London Borough of Islington (202518457)

Decision
Case ID	202518457
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 March 2026

Background

The resident said issues with access to the building through a barrier during planned works were causing her difficulty because of her disability. She wanted the landlord to give her a fob to bypass the barrier. She felt she was being put to a disadvantage because of her disability.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments to access the property
2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have found the landlord responsible for:
1. maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments to access the property
2. service failure in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments to access the property

The landlord did not show that it had sufficiently explored how it could offer the resident reasonable adjustments to help her access the property. It did not properly consider the issue as a potential equality issue until after the complaints process was completed.

The complaint handling

The landlord was slow to acknowledge the complaint. It followed its remaining timelines effectively and provided clear responses. However, it failed to address every aspect of the 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.

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 22 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to properly consider reasonable adjustments for an extended period £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 22 April 2026
3	Provision of information order The landlord must respond to the resident’s questions about the consultation process it undertook before installing the barrier on the estate. It must explain in writing the steps it took and how it considered the equality impact of the installation.	No later than 22 April 2026
4	Meet with the resident The landlord must meet with the resident to discuss her concerns about the fob access only being temporary. It must set out what actions it will take to reduce any uncertainty or distress.	No later than 22 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 May 2025	The resident made her stage 1 complaint. She said: she felt she had been subjected to disability discrimination as a result of the landlord’s handling of her access issues she did not have a way of accessing her property through a road barrier outside the property during hours it was not attended this meant she was effectively trapped in her home during the hours the barrier was unattended as cars could not get in to pick her up there were also roadworks blocking a nearby road which meant there were no safe spaces for cars to drop her off this had resulted in her falling in the road and injuring herself during a drop off in the middle of the road the landlord was failing to make reasonable adjustments for her disability she wanted it to put a solution in place for her to be able to use vehicles for transport during the hours that the barrier was unattended
8 July 2025	After acknowledging the complaint on 24 June 2025, the landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said: it apologised that she had faced difficulties accessing the estate due to the barriers it acknowledged she had been injured while being dropped off in the road near the estate it has shared information with residents about the ongoing roadworks and the access restrictions they would cause until the end of August 2025 there were no other alternative access options available at the moment due to works taking place on a road on the estate it had explored the option of providing her with a fob to access the barrier but found this was not possible the barrier attendants could be called to arrange access during working hours and gave the relevant telephone number it was not upholding the complaint as it found no evidence of any service failures it encouraged her to suggest any further support she might find helpful
9 July 2025	The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said: no equality impact assessment (EIA) or resident consultation appeared to have been completed before installing the barrier its refusal to give her a fob despite them being standard for residents with parking spaces was a failure to make a reasonable adjustment the current restricted barrier opening hours meant she had missed important medical appointments and suffered a fall being dropped off the presence of roadworks did not explain the ongoing access issues for vulnerable residents presented by the barrier she wanted it to review its decision not to give her a fob she wanted it to confirm whether it had completed an EIA before installing the barrier and give her a copy she wanted it to consider alternative access arrangements for residents with mobility issues outside of the barrier opening times she wanted it to review how it consulted with residents before the barrier was installed
5 August 2025	After acknowledging the escalation on 9 July 2025, the landlord gave its stage 2 response. It said: it was grateful to the resident for speaking with it on 4 August 2025 vehicular access to the estate was still restricted to residents with parking permits who were issued with fobs this arrangement was agreed with the Tenant and Resident Association (TRA) the TRA and Estate Parking Team was reviewing her individual eligibility for a parking permit and fob based on extenuating circumstances it would contact her with a decision once one was reached and that it would handle the issue with sensitivity it was not upholding the complaint as there had been no service failures
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She wanted the landlord to apologise for the distress she had faced as a result of ongoing access challenges. She said she wanted ease of access equivalent to an able bodied person.

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 request for reasonable adjustments to access the property
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

The resident said the landlord discriminated against her by not making reasonable adjustments. The Equality Act says landlords must make reasonable adjustments to help disabled people. This can include changing rules or practices that put disabled people at a disadvantage.
We cannot make a legal finding of discrimination. The courts are best placed to assess whether this occurred. If the resident believes the landlord has unlawfully discriminated or harassed them, they can seek legal advice about this. We will instead consider whether the landlord thought properly about the requested adjustments and how it responded to her concerns.
The landlord’s internal complaint procedure also investigated and responded to the resident’s request for storage of her mobility scooter. However, this issue was raised at stage 1 of the complaint but not escalated to stage 2. She has since told us that she considers this issue to have been resolved. We have focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the one issue that remains outstanding.

