Islington Council (202200850)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200850

Islington Council

1 August 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement front door and frame.
    2. A welfare check.
    3. Information held on file
    4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale
  3. The resident has raised concerns in their complaint to this Service about a welfare check visit conducted by the landlord, stating, ‘For reasons still unexplained but tantamount to harassment. I am hugely offended! For what reason did they request this? This was purely an attempt to diminish my position.’  However, this did not form part of the formal complaint put to and addressed by the landlord via its complaint process (other than a request for details of the individual attending). Therefore, the complaint about the welfare check falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. The resident has more recently contacted this Service about information held on file which states that the front door was damaged due to police forced entries, which she says is incorrect. Again, this is not a matter that was part of the formal complaint put to the landlord, and so this complaint also falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. Should the resident wish to pursue these matters with the Ombudsman, she will first need to complete the landlord’s formal complaint process.
  6. It is important to note, in relation to the complaint about information held on file, that concerns about the way an organisation has handled personal information, including if the information is wrong, may be more appropriately dealt with by the Information Commissioners Office, and therefore fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in line with paragraph 39 (m) of the Scheme. This states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a Local Authority. Day-to-day repairs are carried out by a Tenancy Management Organisation (TMO) with the landlord responsible for major/capital works. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the actions of the TMO.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 20 July 2021 about the condition of her front door. She explained that the door frame was rotten, the self-closing feature and latch bolt no longer worked, and excessive force had to be used to open or close as the door continued to detach from the frame. The resident said she believed the loss of the spring back/self-closing feature was a health a safety issue as the door could become stuck and would be a “disaster” in the event of an emergency. The resident said that the front door of neighbouring properties was replaced sometime prior, but that her request for a replacement was denied. She said that it was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve the issue, noting that the TMO’s repeat “patch up jobs” over the past ten years were short term solutions to a long-term issue. The resident said that a new frame and front door were needed.
  3. Records indicate that the TMO’s carpenter attended on 23 July 2021 and made some repairs, including replacing the lock. It was not found that the door required replacing, although the resident was offered a replacement              frame as this was in a poor condition. The records note that the resident declined this.
  4. The resident raised further reports on 27 July 2021 detailing that the latch bolt had become stuck again and that the door would not close unless pushed. An internal email between notes that the resident was provided with a new lock on 29 July 2021 and the door had been adjusted. The resident confirmed that the repairs had been completed soon after.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 30 July 2021, and recalled the TMO’s actions taken following the resident’s reports in July 2021, noting that it had left the door in working order. The landlord confirmed that it had liaised with the major works team (MWT) who advised that the next improvement programme for works was expected to be carried out in 2024. The landlord explained that the renewal of front doors usually commenced giving priority to the top floors. It advised that it was unable to request an assessment of the resident’s front door, as the MWT was not due to site and had confirmed it was unlikely that the ground floor front doors (such as the resident’s) would be considered ahead of the top floors. The landlord concluded that the complaint was not upheld as the day-to-day repairs had been responded to by the TMO in a timely manner. It provided contact details of who to contact should the resident wish to replace the front door herself.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 and 31 July 2021 as she disagreed that the repairs made were satisfactory, saying that the frame of the door remained the same and was the main issue. The resident noted that a qualified professional from the landlord had not assessed the issue and so she believed the landlord had failed its duty to complete a thorough investigation. The resident said that the landlord’s negligence was a threat to her and her family’s safety as well as her mental health.
  7. The landlord issued a ‘stage one review’ response on 4 August 2021, advising that it had corresponded with the TMO and requested that it contact the resident and schedule a joint inspection with its carpenter to address all the issues raised.
  8. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 4 August 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She noted that the TMO had attended that day and inspected the door, but a carpenter did not attend alongside.
  9. The TMO reported back to the landlord on 6 August 2021 that it had attended, and reiterated the previous findings of its carpenter that the door did not need replacing, although the architrave could be as it was in a poor condition. However, the resident was unlikely to accept this as a resolution.
  10. The landlord’s internal emails showed that it raised an inspection by one of its own operatives to determine whether the door and frame required replacing, and this went ahead on 26 October 2021.The operative reported that the weather board rubbed against the threshold strip and that works would be carried out by the TMO’s carpenter to resolve this. No other actions were required.
  11. The landlord subsequently noted that since the last repair in late July 2021, no repairs had been carried out or requested, and the resident had declined its recommendation for the weatherboard repair. 
  12. Internal emails from March 2022 show the landlord seeking the view of its Repairs and Maintenance Manager regarding the matter, who confirmed that the door did not require renewal.
  13. The landlord issued its Chief Executive (final) complaint response on 1 April 2022. It explained that the TMO had reported the door was functional and the frame could be replaced. The landlord explained that as the resident declined the door frame replacement an inspection was completed In October 2021, in which a door renewal was not recommended.
  14. As part of the complaint investigation, the landlord had and referred the matter to the Repairs and Maintenance Service Manager, who looked at the recorded photographs of the front door and read the operative’s feedback from the 26 October 2021 inspection. They agreed that no further works were required.
  15. The landlord explained that neither it nor the TMO was obligated to renew a front entrance door on the basis that the resident requested it, when a repair would suffice. It noted that that was in accordance with the responsive repairs policy. The landlord advised that the next Capital Improvements Programme was expected to start in 2024. Residents would be contacted nearer the time about when they could expect their properties to be surveyed to identify any works required.
  16. It apologised for the delay in its final response and offered the resident £75 in recognition.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement front door and frame

