London Borough of Islington (202402782)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402782

London Borough of Islington

28 August 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 response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment for home visits.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette. The resident has an immune-related medical condition.
3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 18 January 2024. He was unhappy that it arranged for 2 staff members to visit his home. This followed a previous complaint about concerns with fire safety at the property. He said he was worried that the visit may impact his health as he had a lowered immune system. He asked why it needed to send 2 staff members. He also asked it to arrange for them to attend separately as a reasonable adjustment for his health needs.
4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 2 February 2024. It said:
   1. It was empathetic towards his concerns given his health conditions. It explained it had offered to wear face coverings to minimise any risk to his health. However, he had declined this.
   2. It had placed him on its vulnerability register due to his health concerns. This meant it would arrange 2-person visits to ensure clear communication for its residents.
   3. It had considered his request for a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. However, it also considered the reasonableness of his request. It said the staff members had requested to attend in pairs due to a past issue reported about the conduct of staff. It explained it had a duty of care to its staff. This included allowing staff to be accompanied on home visits where requested.
   4. To address his concerns, staff would wear personal protective equipment (PPE). They would also observe social distancing to minimise the risk to his health. Doing so, while attending in pairs, would also ensure it safeguarded its staff as well as the resident.
   5. The resident had told the landlord he would record the visit. As such, it reminded him of its policy that he would need the staff members’ permission to do so.
5. The resident escalated his complaint through a series of emails between 2 February 2024 and 8 February 2024. He felt the landlord did not care about the risks posed to his health at a 2-person visit. He was also unhappy that staff members completing repairs did not know of his previous complaints. He felt they should know of his concerns before attending his property. The resident said he would record all conversations as a reasonable adjustment. He explained he had dyslexia and so recording visits meant he could have an accurate record of what occurred. He said he would notify the staff members before recording them, similar to how the landlord recorded all calls.
6. On 23 February 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It said:
   1. It had a duty of care to both its staff and residents. It said the staff members requested to visit in pairs because of a previous dispute over whether a staff member offered to wear a face covering. It said by visiting in pairs, it would ensure clear communication and safeguard both parties. It also advised that he could also have a representative with him during the visit for similar reasons.
   2. It had considered his reasonable adjustments. It reiterated that staff would wear PPE at any visits given his health concerns. It also had various pre-agreed adjustments given his dyslexia diagnosis.
   3. It gave a pre-recorded privacy warning about recording calls prior to connecting callers to it staff. It said this was in line with relevant laws about data protection rights. It reiterated that he must give its staff members the same option to consent to recording the visits. It confirmed that the staff members trying to complete the home visit did not consent to be recorded.
   4. It needed to complete the fire safety check which the resident had reported. It said it required access to do so in line with his tenancy agreement. It also said it may need to seek legal support to access his property. However, it said this was a last resort.
7. The resident escalated his complaint to us. He felt the landlord did not consider his concerns about his health when arranging the 2-person visit. The complaint became one we could consider on 6 August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has also made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of his fire safety concerns. We have investigated this separately (202336924). As such, while this complaint included reference to this, we have not investigated this again within this report.
9. We cannot determine whether there was a failure to consider the resident’s request in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. Similarly, we cannot determine whether the landlord discriminated against the resident. The courts may be best placed to reach such decisions. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this if he wishes. We will instead consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and how it responded to the resident’s concerns.

Response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment for home visits

10. The landlord tried to arrange a home visit on 7 December 2023 to discuss the resident’s fire safety concerns. However, the resident declined the visit and asked us to “deal with” his concern instead. Following this, the landlord decided to offer further home visit appointments with 2 staff members present.
11. The landlord explained the reasons for attending in pairs. It said it decided to do so following miscommunication after a previous visit with a staff member. To ensure clear communication, given the resident was on its vulnerability register, it would attend the appointment in pairs. It also explained that for a similar reason, the staff member required at the visit had asked to visit in pairs. It said it had a duty of care to its staff, and they had a right to be accompanied if requested. Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord’s management team considered and approved this decision. This was appropriate.
12. It was good practice for the landlord to be transparent about why 2 staff members would attend the home visit. This was transparent. The landlord also explained that the resident could choose to have a representative accompany him at the visit if he wished to. This was good practice as it showed the resident had the same option available to him if he wanted to. The landlord therefore responded appropriately to the resident’s question of why it would visit in pairs.
13. Alongside the complaint, the resident also contacted his MP for support. The MP asked the landlord to respond to his fire safety concerns. The landlord responded promptly and explained the difficulties trying to arrange a home visit. It was appropriate for it to engage with the MP in a clear and timely manner. This showed it was committed to putting things right for the resident, while explaining the challenges it faced.
14. Between December 2023 and February 2024, the landlord offered a further 6 home visits. Of these, it offered 3 visitswith 2 members of its management team. It was good practice for it to suggest that alternative staff members could attend. This also addressed the resident’s concern that staff were not aware of his previous complaints, as the management team did have prior knowledge of these. We have therefore found no failing on the landlord’s part for not being able to complete the home visit. However, the resident either refused or asked to rearrange the appointments. Following this, he said he would be “denying access for the foreseeable future”.
15. The resident said that a visit with 2 staff members may impact his health. He explained this was because he had a condition affecting his immune system. To address this, the landlord explained its staff would wear PPE and observe social distancing. The resident felt the landlord did not consider his request in line with the Equality Act 2010. However, the evidence shows it considered his request. Its proposed action was reasonable as it minimised any potential risk to the resident during the appointment. It was also a proportionate approach given it had to balance the resident’s needs with its duty of care to its staff.
16. During the complaints process, the resident mentioned he would record the home visit. He said this was because he had dyslexia and needed to have an accurate record of what happened. The landlord explained he could only do so if the members of staff who were in attendance consented to this. This advice was in line with data protection laws.
17. The resident also queried why the landlord could record calls, but he could not record staff. In response, the landlord explained it read a privacy statement before connecting calls. It said this asked for callers’ consent to record the conversation. It added he must also do this if he wished to record the visit. This was a reasonable response as it clearly explained the rules around consent and recording.
18. Considering the above, the landlord has acted reasonably in responding to the resident’s concerns with a home visit. We have therefore found no failing by the landlord in this matter.
19. In the landlord’s final response, it confirmed it needed to access the resident’s property to check his fire safety concerns. This showed it was committed to putting things right for the resident. It is also the landlord’s duty to ensure the property is safe from any health and safety risks. This falls under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
20. As noted in the landlord’s final response, it may seek legal advice to access the property. The landlord appropriately advised that this would be the last course of action, however, it is still an option available to the landlord to fulfil its responsibilities. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns with home visits. However, he must provide access to the property when given reasonable notice in line with his tenancy agreement. We note the landlord agreed to await our investigation before taking further steps to investigate the resident’s fire safety concerns. This was at the resident’s request. We therefore recommend it contacts the resident to arrange a further visit. It should then consider its options to access the property if needed.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment for home visits.

Recommendations

22. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to arrange a further visit. It should then consider its options to access the property, if needed.