What we have looked at

The landlord made clear in its complaint responses to the resident that its ability to provide alternative options for accessing the property was impacted by roadworks taking place on the estate. It was reasonable that it identified these extenuating circumstances and gave a target date for their completion.
However, the landlord did not go far enough in its exploration of adjustments it could have made while the works took place. In its Reasonable Adjustments Policy, it says in cases where residents face difficulty accessing their homes due to maintenance works it should consider offering assistance, such as help carrying shopping or deliveries. It says it will also notify social services to provide additional carers if residents are housebound as a result of the works.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered ways it could offer the resident support while the works were taking place. In its stage 1 response on 8 July 2025 it said it had considered supplying her with a fob to access the barrier but had been unable to do so. However, it failed to give a clear explanation for why it came to this decision. It was unreasonable that it did not help her understand why it was unable to give her access this way. She was put to further distress as it had not set out areas where it may have been able to make adjustments for her. She continued to be impacted as she could not access her home safely.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord encouraged the resident to let it know if she had any suggestions of alternative options it could consider for supporting her with accessibility. It was positive that it wanted to involve her in its process. However, it should not have moved the responsibility onto the resident before it showed what options it had already considered. It should have been able to demonstrate that it had exhausted all of the options it had identified for accommodating the resident and her accessibility needs. The landlord should lead on identifying adjustments as it understands its policies and operational limitations more than its residents can.
In its stage 2 response on 5 August 2025, it told the resident it would review whether or not she was eligible for a parking space and fob with the TRA. While it was positive that it was looking at a long term solution to the request for adjustments, it did not set a date for when this review would take place. There is no evidence this meeting took place or what the outcome was. The landlord was unable to find evidence that the review had even been discussed with the TRA following its stage 2 response. It was unreasonable that it raised her expectations around the potential for a fob and parking space but failed to update her on the decision that had been made.
Following the complaints procedure, internal discussions at the landlord on 21 August 2025 identified the complaint as an equality, health and safety issue for vulnerable and disabled residents. It decided to give the resident a fob to access the barrier temporarily while the works were underway. While it was positive that it made this adjustment, it was unreasonable that it took so long to do so. The resident had raised her own concerns about equality throughout the complaint but it had failed to respond to these. Its internal discussions show that it understood the severity of the issue and could have acted much sooner.
Landlords should be able to demonstrate their approach to considering reasonable adjustments when requested. The landlord did not set out a clear rationale for its decisions. The resident faced distress and inconvenience because of its lack of a clear explanation of how it was considering supporting her. She missed appointments and faced restrictions on her ability to leave her home as a result.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s Complaints Policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (“the Code.”)
As can be seen from above:
1. the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 20 working days (25 May 2025 to 24 June 2025) which was not compliant with the 5 working days the Code allows
2. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 10 working days (24 June 2025 to 8 July 2025) which was compliant with the 10 days the Code allows
3. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 19 working days (9 July 2025 to 5 August 2025) which was compliant with the 20 days allowed by the Code
It was unreasonable that the landlord took so long to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. In its Corporate Complaints Policy, it says it must acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days which it failed to do. When it did acknowledge the complaint, it made no apology for this delay which was unreasonable. It should have taken the opportunity to reassure the resident that it was taking her complaint seriously.
The landlord’s management of the remainder of the complaints procedure was efficient and followed its timelines well. It responded to most aspects of the complaint clearly at both stages, setting out its position and the steps it would take to progress the matter.
However, the landlord failed to respond when the resident asked if an equality impact assessment or resident consultation had been completed before the barrier was installed. It was unreasonable that it knew the main subject of the complaint was about equality but did not explain the steps it had taken to ensure equal access for all residents. We have ordered that it gives a response to this aspect of the complaint to provide a fuller overall response to the concerns she raised.

Learning

The landlord took steps that were effective but there were delays in doing so. It could reflect on whether an earlier response to the request for reasonable adjustments would have resulted in better outcomes for the resident and a strengthening of the landlord tenant relationship. It could reflect on how it could demonstrate its consideration of reasonable adjustments more clearly in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There were inconsistencies in the landlord’s acknowledgment of requests for adjustments. It could consider whether its process for acknowledging complaints and requests were adequately followed during the process.

Communication

Generally, the landlord communicated well. There were some unnecessary delays in its responses at points. It could reflect on the quality of its communication and where there may have been room for more effective use of its communication channels.