London Borough of Islington (202207381)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207381

London Borough of Islington

8 September 2025

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request to have flooring thresholds installed in the property.
2. Handling of the complaint about the flooring thresholds.
3. Response to reports of a leak in August 2022.
4. Handling of the complaint about the August 2022 leak.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 11 January 2019. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has several medical conditions including osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and a lung condition. She is living with anxiety and depression and is on the autism spectrum. She has shared this information with the landlord.
The property is managed by a TMC (Tenant Management Co-operative).

Complaint about installing flooring thresholds

The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 9 December 2019. She said that the landlord had agreed to install flooring thresholds as there were gaps in the floor when she moved in but then changed its position on this after a visit where some works were completed. The resident felt that the landlord has a responsibility to finish the work it agreed to. She said that she had tripped twice and injured herself because of the gaps in the flooring between rooms.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 December 2019 and said that:
1. Following a works order, a carpenter attended on 7 August 2019 and fitted 2 thresholds that the resident provided. He said he would need to obtain 3 more thresholds and return to complete the works.
2. It identified that the works order should not have been raised in the first place as it was not responsible for the works, because it is laminate flooring that it did not install.
3. It apologised for raising the works order in the first place and said that the responsibility for the work belonged to the TMC.
The resident asked for this response to be reviewed, and in 2022 the landlord said the resident could raise the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, the Chief Executive Level. The resident emailed the landlord several times in 2022 to state she wanted the complaint to be escalated as she did not agree with the stage 1 response.
In February 2023 the landlord offered £150 as a goodwill gesture on ‘discretion’ as a contribution towards repairs for fitting of thresholds. This was offered in an email and not in a formal complaint response.
The resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to the complaint and brought the issue to the Housing Ombudsman.
As of July 2025, there are gaps in the flooring between some of the rooms as they are missing thresholds.

Complaint about response to August 2022 leak

The resident reported a leak late in the evening on 7 August 2022. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about this on 5 September 2022. She raised concerns about how the emergency plumbers dealt with the leak and said their actions caused further water damage and distress, as well as damage to personal belongings.
The landlord acknowledged there was an administrative error, and the complaint was not registered until 14 December 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 May 2023. The complaint was partially upheld due to the delay in responding to the complaint. It said that it did not find any service failures relating to its response to leaks. The response mentioned a job in April 2023 to investigate noisy pipes where no leak was found. To resolve the complaint, the landlord:
1. Awarded £125 paid to the resident’s rent account for the delays in responding to the complaint.
2. Asked for a damp and mould assessment to be scheduled.
3. Provided information about using home insurance for damage to personal belongings and how to contact the Homes and Communities Team to make a claim through the council’s public liability insurance if the resident did not have her own insurance.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 13 June 2023 on the basis that she:
1. Felt that the stage 1 response did not address her concerns about the actions of the emergency plumbers who she said made the leak worse and caused damage to the interior of the property, her personal belongings, and wellbeing.
2. Did not understand why the complaint was ‘partially upheld’.
3. Did not think it was fair the landlord expected her to claim through insurance for damage to personal belongings as she stated it was its plumbers who caused the damage.
4. Had concerns about the general maintenance of the block and the impact of potential leaks.
5. Was unhappy with the TMC’s ability to make repairs to a professional standard and said that the material they use for repairs may impact her health.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 7 November 2023, in which it said:
1. The damage to the property was caused by an overflowing water tank and not from the actions of the emergency team.
2. That it was correct to advise the resident to use home contents insurance as the landlord does not insure belongings of residents.
3. The stage 1 complaint should have been upheld for lack of communication and complaint handling.
4. It advised the resident to report specific concerns about leaks going forward to the TMC. It offered to discuss the issue of the materials used in repairs with the TMC, but noted the resident wanted to do this herself.
5. There was an administrative error that meant the resident’s escalation request to stage 2 was not forwarded to the correct team and responded to within 20 working days.
6. It offered the resident a total of £850 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 for late stage 1 response.
  2. £100 for late stage 2 response.
  3. £100 for inconvenience.
  4. £300 for distress.
  5. £150 token payment for replacement of belongings.
The resident contacted this service in March 2024 and said she had not seen the stage 2 response and was still having issues with leaks. She asked for assistance in escalating the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 35.b of the Scheme sets out that a case is ready to be investigated by the Ombudsman when the complaint ‘has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the member’s internal processes for considering complaints’.
The complaint about the flooring thresholds started in 2019 and has not been through the landlord’s stage 2 complaint process. The resident’s requests to escalate the complaint following the stage 1 response were not acted on by the landlord although it did respond informally in 2023 with a compensation offer. The Ombudsman has decided it is reasonable to investigate this complaint at this time given the following:
1. The resident attempted to escalate the complaint more than once and the landlord did not act on this.
2. The landlord proposed a resolution of £150 in compensation in 2023, but not in a formal stage 2 response.
3. The resident contacted this Service about this issue and has continued to state she wants to escalate this complaint.
4. This Service asked the landlord about the stage 2 response in relation to this complaint, and it had not issued one but has provided responses to more recent complaints.
5. It is reasonable to allow the resident the opportunity to have this complaint reviewed by the Ombudsman as she attempted to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process and the landlord did not respond to this.
The resident has told the landlord and the Ombudsman that the absence of flooring thresholds caused her injury from falling. While this service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court. However, the Ombudsman may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by the landlord.
The resident made further complaints to the landlord following the August 2022 leak. Three of these complaints have been brought to the Housing Ombudsman but are not part of this investigation as they are separate cases. This investigation will therefore focus on the complaints about the thresholds and the landlord’s response to the August 2022 leak.

