London Borough of Islington (202332775)

Background

1. The resident lives in an estate comprised of purpose built flats. He reported issues with the length of time scaffolding had been left outside his property with no indication of when it would be removed. Following this he reported poor service from contractors when reporting a leak. The resident also reported problems with his balcony, poor estate maintenance and antisocial behaviour (ASB).

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Issues with the scaffolding, contractor communications and damp and mould.
   2. ASB.
   3. Graffiti and cleanliness of communal areas.
   4. Repairs needed to the balcony.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of issues with the scaffolding, contractor communications and damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to graffiti and cleanliness of communal areas.
   4. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to repairs needed to the balcony.
   5. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Issues with the scaffolding, contractor communications and damp and mould

5. The landlord acknowledged delays and communication failures. It put steps in place to reduce the risk of repeated failings. It responded appropriately to reports of damp and mould and addressed the resident’s reports of internal damage to the property. It offered compensation that was proportionate to the impact of its failings.

ASB

6. The landlord took some steps to address ASB. It failed to meet several key obligations under its ASB policy, such as completing a risk assessment. These failings were not acknowledged in its complaint responses.

Graffiti and cleanliness of communal areas

7. The landlord took steps to address the graffiti and caretaking issues, acknowledged its delays and offered compensation.

Repairs needed to the balcony

8. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused by delays to the balcony works, apologised and provided a single point of contact. It offered compensation that was proportionate to the impact of its failings.

The complaint

9. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy. For example, it added an unnecessary extra stage which delayed resolution and increased effort for the resident. While it offered some compensation, it did not fully recognise the impact of its failings or identify learning opportunities.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

10. The resident said he believed the single–glazed windows in the property contributed to damp and mould. As window glazing was not part of the complaint we are investigating, we did not include it in this report. This is because we have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.
11. After the stage 1 complaint, the landlord missed agreed timeframes for removing the scaffolding. In its stage 1 response, it explained the delay and that scaffolding was needed for other work, including brickwork repairs and cleaning. The landlord said it would be removed by the end of October 2023. Providing an explanation and expected timescales was reasonable at this stage. On 13 October 2023, the landlord told the resident the scaffolding would remain for about another month. This exceeded the original timeframe, but giving notice was reasonable.
12. The scaffolding was not removed in November 2023 and there is no evidence the resident was informed about that. These were failings, and in the final response in January 2024, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the lack of updates. It gave a new removal date of February 2024. It also gave a single point of contact for further discussions about site issues. The landlord later confirmed the scaffolding was removed in full by 3 April 2024. While the additional delay was not reasonable, the resident had a direct contact to discuss this with.
13. In the complaint escalation on 10 November 2023, the resident reported dissatisfaction with the contractor’s service after reporting a leak. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 response. It arranged communication training for contractors and gave the resident a single point of contact if issues persisted. These were reasonable and practical steps for the landlord to take.
14. The landlord’s damp and mould policy required a surveyor to attend within 20 working days of a report. They should complete a visual inspection, take damp readings and photographs and recommend next steps. The surveyor attended one day late and completed all required actions, including treatment recommendations. They advised there were no next steps for the landlord to take because internal repairs were the leaseholder’s responsibility. The landlord did not acknowledge the minor delay, but we consider it had no significant impact on the outcome.
15. In its final response, the landlord addressed internal damage to property. It advised that the resident should contact the buildings insurer and gave their details. This was appropriate, as leaseholder insurance is intended for these issues. When the resident had difficulties with the claim, the landlord contacted the insurer and kept the resident updated. That was a reasonable step to take. The resident told us the insurer was not helpful. However, the liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details of how to claim to the resident. We cannot comment on the insurer’s actions.
16. In summary the landlord responded to issues appropriately and addressed failings in the complaint responses. Although it did not communicate well enough about the scaffolding delays, the landlord gave the resident a single point of contact to discuss site issues with and offered £100 for the inconvenience and frustration that had caused. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance for the impact of failings amounting to maladministration and which have had an adverse impact on the resident. As such we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

17. In June 2023 and August 2023 the resident reported ASB involving groups gathering on the stairwell and using drugs. After the report in August 2023, the landlord informed partner agencies and asked them to maintain regular patrols. On 6 October 2023 when emailing the resident, the landlord explained it was waiting for a quote for a door entry system but said this was unlikely to be installed due to cost. In its final response, the landlord confirmed joint patrols with multiple agencies would continue, said utilising CCTV would be considered if drug activity persisted, and explained the estate could not be made residents-only because it was a public area. Caretakers were also reminded to report ASB immediately. These actions aligned with the ASB policy, which refers to prevention, partnership working, transparency about enforcement limits, and considering CCTV as a deterrent.
18. While the landlord’s actions reflected its ASB policy ethos, it did not meet key obligations. The policy required regular progress updates, a risk assessment within 10 working days, monthly engagement with the resident, and consideration of previous ASB reports to identify patterns. The resident chased for an update in November 2023, over a month after raising the issue separately with the landlord at a meeting. There is no evidence of a risk assessment, monthly engagement, or contact about the June 2023 report. The landlord said it spoke with the resident in August 2023 but did not provide a record of this call. Its procedure required all ASB correspondence to be kept. It also failed to consider the resident’s similar ASB reports from 2022. The landlord did not meet multiple obligations and failed to comply with its ASB case management standards.
19. We recognise that steps were taken to tackle the ASB, but the landlord should have done more in line with its policy. The lack of engagement with the resident likely caused frustration and distress. The landlord did not recognise these failings in its complaint responses. We have made a finding of maladministration and an order to pay the resident £200 to reflect the impact on the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have had an adverse impact on the resident, and which the landlord failed to acknowledge.

