Islington Council (202121287)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121287

Islington Council

24 March 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports concerning repair issues related to damp and mould including the condition of the property.
2. the refurbishment of the kitchen.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord with her partner, the tenancy commencing in June 2021. At the time the resident pursued her formal complaint with her landlord she had two young children and was pregnant. At the time the resident’s tenancy ended, her rent was £103.02.
The resident’s property in question is a one-bedroom basement flat with a rear garden. It has a single-level with concrete ground floor and plasterboard ceiling and timber joists ceiling. It is one of four converted separate flats within a mid-terrace 19th century solid brick built building with three floors, a pitched roof, an external rainwater downpipe and soil pipe. The property has timber sash and casement windows.
The property was managed by Partners for Improvement (PFI) which manages properties on behalf of the landlord under two contracts. In 25 February 2021, the landlord entered into a 999 year lease, as the leaseholder, with the freeholders of the resident’s property, a private company. The landlord was previously the freeholder of the property and is now leasing back the property. It is understood that the three other leaseholders in the block exercised their right of enfranchisement and purchased the freehold. After the transfer of the freehold, the landlord assumed direct management of the resident’s property from PFI. Although PFI acted on behalf of and carried out the landlord’s functions, this report will refer to PFI separately and specifically when necessary to aid the report’s clarity.
Under the landlord’s lease with the freeholders, the freeholders are responsible for “the exterior and interior walls … and the roofs foundations timbers joists beams chimney stacks gutters and rainwater and soil pipes thereof and the frames of the windows”.
The landlord Repairs Policy states “As set out in your tenancy agreement, Islington Council is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in repair, including:
1. External walls, external doors, external window frames and sills;
2. Drains, gutters, external pipes;
3. Access paths and steps to individual properties;
4. The roof and chimney (but not sweeping);
5. The internal structure; and
6. External decoration”.

The resident’s tenancy agreement mirrors the Repairs Policy and confirms that the landlord is responsible for these items.

The council operated a two-stage complaints procedure (dated February 2017) at the time of the resident’s complaint:
1. Stage 1 – The first stage is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated. A full investigation will be conducted and a final response will be sent within 21 calendar days of receipt.
2. Stage 2 – Chief Executive’s stage this second stage of the complaints procedure gives the customer the right to request that an investigation of their complaint is undertaken by the Corporate Customer Service Team on behalf of the Chief Executive. A full response is provided to the customer within 28 calendar days of receiving the complaint (excluding bank holidays).
The complaints procedure further states that “the reasons for a request for an investigation at the CE stage and any new supporting evidence must be looked at by the receiving officer/service with a view to review the stage 1 investigation and its findings. This can be dealt with as a Stage 1 review and must be acknowledged within 3 working days and completed within 10 working days of receiving the new information”.
The landlord Compensation Policy (November 2019 and the updated version dated April 2022) states:
1. “Compensation is payable where any room is unavailable for use for 4 weeks or more as a result of Islington Council failing to take reasonable steps to carry out repairs. Compensation is not payable in cases where repairs cannot reasonably be completed within 4 weeks due to the nature of works required. Compensation should be calculated as follows: Weekly gross rent divided by (total number of habitable rooms + 1) x number of rooms affected x number of weeks out of use”.
2. “As a rule of thumb the following bands are considered reasonable (in cases of uninhabitable rooms)”:

Degree of inconvenience	Band to consider
Slight inconvenience	500 – 1000 per annum (pro rata)
Moderate inconvenience	1000 – 1500 per annum (pro-rata)
Severe inconvenience	1500 – 2500 per annum (pro-rata)

“In certain circumstances Islington Council may have no direct liability to make payment to a resident who has suffered damage or disturbance. As a good social landlord, however, it will sometimes be in our interests to make an ex-gratia payment on a ‘without prejudice’ basis”.

Summary of Events

The landlord in its Stage 2 response to the resident advised that on 29 September 2020, PFI had inspected the resident’s kitchen. PFI did not identify any health and safety issues or the need to make safe. It noted that the kitchen had been installed by the previous tenant who purchased cupboards and worktops from IKEA. The landlord has not provided this Service with records of the inspection stating that it did not receive evidence of the inspection when handed back the property.
The landlord also confirmed in the Stage 2 response that PFI on 29 January 2021 inspected the kitchen again and subsequently, on 3 February 2021, raised a works order to renew the kitchen. The landlord has not provided a copy of the inspection or works order.
The landlord has sent this Service a copy of a letter to the resident confirming there was an appointment made for 23 February 2021, by PFI’s Major Works Team to inspect the resident’s kitchen. Again, the landlord has not provided details of the inspection.
The resident in her complaint of 3 March 2021 has stated that on 26 February 2021, the landlord carried out a damp inspection identifying the following works:
1. Stop clock pipe re wrapped to prevent constant drip of water.
2. External front steps being filled to prevent moisture inside internal cupboard.
3. External rear back door needs masonry works done.
4. Rear external bathroom windowsill needs filling.
5. Mould wash internal hallway.