Response to the resident’s request to have flooring thresholds installed in the property

The conditions of tenancy and the landlord’s repair guide say that the resident is responsible for internal fittings, decorations, and finishes as well as for the resident’s own improvements.
The landlord’s repair guide says:
1. That routine repairs will be completed within 20 days.
2. That residents should contact the TMC first about any repairs. It goes on to say there are certain types of repairs to property that remain the responsibility of the council.
3. That the resident is responsible for improvements made by a previous tenant.
4. That ‘without prejudice to its repair responsibilities’ it may repair floor tiling or covering it has installed where there is a potential trip hazard.
The landlord is expected to meet the standards set out by the Regulator of Social Housing, including that it meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) was introduced in the Housing Act 2004 to assist landlords in assessing housing conditions, focusing on the health and safety of occupants. The Housing Act 2004 identified ‘falling on level surfaces’ as a risk that a landlord needs to consider when assessing the safety of a residence.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 (The Homes Act) came into effect in 2019 to ensure that rented properties are ‘safe, healthy, and free from things that could cause serious harm’. The Homes Act includes a list of issues that it covers, and this includes ‘falls on the level (danger of falling on a flat surface)’.
The landlord’s website says that before a tenancy begins a ‘housing health and safety assessment will have been carried out and fixtures or fittings that could pose a risk removed’.
The resident moved into the property in January 2019, and says the laminate floors were there at the time of move in. We asked the landlord for a copy of the void records to see what information was recorded about the flooring and thresholds, but it was not able to locate these.
There is email communication between the resident and the landlord that shows that the resident brought up a concern in January 2019, the month she moved in, about gaps in the flooring where there were missing or damaged thresholds, causing a potential tripping hazard.
The resident says she did not install the flooring, there is evidence of her raising concerns about the gaps shortly after she moved in, and the landlord cannot evidence its position that she installed the flooring. With the information available and on the balance of probabilities, it is reasonable to assume that the resident is correct when she says she did not install the flooring, and it was in place when she moved in.
The resident has provided copies of emails with the TMC that show it agreed soon after she moved in to fit thresholds to reduce the gaps in the flooring. The emails show the resident raised concerns about tripping on the gaps when she first moved in. The TMC initially said it was not its responsibility but when the resident provided photos of how big the gaps were, the TMC manager agreed to make the repair.
The resident reported tripping on gaps in the flooring in March and May 2019, where she said that she injured her shoulder, her hand, and sprained her ankle. The resident later reported a third fall following the complaint to the landlord. She says she needed an MRI and physical therapy due to the injuries.
The resident told the landlord about her first two falls and that the TMC had agreed but had not fitted thresholds, and it agreed to raise a routine repair ticket to send someone out to inspect the flooring. The landlord sent an operative who attended on 7 August 2019. He fitted two thresholds that the resident had got from the TMC and said he needed to order 3 more thresholds and book a further job to install those. During the visit, the operative took before and after photos of one of the thresholds he installed. The before photo shows a gap between two sections of the flooring near a door frame. The resident says that in preparation for the three thresholds the operative planned on installing at the next appointment, he removed some of metal parts in the gaps which made them larger.
On 13 August 2019 the landlord decided that the repair ticket was raised in error and that the repair ticket should have been passed to the TMC. The landlord notes that that one of the reasons the ticket was raised in error was that the resident had fitted her own laminate flooring. The ticket for the follow up appointment was cancelled.
