London Borough of Islington (202433169)

Decision
Case ID	202433169
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	16 January 2026

Background

The resident moved into the property, a 2-bedroom flat, in August 2024. Soon after signing the tenancy, they told the landlord they were unhappy with the property’s condition and chose to stay with family while the issues were addressed. They signed the tenancy again in April 2025 but still felt the property was not ready and believed the landlord should have offered temporary accommodation. The landlord recorded that the resident has a physical health condition.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of the condition of her new property.
2. Request for temporary accommodation.
3. Request to replace the kitchen.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found that there was.
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of her new property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for temporary accommodation.
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the kitchen.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Condition of the property

The landlord failed to evidence it had followed its void standard by ensuring the property was clean and free from damp before the resident signed the tenancy. It failed to complete routine repairs or to consider offering a dehumidifier to reduce condensation in line with its repairs and maintenance policy,. Furthermore, it hasn’t evidenced that it completed the works as agreed at stage 2. Although the compensation it offered was reasonable it did not set out any learning.

Request for temporary accommodation

The landlord failed to consider temporary accommodation while the property was uninhabitable between August 2024 to April 2025.

Request to replace the kitchen

It was reasonable for the landlord to maintain the kitchen until it reached the age for replacement under its policy. However, it failed to meet its customer care standard by not responding to the resident’s application to make alterations. It made an offer of reasonable redress for this failing.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not give the resident the opportunity to make a complaint when they first raised concerns. Furthermore, it did not respond to the stage 1 complaint in line with its complaints procedure.

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 26 August 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £3148.22 compensation, made up of: £1508.22 in relation to the failings relating to the condition of the new property. £1333, for an unsuitable property being allocated. £400 for the distress associated with the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation. £300 for complaint handling failings. £300 for poor communication relating to kitchen replacement. 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 26 August 2026
4	Specific Action The landlord must complete an inspection of the property and determine whether the property is habitable, what outstanding works are required and produce a new schedule of works. What the inspection must achieve A comprehensive inspection of the property and produce a written report supported by photographic evidence. Assess whether the existing schedule of works is sufficient to achieve a lasting and effective resolution. Where it is not, the landlord must establish a revised scope of works. The survey report must clearly set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and identify any hazards present. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is required, either due to the condition of the property or to enable the works to be completed. A confirmed or revised scope of works, as appropriate. Following the inspection The landlord must write to us and you within 5 days of its inspection with an action plan (including timescales) for completing any outstanding or newly identified works, including clear timescales and in accordance with its repairs policy. The landlord must keep the action plan under regular review with you, at a frequency agreed between both parties, until all works are completed. A senior manager must be appointed to oversee the works through to completion.	No later than 26 August 2026
5	Specific Action The landlord must consider reimbursing reasonable costs incurred by the resident in sourcing temporary accommodation between August 2024 and April 2025. The resident must provide evidence to support the costs.	No later than 26 August 2026
6	Specific Action Contact the resident to log a new complaint regarding the handling of the works from September 2025.	No later than 26 August 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the poor communication is made on the basis that this compensation is paid or reoffered to the resident.
The landlord should continue to work with the resident to ensure they are provided with an outcome to their alterations request in line with its policies and procedures, and its customer care standard.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 August 2024	The resident signed the tenancy agreement for the property.
Between 19 August 2024 and 20 March 2025	The resident raised concerns about the condition of her property and the standard of works the landlord had carried out.
28 March 2025	We contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s reports that: the condition of the property was poor when it was offered to her the kitchen needed to be replaced there was a leak from the radiators, and damp and mould in the property it did not offer temporary accommodation while it carried out repairs its communication was poor.
Between 1 April 2025 and 30 April 2025	The landlord received a letter of claim for housing conditions from the resident’s solicitor. It asked an independent surveyor to carry out an inspection of the property.
23 July 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: it had addressed the outstanding repairs the resident had reported it would address the issues after the resident moved into the property as “they were not extensive and were not deemed to be a health hazard” it could monitor the damp but this was a “drying out issue” that would resolve with heating and ventilation although it had cleaned the property when all major work had been completed, it had been empty for several months it had asked its targeted tenancy services team to carry out another full clean the resident had repeatedly voiced their dissatisfaction with its handling of their reports and it was sorry it had not handled this through its formal complaints process it apologised for the significant delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint and the “extra effort” in needing to approach us it offered the resident £300 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
31 July 2025	The resident escalated their complaint. They said: they were yet to move into the property because of the unresolved repair issues the targeted duty manager had inspected the property on 28 March 2025 and said it did not meet the void standard it had not offered temporary accommodation during the repair period and given their disability and health condition, it should have done this the landlord caried out repairs from 8 to 11 July 2025 and a later inspection revealed inadequate roof repairs and a missing drainpipe cap despite the independent surveyor’s recommendation that the works could be completed within 30 days, they remained outstanding the kitchen was nearly 18 years old and was at the end of its life despite numerous attempts to contact the landlord, most of their communications remained unanswered.
5 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: it was sorry about the upset the matter was causing them. It had attached information on how they could obtain advice and support it was reasonable not to charge the resident rent for the new property between 12 August 2024 and 9 April 2025 the property was considered habitable, and the works could have been completed while they were living there there had been a length of time between inspections, and it had referred this to its tenancy services team to consider additional compensation the independent surveyor identified some outstanding works on 30 April 2025 it had completed some repairs, while others were due for completion in September 2025 the kitchen did not meet the age criteria for renewal, but it acknowledged they had put in an alteration request to replace the kitchen themselves. It was sorry it had not contacted them about this and would refer this to the relevant managers it acknowledged the resident was yet to move into their home, which was offered to them over a year ago it offered increased compensation of £2,108.22 in line with its compensation policy for the upset and inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us because they were unhappy with the landlord’s response. They stated that they wanted the landlord to replace their kitchen and ensure all outstanding repairs were completed. They also wanted reimbursement of rent from 20 April 2025, and compensation equal to the cost of temporary accommodation they felt it should have provided to 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.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of her new property
Finding	Maladministration

