Islington Council (202320838)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320838

Islington Council

27 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy water ingress into the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The property is a ground floor flat. The kitchen is situated directly below the balcony of the flat above. This is referenced as the roof within the landlord’s complaint responses.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 September 2022, to report water ingress through the kitchen ceiling.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 November 2022, expressing concern that there was now water dripping through the kitchen light, the electrics kept tripping, and the ceiling looked as though it might collapse. He suggested that there was an ongoing issue with water ingress from the balcony above. He added that he was unable to make an insurance claim to resolve the internal damage, until the landlord had resolved the leak and had completed a lasting repair.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 22 November 2022. The resident explained that the kitchen ceiling had now collapsed due to the leak from above. He acknowledged that the landlord had attended to make the ceiling safe but said there was still water dripping through the ceiling. The resident suggested that the landlord had made promises about further action which had not been kept. He suggested that the landlord was not doing enough to prevent further damage to the property. He commented that the landlord had made a repairs appointment for 4 January 2023 but was concerned about the timeliness of this appointment. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint the following day.
The landlord upheld the stage 1 complaint on 6 December 2022. The landlord recognised that there had been delay arranging access to the neighbouring property to carry out works. It accepted that it had not followed its own procedure for securing access to the neighbouring property when access became an issue. The landlord offered an apology and £100 compensation as redress.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 December 2022, asking it to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident:
1. Stated that he could not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation, as the leak was not resolved.
2. Said the landlord had not taken appropriate action following his initial reports about water ingress, which led to the ceiling collapsing.
3. Suggested that the landlord continued to be negligent by not fixing the cause of the water ingress.
4. Expressed dissatisfaction that repairs would not be completed until January 2023.
5. Stated that he had been forced to cancel his plan to entertain guests over the festive period because he could not use the kitchen. He added that he was now staying in a hotel because he did not consider the property to be fit for habitation. He said that he would claim any costs associated with this, via the insurer.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 20 July 2023, asking the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident:
1. Repeated that the landlord had not taken appropriate action following his initial report about water ingress.
2. Said the landlord’s attempts to remedy the water ingress had been inadequate.
3. Explained that the insurer would not repair the damage caused to the kitchen until the issue with the water ingress had been fully resolved.
4. Recognised that there had been issues with access to the neighbouring property. But suggested that his neighbour had taken multiple days off work to accommodate appointments, where nothing had been accomplished, or the landlord’s representatives had not attended as planned.
5. The resident said the landlord should provide a detailed explanation of the action it had taken to resolve the water ingress, provide a clear timeline for completing repairs to a high standard, and compensate him.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 27 July 2023. It issued the stage 2 response on 24 August 2023. In summary, the landlord:
1. Set out a timeline and the steps that it had taken following the resident’s reports about water ingress.
2. Apologised for the delays getting the roof repaired to a standard where the leak stopped reoccurring.
3. Recognised that there had been delays sending the right contractor out to complete the job.
4. Said that its roofing team should have identified all of the issues with the roof upon their attendance and should have arranged repairs accordingly.
5. Accepted that repairs had not been completed within expected timescales, under its repairs policy.
6. Said it was unable to give a specific date for when the roof repair work would start. But explained that its customer service team would contact the resident within the next 10 working days to arrange an appointment.
7. Increased its offer of compensation to £900.
The resident escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2023, after continued issues with water ingress. The resident told the Ombudsman on 19 November 2024, that the water ingress stopped in June or July 2024. But upon checking the ceiling later the same evening, found the ceiling wet again. The resident does not consider the landlord’s offer of compensation adequately reflects the level of inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The investigation will assess the landlord’s actions between 20 September 2022 and 24 August 2023. This being the date the resident first reported water ingress into the property, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. Events that occurred after this date are beyond the scope of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman can only consider matters that have exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident may wish to consider raising a new complaint with the landlord if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions after this date.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation under the lease and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
In regard to fixtures and fittings, the lease required the landlord to keep the property insured (in the joint names of the landlord and the tenant), against loss or damage by fire, tempest, flood, or other such risk as may be agreed by the parties.
The landlord’s housing repairs guide set out the expected timescale for attending to repairs. In an emergency, where there is an immediate danger to a person or risk of serious ongoing damage to the property, the landlord will attend to make safe within 2 hours. The landlord will attend to urgent repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 20 working days, and planned works within 60 working days. The landlord may raise a “recall” within 5 working days, where there is a problem with works previously carried out.
