London Borough of Islington (202420203)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420203

London Borough of Islington

30 September 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 handling of reports of a leak in the bedroom and associated repairs.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since March 1999. The property is a two-bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident lives alone and there are no recorded vulnerabilities.
The resident has made multiple reports of a leak coming into the main bedroom from her upstairs neighbour’s balcony. She reported the leak in February 2014, May 2018, October 2020, June 2021 and February 2023. Following each report the landlord carried out repairs to the balcony but these repairs did not provide a permanent solution.
On 23 October 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the leak into the bedroom from the balcony had returned. The landlord inspected the balcony on 3 November 2023. The survey report made several recommendations with regards to remedial works and further inspections needed to resolve the leak. The landlord began to carry out the recommended actions around 19 January 2024.
The resident raised her complaint on 27 June 2024. She said she had had issues with a recurrent leak into the main bedroom from the balcony upstairs since 2014. She said that despite all the works the landlord had carried out over the years it had failed to find the cause of the leak and fix it permanently. She said that as a result she had been unable to use the bedroom to sleep in. She also said that 4 weeks before the landlord had erected scaffolding in her garden but it had not yet carried out any works. To resolve the complaint she said she wanted the landlord to fix the leak and compensate her for the issues she had experienced over the past 9 years.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 July 2024. It said that on 29 May 2024 it had erected the scaffolding to carry out works on the balcony and drains. It said that it then carried out the following works:
1. On 25 June 2024 it had attended to clear the blocked gully drain but could not access the property. It then returned on 26 June 2024 and completed the works.
2. On 29 June 2024 it cleared the balcony’s outlet. It said it also hacked up a bit of asphalt, liquid coated and bandaged it and sealed the balcony cill section where rain was getting in.

The landlord also said it had passed on the resident’s concerns about internal repairs to the relevant person.

The resident escalated the complaint on 11 July 2024. She reiterated that the leak had been an issue for over 10 years and disputed the dates provided in the stage 1 response. She also said:
1. The brickwork that cut out to expose a weep hole was still open with bricks missing.
2. The scaffolding was still up.
3. A few water ingress tests had been carried out that week and water ingress was still present.
4. The landlord was yet to identify the cause of the leak and water was still coming into the bedroom.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 August 2024. It said that:
1. On 10 July 2024 it attended the property and instructed the installation of a damp–proof membrane.
2. It had arranged for the exposed weep hole to be closed on 1 August 2024 and asked the resident to let it know if this had not been done.
3. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the scaffolding but said it would remain in place until works were completed. It confirmed it would be conducting an inspection later that week.
4. It confirmed it would install a damp-proofing membrane to try and resolve the issue. It would then conduct further checks and inspections to ensure the repair has been successful.
5. It confirmed that once the initial repairs were completed it would carry out remedial works on the bedroom itself.

The landlord apologised for the ongoing inconvenience and disruption caused by the leak and subsequent works. In recognition of this it offered a total of £734 compensation.

On 15 January 2025 the resident confirmed to this Service that she wanted us to investigate the complaint. She said the issues had been ongoing for 11 years and she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling and management of the repair. She said to resolve the complaint she wanted the landlord to permanently fix the leak and pay compensation.
On 7 April 2025 the resident informed this service that the landlord had completed the plastering in February 2025. She said that on 8 March 2025 she could see signs of the leak coming through again. However, on 7 September 2025 the resident updated us again and said that at that time there was no sign of a leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

In the resident’s correspondence she has referred to historical issues with a leak coming into the main bedroom going back to 2014. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that she raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issues until 27 June 2024. The Ombudsman encourages residents to bring complaints to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months, so that it has a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate them. Therefore, this assessment focuses on events from 27 June 2023 (12 months before the complaint was made). Anything that happened before this is considered for context but not formally assessed or determined as part of this investigation.

