London Borough of Islington (202226477)

Decision
Case ID	202226477
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local authority
Occupancy	Secure tenancy
Date	14 May 2026

Background

The resident lives with her family in a second floor flat in a new build property. In August 2022, she complained about a leak from the balcony above her flat. The landlord did repairs in 2023, and in May 2024 she made a new complaint about a leak from the balcony above. She also complained about how it dealt with other repairs and not having a parking space.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with:
1. Reports of a leak from a balcony.
2. Reports of a sewage back surge that the resident said damaged personal property.
3. Reports about staff conduct.
4. Reports of repairs.
5. A request for a parking space.
6. Reports of issues with heating and hot water.
We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s report of a leak from a balcony.
We have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of a sewage back surge that she said damaged personal property.
We have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports about staff conduct.
We have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of repairs.
We have found there was no maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s request for a parking space.
How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of issues with heating and hot water is outside our jurisdiction.
We have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord has not completed the repairs to the balcony, and the resident has not been able to use her balcony for safety reasons. The compensation offered in the final response was not sufficient for the significant distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord accepted there had been communication failures, which led to delays in fixing the sewage back surge. It apologised and said it would learn from the complaint. It also acted to prevent future back surges. The compensation offered was reasonable.
There is evidence the landlord investigated staff conduct. It accepted the calls fell below its standards. It gave an assurance that it acted. We accept that it could not share details of any specific action it took. The compensation offered was reasonable.
The landlord arranged an inspection and made appointments for repairs within a reasonable time. There were some delays caused by communication failures and missed appointments, and it did not complete the repairs within the timescale in its policy. The compensation offered was reasonable.
The landlord followed its estates parking allocation policy. When it had evidence of a change in circumstances, it changed the resident’s priority for a parking space.
The resident raised a complaint with us about issues with heating and hot water, which had not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, are raised with us before they have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and we are satisfied that the landlord has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
The compensation and apology offered for the complaint delay were in line with our compensation guidance.

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 found in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 11 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the balcony. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any amounts already paid.	No later than 11 June 2026
3	Repairs order The landlord must provide the resident and us with a schedule of works within 4 weeks of the date of this report, showing any outstanding repairs related to the balcony leaks. This must include clear timeframes setting out how it will complete the repairs within 60 days of the date of the schedule of works.	No later than 11 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reoffers the £725 compensation for the failures in how it dealt with reports of a back surge, staff conduct, repairs, and complaint handling if it has not already paid it to the resident. We have made our finding of reasonable redress on the basis that the landlord makes this payment.
We recommend the landlord considers offering additional compensation to the resident for the delays to various repairs after it sent its final complaint response to reflect the inconvenience caused.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 May 2024	The resident told the landlord that there was a leak affecting her balcony. On 6 December 2024, she reported a back surge of sewage in her bathroom.
9 December 2024	The resident complained about the time the landlord took to deal with the sewage back surge and the attitude of staff who dealt with her calls. She also complained about other repairs, including the balcony, and not having a parking space.
29 January 2025	In its complaint response, the landlord accepted it had delayed in dealing with the back surge. It apologised for how it had dealt with some of the resident’s calls. It said it would arrange appointments for the repairs. It told her she was on a waiting list for a parking space. It apologised for its failures and offered £425 compensation.
3 February 2025	In her request to escalate her complaint, the resident said the landlord had not completed any repairs. She said its staff spoke to her in an “appalling” manner. She wanted to know why it had not inspected the stack pipe. She said there were spare parking spaces.
13 March 2025	In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had inspected the stack pipe. It said it could not give details, but it had acted on how its staff dealt with her. It said it had done the repairs but would do an inspection. It said it gave correct information about parking in its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delays and increased the compensation to £925.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In her escalation to us, the resident said the landlord had not repaired the balcony, which she said was dangerous. She said despite lots of appointments, she was not happy with the other repairs. She said she was frustrated by the situation and wanted it to complete the repairs and increase the compensation.

