London Borough of Islington (202345628)

Decision
Case ID	202345628
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	6 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in the property with her 2 young sons, who both have vulnerabilities including autism and anxiety. The resident made the landlord aware of these vulnerabilities during the complaints process. The resident moved out of the property in January 2025. However, for ease, we have continued to refer to her as ‘the resident’ for the purpose of this report.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the property following an ongoing leak from the roof.
2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its handling of repairs to the property following an ongoing leak from the roof.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property following an ongoing leak from the roof

The landlord has not shown that it followed its Repairs Guide in its handling of repairs to the property following the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak. The landlord delayed in taking action which caused detriment to the resident. The landlord did not take into account the vulnerabilities of the resident’s children when handling and completing repairs. However, the landlord made a reasonable offer of compensation to the resident for this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in keeping with the requirements of our complaint handling code (the Code).

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
Our finding of reasonable redress is made subject to the landlord having paid the resident the compensation that it offered her in its complaint responses. This is the total sum of £460 across both complaint responses. It is strongly recommended that the landlord pays the resident this compensation as soon as possible, if it has not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 October 2023	The resident made her stage 1 complaint. She told the landlord that: There was flooding from her kitchen ceiling where the roof had become damaged. She said that this was because the drainage had not been maintained properly. She said that this issue had been ongoing for 5 years. There were cracks on her kitchen ceiling and a mouldy smell. She said that the landlord had taken out her kitchen light because water had been coming through it. She said that this was removed 5 years ago and never replaced. The water coming through her ceiling was yellow and dirty and had ruined her curtains and other possessions in the kitchen. There was an infestation of drain flies in her kitchen because of the damp conditions. She said that the flies were spreading to other rooms in her property. She said that the conditions were making her and her children ill and that they regularly had upset stomachs. She felt that the property was not fit for purpose. Her children are autistic and that the situation had been “so traumatic for them” and made them “hate their home”. She said that her children were “very upset and tearful” every day. She said that they were afraid of the leak and worried that the ceiling would collapse on them. She said that the situation had been particularly stressful for her children because of their sensory issues. She had suffered “mental torture and a lot of stress” because of the situation. She and her family could not use the kitchen in the way that other families do. She said that her children could not have friends come round to the property because it is embarrassing for them. She wanted to know what it would be doing to resolve the problem and whether it would be offering her compensation.
6 November 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It told the resident that: It had raised works on 23 October 2023 for an inspection of the damp and mould in the property. It had found that a roofer and a plumber would need to inspect the property to find where the leak was coming from. An appointment had been booked for the following day on 24 October 2023 but that the resident had not provided access to the property. It was sorry that the damp had become a reoccurring issue and that it had asked its roofing team to arrange an appointment so that repairs could begin. She would need to contact its Homes and Communities team about a possible move for her and her family into temporary accommodation. She would need to make a claim for damaged possessions through her contents insurance or by contacting its insurance team. It would be upholding her complaint because it recognised that there had “been a reoccurrence in a short time frame”. It was sorry for the inconvenience caused and appreciated that she had been “inconvenienced by the delay”. It said that because of this reason it would award her £150 in compensation made up as follows: £50 for the inconvenience £100 for “distress”
13 November 2023	The resident requested an escalation to her complaint. She told the landlord that: She was not happy that the landlord had not provided her with a temporary light to allow her to use her kitchen at nighttime. She was not happy that the next earliest appointment that the landlord could offer was 24 November 2023. A plumber had come to her property on 3 November 2023 without an appointment. She said that she had told the landlord already that she was not available on that day and did not agree that she did not provide access to the property. She said that the landlord had never told her about the appointment. Her guttering had been cleared by the landlord but that the leak started again on 2 November 2023. She said that she reported this to the landlord but that it told her that it would not be able to get a roofer to look at the problem for a few weeks. She said that the landlord instead put her and her family into a hotel for 2 weeks. A roofer came to her property without advance notice on 8 November 2023, despite the resident being in temporary accommodation at the time and therefore not at the property to be able to provide access. When the landlord did eventually inspect her roof, it told her that it had found a hole in her roof and that this was where the water was coming from. She said that the landlord had told her that the roof had been repaired badly in the past. The landlord had told her that the repairs to her roof had been completed. However, when she returned to her property on 13 November 2023, she found the leak had begun again so works were not successful. She said that there were still drain flies in her kitchen and that there were flies “all over” her home. The £150 in compensation that it had offered her was not sufficient to cover the “upheaval” on her and her children’s lives. She was not prepared to live in the property any longer until it completed works and the issue was resolved.
11/12/2023	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It told the resident that: The repairs had been completed on 23 November 2023 and post-inspected on 4 December 2023 and that the kitchen light fitting had been replaced on 8 December 2023. The issue relating to flies had been passed to its pest control team who would be in contact with her. A follow up appointment had been arranged for 4 January 2024 “to complete the rest of the works in your home”. It thought that the resident had first reported the issue in October 2023. It did, however, agree that the “level of inconvenience and distress” that she had experienced did warrant increased compensation because “repairs should usually be completed within 20 working days”. Because of this, it would be upholding her complaint. It said it agreed that there had been delays to repairs being completed which had caused the resident “inconvenience and distress”. It would be awarding the resident an additional £310 in compensation, bringing the total compensation offered by the landlord to £460. This additional £310 is broken down as follows: £85 for service failure (£41.66 for each month that repairs are overdue) £125 for inconvenience £100 for distress
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident made her referral to this Service on 11 March 2024. She said that: There had been an ongoing leak into her property since 2018. She had been left without a kitchen light from this time until November 2023. Her Christmas had been ruined by the leak and the disruption that this caused. She said that she and her children had had to move out of the property several times into temporary accommodation whilst the landlord tried to find the source of the leak but that it had not been successful. Her possessions had been ruined by the leak and the drain flies. Herself and her children had been constantly ill because of “living in an unhealthy environment”. Her children are autistic and so had suffered from the impact that the leak had had on their vulnerabilities. She was currently living in temporary accommodation but that she and her children needed stability. The landlord had told her that the leak was because of a blocked drainpipe. She said that the landlord had cleared the pipe several times but that the roof continued to leak when it rained. After the landlord replaced the pipe, the leak started coming through into her hallway. She said that this ruined her carpet and that she had to pay for this to be replaced. She was sick of the situation and that her children do not feel safe in their own home. She did not accept the level of compensation that the landlord had offered her.

