Islington Council (202303327)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303327

Islington Council

21 October 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 refers to the landlord’s handling of reports about the balcony doors and the consequent water penetration.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling; and,
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a first floor 2-bed flat within a 4 floor block. The resident sublets the flat. Emails sent by the resident in August 2022 suggest the flat was sublet at the time of his complaint.
The resident complained on 14 September 2022 about issues including the incorrect fitting of his balcony doors causing a leak into his property and the landlord’s poor communication.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 October 2022. It said its records did not indicate an issue with the balcony door position and it had referred the matter to its repairs team for inspection. However, it upheld the resident’s complaint saying it should have referred the matter to its repairs team leader sooner. It said it was sorry he had been unable to unsuccessfully raise the matter with the different departments he had approached.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 18 November 2022. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 30 April 2023 partially upholding the complaint as follows:
1. It apologised for its response delay and inconvenience to the resident in pursuing his complaint.
2. It apologised for its poor service around the quality of work and its poor communications around carrying out necessary repairs to the balcony door, which it said it would raise with its repairs team.
3. It said it had resealed the balcony door on 24 January 2023, which it said had remedied the leak. It confirmed its surveyor’s recommendation was the balcony door would not be replaced.
4. It offered compensation of £200 (£100 for time and effort and £100 for the stage 2 response delay).
The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2023. The resident indicated he was seeking a long term resolution to the matter and additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints, which in its 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”. The resident referred to matters in his complaint which were not raised in his escalation request (e.g. contractor dissatisfaction and service charges). The Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints that have not fully exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. However, complaints about the landlord’s handling of the reports about the balcony door and its associated poor communication are considered below.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are better suited to consideration by “the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to establish cause, liability, or negligence, and award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might. Therefore, for claims of damage to the property caused by water penetration from the balcony door the resident may wish to seek legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of reports about the balcony doors and the consequent water penetration