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	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of leaks from a balcony
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

Our Scheme says we may not investigate complaints that a resident refers to us more than 12 months after the date of the landlord’s final response. In this case, the resident complained about a balcony leak in August 2022, which exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure in March 2023. However, she did not refer this complaint to us. She complained about a new balcony leak in December 2024, which she referred to us in March 2025.
We have not seen any reasons that stopped the resident referring the complaint made in August 2022 to us. Because of this, we will not investigate how the landlord dealt with reports of a balcony leak in August 2022. Instead, we will investigate how it dealt with the report in May 2024 but may refer to earlier events for context.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete complex repairs within 60 working days. It is reasonable to see significant works to a second-floor balcony that required scaffolding as complex repairs.
On 21 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said there was a new leak from the balcony above her flat. It raised an inspection on 22 May 2024, which took place on 3 June 2024. On 11 August 2024, she told it she had heard nothing about the repairs since the inspection. It replied to her the next day and said it had tried to phone her. It said it had passed the repair to its contractor, who would contact her to arrange an appointment. In circumstances where it could not contact the resident by phone, it would have been reasonable for it to email her and give information about the appointment, as almost 2 months had passed since her report.
We have seen no evidence of further contact between the resident and landlord until she complained on 9 December 2024. In her complaint, she questioned whether it had fixed the leak in 2023 because its contractors told her that no work was “evident” on the balcony above. She wanted an explanation of why it had given her “false information” about the earlier repairs. She wanted an update and said the scaffolding it had erected was a security risk.
Following the resident’s complaint, which included complaints about other repairs, the landlord did an inspection of her home on 12 December 2024. In its notes of the inspection, it said the balcony repairs were in progress.
In its complaint response on 29 January 2025, the landlord said following her report in May 2024, it looked at whether the new build defect liability period covered the balcony repair. It said as it did not, it agreed on 15 August 2024 that its contractor would do the work. It said it then issued the work to the wrong contractor and because of its error had to raise a new order. It said its contractor erected scaffold on 12 October 2024, and it did an inspection on 20 November 2024, which showed the repairs as complete. However, it accepted it had not completed the repairs. It apologised for this and said the contractor would contact her about an appointment.
By the time the landlord sent its complaint response on 29 January 2025, 8 months had passed since the report of a new leak. It explained the delays in its response, which was a positive approach. We accept this was a complex repair, which would fall within its 60 working day timescale. However, the explanation of the delay shows it was not progressing the repairs within its policy timescales. It took over 2 months to give the work to a contractor. It then gave the work to the wrong contractor. It was almost 5 months after the report before it erected scaffolding. It said its records showed it had completed the work In November 2024, but it then accepted this was not the case. It was reasonable for it to apologise and say it would arrange a new appointment. However, it did not say when the appointment would happen or offer compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delays.
In her complaint escalation on 3 February 2025, the resident said she was still waiting for the repairs, and the landlord had given her false information about the repairs in 2023.
In May 2026 the resident explained to us that to resolve the leak, the landlord needed to do work on her balcony and on the balcony above.
In its final response on 13 March 2025, the landlord said a contractor visited on 3 January 2025 to remove glass panels on her balcony, but it could only complete part of the work as some panels were concreted in. It said the contractor installed a temporary hoarding on her balcony for safety reasons. It said a second contractor attended on 26 February 2025 and confirmed the first contractor could remove the rest of the panels. It said as soon as the first contractor removed the panels, the second contractor would attend as a priority.
In its final complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £400 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by delays to repairs. However, it did not specify which delays the compensation related to. There were other repair delays, which we deal with later in this report. Because of this, we have considered that half of the £400 was for balcony repair delays.
