Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202424686)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424686

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited

25 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord which is a housing association. The lease commenced on 11 September 2015. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 8 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report a leak. It replied on 18 August to say it would attend and carry out necessary repairs. During December the landlord concluded that the leak was likely to be caused by the way the balconies were constructed. In January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that works to the roof needed to be carried out before works to the balconies.
On 13 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to raise a formal complaint about the delays.
On 5 May 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response, the main points being:
1. It should have addressed the leak sooner and there were failures in its communication.
2. It apologised and offered the resident £500 compensation which it said was the maximum it could offer.
3. It had said it would need to carry out works to the roof before addressing the balconies. However, it had since concluded that the balcony drainage system was being blocked causing water to “seep” into the property. It had adjusted its response accordingly.
4. It was committed to carrying out works to the roof and balcony “as soon as possible” along with redecoration works to the property.
5. It intended to use the complaint to improve its internal communication so that similar issues were dealt with “urgently.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 May 2023 to set out her dissatisfaction with its response. The landlord replied on 17 May to advise that the complaint would be closed but that it would track its commitments.
The resident was part of a stage 1 group complaint made to the landlord on 3 July 2023. The residents were concerned about ongoing water ingress which was causing internal damage. They acknowledged the landlord was reviewing the issue but asked for improved communication including provision of an action plan.
On 3 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 group complaint response. It said it had arranged for “extensive works” to be carried out which would commence on 7 August and be completed within 12 weeks.
The resident was part of a group email to the landlord dated 18 August 2023 in which they asked to escalate their complaint. They sought clarification on whether works taken place to date were temporary or a final resolution. They also requested confirmation that the landlord would rectify internal damage at its own cost.
The landlord provided its stage 2 group complaint response on 26 September 2023, the main points being:
1. It identified the need for improved communication and as part of its learning had appointed a Resident Liaison Officer (RLO). The RLO would provide residents with monthly updates.
2. Investigations revealed the roof was the primary cause of the leaks and therefore it had decided to completely replace it. Once completed it would assess any communal areas that may have been affected by leaks and “promptly” carry out any necessary remedial works.
3. For individual dwellings owned or leased by residents any related damage should be claimed under their personal contents insurance.
4. Works were expected to be completed by the middle of November. The RLO would inform residents about any changes to the schedule.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 13 December 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it could not escalate her complaint because it had already provided her with a stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed she had exhausted its complaints process and signposted the resident to us.
The resident submitted an online form to us on 25 September 2024. She said works had not been completed as set out in the landlord’s response.
During a telephone call with us on 18 February 2025 the resident confirmed she was making her complaint to us as an individual, not as part of a group.
In her email to us on 18 June 2025 the resident stated that the leak caused “significant” damage to her property which had yet to be resolved. The balcony was rotting and the internal walls deteriorating. In a further email dated 25 June she said she was not currently living at the property and that due to its condition she was unable to sell it or rent it out.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

The evidence shows that the resident began reporting leaks as early as 2017. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from August 2022 onwards that were considered during its complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that it has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her property.

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy (repairs policy) acknowledges its responsibility to maintain the structure of the building and communal areas for leasehold properties. It says it will complete emergency repairs within 4 hours and all non -emergency repairs within an average of 28 days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 August 2022 to report a “very bad leak” on the third floor which was spreading. She did not receive a response so she emailed again on 18 August to chase. The landlord replied that day to say it would attend and arrange necessary repairs. It failed to adhere to its repairs policy to attend to emergencies within 4 hours. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it attended after the resident chased on 18 August.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 10 November 2022 to report that the leak was “dripping constantly.” She was concerned it would spread to the internal walls and said “I desperately need help with this.” The landlord failed to respond causing the resident distress and inconvenience because she emailed on 12 and 15 November to chase.
The resident’s email to the landlord of 17 November 2022 stated that its contractor had attended and advised that a dye test needed to be carried out. She asked that this be approved “urgently.” She said she felt she had been “led on” and had “serious” concerns about its approach. By now 3 months had passed since she first reported the leak therefore, her concerns were reasonable. The landlord replied the same day to confirm that it had raised a works order for its contractor to investigate the issue. They would contact the resident that day to make an appointment.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 20 November 2022 to report that recent heavy rain had caused further leaks. It replied the following day to say its contractor would attend to investigate. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 November to say she had not been contacted. By this point 5 days had passed since the landlord said it would attend to investigate. The delay was unreasonable because it did not comply with its obligations set out in its repairs policy. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who repeatedly chased to try to resolve the issue.