The lease states the landlord will “keep in good and substantial repair” the doors and door frames fitted in external walls. Its repairs factsheet for leaseholders also states it is responsible for door and frames.
Its repairs and maintenance policy sets out its priorities for repairs including:
1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs within 20 days.
It is not disputed that there have been intermittent leaks from the balcony doors over a lengthy period. The repairs record indicates leaks being reported in September 2020.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks. It can be difficult to identify the precise cause of a leak. Different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved.
From September 2020 to January 2022, the evidence shows the landlord tried to fix a leak by sealing the asphalt and door seal on 3 occasions and fixing an overflow pipe going on to the balcony. Over this 17 month period, it raised timely repairs which was appropriate. The issue was however persistent, and it was clear that the repairs were providing a short term solution only. The temporary remedies were ineffective given the reoccurring leaks. The landlord’s failure to explore alternative solutions, including a further inspection, was unreasonable and indicated ineffective repairs management handling.
On 23 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord stating one of its operatives had informed him “the balcony has been connected to the balcony door” and would continue to cause issues. The repairs record shows the door threshold was sealed on 17 January 2022. There are no contemporaneous notes of what, if anything, was discussed between the resident and the operative on 17 January 2022. It has therefore not been possible to confirm whether the fault that the resident detailed was identified at this visit.
The resident’s report in February 2022 of the defective fitting of the balcony to the balcony door should have prompted the landlord to inspect the balcony and doors. An inspection took place 8 months later in October 2022, as part of the stage 1 outcome. This was significantly more than its routine repairs timeframes. The significant delay was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to identify any issues and show the resident it had taken his concerns seriously.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 11 October 2022 unsatisfactorily stated the resident had raised the matter of the fitting of his balcony doors on 7 and 9 May 2022. The issue was first raised by him on 23 February 2022. While the landlord said its repairs records did not indicate an issue with the balcony door position, it said it would request an inspection. It upheld the resident’s complaint saying the “frequent balcony door threshold repairs” should have been referred to its repairs team leader sooner. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings, which it tried to put right with the proposed inspection.
According to a note provided by the landlord, the inspection took place on 20 October 2022. This Service has not been provided with the surveyor’s report, so we are unable to consider the findings and recommendations, which is unsatisfactory. The note of the visit indicates that the surveyor noted internal wetness at the bottom of the door. It also stated the resident’s tenant had said she had “resealed the underside internally” in September 2021 stopping further leaks. Therefore, no works were raised by it for the doors and balcony other than for the resident to “hack off bonding on wall under patio door right wall, bond, skim and decorate”. It unsatisfactorily relied on the tenant’s statement despite noting wetness internally. Further, a review of the repairs records as part of the inspection process would have shown that a leak had been fixed in January 2022, which was after the tenant’s own stated repair. The failure to take a comprehensive approach to the inspection was unsatisfactory.
The note of the inspection indicates a neighbour’s balcony, including the height, was different to the resident’s but it was “unable to confirm”. This observation should have prompted the landlord to investigate further. It may well have been the case that the differences observed did not indicate an issue but the landlord’s failure to explore this issue was unreasonable and showed a lack of engagement with the issues. A more proactive approach may have avoided the issue reoccurring by the landlord exploring alternative repairs rather than simply renewing the sealant as it did on 10 November 2022 after a further leak.
The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately apologised for its poor levels of service and repairs partially upholding the resident’s complaint with an offer of £100 for service failures. It confirmed that following its surveyor’s visit in January 2023, a further “reseal” took place on 24 January 2023 after another leak. It also said its surveyor had not recommended a door replacement and further leaks should be raised with its repairs team. The supplied evidence shows the balcony had been “resealed” at least 4 times from 2020 to 2023. Given the history and frequency of balcony repairs and the “reseal” repair proving to have been ineffective previously, the stage 2 missed an opportunity to take a fresh approach to ensure the issue was resolved once and for all. For example, by raising a post inspection and taking appropriate action if necessary. This would have shown it was committed to resolving the issue.
The resident informed this Service on 30 June 2023 that he had been told by the landlord that the surveyor’s opinion of January 2023 was incorrect, and the balcony door and frame were to be replaced. The repair records indicate a job was raised on 5 June 2023 for the door and asphalt replacement. This Service has not been provided with an update concerning the door and frame renewal.
It is not known therefore what prompted the landlord’s review of this issue, or whether it acknowledged that it had got things wrong previously. Its 5 June 2023 records however indicate that the works that the resident had requested would now be carried out. In the absence of any records to confirm its decision making, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord had belatedly accepted that more substantial renewal works were required. This was an appropriate, albeit delayed, action to take. However, the history of the case confirms that the landlord had multiple opportunity to take such action previously. While the Ombudsman generally accepts that landlord’s are entitled to rely upon the expert opinion of its surveyor teams, consideration is also required for the historical context for cases involving repeat reports about the same issue. In all the circumstances of this case, the landlord has not done enough to demonstrate that its consideration of the resident’s reports at the time of the complaint was sufficiently thorough.
From February 2022 to the resident’s complaint, the evidence shows the resident was put to the effort of repeated calls and emails to different departments, including major works, estate management, and repairs. The evidence does show the landlord was aware of the resident’s repeated requests for help with the different departments, but no one department took ownership. This was unacceptable and caused an avoidable detriment to the resident. In an email on 25 August 2022 he said he wanted to raise a complaint “more to actually get something done” due to the lack of engagement from the landlord. The evident lack of ownership of the issue contributed to delays and inconvenience for the resident. The stage 2 response appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication. Its failure to maintain regular contact with the resident to progress his concerns was unreasonable and caused him time and trouble in chasing a response.
The landlord has acknowledged failings, committed to take action to put things right (e.g. follow up failings with its repairs team), apologised for the inconvenience, and offered £100 for time and trouble. However, it has failed to properly address or offer a remedy proportionate to the detriment to the resident, and the compensation plus apology offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. By not taking a more proactive and comprehensive approach the landlord exposed the resident to an avoidable and extended period of detriment, which led to further leaks. This was not in line with its policy obligations to keep the doors in good repair. There was maladministration in the landlord handling of the resident’s reports about the balcony doors and the consequent water penetration. The evidence also does not confirm if the balcony door and frame have been replaced. The matter caused time and trouble, inconvenience, and frustration for the resident. In recognition of this an order has been made that the landlord pay £750 in compensation, which better reflects the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a two-stage complaint process with responses being issued within 10 days at stage 1 and 20 calendar days at stage 2.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time stated complaints must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 within 5 days of receipt of the complaint. It also stated a complaints process should be a “resident friendly process” making it easy for resident to complain.
The landlord’s refunds, compensation & remedies policy sets out when it will pay compensation to a resident and values of any payment. It states it will make compensation payments to residents affected by service delivery failures. Its compensation guidance states payments can be made on a discretionary for inconvenience, distress and the time and effort in making a complaint based on the impact on the resident.
From 7 May to 30 August 2022, the resident asked the landlord on 3 separate occasions how to lodge a complaint. On 12 September 2022, he was told to put his complaint in writing after saying his requests had been “ignored” by it. The 4 month delay to substantially respond to the resident’s request was unacceptable and delayed his concerns being addressed in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord failed to provide timely acknowledgements of the resident’s complaint. For example, the evidence does not show it acknowledged his complaint of 14 September 2022. In addition, his escalation request was only acknowledged on 27 February 2023, which was 68 working days later.
The landlord’s complaint responses were issued after 19 working days and 110 working days at stage 1 and 2, respectively. Therefore, both responses were in excess of its policy timescales and the Code. This was unreasonable.
While the landlord has acknowledged failings and apologised for the delay and inconvenience to the resident in pursuing his complaint, it has failed to properly address or offer a remedy proportionate to the detriment. The resident was offered £100 for its stage 2 response delay. The landlord did not provide a “consistently good quality” service in line with its complaints policy values. The resident said the lack of responses to him made him feel ignored and frustrated. When all factors are considered, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. To reflect the impact on the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 in compensation. Due to a paragraph 49 investigation made in October 2023, further details of which are set out below, no additional orders have been made in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping

The landlord’s record keeping indicates failings. We asked it to provide evidence in the form of, for example, the resident’s reports, all correspondence and contact notes, repair logs, visit records and inspection reports. The landlord supplied an excel table setting out a history of works for the block of flats. The table sets out a “reported date” but the table fails to provide other relevant dates such as work orders, visits, and completed works. Due to gaps in its supplied repair records, this investigation has used information provided by the resident and references to events within the landlord’s wider correspondence.
The evidence provided contains omissions including, but not limited to:
1. The surveyor’s inspection reports for 20 October 2022 and early January 2023.
2. The contemporaneous repair records, including for its contractors, confirming the works done and their completion (e.g. 17 January 2022 and 24 January 2023)
3. The landlord has confirmed it has no call records with the resident concerning the balcony.
4. Correspondence to the resident about work schedules.
5. Clarity around the current position and if the repair issue has been resolved.
This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information finds poor record keeping is a “key contributing factor” for failures with landlord “repairs service and in complaints”. It states “records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why” with records being clear and timely, accurately recording decisions and the reasons for them.
The gaps in the supplied repair evidence indicates poor record keeping by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. A landlord should keep an accurate and easily accessible record of contacts and repairs to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place, or the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord for poor record keeping. The evidence does not indicate an adverse impact on the resident of the poor record keeping. Following the outcome of a paragraph 49 investigation about the landlord, this report has not made an order for it to take further action around its record keeping, as it has already put into practice what would have been ordered as part of this investigation.

Paragraph 49 investigation concerning the landlord

The Ombudsman investigated the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The report was published in October 2023. The paragraph 49 investigation identified failings in the landlord’s practices similar to those that have featured in this investigation. For example, record keeping and complaint handling process and practice. The investigation made 21 recommendations to address the failings. The landlord has produced an action plan for meeting the recommendations and in April 2024, this Service confirmed it was satisfied the landlord had implemented the recommendations. Given the recommendations issued within the paragraph 49 report, we have not made further duplicate orders here.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about the balcony doors and the consequent water penetration.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1050. This figure includes the landlord’s redress offer of £200 if it has not made this payment already. The compensation comprises:
  1. £750 for its handling of reports about the balcony doors and the consequent water penetration. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of time and trouble, inconvenience, and frustration.
  2. £300 for its complaint handling. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of feeling ignored, time and trouble, and inconvenience.
2. Write an apology to the resident for the failures in its service. The landlord’s apology should:
  1. Acknowledge the failings identified.
  2. Accept responsibility for it.
  3. Where appropriate, set out what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence.
  4. Be provided by a senior member of staff.
The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of the date of this report and must provide the Ombudsman (and resident) with evidence that it has complied:
1. Inspect the balcony, balcony doors and balcony door frame to ensure the issue of water penetration has been fully resolved and complete any identified works.