The evidence shows that by the time the landlord sent its final complaint response in March 2025, 10-months had passed since the resident’s report, and it had not done the repairs. Even though it said it would do the repairs as a priority in its response, she told us in May 2026 that there had been several appointments, but it had not completed the work. We accept this was a complex repair involving 2 balconies. However, she said there had been scaffolding in place from October 2024, which caused her security concerns. She explained that she had not been able to use her balcony for safety reasons since January 2025, when it put up temporary hoarding. She said contractors had appeared on the balcony without appointments, which caused her distress, and at other times did not turn up for appointments, which caused inconvenience. Evidence shows she continued to chase the landlord about the repairs after its final response.
In line with our compensation guidance, there was a failure that had a significant impact on the resident and her family as it caused distress and inconvenience over a considerable time. This amounted to maladministration, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. Because of the failings we have found and the effect on the resident, the landlord must pay her £800 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, inclusive of the £200 previously offered.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of a sewage back surge that she said damaged personal property
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s repairs policy says that when there is an immediate danger to a person or risk of serious damage to the property, it will complete repairs within 2 hours. It says it will complete repairs that affect a resident’s day-to-day living within 24 hours.
The resident reported a back surge of sewage, which she said was coming up through her bath and toilet, to the landlord on 6 December 2024. In her complaint on 9 December 2024, she set out a detailed account of the phone calls she made over the 6, 7, and 8 December 2024 and the landlord’s response. Details included:
1. Reporting a back surge to the landlord at 5.30pm on 6 December 2024 and it saying it had raised a 2-hour emergency response. Calling it back at 6.30pm and it saying it had raised the report as a routine repair.
2. Asking the landlord to give the contractor her husband’s phone number as her phone was not working, but it not passing the number on. She said this meant that when a contractor arrived late at night on 6 December 2024 and called her phone, it got no answer and recorded the visit as no access.
3. When she reported a second back surge to the landlord at 5:00pm on 7 December 2024, she called the contractor directly at 6.30pm and it told her it had not received the job from the landlord.
Records show that at the appointment on 8 December 2024, the contractor recommended a CCTV survey of drains, as there had been 2 reports of a back surge within 3 days. The landlord arranged a survey for 23 December 2024. The notes of the survey said it had completed the work, and the drain system was clear and flowing.
In its complaint response on 29 January 2025, the landlord accepted the resident’s version of events. It said it had wrongly allocated her first report on 6 December 2024, which meant it did not give it a 2-hour priority. It accepted there was a record keeping failure, which meant it did not pass her husband’s phone number to the contractor. It also accepted it should have chased the contractor for updates. It said it was sorry that she had to call “on multiple occasions”. It offered £275 compensation for the delay and its communication failures. It also accepted there were lessons it could learn on monitoring repairs given to contractors and how it updated residents about delays.
It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for and accept its failures and offer compensation. It was positive that it said it would learn from the complaint.
In her request to escalate her complaint on 3 February 2024, the resident wanted to know why it took the landlord time to raise an emergency repair. She also said it had not done the recommended survey of the drains. She said the back surge had caused damage to items in the bathroom, including towels and a shower curtain.
In its final complaint response on 13 March 2024, the landlord accepted there had been a delay in raising the emergency repair. It apologised for this. It said its contractor had done the survey of the drains and found an uncapped drain. It said it had done work to fix this. It increased the compensation offer to £300 for its communication failures. On damage to personal items, it said it did not insure residents’ belongings and gave her details on how to apply for contents insurance.
In May 2026, the resident told us there had been no back surges since December 2024.
Overall, we have found the landlord’s final response was reasonable. It accepted there had been failures in its communication with the resident and contractor, which led to delays between 6 and 8 December 2024. It apologised for these and said it would learn from the complaint. It clearly set out its position on damage to personal belongings. As well as fixing the back surge, there is evidence that it did a follow up survey and acted to prevent future problems. The amount of compensation offered is in line with our compensation guidance and was reasonable for a service failure which caused distress and inconvenience over a short duration.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about staff conduct
Finding	Reasonable redress

