Islington Council (202234324)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234324

Islington Council

1 November 2024

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 the resident’s reports of a blockage in his property, the associated damage caused, and the compensation offered.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The landlord is the freeholder. The lease began on 9 October 1989. The property is a ground floor 3 bedroom flat. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities.
The landlord became aware that a blocked pipe was causing an issue in the vicinity of the resident’s property in December 2021. A plumber attended on 31 January 2022. Following this, further investigation was needed to the pipework in both the residents and the neighbouring properties.
On 21 February 2022, the resident reported that the blockage had caused a leak in his property. The drainage team attended to clear the blockage but told the landlord that its roofing team should attend to investigate the downpipe.
The resident reported the issue again on 31 May 2022, 24 June 2022, 14 July 2022, and 26 July 2022. Repair logs show that operatives attended and recommended further investigation was needed on each occasion, including a CCTV survey and investigation of a gully that was believed to be under the resident’s decking.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 October 2022. The key issues were as follows:
1. A pipe that ran through the resident’s property had become blocked in January 2022, rainwater had backed up 2 floors and water started pouring in causing considerable damage and mould.
2. The resident believed the mould was the reason for a recent diagnosis of sinusitis.
3. The resident had contacted the landlord at the time of the leak, but it took 6 months for it to attend to address the problem. In that time, the landlord sent operatives from its draining and roofing team who passed the responsibility between each other.
4. The resident said he had spent many hours chasing the landlord and had phone calls not returned, and jobs closed without any action.
5. The resident said he could not wait any longer for a repair because of the effect on his health.
6. He asked the landlord to fix the job within 30 days and for the damage to internal walls, floor, and ceiling in his property to be made good.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 November 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord first attended the resident’s property on 31 January 2022 after which further investigation was needed in neighbouring properties.
2. Between February and October 2022 numerous visits took place with its roofing and drainage teams and its contractors. Although blockages were found in neighbouring properties, the main issue was not rectified.
3. On 26 July 2022, the drainage team attended to cut the main stack and complete a CCTV survey however, access was not possible due to the resident’s decking.
4. The landlord informed the resident part of his decking would need to be removed on 1 August 2022. It could see the resident had then tried to contact the landlord on 4 October and 7 October 2022 but did not receive a call back.
5. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord contacted its drainage team and arranged an appointment for 24 November 2022.
6. It partially upheld the complaint due to a delay in resolving the repairs and its lack of communication. It offered the resident compensation of £150. It told the resident he would need to claim on his insurance for the damage caused by the blockage.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 15 November 2022. The resident said the landlord had not addressed the period between January and July 2022 when it had taken no action. He found it unacceptable that he had to claim on his insurance for damage caused by the landlord’s pipe.
The landlord declined to escalate the complaint as the repairs and appointments were still pending. The resident gave further reasons for his request for escalation which the landlord accepted and acknowledged on 7 December 2022.
It provided its stage 2 response on 12 December 2022. The key issues were as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. It confirmed that many visits had taken place between February and October 2022. Works had begun on 26 July 2022 which highlighted the repair was not progressed for 6 months.
3. It acknowledged the appointment on 24 November 2022 did not go ahead as not enough time was given to undertake the investigation needed. It acknowledged it had not informed the resident of this.
4. It confirmed an operative had attended that day and found the rainwater stack had been connected to an old system therefore causing a blockage.
5. It apologised for the misdiagnosis of the issue, the time, effort, and delay.
6. It awarded compensation of £633.26, made up of the following:
  1. £25 for the delay in its complaint response.
  2. £50 for poor communication.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience.
  4. £458.26 for the length of time taken to resolve the issue, calculated at £41.66 per month.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 January 2023 and requested further details on how it had calculated the compensation. He did not understand why the landlord had declined to pay for the damages. The resident said he had lived for a year with wet walls, leaking pipes, and exposed nails.
The landlord logged a further formal complaint and provided its stage 1 response on 30 January 2023. It confirmed a work order was raised on 11 January 2023 for a CCTV survey. It confirmed the compensation was that which it had previously awarded.
A contractor attended on 7 February 2023 who recommended that it conduct a CCTV survey.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 6 March 2023.
On 30 March 2023, the drainage team attended the resident’s property and recommended a contractor needed to find the gully and clear the blockage. The contractor that attended, had attended in July 2022, and noted that nothing had happened to resolve the issue since its last attendance.
A contractor attended on 14 April 2023 and jetted the drains to clear the blockage. The resident contacted the landlord the same date and asked for the landlord to arrange for a carpenter to attend to fix his property.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 18 March 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It was sorry that it had not properly addressed the resident’s concerns about the repair and could understand the resident’s frustrations.
2. It confirmed a contractor was due to attend to complete some final repairs and was pleased a contractor had attended to inspect the carpentry work needed.
3. It was sorry that following an inspection of the issue on 14 January 2022 it had not raised further works.
4. It confirmed its position that the resident would need to claim for damages through his insurance but said the resident could send details of the excess and it may consider covering the costs.
5. It offered compensation of £625, made up of the following:
  1. £150 for time and effort.
  2. £100 for the delay in its complaint response.
  3. £375 for overall delay and inconvenience.
Following the resident querying the compensation amount, the landlord confirmed it was not aware it had adjusted the original compensation offered in November. It offered compensation of £883.26, awarded as follows:
1. £150 for time and effort.
2. £100 for the delay in its response.
3. £25 for the delay in responding in January.
4. £50 for poor communication.
5. £100 for inconvenience.
6. £458.26 previously offered for the time taken to do the repair.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 28 April 2023. He remained dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded and said that he wanted the landlord to make good the internal damage caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the duration of this complaint, the resident raised the impact the damage from the leak in his property had on both his physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the leak and the resident’s health. However, we will take into account the overall distress and inconvenience caused in this case. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the Courts and the resident has the choice of seeking legal advice if he wishes to pursue this.