The resident raised a complaint on 9 December 2019. The landlord responded on 19 December 2019 and said that it was not its responsibility to install thresholds. The landlord also said that the concerns the resident raised about the thresholds ‘come under the repairing responsibility’ of the TMC. This was not in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement, which is between the resident and the landlord. This means the landlord is responsible for repairs but could use the TMC to discharge some of its repair duties. This caused confusion to the resident as to who was responsible and raised the resident’s expectations that the work should be completed by the TMC.
The resident went back to the TMC about the repairs, and it agreed to fit the thresholds. There were 3 appointments in October and November 2019 where the TMC operatives showed up but did not fix the problem, either because they did not have the skills to do the work or have right sized thresholds with them.
In January 2020, on advice from the landlord the resident raised a complaint to the TMC’s committee chair about the TMC’s handling of the repair. A housing consultant of the TMC’s board visited the property in February 2020 and submitted a report to the TMC. The resident asked for and never received a copy of this report so does not know what the outcome was.
After the landlord said in August 2019 that it was not its responsibility to fit the thresholds, the email evidence shows that the resident continued to communicate with the landlord to raise concerns about the gaps in the flooring. We are satisfied that the landlord has known since 2019 that there were gaps in the flooring that the resident was concerned about and that the gaps have not been fixed up to date.
The landlord has continued to state that the resident had her own laminate flooring installed, which is not what she has said. The resident has not asked the landlord to fix any damage to the laminate flooring itself. The issue is that there are gaps in the flooring, and it is reasonable to assume these could cause an increased risk of tripping. She has asked for this to be fixed, and the landlord initially agreed to do this.
The resident has physical vulnerabilities that the landlord is aware of, and it does not appear it took this into account when responding to her concerns about the gaps in the flooring.
The evidence shows that the landlord focused on it not being its responsibility, because it was laminate flooring, rather than assessing all of the circumstances and considering what was fair and reasonable in this situation.
In our view, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly, because it:
1. Did not respond to the resident’s point when she repeatedly explained she did not install the flooring.
2. Started the work, where its operative said three more thresholds were needed, which raised her expectations that the landlord would assist her with the issue.
3. Gave information about the TMC being responsible, which caused confusion to the resident about who, if anyone, was responsible to assist her with the gaps in the flooring.
4. Did not take into account her comments about her health circumstances when considering how to respond to her concerns about the gaps in the flooring.
As a result, a finding of maladministration has been made regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that it install thresholds.
Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified maladministration or service failure by the landlord. We consider the extent of the failures identified and the impact those failures had on the resident. In this case, the impact on the resident has been considerable. She has told the landlord of three falls causing injury, which she says were due to the gaps in the flooring, has expressed distress about possible falls going forward, and has spent time over the past six years asking for her concerns about the gaps in the flooring to be addressed.
To put things right, we have ordered the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by not responding fairly to her concerns about the gaps in the flooring.
2. Inspect the flooring at the property for tripping hazards, giving full consideration to the resident’s concerns and then to carry out any works as identified.
3. Write to the resident (with a copy to the Ombudsman) with the outcome of the inspection and what the plan is for any identified works to be completed, including timeframes.
4. Pay the resident £400 (inclusive of the £150 offered previously) in recognition of the overall distress and inconvenience caused by how it responded to the request for thresholds to be installed.