Again, the landlord has not provided details of the inspection or the works order noting the property was being managed by PFI at the time.

On 8 March 2021 the resident submitted a formal complaint stating that damp works from the inspection on 26 February 2021 were outstanding. She queried how the enfranchisement of her property had affected the works stating that when she had called PFI, it could not find her address on its systems. She stated that on 2 March 2021, contractors had carried out the mould wash of the hallway and on 24 March 2021, they had filled in the external front step, but no other works were carried out.
The resident also complained about the handling of the kitchen refurbishment. The resident has stated that the landlord made an appointment on 8 March 2021for her to choose a new kitchen, but the operative did not turn up. When she called the operative he advised that the contractor advised him that the works were not going ahead. When she called the contractor, it could not find her address on the system and would not answer her queries.
The resident further noted that due the sale of the freehold she was advised to contact a major works team to discuss cyclical external decorations which advised her that her address was not on its systems, and she would have to speak to the housing officer for her address to be updated.
On 26 March 2021, the landlord advised the resident that the freehold for the building had been transferred to the freehold company, but that she remained its secure tenant. It would now directly manage the property instead of PFI. The new freeholders would be responsible for repairs to the external structure and internal common parts of the building and some other services that the landlord was previously responsible for.
On 15 April 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at Stage 1. It confirmed that since 26 February 2021 the resident’s property had been handed back to it from PFI. It advised it would arrange an appointment to carry out a damp assessment.
The resident responded on the same day to advise that works should have been progressed more promptly if the property was being handed back by PFI. She also advised that her kitchen had been inspected many times and it was agreed repairs would take place due to its condition as agreed by PFI. She further stated that her property was overcrowded, and she was unable to swap her property because of the condition of the kitchen and the damp.
On 23 April 2021 the landlord carried out a damp inspection. It noted:
1. “The Gas metre cupboard showing mould growth on all surfaces at all levels with salt banding (due to cold-bridging). Mould growth to the entrance to property left-hand wall and right-hand wall return and wall opposite entrance to property minor mould growth internally. Mould round windows to both bedroom and kitchen combined less than 1m2 , tenants responsibility to maintain and clean. Salt banding with mould growth visible in front lower right-hand bedroom far wall opposite entrance of room right-hand far alcove at all levels within this area”.
2. The joint freeholders of properties above would need to carry out external works ensuring the resident’s property was watertight including replacement of rear door, pointing plus sealants and general waterproofing of the basement before internal works could be carried out.
3. After the external works had been completed it would need to:
  1. Hack off plaster or render back to brickwork then after drying carry out sand and cement repair including sika with plaster finish to areas in the hallway and bedroom
  2. Carry out mould treatment to carious areas.
  3. Overhaul kitchen wall fan.
4. There was condensation due to poor ventilation of property, belongings placed close to external and internal walls, open doors allowing free movement of moisture, property being insufficiently heated and clothing dried in unventilated areas.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord sent the Review of the Stage 1 response:
1. It advised of the findings of the inspection of 23 April 2021, in particular that it had found condensation caused by poor ventilation. It also noted that there was water penetration on and around defective frames at rear of property and no sealing around windows at the front of the property. As the latter were external issues they were passed to its Home Ownership team to contact the freeholders before internal works could be completed.
2. It stated whilst the kitchen was dated, as it was inherited from the previous resident, any repairs would not fall within the remit of the Repairs Team.