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.

What we did not consider

The resident has told us that she has been reporting the leak into her property for several years. The longstanding nature of this issue was clearly frustrating to her. However, we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable timeframe, usually within 12 months of an issue first occurring. We have therefore scoped our investigation as commencing from 12 months prior to the resident making her stage 1 complaint. This means that we have considered from the period from 22 October 2022 onwards.
The resident has also told us that she continued to experience a leak into her property following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. In January 2024, the landlord completed the works that it had agreed to do in its stage 2 complaint response. The resident then did not re-report the issue until June 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to think that the works it completed in January 2024 were successful in resolving the issue. This is because of the amount of time that had passed before the resident made her next report of the issue – a period of 5 months. We have therefore not considered the landlord’s conduct after it issued its stage 2 complaint response. If the resident is unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports of the issue following its stage 2 complaint response, we recommend that she makes another complaint to the landlord through its internal complaints procedure.
The resident has told us that she and her family have suffered personal injury because of the damp and mould in her property. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident has told us that she has experienced damage to her possessions because of the leak into her property. Under our Scheme rules, we may not investigate aspects of a complaint that concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide cause, liability, or negligence for damage to possessions. This is best dealt with through an insurance claim. We will assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, considering all of the circumstances of the case.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property following an ongoing leak into the property from the roof
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s repairs guide says that urgent repairs are ones that affect a resident’s day-to-day living. The landlord says it will respond to urgent repairs within 24 hours. For non-urgent repairs, it says that it will respond within 20 working days.
A delay in resolving repairs is not always considered a failure, especially if the issue is complicated. However, the landlord should be proactive in its management of the repair and complete the repair as soon as it can. It should keep the resident updated and manage their expectations. It should also complete works to make the property safe in the meantime if there is an immediate health and safety risk to the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the resident first made it aware of the leak through the roof of the property on 21 August 2023. The landlord attended the property to “secure the loose panel” above the flat on 22 September 2023. The resident re-reported the issue on 20 October 2023. The landlord attended the property on the same day and identified that a specialist contractor would need to investigate the cause of the leak.
The landlord’s records show that the resident and her family were moved into temporary accommodation in October 2023. It appears from the records that this was because of the extent of the works needed at the property. The resident told the landlord on 21 October 2023 that it had told her that the next available appointment for it to attend her property was not until 17 November 2023, even though she was only staying in temporary accommodation until 27 October 2023. This was poor communication by the landlord which contributed to the resident’s distress and frustration. However, the landlord did attempt to put things right by instead arranging an earlier appointment for 23 October 2023. It also extended the resident’s time in temporary accommodation until 13 November 2023.
The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 22 October 2023. She explained the distress and inconvenience that the leak was causing her and asked the landlord to confirm what it would do to resolve the leak. She also highlighted the fact that her children were vulnerable and that this meant that the leak was having a heightened impact on them.
The landlord attended the property on 23 October 2023 and identified that there were 2 areas of water ingress into the property. It found that the water was entering through the kitchen ceiling and the hallway ceiling. It again found that a specialist contractor would need to investigate the cause of the leak. At this stage, it had been over 8 weeks since the resident’s first report of a leak into her property. This was therefore a failing by the landlord as it took a lot longer than it said it would take to complete non-urgent repairs in its repairs policy.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 6 November 2023, the landlord told the resident that its specialist roofing contractor attempted to attend the property on 3 November 2023 but that the resident did not provide access. The resident told us that this happened again on 8 November 2023 when the roofer attended a further appointment. This was despite the landlord knowing that the resident was in temporary accommodation at the time of both appointments. This was poor record keeping by the landlord and contributed to the resident’s frustration, as she was accused of not providing access to the property on these 2 occasions, despite not being there at the time. It is also unclear whether the landlord gave the resident advance notice of these appointments.
