London Borough of Islington (202343810)

Decision
Case ID	202343810
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

The resident told the landlord that her flat was draughty and cold. The landlord carried out an inspection and said that it could not find any issues with the flat, but it would assess its heating system. During this time the resident also asked the landlord for an update about the work to her front door following its fire safety inspection. She subsequently raised a complaint as she considered that the landlord had not adequately progressed and addressed her concerns.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns:
1. that her flat was draughty and cold.
2. about her front door.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that her flat was draughty and cold.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her front door.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord missed several opportunities to progress the heating assessment as it said that it would and reasonably take steps to investigate and resolve the issue. This caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The landlord missed several opportunities to progress the works to the resident’s front door in a timely manner. This caused her distress and inconvenience.
The landlord failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint and failed to demonstrate that it offered the resident compensation as it stated that it would.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £850 made up as follows: £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her concerns that her flat was draughty and cold. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her concerns about her front door. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings. The landlord may deduct from the total figure £50 compensation it offered, if it has already been paid.	No later than 07 January 2026
	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss whether she has any outstanding concerns about: the draught and cold in her flat. any outstanding concerns that she raised in her complaints.	No later than 07 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 June 2023	Following its fire safety inspection, the landlord noted that the resident’s front door should be replaced.
29 September 2023	The resident chased the landlord regarding the work to her front door.
11 October 2023	Following the resident’s report that her home was draughty and cold, the landlord inspected the property. It found no issues with the flat’s walls or temperature levels. It said that it would refer the matter to its gas team who would carry out a heating assessment to see whether the property had adequate radiators and heating systems.
25 October 2023	The resident made a complaint. She said: Her flat had issue with draughts due to inadequate insulation since she moved in. The cold and draughts affected her son due to his health condition. To try and keep warm, her and her children would wear multiple layers of clothes and sleep in a single room. The landlord stated that there were no issues with the windows, but she considered that there was an underlying issue with the property as the draught was ongoing. The gas team had not contacted her about the heating assessment. Her heating bills had increased and she asked to be compensated. She asked for any property reports that related to her flat.
19 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It did not find any issues with the temperature of the flat. The heating assessment had not been carried out and offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by the delay. It explained that it had now requested for the assessment to go ahead.
16 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She reiterated her stage 1 complaint and said that the landlord had not addressed all of her original concerns and requests. She said: following a fire safety inspection, it was recommended that her front door should be replaced, but the landlord had not done so. the landlord should have responded to her complaint at stage 2 rather than stage 1. she wished to discuss the issues with the landlord so they could be resolved.
13 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: it was unclear whether it had carried out the heating assessment and whether the front door had been recently inspected. its records showed that due to the age of the boiler it would benefit from a full system upgrade. it had asked its relevant teams to progress the matters. a number of issues were not addressed in its stage 1 response. due to the limited information it had on file, it could not award compensation until the matters were looked into. it would continue to monitor the matter and revisit the case once it had investigated the resident’s concerns further. It signposted the resident to support agencies in relation to the cost of heating her home.
February 2024 August 2024	The landlord replaced the resident’s boiler on 27 February 2024 and front door on 19 August 2024.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about draughts in her home.
Finding	Maladministration

Although the landlord told the resident several times, including in its stage 1 response that it would carry out a heating assessment, there is no evidence that it did. The evidence available suggests that its failure to carry out the assessment was due to poor case management and record keeping practices. At the time of its stage 2 response, the assessment remained outstanding. This was approximately 4 months after it had told the resident that it would carry one out, that was unreasonable. In particular as the resident had explained how the situation was affecting her family’s health and living conditions.
Therefore this failing caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she was reasonably relying on the assessment to help resolve her concerns. Furthermore, its repeated failure to follow through with its own recommendation undermined the tenant and landlord relationship. It is noted as part of the landlord’s stage 2 review, it identified that the boiler should be replaced. This was carried out at the end of February 2024, which was timely and overall appropriate.
The landlord took approximately 4 months to take appropriate steps to resolve the resident’s concerns. The evidence does not suggest that this delay was unavoidable. Furthermore, the landlord missed the opportunity to assess its response to the resident’s concerns during the complaints process and to take steps to put things right. For that reason, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that her flat was cold and draughty. The courts are best placed to assess the resident’s concerns that this situation affected the health of her family, as medical experts can be consulted appropriately. As such, the resident may wish to seek independent advice. However, taking into consideration the circumstances and the length of the delay, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance.
It is unclear whether the replacement boiler fully resolved the resident’s concerns. Therefore an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss whether she has any outstanding concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her front door.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s correspondence with the resident around the inspection clearly stated the importance of fire safety. Therefore when it informed the resident that it needed to replace her front door as a result of the June 2023 inspection, it would have been appropriate for it to have kept her reasonably updated on its next steps. It is unclear what steps it took following its fire safety inspection. However, there is no evidence that it did. The reason that it did not is unclear. However, it missed an opportunity to proactively reassure the resident that it was taking reasonable steps to follow through with the works.
This failing caused the resident incurred time, distress and inconvenience as she chased the landlord for an update several times between September 2023 and January 2024. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord provided one during that time. This caused her additional distress and inconvenience as her requests for an update went unaddressed.
The evidence available also shows that the landlord did not take meaningful steps to investigate the matter until approximately 2 months after it issued its stage 2 response when it carried out another inspection of the front door. It then took a further 4 months to replace the door. It is not evident that it reasonably kept the resident updated during that time.
It is unclear whether the replacement of the resident’s front door was part of a larger project. If it was, it is acknowledged that the coordination and completion timescales for this type of work can be affected based on a number of factors, including contractor availability and scope of works required. However, there is no evidence of this in this case. Therefore the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took appropriate steps to proactively progress the works in a timely manner.
Given the failings identified there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s works to her front door. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation, this is in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The resident’s stage 1 complaint was dated 25 October 2023. It is unclear how the resident submitted her complaint, but the evidence suggests it was sent at a later date. The resident did not express concern about a delayed acknowledgement, we are therefore satisfied that there was not a failing by the landlord.
In her escalated complaint the resident said that the landlord incorrectly raised her complaint at stage 1 rather than at stage 2. The evidence available suggests that the landlord’s decision to raise a stage 1 complaint was appropriate and in accordance with its policy. However, given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated and responded. That it did not meant that the resident’s concerns went unaddressed which caused her distress and inconvenience.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to all of the resident’s concerns at stage 1. It is noted that it considered that further investigations were required to enable it to respond to some of her concerns. However, there were elements of her complaint that it could have addressed within its stage 2 response. Such as her request for reports relating to the flat. Therefore it missed an opportunity to address them in its final response. That was a failing.
Also, there is no evidence that it provided a further response to her concerns that may have required further investigation. Such as her concern that there was an underlying issue with the flat’s insulation. That was unreasonable and meant these concerns also went unaddressed. It was also not in keeping with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that states all aspects of a resident’s complaint should be addressed.
The landlord also said that it would monitor the complaint and provide compensation when the issues had been resolved. However, there is no evidence that it updated the resident and provided an update on its position on the compensation. That is a further complaint handling failing.
Given the failings identified, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance. In addition an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns that she may have in relation to the issues she raised in her complaints.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

The evidence suggests that the landlord’s poor recording keeping and internal and external communication practices contributed to its failings in this case. Therefore the landlord may wish to carry out a review into the matter.