The resident responded on the same day stating that she remained dissatisfied and requesting a copy of the damp report. She noted that as the rear external frames were defective, this indicated that cyclical works needed to be completed.
The resident stated that the kitchen was a hazard with cupboards flaking off, mouldy and damp worktops and breakfast bar panels falling off. She advised that she was not made aware of or had agreed that she was accepting the kitchen instead of having regular kitchen refurbishments under planned programmes of works. The resident also noted that IKEA no longer made the same size kitchen so she could not carry out repairs herself.
The resident noted that as part of internal works, walls in the bedroom and hallway would need to be taken back to brick, treated and sealed, and queried whether these works could be completed with her family in situ.
On 11 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the freeholders advising that the resident had reported damp, and whilst it intended to carry out works, there were external works that were needed which they were required to complete.
On 26 August 2021 the landlord wrote further to the freeholders asking them to contribute £500 towards works to the block, excluding any works that would only benefit the resident, which would be carried out by its insurer’s contractor. It explained that these works would need to be carried out before it could carry out works in the resident’s home.
On 1 October 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at the Chief Executive’s stage.
1. It apologised for the delay in the response and offered £75 compensation.
2. It apologised for PFI and Home Ownership Services not finding the resident’s address when she contacted them.
3. It stated that it had made contacts with the freeholders about completing exterior works before commencing the internal works. It had proposed that works commence on 1 October 2021 but this was yet to be confirmed by the freeholders. It would send another letter on 5 October 2021 giving a further two weeks to respond and if the freeholders failed to honour their responsibilities, it would commence legal disrepair action against them. In the interim it would consider the possibility of commencing the internal works.
4. It advised that the works to renew the kitchen were cancelled after the sale of the property and as it last refurbished the kitchen with its standard units in 2011, it would not renew the kitchen until 2036.
5. Regarding rehousing, it noted that the residents had 250 points taking into account overcrowding and suggested that she continue bidding for properties and use a mutual exchange website whilst waiting for works to be completed.
6. In recognition for delays to attending to repairs, it would offer £100 for inconvenience and £50 for time and trouble.
On 4 November 2021 the landlord wrote to one of the freeholders advising that the works it had jointly-identified with another freeholder fell under their repair obligation as per the terms of the lease.
The landlord has provided an invoice confirming that in November 2021, its contractor carried out external works to the block, including roofing works, brickwork, works to the window frame and guttering works. The contractor also carried out internal works according to the invoice.
On 15 December 2021, the resident referred her complaint to this Service stating that she was living in terrible conditions and had lost out on many opportunities to swap to a bigger property due to works not being carried out as well as noise disturbances that were not being addressed. She advised there had been “missed response dates, not replied to most emails, not responded to issues and not been able to give us any dates for works or any relevant information”.
An internal email sent on 11 February 2022 noted that the freeholders were not willing to contribute to the cost of external works.
On 4 March 2022 the landlord raised an order for a surveyor to inspect the property as mould was recurring in a hallway cupboard. It concluded there was surface condensation due to the internal environmental condition.
The landlord has advised this Service on 23 March 2022 that as the freeholder had not carried out the required external works to decorate the windows and resolve water ingress around the doorframe, it would carry out the works itself.
On 12 June 2022 the resident moved out of the property via mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