It is not our role to decide whether there was staff misconduct. Instead, we can look at whether the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint in line with its policy, and whether it acted reasonably in the circumstances. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it will investigate complaints including those about staff conduct.
In her complaint on 9 December 2024, the resident said that when she called to report a sewage back surge, some of the landlord’s staff were rude and unhelpful. She said they told her they could not chase the contractor. She wanted it to listen to the calls and let her know what it would do about the “disgusting attitude and poor customer service”.
An internal email on 24 December 2024 shows that the landlord asked for copies of the call recordings with the resident between 6 and 8 December 2024.
In its complaint response on 29 January 2025, the landlord said it had listened to the calls and apologised for its staff attitude on some calls. It said its staff should have chased the contractor. It said it would deal with these matters through training for the individuals concerned. It offered £100 compensation for time and trouble.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 3 February 2025. She said its staff spoke to her in an “appalling manner” and they needed a written warning.
In its final complaint response on 13 March 2025, the landlord said it had taken “necessary action” including training. It said due to data protection, it could not share further details about individuals. It apologised for the “unsatisfactory customer service” and increased the offer of compensation to £150.
Overall, we have found that this was a reasonable response from the landlord. We have seen evidence that it investigated the calls. It accepted the calls fell below its standards and gave an assurance that it acted in relation to individuals. We accept that it could not share details of any specific action it took. The compensation offered is in line with our compensation guidance and was a reasonable amount for the distress caused for a service failure over a short duration.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will do routine repairs within 20 working days. It says some jobs may need an inspection first to diagnose the problem.
In her complaint on 9 December 2024, the resident told the landlord that since she moved to the flat there had been many faults. She said there were faults with the front door, a sensor light, door handles, the shower rail, toilet seat, silicon around the bath, a kitchen draw, and the plinths above the windows. We have not seen reports of these faults before this time and because of this are taking this date as the first report.
The landlord arranged an inspection for 16 December 2024. This confirmed the repairs the resident had raised in her complaint. It said the gap around the front door was “sub-standard installation, which meant it did not meet fire regulations, and it should call back the original contractor to rectify the fault.
On 13 January 2025, the resident asked the landlord for an update following the survey. It replied to her the same day and said an appointment to fix internal doors would take place on 16 January 2025 and a plumber would do the repairs in the bathroom on 21 January 2025. On the same day it found that the defects liability period had ended and did not cover the repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2025 and said the appointment arranged for that day had not happened. She said it had told her the next appointment was on 12 February 2025. She wanted it to combine the appointment with the one arranged for 21 January 2025. We have not seen evidence of a response to this request.
In its complaint response on 29 January 2025, the landlord set out its position on the various repairs following the survey on 16 December 2024:
1. On the light sensor, it said it installed a new sensor on 24 January 2025.
2. It said it had passed work on the fire door to a contractor who would arrange an appointment.
3. It said it sent her a letter about an appointment on 16 January 2025 with a carpenter to fix the handles and doors. It said the letter also gave details of an appointment with a plumber for 21 January 2025 to fix the shower rail and silicone around the bath panel. However, when it attended on 16 January 2025, it was unable to get access. It said it had rearranged this appointment for 12 February 2025.
This was a reasonable response as the landlord arranged an inspection within a week of the complaint and gave details of what it had done and would do. There appears to have been a communication problem with the appointment on 16 January 2025. Although the resident asked it to combine an appointment with one arranged for 21 January 2025, we can see this was for a different trade and may not have been possible. However, the landlord should have responded to the resident’s request.
In her request to escalate her complaint on 3 February 2025, the resident said the landlord had not done any of the repairs. She said it had not fixed the door sensor as the light stayed on. She said it did not join the appointments together on 21 January 2025 as she requested.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 February 2025 about the appointment arranged for that day. She said her husband waited at home for a carpenter and plumber to attend. She said the carpenter did the repairs, but the plumber called at 11.45am to say he was running late. She said this meant the appointment did not go ahead as her husband had to go out. On 13 February 2025, she told it a plumber attended but did not do the repairs as he had no materials. She said the plumber told her he would return on 27 February 2025. She wanted to know why he did not have the materials and why she had to wait another 2 weeks.
On 27 February 2025 the resident emailed the landlord and said the plumber had attended and drilled a hole into a tiled wall without permission, which left an “unsightly and badly filled hole”. She said he had removed a bath panel and replaced it with a “cheap panel” which he installed “terribly”. She said the repair to the front door had left it in a “worse state than before”, the repair to a kitchen draw was not straight, and it had still not fixed the sensor light.
In its final complaint response on 13 March 2025, the landlord apologised for the delays. It said:
1. It completed work on the sensor light on 24 January 2025 but as she had raised a new concern about the light staying on, it would arrange an inspection.
2. It completed repairs on 12 February 2025 to door handles, a kitchen draw, a worktop, and window plinths.
3. It completed works to the shower rail and bath panel on 27 February 2025.
4. It raised a job for the front door on 17 January 2025, but its contractor had difficulties arranging an appointment with the resident. It said it wanted to attend on 11 February 2025 to take measurements, but she could not make this date. It said when it spoke with her on 4 March 2025, she confirmed it had done the work, but said the door was now crooked. It said it would arrange an inspection.
The landlord apologised that it had not fully resolved the repairs and for the delays. It offered compensation of £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays to repairs. However, it did not specify which delays the compensation related to. There was also a delay to the balcony repairs, which we have dealt with earlier in this report. Because of this, we have considered that half of the £400 was for the other repairs.
Following the final response, the resident contacted the landlord on 19 March 2025 to dispute the quality of some repairs. We are unable to assess the quality of the work done and any follow up work is outside the scope of this investigation. However, in its complaint response, it reasonably said it would do an inspection of the work it had done. In May 2026, the resident confirmed that it had completed the work, but there were further delays. It is unclear when the landlord completed the work from the information we have seen, but it is clear the resident chased it several times. Because of this we have made a recommendation.
Overall, we have found that the landlord responded reasonably to the reports following the complaint on 9 December 2024. As the issues reported were routine repairs, it arranged an inspection and made appointments for repairs within a reasonable time. However, there were some delays caused by communication failures and missed appointments. In its final response it said it had completed all the repairs by 4 March 2025. This was outside the timescales in its repairs policy and because of this it apologised and offered compensation. The amount of compensation offered is in line with our compensation guidance and was reasonable for a service failure which caused distress and inconvenience over a short duration.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s request for a parking space
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