According to the landlord’s housing repairs guide, residents were responsible for insuring themselves against any loss or damage to the contents of the property due to theft, flooding, or accidental damage. If the landlord had to disconnect the electrics in a property for safety reasons, it would reconnect them once it was safe to do so. However, leaseholders would need to make arrangements to reinstate the electrics themselves.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy water ingress into the property

The resident first reported rainwater coming through the kitchen ceiling on 20 September 2022. The resident told the landlord that he was collecting the water in buckets. The landlord responded by raising a routine works order to investigate this. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord ought to have classified this as an urgent repair, given the resident was collecting water in buckets.
The landlord’s roofing team attended on 28 October 2022, which was 8 working days outside of the landlord’s expected completion date. Its roofing team noted that the balcony drain serving the flat above was blocked, suggested that water was penetrating the wall, and recommended that the landlord arrange drainage works. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its roofing team in this matter. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord acted on this recommendation in a timely manner. This was inappropriate and left the matter unresolved.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 November 2022. The resident reported water was now coming through the kitchen light fitting and stated that the electrics were tripping. He suggested that the ceiling looked as though it might collapse. The landlord responded by raising an urgent works order to clear the blocked drain. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord might have considered raising this as an emergency job, given the resident’s observation about the condition of the ceiling.
The landlord told the resident on 8 November 2022, that it would make the electric light fitting safe, if the resident confirmed in writing that he would reinstate the light himself. This approach was in line with the landlord’s housing repairs guide. The resident emailed the landlord the same day, confirming his agreement to this. Having made this commitment, the landlord ought to have raised an emergency works order. However, there is no evidence that this happened. The landlord’s inaction was inappropriate and left the resident, his family, and the property at continued risk.
The landlord’s drainage contractor attended on 9 November 2022, which was within the target timescale set by the landlord. However, no works could be completed, as access was needed to the above flat. It is unclear if the landlord told the neighbour that access was required prior to it attending. It is noted that the landlord rearranged the appointment in a timely manner, for 15 November 2022.
The landlord’s drainage contractor attended on 15 November 2022, as planned. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what action was taken, which may suggest there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
However, the resident emailed the landlord out of hours, on the evening of 16 November 2022, confirming that its contractor had been out and removed the mud blocking the drain. The resident explained that the leak was still happening, the electric light had not been made safe, and he wanted to know what the landlord was doing to resolve this.
The resident emailed the landlord later the same evening, expressing concern that the water ingress was getting worse. During the early hours of the next morning, the resident reported that the electric light fitting had fallen down and the whole ceiling looked as though it may give way. The landlord’s website indicates that in emergency situations outside of the landlord’s normal working hours, residents should contact the landlord via its emergency phone number. It is unlikely that the landlord would have seen the resident’s emails until its offices opened later that day.
The landlord responded quickly on the morning of 17 November 2022, in receipt of the resident’s emails. This was encouraging. The landlord appropriately arranged for its contractor to make the electrics safe within 2 hours, which it subsequently did. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord ought to have proactively explained its mechanism for reporting emergency repairs outside of office hours, so the resident was aware for the future. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not explain its intentions regarding stopping the water ingress and the risk presented by the ceiling.
The resident emailed the landlord on the evening of 17 November 2022, out of hours, stating that the kitchen ceiling had now collapsed. The resident asked the landlord to confirm its intentions, as there was still water coming through the ceiling. As before, the landlord was unlikely to have seen this email until its offices opened the next day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 November 2022, to explain that he had spoken to the insurer about putting right the damage caused to the kitchen. He told the landlord that he could not progress his claim, until the landlord had resolved the water ingress. The resident expressed concern that more of the ceiling could fall down if the water ingress was not stopped.
The landlord raised 3 works orders later the same day, which shows that it was responding to the evolving situation. The landlord:
1. Arranged for its carpenter to board up the kitchen ceiling within 2 hours, to make it safe. This was an appropriate way to mitigate the potential risk of more falling debris. It was positive that this job was completed within the target timescale.
2. It raised an urgent works order to clear the drain on the balcony above. While the resident did not consider the drain to be the cause of the water ingress, it was reasonable for the landlord to check the drain if it felt this was necessary. The landlord’s drainage contractor attended on 21 November 2022 but was unable to access the neighbouring property. It is unclear what attempts the landlord went to, prior to the inspection, to arrange access with the neighbour.