Handling of the complaint about the flooring thresholds

The landlord’s complaint handling policy at the time of this complaint said that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 21 days and stage 2 complaints within 28 days.
The resident raised her formal complaint with the landlord on 9 December 2019, and it responded on 19 December 2019, which was within its stage 1 response times.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and continued to do so. There is a gap in communication, from 2020-2021 in the records that the landlord sent. The resident states that she tried to escalate the complaint throughout this period, although acknowledges there were sometimes breaks in her chasing, especially during Covid. There is evidence that the landlord advised in June 2022 that she could escalate her complaint at that time. The resident responded by email and stated she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and then sent further emails asking for a response.
The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 but did offer the resident £150 in February 2023 by email to try to resolve the complaint, stating this was a goodwill gesture and she could use the money towards hiring someone to install thresholds. It is positive that the landlord tried to resolve the complaint at this time, but it should have completed a stage 2 review in line with its policy.
Following the landlord’s offer of £150 as a goodwill gesture, the resident asked to speak to the landlord about the complaint. Several calls were arranged and not kept by the landlord, with the resident continuing to chase as she wanted to discuss the flooring threshold complaint further. She contacted this Service in June 2023 as she was not making any progress on communicating about this complaint with the landlord.
This Service asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response to the complaint, but it did not do this or respond to this request, instead sending information to us about other complaints.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling as it did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 as requested by the resident. Considering that the resident has been expressing dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response from 2019, this has caused her frustration and inconvenience. She has been delayed in having a meaningful review of the complaint issue.
In consultation with our remedies guidance, we have made an order for the landlord to pay £200 in compensation for the delay in the handling of the complaint about the thresholds.