Damp and Mould

It is not disputed that PFI carried out a damp inspection on 26 February 2021 and that works were identified to the interior and exterior of the property although there are no records to confirm what prompted the repair. Whilst the concurrent sale of the freehold may have affected the landlord’s handling of repairs, it had a responsibility to complete the works identified and make clear how the repairs would be handled so as to manage the resident’s expectations. It is not evident that the landlord did this with the resident claiming in her formal complaint of 8 March 2021 that some jobs had not even been raised. As such there was a delay in the completion of some works initially identified, namely masonry works, works to a window sill and a stop-cock
Following the resident’s complaint the landlord raised a new damp inspection which was reasonable as this allowed it to fully confirm what action should be taken to remedy the damp reported by the resident. The landlord has provided a copy of its inspection report which confirms the inspection was thorough and structured. It concluded that there was condensation and also water penetration around window frames, and raised more extensive works than PFI.
It was appropriate that the landlord asked the freeholders to carry out the external works as that was in accordance with the leaseback agreement that had come into effect. Nonetheless, whilst the landlord sold the freehold of the building, its landlord-tenant relationship with the resident continued. Therefore, it simultaneously had an obligation to resolve the damp within the resident’s property. It is evident that the landlord wrote to the freeholders, and carried out a further survey taking steps to make sure the necessary external works were funded and completed. The landlord is not responsible for delays to these works arising from the freeholders’ reluctance to fund the works.
Nonetheless, this Service considers that landlords need to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp as set out in the Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021). In this case there were heightened factors which necessitated that landlord to proactively pursue completion or funding of works by the freeholders. In particularly, as confirmed by the inspection of 23 April 2022, there was damp in a bedroom where family members would sleep and there young children in the household. The resident also reported mould and dampness in the kitchen which potentially compromised her ability to prepare and consume food safely. As such, the landlord did not seek to ensure the completion of external works with reasonable urgency. It did not write to the freeholders to advise that works were required until June 2021, several weeks after the inspection of April 2021 and it did not indicate the contribution they would have to make, which was information necessary for the freeholders to agree to funding the works, until August 2023, four months after.
There is also no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated during this period, or that it provided her with a copy of the damp report as requested. This prolonged the resident’s uncertainty as to what works were required and when they would be completed. The landlord partly recognised the delay by offering £150 compensation in the Stage 2 response. However, taking account of the landlord’s tariff of compensation for unusable rooms, the fact that there was dampness in both a bedroom and kitchen and five months had passed since the inspection of 29 April 2021, even allowing for the fact that the freeholder’s response was out of the landlord’s control, this offer of compensation was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
The landlord advised that it would not carry out internal works until external works were completed. In this case it was reasonable that it did not carry out plastering works until external works were completed due to the risk of the plastering works needing to completed again. However, there were internal works that were not dependent on the external works and which, if completed, would likely alleviate the impact of the damp and mould in the resident’s property. In particular, the landlord could have carried out the mould treatment and repaired the kitchen extractor fan. However, there is no evidence that it did so and no good reason provided. It was particularly unreasonable the landlord did not carry out these works as they may have alleviated in part the condition of the bathroom and the bedroom.
The landlord had provided an invoice to this Service indicating that major works were carried out to the resident’s block in November 2021. However, the resident in her complaint to this Service has stated that works were not completed. The landlord’s internal correspondence and response to this Service in 23 March 2021 further indicates that external works were not carried out. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that all required works to remedy the damp in the resident’s property were satisfactorily completed, although it is noted that the resident has now left the property.

Refurbishment of the Kitchen

The information provided to this investigation reference several inspections of the resident’s kitchen by PFI for which contemporaneous primary evidence has not been provided. The landlord has attributed this to not being passed on relevant documentation by PFI. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors and managing agents. Regardless of its housing management arrangements, including the use of agents and subsidiaries, the landlord’s responsibility to maintain records remained. It was therefore a failure in the landlord’s record keeping that it did not ensure the retention of the earlier kitchen inspections.
With regards to the resident’s kitchen, the landlord was not obliged to refurbish it without good reason. It is reasonable for such works to be completed under a planned programme of works where cost and efficiency savings can be made and where the notional lifetime of the kitchens in properties can be taken into account. In this regard the Decent Homes Standards suggests component lifetimes of 30 years for kitchens, and the landlord’s Stage 2 response indicates that it aimed to renew kitchens every 25 years.
However, it is not disputed that PFI inspected the resident’s property and raised an order for a new kitchen in February 2021 before the leasehold was sold. It therefore raised the resident’s expectations that the repair condition of her kitchen warranted a significant improvement at that time by way of a refurbished kitchen. The resident has further stated that there was an appointment for 8 March 2021 for a new kitchen to be chosen which was cancelled without notice. This confirms that the landlord was not aware of how repair issues had been handled at the time of the transition from PFI back to the landlord and that it failed to advise the resident accordingly in a timely manner. Aside from the inconvenience of the missed appointment, the withdrawal of the installation of the new kitchen without explanation or notification to the resident at the time caused the resident great disappointment, her expectations having been greatly raised.
The resident subsequently complained about the handling of her request for kitchen repairs. She noted that her details could not be found when she enquired further about the matter. This further confirms that there was a failing in the timely transfer of information across the landlord’s systems, which in turn caused problems in the retrieval of information related to the repair condition of the resident’s property. Correspondingly, the landlord could not respond to the queries the resident raised or even find her details which added to her sense of frustration about how her reports about her kitchen would be addressed.
Regardless of the decision not to proceed with the refurbishment of the kitchen, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the kitchen was in good repair. It is not reasonable that the landlord advised in the Review of Stage 1 response that it would not carry out kitchen repairs on the basis that the previous resident had installed their own non-landlord standard kitchen. This is because the landlord has a repair responsibility to maintain the kitchen that was in the property at the time it was let.
In any event, the resident advised that there were hazards in the kitchen from the condition of the units, worktops and panel. The landlord under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System has a duty to ensure the design, layout and state of repair of the kitchen was good to allow for safe and hygienic preparation and cooking of food. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed these hazards to make an informed decision as to the need to carry out works, nor is there evidence that the landlord carried out kitchen works. It therefore failed to take the necessary action to ensure that the resident’s kitchen was in a reasonable state of repair which was particularly unreasonable given that PFI had previously assessed the kitchen as needing to be replaced.

