total amount if this has already been paid.
As the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about loss of rental income in its complaint procedure, we have also made an order for it write to the resident to set out its position about her concerns of loss of rental income, with reference to its relevant policies.

Determination

In line with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about insurance claims is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In line with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a service charge increase is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting the property and subsequent internal damage.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident a total of £1,683 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,558 offered in the landlord’s stage 2 response for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs.
  2. £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  3. the landlord may deduct the £1,583 it offered at stage 2 if it has already paid this.
3. set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
4. write to the resident to set out its position about her concerns of loss of rental income, with reference to its relevant policies.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of the date of the date of this report.