Policies and procedures

The lease agreement sets out that the landlord must repair and keep in good repair the structure of the building, the interior and exterior walls for which the resident is not liable, the gutters, rainwater and soil pipes, the drains, channels, and watercourses.
The lease agreement sets out that the resident must keep in good and substantial repair the ceiling plaster or other surface material of the ceilings and walls, the floorboards, internal non-structural walls, and fixtures and fitting in the resident’s demise.
The housing repairs and maintenance policy sets out that it is a resident’s responsibility to insure their home and its contents. It confirms a resident is responsible for any loss or damage to their home due to flooding. It reminds residents to take out home insurance cover.
The policy sets out that it will make good an area after completing a repair so that a surface is ready to be decorated. Where damage has occurred to décor that is not the fault of the landlord or its contractor, the resident is encouraged to claim from their home contents insurance.

Blockage

The resident first reported a blocked pipe in the vicinity of his property on 14 January 2022 and the landlord attended, in line with its policy, on 31 January 2022.
It was identified that further investigation was needed to the pipework in both the resident’s property and the neighbours, however, the evidence highlights that no further works were raised at that point. This is not appropriate and showed a disregard to the resident’s situation.
The resident then reported, on 21 February 2022, that the blocked drain had caused a leak into his property. A contractor attended, in line with the landlord’s policy, and recommended again that further investigation was needed but by a roofing contractor. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it took any action following this visit. This was a further opportunity for it to raise the necessary works and highlights a lack of effective communication with its contractors.
There has been no evidence provided to show that any further investigation took place between February and May 2022. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that between that time operatives attended to undertake investigations. The lack of evidence highlights a record keeping issue. Where investigations are ongoing and the landlord is unable to ascertain the fault, it needed to keep in regular contact with the resident to manage his expectations and keep him updated as to the action it was taking to resolve the issue. Not doing so would have frustrated the resident who thought the landlord was not taking any action.
A job was raised by the landlord to attend on 26 July 2022 to carry out a CCTV survey, however it was unable to be completed as the gully, believed to be blocked, was not accessible due to the resident’s decking. Again, the landlord had provided no evidence to show that it raised any further works following this appointment. Landlords need to ensure they have effective and efficient systems in place to track and monitor repairs to ensure it raises the necessary works following appointments. Given that it was 6 months since the resident had first reported the issue, this was not appropriate and would have further frustrated the resident.
Following that contractor visit, the resident asked the landlord to remove the decking as he did not wish to do it himself. No action was then taken until the resident chased the landlord for an update on 7 October 2022. At this point, the landlord told the resident he would have to remove the decking himself. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord communicated this to the resident at any point prior to him chasing the landlord in October. This lack of effective communication caused a further delay in the resident receiving a resolution of his issue. The landlord should have set out its position in relation to removing the decking at the earliest opportunity.
The unresolved issue led the resident to file a formal complaint. Only then did the landlord raise a work order to investigate the problem further. This situation is unacceptable and underscores the need for an effective system to track and monitor outstanding repairs. Landlords must ensure consistent monitoring of repairs. It is inappropriate that further action was only taken after the resident’s formal complaint.
Following the formal complaint, the landlord raised for its drainage team to attend on 24 November 2022. This was a month after the formal complaint and 11 months after the resident had first reported the issue. This was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timeframe; it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have expediated the repair. Not doing so, showed a disregard to the situation the resident found himself in.
The drainage team did not attend as scheduled on 24 November 2022. Internal communications show the landlord decided to refer the repairs to a contractor and did not communicate the cancellation to the resident. This was unreasonable and meant the resident had to spend time, unnecessarily, waiting in for a contractor who was not going to attend.
A landlord arranged a further appointment for 12 December 2022; however, it did not inform resident of this appointment and therefore he was not available when the contractor attended. This is further evidence of the landlord’s lack of effective communication with its residents. Not doing so, in this case, caused a further delay in the resolution of the issue.