3. A routine works order was raised for its roofer to inspect and complete any identified repairs to the balcony. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the priority assigned to this works order. This is because the roofer was likely to have had to arrange safe access to the balcony before it could diagnose the cause of the leak and carry out repairs. However, the landlord ought to have made some attempt to protect the property from further water ingress, as an interim measure. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this happened. The landlord’s inaction left the property vulnerable to further water damage, which was unreasonable.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 November 2022. The resident explained that the ceiling boards were becoming waterlogged because the landlord had not dealt with the water ingress and the boards had started to come down. The resident emailed the landlord again on 25 November 2022, asking when someone would be attending to make the ceiling safe. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident. There was also no evidence of the landlord raising a new works order to make the ceiling safe. This was troubling and is likely to have added to the resident’s frustration and uncertainty.
It is understood that the landlord’s drainage contractor attended again on 25 November 2022, to check the drains. However, it continued to experience difficulties accessing the neighbouring property. Again, it is unclear what attempts the landlord made to arrange access with the neighbour prior to the inspection. The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord identified itself at stage 1, that it had not followed its own non access procedure, when access became a challenge. It is noted that no blockages were identified when the landlord’s drainage contractor did later secure access. This suggests that drainage issues were not the cause of the water ingress.
The landlord told the resident on 28 November 2022, that it had appointed a roofing contractor to repair the balcony, which was positive. It is unclear if the landlord knew at this stage, what works were necessary. But the landlord told the resident that the works were likely to be subject to a section 20 leaseholder consultation. This is a statutory consultation, which allows a landlord to share the cost of major works with its leaseholders. Progressing works through a section 20 consultation process, would have added some unavoidable delay in the landlord completing identified works to the balcony. But it has not been possible to verify from the evidence seen if a section 20 consultation process was later progressed in this case.
The resident chased the landlord on 21 December 2022, for a start date for the balcony repair. He expressed concern that the landlord had not made the ceiling safe after reporting the ceiling boards coming down. The resident reminded the landlord that he had young children in the property and suggested that the landlord was being negligent by not taking steps to stop the water ingress. It is of concern that the landlord has not evidenced that it acted on the resident’s concerns, given the continued risk to the resident, his family, and the property.
The next day, the neighbour told its roofing contractor that they were unwilling to allow access until the new year. As the landlord was unable to offer a timely resolution, the landlord ought to have considered what interim support it was able to offer the leaseholder. As a minimum, it may have tried to protect the property from further water ingress. It might have risk assessed the property for its fitness for habitation and depending upon its findings, it might have suggested that the resident speak to the insurer about temporary housing.
The landlord’s records are silent between 22 December 2022 and 26 March 2023. But the landlord was able to recount various actions that it had taken over this period, in the stage 2 response. For example, it said that repairs were completed by its roofer on 18 January 2023. It said that a post inspection was carried out on 25 January 2023, which confirmed that works had been completed. The landlord has since clarified these works included, the application of a liquid coating, renewal of tiles, and the repair of an upstand. It is of concern to the Ombudsman that this information was not evident from the landlord’s initial evidence submission.
It is also understood from the stage 2 response, that the resident phoned the landlord on 9 March 2023, reporting more water ingress through the kitchen ceiling. The landlord responded by arranging for its plumber to attend on 25 March 2023. The landlord was entitled to arrange attendance by which ever trade it felt was most appropriate. However, given that the water ingress was in the same area as before, the landlord might have considered raising a recall as well, to check the adequacy of previous works carried out.
The landlord’s plumber attended on 25 March 2023, as planned. According to the stage 2 response, its plumber suggested that the matter should be addressed by its roofing team. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify the plumber’s findings, from the evidence seen. But the landlord’s repair notes show the landlord raised a works order on 26 March 2023, for its roofing team “to investigate and rectify a leak from the hopper head and stack”. This suggests that the water ingress may have been unrelated to the previous works carried out.
The landlord’s roofing team endeavoured to carry out an inspection on 31 March 2023.However, this inspection had to be rearranged because the resident was going out. While this delayed resolution of the matter, it is unclear if the landlord’s attendance had been pre booked with the resident.
The landlord’s roofing team attended again on 18 April 2023 and repaired a downpipe. The landlord raised an additional job for 24 April 2023, to repair the hopper head and stack pipe. This job was cancelled after its roofing team confirmed these works had already been completed. It was reasonable for the landlord to cancel this job if it was satisfied that the job had already been completed. The landlord’s records are then silent between 25 April 2023 and 19 July 2023. This suggests that repairs completed by the landlord may have been successful and would be consistent with the position set out to the Ombudsman by the landlord in May 2024.
However, it is noted that the resident told the landlord on 20 July 2023, that despite the landlord’s efforts, he was still experiencing issues with water ingress through the kitchen ceiling. It is understood that the resident informed the landlord there was a hole in the kitchen ceiling.