Complaint Handling

The resident’s initial complaint was sent on 8 March 2022. The landlord’s Stage 1 response was sent on 15 April 2021 over two weeks outside the target timeframe of 21 days. The landlord did not acknowledge and offer redress for this delay. The landlord sent the Stage 1 Review response on 29 April 2021 within the 10 working day timeframe for this aspect of the complaints procedure.
After the resident escalated her complaint on 29 April 2021 the landlord did not respond until over five months later which is outside the timeframe for responding to Stage 2 complaints. In line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principle of Being Fair, we expect landlord to provide clear and realistic timescales to encourage prompt complaint management and manage tenant expectations of how long things will take. However, there is no evidence that the landlord sent the resident holding responses or otherwise explained the delay in the Stage 2 complaint response. As such, its offer of £75 compensation for the delay in the Stage 2 response was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
The response timeframes outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy are not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which specifies that stage one complaints should be responded to within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. However, the information on the landlord’s website currently states that Stage 1 formal complaints should be responded within ten days and Stage 2 complaints within 20 days. The website indicates that the landlord does not now require the landlord to review the Stage 1 response before allowing the complaint to be escalated to Stage 2. The website therefore indicates that the landlord’s current complaint procedure aligns with the Code. It is further noted that the landlord in its self-assessment against the Code dated 3 March 2023 stated that “The council’s complaints policy clearly states our target response times and are aligned with the Complaint Handling Code”. Nonetheless, the landlord’s Complaint Policy is not published on its website. It is therefore recommended that the Complaint Policy is published so that there is full transparency about its current complaint handling procedures.
The self-assessment further states that the landlord “is fully focused and committed to improving its response timeliness for stage 2 complaint responses. This is a key area of focus and improvement over the next 8 weeks”. With this in mind and taking account the significant delay by the landlord in dealing with the resident’s complaint at Stage 2, it is ordered that the landlord carries out a full review of its handling of this complaint to identify lessons learnt.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports concerning repair issues related to damp and mould including the condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the refurbishment of the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out all works following the initial inspection by PFI. Thereafter, whilst there were further external works identified that fell under the freeholder’s responsibility to carry out, it did not seek to ensure the completion of external works with reasonable urgency. There is also no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated during this period, or that it provided her with a copy of the damp report as requested.
It was also unreasonable the landlord did not carry out some internal works pending external works as they may have alleviated in part the condition of the bathroom and the bedroom. Although the landlord offered compensation, its award was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
The landlord failed to advise the resident of changing circumstances in a timely manner. In particular, the withdrawal of the installation of the new kitchen without explanation or notification to the resident at the time caused the resident great disappointment, her expectations having been raised. Furthermore, the landlord could not respond to the queries the resident raised or even find her details which added to her sense of frustration about how her reports about her kitchen would be addressed.
It is not reasonable that the landlord advised in the Review of Stage 1 response that it would not carry out kitchen repairs on the basis that the previous resident had installed their own non-landlord standard kitchen. The landlord did not assess the hazards reported by the resident to make an informed decision as to the need to carry out works, nor is there evidence that the landlord carried out kitchen works.
There were significant delays by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a written apology to the resident.
2. pay the resident £2,101.61 for the delay in satisfactorily completing all repair to remedy the damp and mould for the period 26 February 2021 to 12 June 2022, a period of 68 weeks. This is calculated at 30% of the rent for the period. This takes into account the fact that the landlord completed some work and that there were repairs that were ultimately the responsibility for the freeholder to carry out.
3. pay the resident £680 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her request for repairs to be carried out to the kitchen.
4. pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by its handling of the above matters.
5. pay the resident £125 for the distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of its complaint handling failures.
6. carry out a full review of its handling of this complaint to identify lessons learnt.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. carry out any damp works previously identified that have not been completed or which have been completed but not to a satisfactory standard.
2. inspect the kitchen in the resident’s former property.
3. carry out a root and branch interrogation of its databases to ensure that it has a full repair record history of the resident’s property. This includes seeking to ensure that data that has been lost when the PFI stopped managing the resident’s property is recovered.
4. publish its full, most recent version of its Complaint Policy on its website.