The resident chased the landlord again on 9 January 2023 and 13 January 2023 as he had not heard any further updates. The evidence shows that the landlord only raised further works on 10 January 2023, after the resident had chased the landlord again. At this point, it was a year since the resident had first reported the issue. It was not appropriate that, again, works were only raised when the resident chased the landlord and raised a further formal complaint. Given the already extensive delays in this case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have been actively liaising with its repairs team to ensure a swift resolution. This also highlights that the landlord had not learnt any lessons from its earlier complaint.
The landlord arranged for a further appointment for 7 February 2023 for a CCTV to be undertaken. While the time between the works order being raised again and the appointment date was in line with the landlord’s policy, given the already extensive delays in this case and the multiple missed and unsuccessful visits by this point, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to expediated this repair.
When the contractor conducted the survey on 7 February 2023, they discovered that the gully was not under the decking, which the resident had removed as instructed. Consequently, another appointment was necessary. Although a landlord is entitled to rely on the fact that their contractors are appropriately qualified to identify and resolve repair issues, in this case, the teams were not identifying the correct resolution. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether a different specialist team was needed. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this possibility.
The next appointment raised was for 30 March 2023. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that they undertook any action between 7 February and 30 March 2023 to resolve the issue. This is not in line with the dispute resolution principles and showed a disregard to the ongoing situation the resident found himself in.
The same contractor who attended on July 26, 2022, returned on March 30, 2023. As in July, the contractor found that the gully was blocked and needed clearing. The repair log shows that the contractor noted no action had been taken to resolve the issue in the nine months since his last visit. It is unclear why the landlord and its contractors had not located the gully’s during that time. This highlights a lack of effective communication between the repairs team and contractors. This led to multiple wasted appointments and caused the resident to spend a lot of time chasing the landlord for updates.
A contractor attended on 14 April 2023 and resolved the issue. This was 16 months after the resident first reported the issue and 13 months after the issue had caused a leak into the resident’s property. This extensive delay was unreasonable and was not in line with the dispute resolution principles.
In the resident’s first formal complaint, he asked that the landlord to repair the damage to his property caused by the leak from the blockage. The landlord responded in its formal complaint and set out that the resident would need to claim on his insurance for any damage caused. While this is in line with the lease agreement, it may have been useful for the landlord to have provided further clarity on its reasoning and link that to its policy.
The resident responded to this element of the response and said he found it unacceptable that he was expected to claim off his insurance when the landlord’s pipe had caused the leak. There has been no evidence provided to show that the landlord responded to this. This would have been a further opportunity for the landlord to have provided clarity on its position and link that to its policy.
The resident raised the issue again on 29 November 2022 and explained the mould was getting worse due to the lack of internal repairs. Again, this was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to have clarified its position that it did not consider itself liable for the repairs and link that to its policy. This would have been particularly useful given that the resident had not made a claim on his insurance and was living with the damp and mould caused by the leak.
The resident raised the issue again on 13 January 2023 and said that he had lived with wet cracked walls and rust exposed nails from the leak for over a year. The landlord appropriately reiterated its position, in its second stage 1 complaint response, that it would not cover any damage caused and linked its reasoning to its policy. This was reasonable and set out clearly to the resident its position.
While the resident raised the issue again on 2 February 2023, the landlord had by this stage already set outs its position clearly to the resident and linked that reasoning to a policy, it was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not reiterate its stance again until it provided its final complaint response on 18 May 2023. However, in its response on that date, it set out that it was open to considering covering the cost of any excess and explained how to make such a claim. The landlord did not have to do that, and it highlighted its recognition of the delays that occurred in this case.