Also in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that it had asked its roofing team to contact her to arrange an appointment to trace and remedy the leak, as well as complete follow-on repairs. It also said that it recognised the inconvenience that she had experienced by its delay in completing repairs. It offered her £150 in compensation for the inconvenience and distress that she had experienced. It told the resident that she would need to contact its Homes and Communities team regarding her temporary accommodation. This was a failing by the landlord as this placed the burden on the resident to arrange an extension to her temporary accommodation.
The landlord told the resident that it had completed repairs to the roof whilst she was in temporary accommodation. However, when she returned on 13 November 2023, the leak was ongoing. This was a failure by the landlord to do what it said it would do in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord returned to the property on 16 November 2023 to complete further repairs to the roof. It then completed stain block works and works to replace the kitchen light on 8 December 2023 and 1 January 2024.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that a follow up appointment had been arranged for 4 January 2024 to complete the rest of the works. It offered the resident an additional £310 in compensation for its service failure and the inconvenience and distress that this caused the resident. By the time the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 11 December 2023, it had been almost 5 months since the resident first reported the leak into her property. This is an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to be left with her kitchen in disrepair and far exceeds the length of time that the landlord said it would take to complete non-urgent repairs in its repairs policy.
When considering whether the level of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable and appropriate, we not only consider the extent of the failures identified but also the impact that those failures had on the resident. In this case, it is evident that the impact on the resident was considerable. This is evidenced by:
1. The resident telling the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that the situation had been “traumatic” for her children and that it had made them “hate their home”.
2. The resident telling the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that she was embarrassed to have friends and families round to visit because of the state of her kitchen.
3. The landlord identifying within internal correspondence on 23 October 2023 that the situation needed resolving as soon as possible due to the vulnerabilities of the family.
4. The resident telling the landlord in her stage 2 complaint that the situation had made her no longer want to live at the property.
5. The resident telling us that the situation had affected her and her family’s lives “terribly” and had caused massive upheaval for herself and her children.
6. The resident telling us that one of her children temporarily moved out of the property and lived with his grandparents as he could not cope any longer with the leak into the property.
It is also concerning that the resident was left without a working kitchen light for this period. She reported to the landlord that she did not have a working kitchen light on 22 October 2023. The landlord did not re-install her kitchen light until 8 December 2023. This is a failing by the landlord as this would have created a hazard for the resident in using her kitchen without proper lighting.
The landlord has also not provided evidence to show that it considered the vulnerabilities of the resident and her children when handling repairs to the property.
The landlord has a responsibility by law to make changes to ensure that its services are accessible to disabled people. This is known as ‘reasonable adjustments’. A landlord can implement reasonable adjustments by making changes to its procedures to accommodate the needs of disabled persons. The reasonable adjustment duty is ‘anticipatory’, meaning a landlord cannot wait until a disabled resident needs to use their service. They must consider in advance what disabled residents may need to access their services and put measures in place. The landlord has provided no evidence to suggest that it took these measures to accommodate for the additional needs of the resident’s children when completing repairs and moving the family into temporary accommodation. This is despite the resident telling the landlord that her children have considerable sensory issues and a genuine fear that the ceiling would collapse on them. This is a failing by the landlord.
Given the extent of the failures and the impact on the resident, we are satisfied that the compensation offered by the landlord was fair and reasonable at the time the stage 2 complaint was issued. This is because £460 is in line with the amounts set out in our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.
We therefore consider that the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress for its handling of repairs to the property following the ongoing leak into the property from the roof.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 days and provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of it sending its acknowledgement email. It says that it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 3 days and provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of receiving the complaint.
The landlord provided a formal response at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy and out Complaint Handling Code.
For this reason, we make a finding of no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits. In this case, the landlord has not evidenced that it had provided this information to the resident, nor a schedule for when she could expect her roof repairs to be completed. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team had followed our spotlight report recommendations.

Communication

Landlords should look at ways to improve their internal communications to make sure that information shared is up-to-date and information about any reasonable adjustments is flagged up to all teams who may have contact with disabled residents.