The landlord responded by raising a routine works order on 28 July 2023, for its roofer to investigate and rectify the hole. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify when the landlord attended or what was identified. However, in the stage 2 response on 24 August 2023, the landlord said its service area would contact the resident within 10 working days, to arrange an appointment to carry out roof repairs.
The resident has said that the landlord tried to inspect the property on 1 September 2023, unannounced and without any identification. It was understandable that the resident’s mother did not feel comfortable giving access to the landlord on this date, under these circumstances. It is unclear if any follow-on works were identified after the stage 2.
The resident and the landlord have provided different positions on whether the issue with water ingress had been fully resolved. The landlord initially told the Ombudsman, that its “operatives attended in April 2023, and reported that the required works were already complete.” The landlord has more recently explained that its roofing contractor attended in February 2024 as a recall, “and confirmed works were already carried out”. It further clarified that it had not completed a water test on this occasion. Whereas the resident is adamant that there were continued episodes of water ingress until at least June or July 2024, which prevented him from progressing a claim with the insurer until August 2024.
The landlord does not dispute that its handling of repairs to remedy water ingress fell short. It was positive that the landlord did itself recognise, that there had been multiple failings in its handling of the substantive issue. Of particular note, the landlord has accepted that there were delays repairing the roof to a required standard, that there were delays sending the right contractor out to complete work, that it did not identify all the issues with the roof first time, and that repairs had not been completed within its expected timescales.
When considering all of the circumstances of the case, it is likely that the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue between 20 September 2022 and 24 August 2023, adversely affected the resident. The likely impact on the resident included distress, inconvenience, uncertainty, and worry.
The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord set out to put things right at stage 2, by apologising, revising its offer of compensation, committing to inspect the roof, and thereafter to carry out further repairs as required. The landlord’s offer of compensation was at the higher end of compensation that would usually be ordered by the Ombudsman, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. But it would not be appropriate to make a finding of reasonable redress, while there is doubt as to whether or not the substantive issue had been fully resolved.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy water ingress into the property. The landlord is ordered to pay the £900 compensation that it previously offered, if it has not already done so. The landlord should reflect on its handling of the substantive issue after the stage 2 response and consider making a further offer of compensation if appropriate. The Ombudsman makes several additional orders to bring about a resolution to the substantive issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, the landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 3 working days and will provide a full response within 10 working days of registering the complaint. It will provide a full response to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances under which it may pay compensation. The landlord may compensate for a resident’s time and trouble, delays, and distress. The landlord will pay up to £1,000 for severe or prolonged distress.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint within expected timescales. This was appropriate.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s first request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This was inappropriate and delayed resolution of the complaint for the resident.
The landlord provided a full stage 2 response to the resident’s second escalation request within expected timescales of its acknowledgement. This was appropriate.
The landlord demonstrated fairness by acknowledging that it had got things wrong and by setting out to put things right. While the resident may have been dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered at stage 2, the landlord’s offer was calculated in line with its compensation policy.
The Ombudsman remains concerned that the resident and landlord are not in agreement, as to whether the water ingress had been fully resolved. This may suggest an inadequate level of oversight over the complaint after the stage 2 response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that any outstanding actions required to address an issue, must be tracked by the landlord and actioned expeditiously, with regular updates provided to the resident. The disparity between the parties, would suggest this may not have happened.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s complaint handling created unnecessary distress and inconvenience for the resident. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy water ingress into the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must pay compensation of £1,100 directly to the resident, which has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £900 compensation, in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, uncertainty, and worry, caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy water ingress into the property.
2. £200 compensation, in recognition of the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by failures in complaint handling.
The landlord must:
1. Endeavour to inspect the property, to establish the current position regarding water ingress into the property.
2. In the event that water ingress is identified, the landlord must:
  1. Provide the resident with a written action plan (including timescales), for remedying identified water ingress, in a timely manner.
  2. Consider if there are any steps that it ought to take to protect the property from further water damage, pending remedial works.
  3. Review the action plan at regular intervals with the resident, until the issue is fully resolved.
  4. Commit to a period of proactive monitoring, to satisfy itself, and reassure the resident, of the effectiveness of any remedial works carried out.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 5 weeks and 2 days of the date of this decision, allowing for the festive period.

Recommendation

The landlord should reflect on its handling of repairs to remedy water ingress into the property following the stage 2 decision. Where failings are identified, the landlord should consider making a further offer of compensation to the resident.