The landlord awarded compensation in this case of £883.26, which included a payment for each month it took to complete the repair. However, the landlord only provided this cost up until January 2023. The evidence shows that it did not resolve the leak until April 2023. Furthermore, it offered £100 for the inconvenience caused and £50 for poor communication. The evidence shows that the resident spent a significant amount of time chasing the landlord for updates and that poor communication was an issue throughout the whole duration of this case. Therefore, the compensation offered does not reflect the failings found in this case.
Overall, the landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to investigate and resolve the blockage in the pipe. The evidence highlights a lack of effective communication with both its contractors and the resident. The resident spent a considerable amount of time chasing the landlord for updates. It took 6 months from when the resident first reported the issue for it to undertake any work to resolve the issue and failed to communicate with its repairs team and contractors what work was needed and where. It took 14 months for the landlord to find the resolution of the issue, during which time the resident was left chasing the landlord for updates.
Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the reports of a blockage and the associated damage caused.
A compensation order has been made for £1083.24, made up of the following:
1. £583.24 for the length of time taken to do the repair, calculated as £41.66 x 14 months.
2. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused.
3. £200 for poor communication.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Complaint Handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 October 2022 and the landlord responded, in line with its policy, within 10 working days.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 15 November 2022 which the landlord refused on 29 November 2022. The refusal was on the grounds that the works were pending. The Ombudsman’s Compliant Handling Code (the Code) sets out that if a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction it must be progressed to stage 2. The resident had clearly set out the reasons why he remained dissatisfied and therefore it was inappropriate that the landlord refused to escalate the complaint at that stage.
The landlord accepted the escalation request on 7 December 2022 and provided its stage 2 response, in line with its policy, on 12 December 2022. However, the investigation was undertaken by the same person who had investigated the complaint at stage 1. The Code clearly sets out that the person investigating stage 2, must be different to that at stage 1. This would have ensured the investigation was unbiased. It was therefore not appropriate that it did not follow the Code in this instance.
The resident raised a further complaint on 9 January 2023 and the landlord provided its response on 30 January 2023. Although this was 1 day outside of the timeframe set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code, the delay was minimal in this instance.
The landlord, in its earlier stage 2 response, had awarded compensation to the resident to reflect its failings found in the handling of the case. However, in its new stage 1 response, despite the works still being outstanding, the landlord reiterated the offer it had previously made in the complaint response. It failed to acknowledge that the issue was still ongoing. As this was a new complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered if further compensation was needed or provide a reasoning why it did not believe further compensation was necessary at that stage.
The resident then requested escalation to stage 2 on 6 March 2023, however the landlord did not provide its response until 18 May 2023. During that time, the resident chased the landlord for its response. The Code sets out that where a landlord cannot provide a response within the prescribed 20 working days, it must communicate any delay to the resident and provide a date by which a response could be expected. Where a response exceeds a further 10 working days, both parties must agree this. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated any explanation for its delay to the resident. This caused him to spend time chasing the landlord.
However, in its complaint response, the landlord did accept this delay and appropriately offered compensation of £100 to reflect its failing.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling fell below the standard expected by the Ombudsman. While it responded in line with its policy and the Code during the first complaint, it refused unnecessarily to escalate the complaint and then it did not pass the stage 2 investigation to a different member of staff to investigate. Furthermore, it had not embedded any learning from the first complaint into its practises, which caused the resident to raise a further complaint. Its delay at stage 2 during the second complaint was unreasonable.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A compensation order has been made for £250, made up of the following:
1. £25 for not progressing the first complaint to stage 2 initially.
2. £25 for not passing the complaint to a different staff member to investigate.
3. £100 for the delay at the second stage 2.
4. £100 for time and effort.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a blockage in his property, associated damage caused, and the compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £1,333.24. This amount must be paid less any amount already paid in this case and is made up of the following:
1. £1,083.24 for its failings in the handling of the blockage.
2. £250 for its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.