Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202518833)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with his 2 children, both under 18. He has mobility‑related physical health needs. He also has diagnosed mental health conditions, which the landlord is aware of. The landlord refurbished his bathroom in April 2025. Shortly afterwards, he reported a leak affecting the bathroom ceiling, concerns about the new layout, and dissatisfaction with the conduct of some operatives. He brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as he feels the landlord has ignored his concerns and that the shower is not suitable for his needs. He would like the landlord to reposition the shower.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns about his bathroom refurbishment, and the conduct of the contractors who completed it.
   2. A leak from the flat above.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his bathroom refurbishment, and the conduct of the contractors who completed it.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of a leak from the flat above.
   3. No maladministration with respect to the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. In summary, the Ombudsman found:
   1. The landlord acted appropriately with regards to the bathroom renovation based on the information it had. It also apologised for the resident’s experience with the contractors but did not have any evidence of what took place at the property.
   2. The landlord’s response to the leak was delayed as it did not have translation services to gain access to the property above. It did not reassure the resident that his property was safe. Despite being aware of his vulnerabilities and that he was taking his children to a leisure centre to bathe due to fears for their safety.
   3. Its complaint handling was consistent with its policy although it could have gone further to reassure the resident.

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.

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. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord must make sure internal fixtures and fittings for sanitation are in reasonable condition, and it must complete any required repairs.
7. The landlord replaced the resident’s bathroom in April 2025 as part of its planned upgrades scheme. We do not know the layout of the bathroom before the refurbishment. As a result, we cannot say whether the shower is in a less accessible position compared to before.
8. The resident told us that the shower head is too low and he cannot use it while standing up. Due to his mobility concerns, this means he struggles to shower comfortably. We have seen proof of the resident’s medical conditions. There is no evidence that the landlord knew about them before it refurbished the property. We are aware that the resident tried to inform the operatives on site that he needed a different layout.
9. However, we also understand that the operative would only have the appropriate materials for the specification they had been given and would not have the authority to make layout changes. The operatives could have contacted the landlord to relay the resident’s position and confirm whether changes could be made.
10. The landlord’s records say that it could not place the shower head higher on the same wall as there was a window. It could not install it on a different wall as it would direct the flow of water over the side of the bath.
11. Based on the evidence we’ve seen, the refurbishment met the landlord’s legislative requirements and was fair and reasonable given its budgetary considerations. We recognise that budget is a key issue for social landlords in deciding how to manage its cyclical upgrades and using a standard layout for all properties can be the most cost-effective choice. There is no evidence that the landlord knew about the resident’s mobility concerns at this point.
12. The landlord has informed us that funding has been approved to convert the resident’s bathroom into a wet room. This is a positive step, and the landlord’s decision to support the resident with seeking external funding was reasonable. It is not clear, however, when it told the resident about the outcome of the application or whether it did so in a reasonable time.
13. Overall, while we acknowledge the resident’s inconvenience with the positioning of the new bathroom there is no evidence the landlord knew about his mobility concerns. Since the resident’s complaint it has looked at alternative options such as external funding to convert the bathroom, which is reasonable.
14. For the reasons above we found no maladministration.

15. The tenancy agreement and repairs policy state that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the property. It is not clear from the evidence if there were any signs of a leak at the time of the bathroom refurbishment.
16. The landlord found the leak on 7 July 2025 and completed the repair on 13 August 2025. Its policy states that it will attend emergency repairs, such as uncontrolled leaks, within 24 hours. It will complete non‑urgent repairs within 28 working days. In its compensation policy however, it says it should attend urgent repairs such as a slow leak within 5 working days and compensate if it does not meet this. There is no scope to categorise leaks as urgent rather than emergency in the repairs policy.
17. Although the landlord completed the repair on 11 November 2025 which was within the timescale set out in its repairs policy, the leak was affecting the flat below. In these circumstances, we would expect the landlord to have acted more promptly than it did.
18. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to review its repairs policy, to ensure it allows repairs to be categorised as urgent where they are not emergencies but require a faster response than 28 days. This ensures consistency with its compensation policy.
19. The landlord’s records show that it delayed attendance because it was waiting for a staff member who was on leave to act as a translator for the upstairs neighbour and arrange access. The landlord should have had alternative arrangements in place, such as increased access to translation services.
20. This resulted in a delay which had a significant impact on the resident. He told the landlord on 17 September 2025 that he was concerned about the ceiling collapsing. And that he took his children to a leisure centre so they could bathe. The landlord has told us that, since the events in this case, it has introduced external translation services and provided more staff training. Considering this, we have not made any further orders in respect of this issue.
21. Although the landlord may not have been aware of the resident’s physical health conditions, its records show that it was aware of his mental health concerns and that he had 2 young children. The records also show that the resident was unhappy with the information provided by contractors when they attended his property. He reported difficulties communicating with the contractors due to a perceived language barrier and told the landlord on 17 September 2025 that a contractor said that his ceiling was unsafe.
22. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it had not told the resident that the bathroom was unsafe and that the resident formed this view himself. While we do not have evidence of what happened, the landlord should have taken steps to reassure the resident. And clearly explain that his family were not at risk and that the property was safe. Its failure to do so contributed to avoidable distress.
23. The landlord offered £200 compensation after identifying communication failures in its handling of the repairs. While this amount was proportionate to the repair delays it did not fully reflect the level of distress experienced by the resident.
24. The resident believed that his home was unsafe for him and his children and used public access bathing facilities for several weeks. He told us that the situation caused him significant distress which impacted on his mental health. The landlord should have tailored its approach as it was aware of the resident’s mental health concerns and his need for clear reassurance. This was a missed opportunity which resulted in unnecessary stress for the resident.
25. For the reasons above, we cannot consider the compensation reasonable redress for the complaint. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leak from the flat above.

26. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
27. The landlord sent its stage 1 and 2 acknowledgements and responses on time. This was consistent with the Code. Its responses were clear; however, it missed an opportunity to reassure the resident that his property was safe as he had made it clear he was concerned about the ceiling collapsing.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s contact records were clear, in particular its record of calls between the resident and itself. Its repair records, however, did not always clearly show what work was needed in the neighbouring property. This led to some confusion regarding whether it had stopped the leak.

Communication

29. The landlord did communicate regularly with the resident however it did not confirm his understanding. It did not adapt its approach to meet the resident’s needs, which led to unnecessary distress. We expect that this will improve for the resident once it has reconfirmed any reasonable adjustments in line with our orders. However, it would be worthwhile for the landlord to consider reviewing how it approaches adjustments on a wider scale.