The resident told us that the problems they have experienced with their property have affected their mental, emotional and physical health. 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 have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
Between 19 and 29 August 2024, the resident told the landlord about problems with the property they had signed for. These included holes and cracks in the walls, rotten skirting boards, rusty radiators and signs of damp. They said they had started redecorating privately but could not continue because of the outstanding repairs. They asked the landlord to inspect the property and said they would not move in until it was “habitable”.
The landlord inspected the property on 6 September 2024. The surveyor found the resident had stripped walls, doors and frames, so they could not fully assess the void works. They noted poor redecoration by the landlord and missed issues, including a cracked toilet window and rotten skirting boards. They also found damp in the hallway cupboard and bathroom. This was not in line with the landlord’s void standard that properties must be “clean and free from damp”.
The surveyor raised internal and external works, including replacing skirting boards and replastering walls. A further inspection took place on 28 October 2024. The landlord noted high condensation in all rooms because the property had been vacant for a long time. It agreed to send a leaflet on controlling condensation, which was appropriate.
However, the landlord did not follow its repairs policy. This says, where works take weeks, it should consider temporary measures such as providing a dehumidifier. There is no evidence it did this.
Internal works started on 1 October and finished around 12 November 2024 which was 47 working days after the first inspection. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy requiring routine repairs within 20 working days. The reason for the delay is unclear. There is no evidence of regular progress updates, or that the landlord was chasing its contractor to ensure repairs were completed within the required timescale.
The landlord inspected again on 12 November and met the resident on 22 November 2024. It said the property met its lettable standard, but the resident disagreed and said it was not ready. In response, the landlord inspected again on 19 March 2025. This was appropriate and showed it took their concerns seriously. The surveyor identified further works in the lounge, hallway and small bedroom and arranged a full clean, which was completed 9 days later.
On 1 April 2025 the resident issued a letter of claim about disrepair. The landlord then arranged an independent survey on 30 April 2025. The survey found minor damp likely caused by plaster not drying before decoration, no mould, and minor cracks from plasterboard joints. It recommended repairs, including roofing and a garden wall in poor condition. It concluded the property condition was “not prejudicial to health” and the resident could remain while works took place. It is unclear why earlier inspections missed these issues.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it completed garden wall repairs in June 2025 and roofing in July 2025, within the 60-day target for legal case works as set out in its repairs policy. It said remaining works would finish in September 2025, but it is unclear whether this happened.
The landlord’s failure to provide a meaningful update is a matter of significant concern. In the absence of evidence demonstrating what action was taken following its stage 2 response, we are unable to conclude that the landlord appropriately monitored, managed, or progressed the works it had committed to complete. This lack of oversight and accountability raises further concerns regarding the landlord’s management of the outstanding issues at the property and its compliance with the commitments made to the resident.
The landlord took steps to try and resolve the complaint. It apologised for the delays and offered £1,508.22 compensation in line with its compensation policy. We have not ordered additional redress. This was because its offer was also in line with our remedies guidance for failures which have had an adverse impact on the resident.
However, the landlord did not explain what it had learned from the complaint and it is unclear whether works remain outstanding. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to confirm any learning and whether all outstanding works are complete.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s request for temporary accommodation
Finding	Maladministration

The resident said the landlord had not provided temporary accommodation since August 2024. They also asked for reimbursement of rent paid after restarting their tenancy on 20 April 2025 because of the outstanding repairs.
The evidence demonstrated that the property did not meet the landlord’s void standard at the point of letting and, therefore, should not have been let in that condition. This finding was further supported by the landlord’s decision to issue a new tenancy agreement in April 2025, supported by its own records and was confirmed in the complaint response.
To address this, the landlord confirmed that it would not charge rent for the period from August 2024 to March 2025, when it considered the property to be in a suitable condition for occupation. It also issued a new tenancy agreement to reflect this arrangement.
In light of this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident temporary accommodation within this period.
While we have seen evidence that the resident informed the landlord in September 2024 that resident was staying with family, it was not reasonable for it to assume that this was a long-term arrangement.