In the resident’s email to the landlord on 6 December 2022 she confirmed its contractor had attended that day. They had concluded that the likely cause was the construction of the balconies. She asked that it approve the report on the issue because she “desperately” needed works to begin.
On 16 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it would carry out works to the balcony above when her neighbour returned from holiday in the new year. On 18 December the resident emailed the landlord to request dates of when works would be carried out. She emailed again on 3 January 2023 to say that no one had contacted her neighbour regarding works and requested an urgent response. However, there is no evidence that it responded. This was inappropriate because it compounded the resident’s ongoing uncertainty and distress.
In her email to the landlord dated 25 January 2023 the resident said it had recently advised her that the delay was due to roof works needing to be carried out before works to the balconies could take place. She said it had known this for “some time” but no one had updated her. She asked if it would be responsible for the further damage to the property caused by the ongoing delay.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded. The landlord’s ongoing lack of communication to the resident was inappropriate. It undermined the landlord/resident relationship and exacerbated the distress caused to the resident.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident. It said it was unable to say if any repairs were booked but it would follow up and update the resident. While it was positive that it apologised for the delay it failed to explain the reason and failed to acknowledge the impact on the resident which was inappropriate.
The landlord emailed the resident again on 3 March 2023 to say it could not provide an update because it did not have a copy of the report. The resident’s distress was evident in her reply dated 5 March when she said the survey was done about a month ago and asked why the landlord had not chased it. She added that she was “deeply dissatisfied” with its response. The landlord failed to provide a response compounding the resident’s distress. Furthermore, she was caused further time and trouble when she emailed the landlord to chase on 26 March, 1 and 13 April 2023.
An internal email dated 13 April 2023 stated that the landlord had spoken to the resident that morning to explain works would commence on 21 April 2023. These were to investigate and rectify the rainwater system and balcony areas along the top of the building. While the update was positive it came 8 months after the resident reported the leak and 4 months after it identified the need to carry out works to the roof. Therefore its response was unreasonably delayed.
On 2 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to query why scaffolding had been erected on a different block. The landlord provided an appropriate explanation. However, this was a further example of its failure to communicate with the resident to keep her fully updated of progress.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 5 May 2023 confirmed it was “confident” it had found the source of the problem and had an action plan. It provided an appropriate explanation as to why it had to change its approach to works and apologised for any “confusion.” While this was positive, there is no evidence that it had explained this to the resident prior to its formal response. This was a further example of ineffective communication. It appropriately reflected on its response and identified its general failures. It offered compensation to try to put things right.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 15 May 2023 she said the internal woodwork of the balcony frame was rotting and required replacing by the landlord. She asked it to confirm that it would cover the cost of replacing the balcony window and door. The landlord replied on 17 May and confirmed that it would pay for all works relating to the leak including window frames and other rotten or “ruined materials.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 May, 7, 13 June 2023 to request an update on the action plan for works including a timeframe. On 16 June the landlord emailed the resident, attaching photos and details of works already carried out. It said it was satisfied this would resolve the problem. We have not seen this evidence therefore it’s unclear what works it was referring to which is a record keeping failure.
It said it was unable to provide an update for the tender process for roof works because this was a “legal process.” While it is accepted that it could not give a definite date it would have been reasonable for it to have given an estimated timeframe. That it did not do so was a failure which caused ongoing distress and uncertainty for the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 group complaint response dated 3 August 2023 confirmed that works to the roof would commence on 7 August and would take 12 weeks. It attached a copy of the condition and specification report for the roof which has not been provided to us. This is a further record keeping failure.
While it was positive that the landlord took steps to progress works it was 12 months after the resident first reported the leak. Furthermore, it was only the first step to addressing the leak and associated damage which would not take place until the works were completed in another 3 months’ time.
The landlord’s stage 2 group complaint response dated 26 September 2023 signposted the resident to make a claim on her contents insurance for any “related damage.” Given its previous assurance set out above that it would cover the cost of any damage this was inappropriate and contradictory.
The resident was concerned that the landlord’s delayed response had caused damage to her property. Therefore, if its position had changed it would have been appropriate for it to have signposted her to make a claim on its liability insurance in the alternative.
As part of our investigation we have asked the landlord to provide detailed repair logs including copies of any reports or surveys. We have also asked it to provide an update on the current situation. However, it has not responded to our requests which has hampered our investigation into the complaint.
We would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. 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 or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
It took the landlord 8 months to start works in relation to the leak. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident and failed to meaningfully acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. At the time of its stage 2 group complaint response rectification works remained outstanding. It failed to use the complaint to resolve the substantive issue. The resident has advised that almost 3 years later works remain outstanding. She said this is preventing her from selling or renting the property. The landlord has not provided any evidence to the contrary.