  1. The tenancy agreement advises that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including the external doors. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord (via the TMO) to investigate the resident’s reports of faults with her door and to act to resolve any issues it identified. From the information available it can be seen that the TMO’s carpenter attended on 23 July 2021, and carried out the required repairs. This was an appropriate first step to take to obtain an expert opinion on the condition of the front door, and the possibility of repairs or replacement. It was found that the repairs were suffice and a replacement door was not recommended.
  2. With regards to the frame, the records show that the TMO agreed to replace the door frame around this time as it was in a poor condition, but that the resident declined this. The resident has subsequently stated in her complaint to this Service that she was never offered a new frame. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine which of these conflicting accounts is correct.
  3. The resident has provided evidence that the TMO offered to replace the door and frame on 1 October 2021. She says that this was not honoured as the landlord said that it would be sending a surveyor, but one never attended.
  4. However, it can be seen that the landlord’s operative did attend that month, and did not identify the need for a replacement door and frame. It is understandable that the resident would be disappointed if an offer of replacement was made and then not honoured, and this does raise some concerns about communication between the TMO and the landlord. However, on the basis of the evidence available, it was not unreasonable that the door and frame were not replaced at this time.
  5. A further desktop assessment was carried out by the Repairs and Maintenance Service Manager in March 2022, who also did not find that renewal was required. In addition, the lanrd has provide evidence of a more recent inspection was undertaken on 6 July 2022 that found no issues with the door or frame. 
  6. The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s strong feelings on this matter and understands that she has been disappointed by the TMO and landlord’s conclusions. Ultimately however, the landlord has reasonably relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who on three occasions have deemed that the door and frame were not in a condition that warranted a full replacement.
  7. There was no maladministration on the part of the landlord here.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a two stage complaint process. It would provide its stage one response within 21 days, and 28 days for its chief executive stage (final) complaint response.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 July 2021 and the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 30 July 2021, which was within its complaint procedure. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 and 31 July 2021, and a ‘stage one review’ response was provided on 4 August 2021. It is unclear why the landlord added this additional stage to the process, but as the response was provided very quickly this did not cause undue delay.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 August 2021 and the landlord issued its final ‘chief executive stage’ complaint response on 1 April 2022. This was a significant delay outside its complaint process, with no explanation provided, and no indication that the landlord kept the resident informed of any delays. The landlord did apologise in its complaint response and offer £75 for this service failure. This does show that the landlord took steps to ‘put things right’ for the resident, however, £75 is insufficient remedy to the frustration that the eight month wait for the final response caused. Neither is there any indication that the landlord has taken steps to ‘learn from outcomes’ in this case and identify and address the cause of the very long delay in its complaint process. Therefore, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s own compensation guidance, orders order are made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement front door and frame.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. 

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £200 for the frustration caused by the failings in the complaint handling. If the £75 previously offered has already been paid, this can be deducted from this amount.
    2. If it has not done so within the last 12 months, carry out a staff training exercise for all staff members that deal with complaints, to ensure that these are handled in line with complaint policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.