Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202513635)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, third-floor flat with her 2 children.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. No heating and no hot water.
   2. Parking charge notices (PCNs).
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of reports of no heating and no hot water.
   2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of PCNs.
   3. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of reports of no heating and no hot water

5. The resident reported the repeat loss of heating and hot water on numerous occasions over a 12-month period, which prompted her to formally complain.
6. The landlord failed to keep an oversight of works completed by 2 contractors in relation to the boiler and a communal solar hot water system.
7. The landlord did not consider the household’s vulnerabilities until the resident complained.
8. It also failed to consider whether it needed to provide a lasting fix for the boiler or any other measures and there was a delay of over 9 months in approving a quote to repair the solar hot water system.

Landlord’s handling of PCNs

9. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to a query that the resident raised in May 2024.
10. The landlord’s requests for the resident to re-provide information regarding PCNs indicated an issue with its record keeping.
11. It is unclear how thoroughly the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns before responding to her complaint.

Handling of the complaint

12. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses failed to provide a breakdown of how it had calculated the compensation offered in relation to its failings.

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.

What we have not investigated

13. The resident told us that the loss of heating and hot water impacted her and her family, causing stress. 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’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Landlord’s handling of reports of no heating and no hot water

14. The resident said she returned home from hospital to no heating and no hot water with her newborn child on 16 April 2024. The landlord’s records show that an out of hours repair took place on 17 April 2024 due to a leak next to the boiler. However, the evidence provided does not include a ‘raised’ date raised for this callout, for which the landlord raised a follow-up repair on 18 April 2024. The landlord’s failure to provide any details from when the resident reported the repair for the out of hours callout indicates an issue with its record keeping.
15. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair any installations for heating and hot water. However, the landlord’s records show it raised numerous boiler and communal solar hot water system repairs with 2 contractors over the next 12 months. This prompted the resident to raise a formal complaint on 14 April 2025 about an inconsistent supply of heating and hot water, which she said meant she had to bathe her children elsewhere.
16. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within an average of 28 days. However, the repair records provided do not clearly show when each issue was raised and resolved, which further indicates an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. Due to the lack of clarity, we are unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its repairs obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time of each report, which likely caused her inconvenience.
17. On 30 April 2025, the landlord noted that the resident had experienced boiler faults for over a year but received only temporary fixes, and that the communal solar hot water system did not work. It also noted that 2 contractors had overlapping responsibilities, which likely confused matters. The tenancy agreement sets out that tenants must allow entry to the home to allow the landlord to carry out necessary works. Although the resident had trouble accommodating repairs due to personal commitments, it was not reasonable to expect her to be repeatedly available for numerous repair visits.
18. It was only when the resident formally complained about heating and hot water issues, which was more than a year after she first reported the issue, that the landlord considered the household’s vulnerabilities. It then appropriately prioritised resolution of these issues, to include considering whether it needed to install a new boiler to provide a lasting solution and whether it needed to provide any temporary measures.
19. Also by this time, almost 9 months had passed since the landlord received a quote to repair the solar hot water system, which it had failed to approve. The landlord’s lack of oversight to manage and pursue the works completed by its contractors resulted in further repairs, visits and delays that no doubt caused the resident inconvenience and likely caused her distress, too. This highlights a lack of an effective system to track and monitor repairs.
20. Despite the resident pointing out that the solar hot water system was still not working when she escalated her complaint on 31 May 2025, the landlord failed to address this in its stage 2 response on 4 July 2025. This likely caused the resident further distress due to being unsure whether the landlord would fix this.
21. In assessing the adequacy of the landlord’s actions, there is no evidence of a prolonged period without heating and hot water. Rather, the resident reported the repeated loss of these amenities following various repairs. However, the repeated loss of heating and hot water over an unacceptably long period impacted the resident’s enjoyment of the property. The landlord’s failure to keep an overview of the issues meant it did not consider a lasting solution for the boiler or approve a quote for works to repair the solar hot water system until the resident formally complained after approximately a year of reporting issues, which included a winter period. Taking into account the available evidence and the compensation offered, we find the landlord’s failure over an extended period represents maladministration.