20. The resident told us about fly tipping on the estate. As outlined above, because this was not included in the complaints we are investigating, it will not be included in this report.
21. The landlord’s caretaker’s quality assurance manual says that graffiti should be removed weekly. The resident reported graffiti on the stairwell in the stage 1 complaint on 29 August 2023. While the resident said that graffiti was present for almost a year, this is the first evidence we have seen of him reporting it.
22. The resident reiterated this in the escalation on 24 September 2023, referencing the landlord’s obligations. The landlord confirmed that graffiti had been removed by 5 October 2023, over 5 weeks after our evidence shows the resident reported this and exceeding its timeframe. In its final response the landlord acknowledged the unreasonable length of time taken to remove the graffiti.
23. In September 2023 the resident said that stairs, entrance halls, and porchways were not cleaned weekly as described in the caretaker’s manual. He also raised concerns about litter and difficulty accessing the recycling bin. The landlord did not provide a meaningful solution until 16 January 2024 when it sent its final response. It agreed the caretaking service needed improvement and said it would reinforce this with its team by the end of January 2024. The evidence from caretaker inspection reports showed improvements from February 2024 after previously failing to meet standards. The landlord also offered to relocate the recycling bin to a more accessible area. These were practical steps that showed it understood the issues and acted to resolve them. However, given the weekly cleaning requirement, the delay in addressing caretaking issues was unreasonable.
24. At a meeting on 6 October 2023 the landlord told the resident that communal areas would be redecorated but did not give a timeframe for this work. The landlord’s repairs policy states that communal works often require leaseholder consultation due to cost, and there is a target time of 60 working days for planned works requiring consultation. As of April 2024 the work was still outstanding and it is unclear if it has since been completed.
25. The landlord offered £200 compensation for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the delays in having the graffiti removed and caretaking issues. This aligns with compensation we consider proportionate as set out in our remedies guidance for failings amounting to maladministration. Therefore we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

26. On 10 November 2023, the resident said a contractor letter confirmed that balcony work would start on 23 October 2023. The resident moved his belongings from the balcony indoors in preparation, causing inconvenience when work did not take place as planned. The resident said he could not reach the contractor about this. In its final response on 16 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged the communication failure and inconvenience and apologised. While a timeframe was not given, the landlord gave a single point of contact. It offered £100 compensation.
27. The resident also said that he found the work completed on neighbouring balconies to be unattractive. The work was completed in March 2024 and the landlord used different materials specifically for the resident’s balcony. This was an additional measure beyond its usual practice. This reflected the landlord’s commitment to resolving issues and ensuring the resident received a better standard of service.
28. The landlord suitably acknowledged its failings and offered appropriate compensation for the inconvenience caused, in line with our remedies guidance. Considering this and the additional measures taken, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

29. When the resident escalated the complaint in September 2023, the landlord restarted the complaints process at stage 1. This was not in line with its two-stage complaints policy and delayed the resident in exhausting the process and referring the complaint to us. The resident had to escalate the complaint twice, adding time and effort. The landlord acknowledged that the extra stage “further convoluted” matters but did not recognise it as a failing or the impact this had on the resident.
30. The landlord’s policy required it to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10. It did not acknowledge the resident’s first 2 stage 1 complaints. The first was responded to one day late, and the second 8 days late.
31. The landlord’s policy required it to acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 3 calendar days and respond within 20 working days of acceptance. It acknowledged the complaint after 30 calendar days and responded 14 days after the acknowledgement. Although the response was within 20 days of acknowledgement, the landlord exceeded its overall timescales and did not act in the spirit of its policy, which aims to provide timely responses.
32. The landlord addressed most aspects of the complaint and provided practical responses. It confirmed which work had been completed, gave dates for outstanding work and provided a single point of contact for future issues. The initial complaint included a query about a window repair which was not covered in the response. As the resident was satisfied that this was resolved before the first response was issued, it was reasonable not to include it. The resident said the living conditions affected his mental health and wellbeing. The landlord did not address this, missing an opportunity to recognise the impact on the resident.
33. As an outcome, the resident asked for reduced costs for cyclical works for leaseholders because of the poor service. The landlord explained that the resident could challenge leaseholder costs through its Home Ownership Team and, if still dissatisfied, escalate the matter to the courts. This appropriately managed the resident’s expectations about the outcome.
34. The landlord took some learning from the case and told the resident it had given a presentation to contractors on communication. While this was positive, the landlord did not identify further learning opportunities. We have included this in the learning section of this report.
35. The landlord’s final response acknowledged it failed to meet its timescales and offered £125 in compensation for poor complaint management and the time and effort involved. It did not recognise the impact of adding an extra complaint stage, its failure to send acknowledgements, or address all issues raised. It also missed opportunities for organisational learning. We found maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay an additional £50 in compensation. This revised amount aligns with our remedies guidance for failings that adversely affected the resident and when the landlord did not address the detriment to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord referenced a conversation with the resident about ASB. There is no evidence of this interaction, indicating more effective record keeping is needed. The landlord must ensure that it keeps clear audit trails so it can satisfy itself, its residents and us that it has dealt with matters in a fair and reasonable way.

Communication

37. The resident had to repeatedly chase for progress updates which was not appropriate. Regular updates are essential, especially for cases of ASB or planned works. The landlord did introduce a single point of contact for the resident which was a helpful solution. It would be reasonable for the landlord to consider using this approach from the outset for more complex cases.