The landlord’s failures amount to severe maladministration because there were a series of significant failures in service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. Its response to the failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
During its complaints process the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation. This is not considered proportionate to the findings identified in this report. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1300 for distress and inconvenience caused during the period August 2022 to September 2023. The landlord may deduct the £500 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy says that it will:
1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of receipt and will issue its decision within 10 working days of its acknowledgement.
2. If a resident remains dissatisfied it will continue to work with them to resolve their complaint. Where this is not possible the resident may request to escalate their complaint to stage 2. The policy sets out the circumstances in which it will not escalate a complaint.
3. It will issue its stage 2 complaint response within 20 days of the resident’s request to escalate their complaint.
The resident made a complaint on 13 January 2023 which was appropriately acknowledged by the landlord on 16 January. It said it would call the resident within 4 working days to discuss the complaint however it failed to do so. This caused time and trouble to the resident who emailed the landlord on 20 and 24 January to chase.
The landlord’s inaction continued causing the resident distress and further inconvenience when she emailed the landlord on 1 April 2023 to request a copy of its complaints procedure. The landlord replied on 3 April to say it would email to set out next steps “shortly.”
On 25 April 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the “lack of contact.” On 2 May 2023 it updated the resident that it was drafting the response. While it was positive that it provided an update by now it was over 4 months since the resident made her complaint. The landlord did not provide an explanation for the delay and failed to tell her when she could expect a response which was inappropriate.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 5 May 2023 which was 78 working days after the complaint was received. This was 68 working days over its target response time which was inappropriate.
The landlord offered what it said was the maximum amount of compensation it could consider. It has not responded to our request to provide a copy of its compensation guidance in place at the time of the complaint. Consequently it has not been possible to make a determination on this point.
While it appropriately identified some learning from the complaint it failed to set out the steps it would take to improve its communication which was a short coming.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that if the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint must be progressed to stage 2 unless an exclusion ground applied. When a landlord declines to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons as well as the resident’s right to approach us.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 May 2023 to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 May 2023 to advise that the complaint would be closed and commitments monitored through its “commitment log.” It set out actions it intended to take to progress the repair. It failed to provide a reason for its decision not to escalate the complaint and did not signpost the resident to us if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s inaction caused distress, time and trouble to the resident who emailed the landlord on 25 May 2023 to say she was not comfortable with the complaint being closed.
Furthermore, she was caused further inconvenience when she joined a group complaint dated 3 July 2023 to try to resolve the substantive issue. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on the same day. It provided its stage 1 group complaint response on 3 August which was 23 working days later and 13 days over its target response time.
The Code requires landlords to set out in clear plain language the decision on the complaint and the reasons for it. The landlord failed to do so which was a failure. Furthermore, the brevity of its response demonstrated that it had not carried out an open minded and thorough investigation of the complaint.
The lack of thoroughness was reflected in the group stage 2 complaint of 18 August 2023 which referred to the ongoing lack of clarity and the dissatisfaction this caused. The landlord’s stage 2 group complaint response was issued on 26 September, 27 working days later. This was 7 working days outside of the landlord’s target response time.
The response covered several other issues which were not relevant to this complaint. It said that the complaint was partly upheld however, it failed to make clear which issue this related to which was inappropriate.
The response appropriately set out its learning from the complaint in terms of its communication with residents and the action it had taken to improve this. However, it failed to demonstrate that it had carried out a comprehensive review of its response to the ongoing leak. There is also no evidence that it considered if further compensation for ongoing failures might be reasonable.
The landlord’s delays and its refusal to escalate the resident’s stage 2 complaint led to a protracted complaints process which caused distress and inconvenience. It also delayed the resident’s ability to exhaust its complaint process to be able to ask us to investigate the complaint if she so wished.
The landlord’s failure amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for its Chief Executive to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1450 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak. The landlord may deduct the £500 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
3. Consider whether it is reasonable to compensate the resident for its ongoing failures from September 2023 to the date of this report. Write to the resident setting out its decision and its reasons.
4. Write to the resident to set out:
  1. Steps it has taken to improve internal communication as per its stage 1 complaint response of 5 May 2023.
  2. Its current position in relation to works. This should include but is not limited to what works were carried out when. What works remain outstanding, when they will be carried out and by whom.
  3. Its position regarding rectification works to her property including her balcony and the interior.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders, also within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should review the failures identified in this report to identify what went wrong and what it will do differently. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.