What we have not investigated

22. We would expect a resident to raise a formal complaint with the landlord within 12 months of an issue arising. Based on this, we have started our investigation at the earliest event that we are able to evidence in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. This was when she contacted the landlord on 8 May 2024 to raise concerns about 3 PCNs. This investigation considers how the landlord approached matters starting from this point, and subsequently up to its stage 2 response on 4 July 2025.

Landlord’s handling of PCNs

23. The landlord’s car parking policy says residents must hold a valid permit to park within its purpose-built car parks, regulated by its nominated car parking patrol contractor.
24. On 8 May 2024, the landlord raised a query regarding PCNs that the resident had received since purchasing a permit on 13 February 2024. The resident provided the landlord with further information on 15 May 2024, as it had requested, which it forwarded to its parking contractor. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide its contractor with details of the disputed PCNs to investigate.
25. The resident said the landlord phoned her to confirm cancellation of PCNs. We do not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible to make a determination on this point.
26. Due to receiving notice of legal action that could result in a CCJ, the resident queried PCNs with the landlord on 14 April 2025. The resident has not provided any evidence of a CCJ registered on her credit file due to this issue. However, it is a failing that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s contact, which was separate to her stage 1 complaint of the same date.
27. The resident’s stage 1 complaint did not include details of specific PCNs. When considering this element of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s neighbourhood services officer reported on 1 May 2025 that they could not recall the resident disputing any PCNs. The officer said no PCN would have escalated into a CCJ for the latest renewal period that covered the last 3 months. However, it is unclear how long the officer had been in post and whether they asked the parking contractor if there was any enforcement action regarding PCNs issued since the resident purchased a parking permit on 13 February 2024.
28. When responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1, also on 1 May 2025, the landlord offered to reimburse a parking fine upon receipt of proof of payment. However, it did not explain its findings regarding PCNs. This meant the resident was unaware what it had investigated.
29. On 7 May 2025, the resident asked if the landlord would cancel outstanding PCNs. It responded the next day to ask her to provide details of the PCNs so it could make a formal request to cancel them, due to having no record of her previous query. The landlord’s failure to obtain this information from the resident’s previous contacts indicates an issue with its record keeping and likely caused the resident inconvenience.
30. When the resident escalated her complaint on 31 May 2025, she pointed out that she had contacted the landlord almost 13 months prior and been told it had cancelled all outstanding PCNs. In its stage 2 response, the landlord repeated its request for details of any unpaid PCNs for it to review. Due to not having record of previous contacts regarding this issue, although inconvenient for the resident, it was appropriate that the landlord made a further request for information to allow it to investigate.
31. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the PCN query that the resident raised in May 2024. When she later complained about this, the landlord did not have any record of her contacts. It is also unclear whether it completed a thorough investigation before it responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Therefore, although the landlord offered to reimburse a PCN upon receipt of proof of payment, we have made a finding of service failure regarding its handling of PCNs.

32. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), effective from 1 April 2024, sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy that complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
33. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the timeframes specified in its complaints policy. Although the landlord addressed the issues that the resident raised, its complaint responses were brief.
34. When responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord offered the maximum compensation of £400 allowed within its guidelines. However, neither its stage 1 nor stage 2 responses provided a breakdown regarding how it had calculated this amount in recognition of the failings it had identified. The landlord’s lack of clarity regarding its compensation offer represents service failure.

Learning

35. The landlord demonstrated it had learned from this complaint by explaining that it had put measures in place to keep residents updated regarding repairs, follow up with contractors to ensure the completion of repairs, escalate issues that seem to be chronic and more serious, and improve its parking ticket cancellation process. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make any further orders regarding these issues.