Based on the information provided to the landlord, it was aware that the resident had given up her previous tenancy due to health reasons and therefore was aware of her vulnerabilities. She also detailed in September 2024 that if the works were going to take longer than a month then she would need temporary accommodation.
The landlord further acknowledged that it failed to manage this correctly, as the stage 2 complaint response confirmed that it had asked for its Tenancy Services to team to assess whether it would be appropriate to award compensation for the period that the resident was without a tenancy or accommodation.
In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, it states that it will pay between £1,000 and £2,000 per annum where an unsuitable property has been allocated, causing a high level of distress due to a resident’s vulnerabilities. The property was determined to be uninhabitable for a period of 8 months, as determined by the landlord’s decision to issue a new tenancy and not charge rent for this period. During this time, no alternative accommodation was offered.
As a result, an order has been made for the landlord to pay £1,333. This amount is based on £2,000 per annum, calculated on a pro rata basis for 8 months and reflects the seriousness of the situation, taking into account the resident’s health conditions and the reasons for giving up the previous tenancy.
The landlord’s policy also states that it will pay up to £1000 for distress for severe and prolonged stress. In line with our remedies on guidance, a further order has been made to pay £400 for the distress and inconvenience associated with the failing.
In relation to whether the property was or not habitable after April 2025, there is a difference of opinion between the resident and the landlord. The evidence available does not demonstrate that the landlord accepted the property was uninhabitable after April 2025. Furthermore, the surveys indicate that while works remained outstanding, that occupation was considered possible while those repairs were completed.
Where there are conflicting professional opinions, it is appropriate for us to order a further inspection so that the current condition of the property can be independently assessed. It is also appropriate to order the landlord to log a new complaint, allowing it to investigate and respond to its handling of the matter from September 2025 onwards.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s request to replace the kitchen
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident asked the landlord to replace the kitchen, saying it was nearly 18 years old and at the end of its life. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained its policy of renewing kitchens after 25 years. It confirmed on 21 March 2023 that the kitchen was fitted in 2008, and the next planned works would be in 2029 or 2030.
The landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement is to repair and maintain. Installing a new kitchen, unless the existing one was beyond repair, is an improvement. Social landlords have limited resources and must manage them responsibly for all residents. They are entitled to repair items where this is more economical than replacement.
It was appropriate for the landlord to remind the resident they could replace the kitchen themselves, subject to permission. The evidence shows the resident submitted a request to make alterations, including replacing the kitchen on 28 May 2025. Despite her chasing several times between 30 May and 1 August 2025, the landlord did not respond. It carried out an alteration inspection only in October 2025, 5 months later. This poor communication was not in line with its customer care standard, which requires staff to confirm receipt of an email within 2 working days and reply in full within 10 working days.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication in its stage 2 response. It offered £300 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance for failures that caused inconvenience but no permanent impact. We are therefore satisfied the landlord has taken reasonable steps to resolve this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 edition sets out how landlords should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy met the Code’s timescales.
On 28 August 2024 the resident raised concerns about the property they had just signed for and continued to do so until March 2025. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord considered treating this as a complaint. This was not in line with the Code, which says landlords must offer residents the choice to make a complaint whenever they express dissatisfaction. The landlord did not open and acknowledge a stage 1 complaint until 28 March 2025, after we contacted it.
It took the landlord 80 working days to send a stage 1 response. This was a significantly outside of its policy and the Code, which require a response within 10 working days. The landlord assumed the complaints process should pause when a disrepair claim was made. It also failed to tell the resident it had put the complaint on hold or explain why. Again, it only acted after we contacted it. This was a failing and shows poor communication.
In their stage 2 complaint, the resident raised concerns that an inspection had revealed inadequate repairs. The landlord did not address this issue in its response. This was not compliant with the Code, which requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and address all aspects of a complaint.
The Code also requires landlords to track actions set out in complaint responses. In its stage 2 reply, the landlord said it would refer the resident’s request for additional compensation to tenancy services, which would contact them once a decision was made. There is no evidence it followed this up, indicating poor record keeping.
The landlord took steps to put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. It acknowledged the stage 1 delay and offered £300 compensation, which was above what we would normally order for similar failings. However, its responses did not explain what lessons it had learned or what improvements it would make. Although we will not order further redress, we have found service failure and made a learning order.

Learning

The landlord missed an opportunity to identify learning points to address internally in its complaint responses. It would have been in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes for the landlord to set out areas of learning to the resident within its internal complaints procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The completion dates in landlord’s repairs log did not correlate with dates quotes in its communication records. The landlord may consider how it records this information and ensures accuracy and consistency with reference to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
The landlord must also consider keeping full and accurate records in relation to inspections and monitoring the outcome of actions it promises within its complaint responses.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was often lacking, and the resident had to write to it several times, over long periods before it responded. The landlord should consider what steps it can take to ensure timely responses, including more robust tracking and follow up of customer contacts. It should also explore ways in which adherence to the customer care standard can be highlighted to ensure it is met.