London Borough of Islington (202500964)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property which is a 1 bedroom flat on the third floor of the building. His complaint is regarding a leak from the property above and the time taken for the landlord to resolve it.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks from the property above.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks from the property above.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of leaks from the property above

4. The landlord failed to engage the leaseholder at the earliest opportunity following the complaint. It eventually made some attempts to investigate the leak and subsequent damage caused in the resident’s property. However, the leak and ceiling repairs remain outstanding which is not appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy at stage 1. While recognising failings on its part, the landlord did not evidence how it had put things right for the resident.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The resident’s property is part of an estate run by a Tenant Management Organisation (TMO). The landlord is ultimately responsible for the actions of the TMO. A resident’s rights are not affected by the establishment of a TMO; they have the same rights as if they were under the landlord’s management, including right to repair. In this investigation it was unclear what repairs the TMO was responsible for as the landlord also appeared to directly respond to some of the reports. The landlord has not disputed the issues were its responsibility to resolve.
7. In his formal complaint, the resident said he had been reporting the leak from the property above for over a year. However, the landlord said there were no repair jobs or notes about the leaks from the resident in recent months pre-dating his complaint. It is unclear what timeframe the landlord was considering. In line with its complaints policy, it would have been reasonable for it to show it reviewed its repair records 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint.
8. Although not evident within the landlord’s records, the resident has provided screenshots of a conversation with the TMO dated from 4 December 2023. In the conversation the TMO said the leaseholder had repaired their door which was causing a leak into his flat. The resident responded to say there was still a leak and the TMO asserted that there was not. As we have not seen evidence of the steps taken by the TMO to establish if the leak was resolved, we cannot say the actions taken at the time were appropriate.
9. In his formal complaint, the resident referred to an active leak in his property which he believed was from the property above. The resident confirmed he had liaised with the leaseholder of the flat above who was refusing to investigate the issue. He said the landlord was also refusing to take action because the property above was a leasehold. The resident said the leak had caused a hole, damp, and mould in his property, and was negatively affecting him.
10. Where a leak originates from a leasehold property, it is the leaseholder’s responsibility to repair. For occupants in tenanted properties affected by a leak, it is advisable to make the leaseholder aware of the issue and also alert the landlord/TMO. Where a leaseholder cannot be contacted or does not carry out the repair, the landlord can be reasonably expected to take action to address this.
11. In line with its repairs policy for urgent repairs and given the reports of a leak, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have attended to the resident’s property within 24 hours. It is a failing that the landlord did not raise a repair until 23 December 2024, 2 months after the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it then arranged an inspection for 8 January 2025 but it could not gain access. The complaint responses did not acknowledge that the resident informed it on 23 December 2025 that he would be unavailable on that date. The landlord had rearranged the inspection for 10 January 2025. The time taken to inspect the resident’s property and trace the leak was not appropriate.
12. The notes from the inspection on 10 January 2025 stated there was no access from the resident’s or the leaseholder’s flat. It said the leak only happened when the tenant above was using water. It said it spoke to the leaseholder of the flat above who confirmed they had recently repaired an issue with their boiler. The landlord said the boiler was directly above the affected areas in the resident’s property. They confirmed they would attend the resident’s flat on 21 January 2025 to make sure everything was dry.
13. The resident said the landlord did not attend the appointment. He informed the landlord on 22 January 2025 that the leak was ongoing and bits of concrete were falling from his ceiling. The landlord said the flat above was not home when it attended and it had rearranged the appointment with them for 29 January 2025. It did not explain why it did not attend the resident’s property or what steps it would take regarding the condition of his home.
14. On 30 January 2025 the resident reported flooding in his property and said it was affecting his electrics. In line with its policy, the landlord attended the same day to make safe the electrics. It said there was still a leak but the electrics were no longer affected. It said it had spoken to the leaseholder in the flat above who said a plumber was attending in the morning. The notes also said the leak was minor and contained. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its plumber attended the previous day and they removed a plinth in the flat above, ran the water, and everything was dry.
15. On 31 January 2025 the resident said the leaks appeared to occur when the tenant in the property above used the bathroom and water was coming out of his toilet light bulb. He asked the landlord to remove the flooring in the property above to investigate the leak. He said it was a health hazard and nothing was getting done. There are no records to suggest the landlord responded to the resident or took any further action with the neighbour.
16. In its stage 1 response the landlord did not dispute there were delays in resolving the leak and that it could have been more proactive on receipt of the complaint. It said it had tried to contact the resident and visit the flat above but it was unsuccessful. It asked to arrange a new appointment with the resident. The landlord confirmed a roofer attended on 14 February 2025 in relation to water pooling outside his flat. It said they sealed the asphalt upstands on the door sills. It asked the resident to let it know if it did not resolve the problem. The resident then did this in his stage 2 escalation, but the landlord failed to take any further action.
17. While it is positive the landlord recognised some of its failures, it did not show how it had learnt from them or what it would do differently. It did not show it had any action plan in relation to liaising with the leaseholder and it has not provided any records to us of its contact with the leaseholder. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the resident did in fact respond to its attempts at contact on 19 February 2025. He said the leak was ongoing and stressful. He said the landlord could arrange an inspection for the damp and mould but it should be resolving the leak first.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said there was no record of other reports made by him after 30 January 2025, as shown above, this was incorrect. It outlined the steps it had taken in relation to the electrical safety concerns on 30 January 2025 which were reasonable. However, it failed to consider that it did not respond to the subsequent report of water going through the resident’s light and the risks associated with that.
19. While the landlord referred to an appointment on 18 March 2025, we have not seen evidence of this appointment in the records. The stage 2 response did not confirm whether it went ahead and if so, what the findings were and next steps. This would not have managed the resident’s expectations. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained how it was resolving the matters. This would have evidenced that it had oversight of the issues and its intention to carry out and progress any remedial works, in line with its obligations.
20. The landlord offered £275 compensation in total. It said this was for the avoidable delay in addressing the leaks from 20 October 2024 to 10 January 2025 and for the inconvenience to the resident. This was broadly in line with its compensation guidance for delays within that timeframe. However, it did not consider his earlier reports or the continued delays in addressing the leaks, damage to the ceiling, damp, and mould. There is also a lack of evidence of it fully considering the risks to the resident and liaising with the neighbour. Therefore, we find the compensation did not put things right for the resident.
21. Since the stage 2 response, we have seen the outcome of a survey which took place on 1 May 2025. The survey identified water ingress in the hallway and mould throughout the property. It said access was required to the flat above to check all plumbing and waste related connections. It also identified works required to address the hole in the resident’s ceiling and mould. We have seen evidence of the mould treatment being carried out on 5 May 2025. We have not seen evidence of the other works being completed.
22. To conclude, we found maladministration. Due to the time passed, the landlord must carry out a further inspection of the property and confirm what action is required to reach a longstanding resolution.

23. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
24. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 4 months after the resident’s formal complaint. This was not appropriate or in line with its complaints policy. The landlord apologised for the delay in it is stage 1 response, it said it was due to restructure in its teams and a high volume of complaints. It said it had recruited additional officers. It offered £100 in recognition of its failure. The responses and compensation was reasonable and in line with its compensation guidance for delays.
25. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation with 1 working day, which was appropriate. It then provided its stage 2 response within 19 working days which was in line with its obligations.
26. In reviewing the stage 2 response, we found it lacked empathy and was dismissive. This is evident in the decision to not uphold the complaint or identify the failures which we have already discussed above. It incorrectly stated that resident had not made any further reports of leaks since 30 January 2025. And despite the ongoing concerns raised in the resident’s stage 2 escalation, its response was vague and did not sufficiently outline how it had addressed those concerns.
27. The complaints procedure was an opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident and it is evident that it did not do so. This likely caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. As such we have found service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. As stated in the report, it was unclear at times what action the landlord or TMO had taken, what its findings were in relation to the issues, and what the next steps were in relation to the property above. The landlord did not provide any records to evidence it sufficiently progressed a remedy for the leak with the neighbour and it is unclear what its current position is. This made it difficult to determine whether landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances. It also likely impacted the landlord’s oversight of the repairs. The landlord should reflect on the record keeping issues raised and the action it could take to ensure its records are detailed and centralised.

Communication

29. We have not seen evidence of the landlord or TMO sufficiently communicating with the leaseholder of the property above. While the landlord would not be directly responsible for the leak, it has responsibilities toward the resident to ensure it is proactively resolving the issues. It is unclear if the landlord has a policy or procedure in relation to its responsibilities when it comes to its relationships with third party owners within a building it has properties in. We have made orders with the aim of the landlord resolving the issues for the resident. But it may be some of the responsibilities lay with the leaseholder. The landlord must consider what steps it needs to take with the leaseholder and in line with its obligations, to progress any repairs in a timely manner.