Response to reports of a leak in August 2022

The landlord’s repairs guidance states that it should respond to emergency repairs within 2 hours, urgent repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 20 working days. When responding to emergency repairs the aim is to make the area safe and if it cannot fix the issue then, it should make an appointment to visit again to complete the repair.
The landlord sent 2 plumbers out the same evening the leak was reported. They could not stop the leak and took steps to attempt to minimise the damage to the property, such as having the resident leave a tap on to try to relieve some of the pressure to reduce the amount of water leaking. The landlord’s position is that the plumbers took appropriate action.
The resident complained about the work the plumbers did that evening and said they made the leak worse.
There is therefore a disagreement between the 2 parties as to whether the emergency plumbers took effective action to resolve the situation. We understand the resident’s position and it must have been frustrating for the resident that the first plumbers’ attendance did not resolve matters, and in her view made the situation worse. Balanced against this, the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice and expertise of its operatives. In this instance, the landlord sent out 2 plumbers right away to try to mitigate the leak, which in our view was an appropriate response.
There are two flats above the resident’s flat. Neighbour 1 (N1) is the flat directly above and has the same landlord. Neighbour 2 (N2) has a two-storey flat with part of the flat being next to N1 on the first floor and the remaining on the second floor, including above N1’s flat. This flat has a private leaseholder who lives out of the country and a local letting agency manages the property.
The landlord’s operatives initially thought the leak was coming from N1. The landlord sent plumbers out the next day with further appointments after this. It took some time to identify the cause of the leak, which was coming from N2’s flat.
N2 was not at the property during this period so accessing the flat took some time and involved coordinating with the letting agent. The resident states the underlying cause of the leak was N2’s water meter and the water company had to come out to replace this.
In its stage 1 response to the concern of damage to the resident’s belongings, the landlord advised the resident to use her home contents insurance and gave contact information on how to claim through the council’s public liability insurance if she did not have insurance. The resident challenged this as she believed the actions of the emergency plumbers made the damage worse. As the parties had different positions on the damage and how it had been caused, the advice the landlord provided was appropriate.
The resident provided evidence that shows it took 9 days before the leak was stopped and that she spent a lot of time communicating with the various parties to try to get the right people out to fix the problem. We understand that this must have been a distressing time for her. The repair records from the landlord do not include the repair notes from the TMC and other contractors to show evidence of the steps taken to identify the source of the leak and when it was fixed.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged there was a lack of communication. Based on the information we have, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the delays were because of the lack of communication between the landlord and the other parties involved.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the service failure, apologised, and offered £550 for its response to the August 2022 leak, made up of:
1. £100 for the inconvenience of the resident chasing.
2. £300 for the distress.
3. £150 as a token payment for replacement of belongings.
Overall, we are satisfied that the acknowledgement of lack of communication, apology, and compensation offered by the landlord represents reasonable redress for the failures in respect to this element of the resident’s complaint. The compensation that it offered is in line with what we may have awarded for this type of issue and is proportionate to the impact to the resident. We will recommend that the landlord pay this amount, if it has not already done so.

Handling of the complaint about the August 2022 leak

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of this complaint says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident raised a complaint about the leak on 5 September 2022. The landlord did not respond to this, so the resident chased for a response. The landlord registered the complaint on 14 December 2022.
The stage 1 response was issued on 17 May 2023, which is well outside the 10-working day timeframe in the landlord’s complaint policy. This was more than 8 months after the resident raised the complaint.
The stage 1 response did not address the concern about the actions of the plumbers who attended on an emergency basis in August 2022 and instead said that it found no service failure regarding a concern raised in April 2023 about noisy and leaky pipes. The landlord said the complaint was partially upheld and offered £125 to be paid toward the rent account for the late complaint response.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 13 June 2023 as felt the stage 1 response did not address the complaint she made or consider the impact on her.
The stage 2 response was issued on 7 November 2023, which is almost 5 months after the resident escalated the complaint.
The responses to the complaint at both stages were significantly late. During this period of delay the resident chased the landlord multiple times which caused frustration and inconvenience.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to respond to the complaint as it should have. It apologised and offered £300 for the late complaint responses, made up of:
1. £200 for the late stage 1 response.
2. £100 for the late stage 2 response.
Overall, we are satisfied that the apology and compensation offered by the landlord represents reasonable redress for the failures in respect to complaint handling for this complaint. In our view, the compensation it has offered is proportionate to recognise the failures in complaint handling and resulting impact on the resident. We will recommend that the landlord pay this amount, if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to have flooring thresholds installed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the handling of the complaint about the thresholds.
In according with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in response to the report of a leak in August 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in response to its handling of the complaint regarding the August 2022 leak.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the unnecessary distress and inconvenience caused by not responding fairly to her concerns about the gaps in the flooring.
2. Inspect the flooring at the property for tripping hazards, giving full consideration to the resident’s concerns and then to carry out any works as identified.
3. Pay the resident £600 (including the £150 offered previously) in relation to the complaint about the flooring thresholds, made up of:
  1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the request to install thresholds.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the complaint about the issue.
4. Confirm compliance with the above orders.
It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by us should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord now pay the resident the £850 it offered in its final response related to its handling of the August 2022 leak and the associated complaint.
We note that the resident has several other complaints with the landlord. It may therefore be helpful for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the status of all complaints following the ones this report relates to.