London Borough of Islington (202311563)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311563

Islington Council

23 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 4-bedroom ground–floor flat.
  2. Prior to the start of the tenancy, the resident raised several concerns with the landlord, including:
    1. A suspected leak in the immersion tank cupboard.
    2. The location of the meter cupboard and the fact that this was obstructing the opening of the front door.
  3. The tenancy began on 1 August 2022. The following day the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the issues above.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 August 2022. It found no service failure and said:
    1. An inspection took place on 29 July 2022 and no concerns were raised by the voids manager or housing officer.
    2. The door opened to the extent needed, and therefore it would not be removing the electrical intake meter cupboard. It had offered to temporarily remove the front door to allow for larger items to be moved in, but the resident had refused.
    3. The water marks that were present were from an old leak that had been rectified.
    4. The property was fit to move into.
  5. On 28 November 2022, the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the stage 1 response was “biased, dishonest and untruthful” and that the landlord had failed to carry out the necessary checks at void stage. Furthermore, he said:
    1. He was unable to move into the property until 3 October 2022.
    2. Water was now pouring into the property during the wet weather, affecting the electrics.
    3. There was no water supply, heating or hot water at the property when he moved in.
    4. The toilet flushing mechanisms were not working.
    5. He had no electricity at the property up to 30 September 2022.
    6. The location of the meter cupboard was preventing him from fully opening the front door. This was having a “huge financial impact” as he had to purchase new appliances to get them into the property.
    7. He was unable to have smart meters installed because the fuse box contained asbestos.
  6. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 13 December 2022, it said:
    1. An area was painted over in the immersion cupboard, but the water marks were from a historical leak. There was no evidence to suggest that there was an active leak at the start of the tenancy or that the new leak could have been prevented.
    2. It was the resident’s responsibility to engage utility suppliers, not the landlord’s.
    3. It always aimed to complete all necessary repairs before a new tenant moved in. However, there were minor repairs that could be carried out afterwards, in order to ensure a tenant was not delayed moving into their new home. In this instance the property met its availability standards.
    4. The new reports of a leak and the electrical repairs had been completed.
    5. Any other repair issues would be addressed during the next inspection.
    6. The fuse boxes were owned by UK Power Networks (UKPN); therefore, it would be their responsibility. If UKPN disagreed they may contact the landlord directly to resolve the issue.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the final ‘chief executive’ stage. A response was issued on 27 April 2023. The landlord said:
    1. The resident’s concerns had been investigated, but there was no evidence to suggest that there was a leak at the start of the tenancy. It acknowledged that its communication could have been better regarding this.
    2. It had followed the appropriate procedure in relation to any subsequent leaks. It carried out inspections on 29 July 2022, 1 August 2022, 9 November 2022, 12 December 2022 and 27 January 2023. Scaffolding was erected to clear the box gutter and patch a piece of felt.
    3. It would not be removing the meter box behind the front door.
    4. The issues regarding the hot water and the toilet flushing mechanisms should have been resolved prior to the start of the tenancy. It apologised for the inconvenience and offered £200 compensation.
    5. In summary, it partially upheld the complaint and acknowledged that its handling of some repairs could have been better. In addition to the compensation above, it offered a further £50 for the late response and £100 for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint concerns his request to be reimbursed for rent. He states that he was being charged rent for 2 properties despite being unable to move into the new address due to outstanding issues. The evidence shows that the decision not to move in until 3 October 2022 was one made by the resident and that the landlord deemed the property to be suitable for occupation. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is not within this Service’s jurisdiction to determine whether the resident was liable for rent, as determining liability requires a binding decision from a court. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues at the property.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property

  1. The landlord is obligated, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that when a tenancy commences its properties are ‘fit for human habitation’ and free from category 1 hazards. During the void period, prospective tenants can inspect the property to see if it is suitable for their needs and raise any concerns. The landlord’s void standards policy states that all doors will be checked for adequate operation and that dampness checks will be made to all surfaces.
  2. In this case, the resident did raise multiple concerns with the landlord prior to the commencement of the tenancy, most notably his concerns regarding a leak. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it said that the property met the required standards, that thorough inspections were carried out, and that no leak was found. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. However, the landlord has failed to provide this Service with any evidence of its inspections prior to the start of the tenancy or after the complaint was made. Furthermore, it has not provided documentary evidence of any repairs carried out. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted appropriately in its response to the resident’s concerns about a leak.
  3. It is evident that the resident continued to experience issues with water ingress throughout the duration of the complaint. Scaffolding was erected and further investigations took place. In the absence of detailed records, we are unable to conclude if this was linked to the original issue or how promptly the landlord acted. However, it is not disputed that this caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident and that the landlord should have communicated better. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to share the outcome of its inspections with the resident.
  4. Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it did acknowledge that some issues were missed during the void inspection. It said that more thorough checks should have been carried out in relation to the hot water and the toilet flushing mechanisms. It appropriately acknowledged the distress and inconvenience of this and offered the resident compensation of £200. This was reasonable for this particular failure and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  5. It is recognised that the location of the meter cupboard has caused some inconvenience to the resident when trying to move his belongings. However, the landlord was under no obligation to move the cupboard as its location did not substantially affect the everyday use of the property. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately considered the inconvenience and offered to temporarily remove the front door. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
  6. In summary, the landlord acted reasonably in its response to the resident’s concerns about the location of the meter cupboard. It acknowledged that it failed to resolve some repairs at void stage and offered appropriate compensation for this. However, the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that it appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns about a leak in the property. This amounts to a service failure.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
  2. The Ombudsman’s investigation of this complaint has been hampered by a lack of evidence and detailed reports which have not been provided by the landlord. These include:
    1. Full records of calls and emails between the resident and the landlord.
    2. Full records of repairs, containing sufficient information on dates reported, completed, and full repair notes.
    3. Documentary evidence of the inspections carried out on 29 July 2022, 1 August 2022, 9 November 2022, 12 December 2022 and 27 January 2023.
  3. As set out above in paragraphs 12 and 13, there were significant gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records of events relating to this complaint. Given the failings identified in this case and the resulting impact on the resident, the Ombudsman has made a separate finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report (allowing for the Christmas period), the landlord is ordered to:
    1.  Pay the resident £400, broken down as follows:
      1. £200 already offered for the failure to carry out repairs to the hot water and flushing mechanisms.
      2. £100 already offered for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result.
      3. £100 for the failure to demonstrate that it acted appropriately in response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
    2. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
    3. Contact the resident to arrange a suitable appointment for an inspector to attend and discuss any outstanding repairs. If any repairs are identified the landlord must carry these out in accordance with its repairs policy. It must provide this Service and the resident with a timebound schedule of works (or confirmation that no works are required) within 2 weeks of the inspection taking place.
  2. Within 10 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations within the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. If it has already done so, it is to provide an updated assessment detailing its progress towards the recommendations.