Leak into the bedroom

The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes external walls, drains, gutters, external pipes, the internal structure and external decoration.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that before carrying out any complex repairs it will arrange a survey. It says it will try to carry out the survey within 10 working days of the tenants report of an issue. The policy also says the landlord will carry out routine repairs within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs sets out the Ombudsman’s guidelines for landlords where repairs are concerned. The report says landlords should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records of residents’ reports of disrepair and the landlord’s responses, including details of appointments, any inspections, any work carried out, and completion dates. Landlords should also monitor the progress of any reported repairs and comply with the repair timescales set out in their policies as far as possible. When it is not possible to comply with the timescales set out in its policies, a landlord should communicate the reason for the delay with its resident.
On 23 October 2023 the resident reported that there was a leak coming into the main bedroom. She said the leak was coming in at the same spot as leaks she had reported multiple times since 2014. She also said there were signs of mould in the bedroom.
The landlord carried out a survey on 3 November 2023. The survey report recommended that the landlord:
1. Do a joint inspection to carry out camera survey to balcony.
2. Erect scaffolding to allow works.
3. Remove some bricks.
4. Put new weep holes in.
5. Carry out a dye test.
The landlord’s records show that on 19 January 2024 it erected scaffolding and installed a ‘liquid overlay’ on the balcony. The landlord has not provided an explanation for why it took over a month and a half for it to start carrying out any works to fix the reported leak. This was not in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
On 13 March 2024 the landlord carried out the joint inspection recommended in the survey report. The job records say they carried out a camera survey on the balcony and found the drain to be clear. It also said the exterior brickwork may need to be repointed and the expanding joint to balcony wall needed to be checked. While the landlord carried out the joint inspection in line with the recommendations of the initial survey, it has not explained why it took just under 5 months for it to do so. This was a significant delay and not in line with the repair policy timescales. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman can only conclude that such a delay was unreasonable. This delay cannot but have caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience and impacted her full enjoyment of the property as the leak remained unresolved during the height of winter.
The landlord’s records do not clearly show when it erected the scaffolding in the resident’s back garden. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response says the scaffolding was erected on 29 May 2024. The landlord’s stage 2 response also says that on 29 June 2024 it unblocked the balcony drain and sealed the balcony cill section where rain was getting in. The Ombudsman has noted that the estate manager’s diary entries say the landlord removed bricks to expose the cavity and did a dye test on 29 June 2024. The landlord has not explained why it took over 2 months after the joint survey for it to erect the scaffolding or a further month after that for works to commence. This was not in line with its repairs policy timescales and caused a further delay to any attempts to fix the reported leak. Additionally, the resident has said that while the scaffolding was in place she was unable to use the back garden. Given the impact the scaffolding had on the resident’s full enjoyment of the property, it was not reasonable for it to be erected without works being carried out for an extended period.
On 11 July 2024 the resident escalated her complaint and confirmed the leak was still present and said a lot of water was coming in. She also said the brick work the landlord removed to create the weeping hole had not been replaced. She also said that despite the works carried out it had not identified the cause of the leak.
In its stage 2 response, dated 8 August 2024, the landlord said that works to replace the bricks around the weeping hole should have been carried out on 1 August 2024. It also said that it would be installing a damp-proof membrane intended to prevent water ingress into the property although it gave no indication of when this would be installed. The landlord has not provided any repair records to show that the works were carried out on 1 August 2024 as stated in its stage 2 response. Rather, its internal notes dated 28 August 2024 say that the bricklayer had told it they had started the works on 21 August 2024 and it would complete these by the end of that week (30 August 2024). As such, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the landlord carrying out works to try and resolve the leak in the 53 day period between 29 June and 21 August 2024.
The landlord has not explained why it did not install a damp proof membrane earlier or why no works were carried out for nearly 2 months. These failures cannot but have caused the resident avoidable inconvenience, time and trouble as the landlord had not taken steps to prevent the water ingress and had caused another delay in the repairs process. This was in spite of the resident having reported that the leak was still ongoing in July 2024. It was also unreasonable for the landlord to have said it would be installing a damp-proof membrane without any indication as to when this might take place. This was a missed opportunity to reassure the resident. Furthermore, the landlord telling the resident that works should have been carried out on 1 August 2024, when this had not happened, indicates poor record keeping and oversight of repairs on the part of the landlord.
The Ombudsman has also noted that no records have been seen to show the landlord carried out any internal repairs during the period in question. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it would be installing a damp-proof membrane to prevent water ingress and it would carry out any remedial works once the initial repairs had been carried out. The Ombudsman appreciates that it would not have been reasonable to fix the damage caused by the leak before the leak itself was fixed. However, it should have taken steps to minimise any further internal damage caused by the leak. This was especially the case given the resident had reported in October 2023 that she could see signs of mould in the bedroom. Actions such as a mould wash and/or the provision of a dehumidifier would have mitigated the obvious impact and detriment to the resident.
Throughout the period considered in this report the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a leak by carrying out surveys, creating weeping holes, carrying out dye tests and clearing the balcony drains. In themselves these were reasonable responses to the resident’s reports as well as the findings of its surveys.
However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that at any point the landlord carried out a structural survey of the building to try and identify the root cause of the leak. Given that the resident had reported multiple times over the course of 10 years that the leak had returned in the same area despite the previous repairs carried out on the balcony, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out such a comprehensive survey. By failing to carry out a structural survey the landlord missed the opportunity to potentially diagnose the root cause of the leak and then carry out a full and lasting repair to prevent it returning. As a result of this failing the resident was left in a property with regular leaks for an extended period of time. This cannot but have impacted their full enjoyment of the property, as the resident has said the leaks prevented her from being able to use the main bedroom.
Overall, based on all the information seen, the landlord’s failures can be summarised as failing to:
1. Adhere to the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
2. Adequately record and monitor the works.
3. Take steps to minimise further internal damage caused by the leak.
4. Carry out a structural survey to try and identify the root cause of the leak.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that the resident was still experiencing ongoing repairs issues. In recognition of this it offered the resident a total of £734 (rounded up) compensation broken down as:
1. £200 for the distress caused.
2. £200 for the inconvenience, time and effort to complain.
3. £333.28 for the delays in repair works – £41.66 x8 months (January to August 2024).
Based on all of the above, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the service failings and uphold the resident’s complaint at stage 2 and offer compensation. Having taken into consideration the landlord’s failings and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £734 compensation offered was reflective and proportionate to the impact on the resident for the period covered. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord paid the compensation to the resident on 19 August 2024.
However, given the extended period of time that the resident has been subject to ingress, resultant loss of enjoyment of their home, time, trouble and inconvenience and the subsequent reports by the resident of a recurrence of the leak the Ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bedroom and associated repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s management team and it may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
The landlord must satisfy itself by means of comprehensive survey and completion of identified works that it has an acceptable degree of confidence that the resident will no longer experience ingress into the main bedroom of their home. A report on its achievement of this position must be provided to this service and the resident within 8 weeks from the date of this report.