Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202415093)

Background

1. The landlord installed a new bathroom in the resident’s property a couple of years prior to her complaint. The resident raised concerns that the new bath had a crack in it and there were gaps between the tiles. The resident was pregnant at the time of her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about repairs to the resident’s bathroom.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its response to the repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
   2. Maladministration in its response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. There was a delay of 10 months in the landlord replacing the bath and a delay of around 18 months in it installing a new bath panel, clearing the window vent and regrouting tiles. We have awarded additional compensation to reflect the further delays that occurred after the complaints process concluded.
5. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial complaint for 8 months. We have awarded compensation for the landlord’s errors in its handling of the associated complaint.

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.

Recommendations

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

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. During the landlord’s inspection of the property on 19 November 2024, the resident raised concerns about the condition of the kitchen. The landlord addressed these concerns in its stage 1 complaint response. The resident did not escalate her concerns about her kitchen to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, we have not investigated this issue.
7. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom. As above, we cannot investigate issues that have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. We recommend that the landlord inspects the bathroom and carries out work to treat any damp and mould it identifies.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing any fixtures and fittings it has installed in a resident’s property. The policy sets out that emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. In her complaint of 19 February 2024, the resident told the landlord she could not use the bath due to concerns about injuring herself. In her further complaint on 18 June 2024, she reported that areas of chipped enamel in the bath had become dangerously sharp. When residents raise safety concerns, the landlord should carry out an urgent inspection to assess any risk and determine what repairs are required. The landlord did not do so. This was a significant failing, particularly as the resident had informed the landlord that she was pregnant meaning she may be more at risk of falling.
9. The landlord inspected the resident’s bathroom in November 2024 and confirmed that the extractor fan and window were working as they should and that the tiles were in good condition. However, during an inspection of the bathroom it carried out in July 2025, it identified that the grouting between tiles had not been completed properly and that the vent in the window had been painted over. This was contrary to what it had told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response.
10. The landlord advised the resident to wipe the window ledge regularly to prevent water from collecting. This advice was reasonable as it was consistent with the landlord’s guidance, which states that residents should remove condensation frequently, particularly from windows, window frames, and walls.
11. The landlord has provided evidence that it replaced the resident’s bath on 8 January 2025, which was more than 10 months beyond its timescale for routine repairs. It replaced the bath panel on 9 October 2025 and cleared the window vent and regrouted the tiles on 8 November 2025. These works were completed around 18 months outside the landlord’s timescale for routine repairs. The delays were significant and likely caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience.
12. The resident told the landlord her mental and physical health was affected by its handling of the repairs to her bathroom. We acknowledge the resident’s comments about her health. However, 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 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.
13. Our remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. It states that compensation of £100–£600 is appropriate where a resident has been adversely affected, and the landlord has not fully put things right. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered £200 compensation. However, as noted above, there were further delays in completing repairs after its stage 2 complaint response. We have therefore found maladministration and order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 for this aspect of the complaint.

14. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The policy states that if the landlord needs more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2.
15. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, states that a complaint must be defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’.
16. The resident raised a complaint about the condition of her bathroom on 19 February 2024. This was a clear expression of dissatisfaction which met the definition of a complaint, as set out in the Code. It would have been appropriate therefore for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaint procedure.
17. The resident complained again on 18 June 2024. On 18 November 2024, we contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 November 2024, over 8 months outside of its timescales for responding to stage 1 complaints. This delay will have likely caused the resident considerable time, trouble and inconvenience as she was kept waiting for a response to her complaint for much longer than she should have been.
18. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 12 December 2024. The landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response on 23 January 2025. This was within the timeframes set out in its complaint policy for responding to stage 2 complaints, taking into account the bank holidays over the festive period.
19. As set out above, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation overall.For ease of reference, we have apportioned this to the delays in it completing the repairs to her bathroom.We order the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £150 for its errors in its handling of the associated complaint.

Learning

Communication

20. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It did not respond to the resident’s initial complaints until we asked it to do so. The landlord may wish to consider staff training to ensure that it correctly logs all complaints and responds within its timescales.