In May 2026, the resident told us the landlord had given her a garage parking space, but it was not “fit for purpose” as it was too small for a resident with a blue badge. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident may raise a new complaint about this with the landlord if she wishes.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s estates parking allocation policy sets out its approach to offers of a garage or parking space. It says residents must complete an application form and applicants will join a waiting list. It says when a garage or parking space becomes vacant it will offer it to the next applicant on the list on a priority basis. The priority order is residents with a blue badge living on the estate, followed by other residents living on the estate.
On 11 January 2022, the resident asked the landlord whether there were any available parking spaces. It replied to her on 21 January 2022 and gave information about how to apply to join the waiting list. She made an application on 12 September 2022. This showed that no-one in the family had a blue badge.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on her application on 13 November 2023. It replied to her the next day and gave her details of her position on the waiting list and how it gave priority. On 20 November 2023, she told it her husband had applied for a blue badge. It asked her to let it know once he received a blue badge as this would change her priority.
In her complaint on 9 December 2024, the resident said she did not have a parking space despite her husband’s health. She said people who did not live on the estate used parking spaces. She said she should have priority as she had been on the waiting list for almost 3 years.
In its complaint response on 29 January 2025, the landlord said she was number 15 on the waiting list. It explained that it gave priority to residents with a blue badge. It asked her to send details if she had a blue badge and said it would then update its records. On her allegations that people who did not live on the estate used parking spaces, it asked her to report this to the parking enforcement team.
In her request to escalate her complaint on 3 February 2025, the resident said there were spare parking spaces available. In its final complaint response on 13 March 2025, the landlord said the information given in its stage 1 response was correct.
We have seen that in October 2025, the resident told the landlord that her husband had been awarded a blue badge. It offered the resident a garage 2 weeks later as her new priority had moved her to the front of the waiting list.
The evidence shows there was no maladministration in how the landlord dealt with the resident’s request for a parking space. This is because it followed its estates parking allocation policy. When she first asked about a parking space, it gave information on the application process. When she enquired about her priority it explained its policy. It reasonably asked her to report any parking infringements. When it had evidence that her husband’s circumstances had changed, it changed her priority and offered a garage.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of issues with heating and hot water
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident raised a complaint with us about issues with heating and hot water, which did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident may raise a new complaint about this with the landlord if she wishes.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The resident complained on 9 December 2024, and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 December 2024, which was outside its timescales. It sent its response on 29 January 2025, which was 35 working days after the resident complained. It apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation for not meeting its timescales.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 3 February 2025. It acknowledged the complaint the next day and sent its final complaint response on 13 March 2025, which was 6 weeks later and outside its timescales. In mitigation it kept the resident informed about the delay. In its final response it apologised for the delay and increased the offer of compensation to £75.
Overall, we have found this was reasonable redress by the landlord for the failures in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint. This is because the compensation and apology were in line with our compensation guidance when there is a complaint handling failure that was of a short duration.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it responds to all complaints in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code. It should also ensure it gives a clear breakdown of what failing the compensation it offers relates to.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

We found the landlord’s record keeping was lacking on several occasions, such as when its records showed it had completed balcony repairs in November 2024. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help the landlord with this.

Communication

There were failures in the landlord’s communication, such as when it dealt with the resident’s calls about a sewage back surge. However, the landlord gave clear information on its estate parking allocation policy.