London Borough of Islington (202333147)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333147

London Borough of Islington

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bed property under a lease agreement.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The complaint centres around a leak into the resident’s bedroom and front room, from the terrace adjoined to her property. The resident said that this prevented her from using the terrace (and later the bedroom), due to the damp and mould caused. The resident asserted that this was due to the landlord’s negligence in maintaining water tanks, one of which was located on her terrace.
The resident raised a complaint on 8 March 2023 and received a stage 1 response from the landlord on 4 April 2023. This complaint is outside the scope of this investigation. It is noted for information only, as the compensation awarded during this complaint was carried over into the landlord’s subsequent complaint process, outlined below.
The resident raised her initial complaint on 13 October 2023. She said:
1. The repair request was raised on 16 January 2023 and was completed 264 days later. She said that the works took 5 days to complete once they were started.
2. The landlord’s initial response was to arrange a roofer to attend 28 days later on 13 February 2023. This was later delayed due to changes in contractor.
3. During the repairs and complaint process, she had to chase the landlord and its contractors after poor communication and appointments missed without notice.
4. There was confusion from the landlord and its contractors at different points about the scopes of work that had been booked and/or approved as part of the Section 20 consultations.
5. She had told the landlord on 8 March 2023 that she was no longer able to use her bedroom, due to damp from the leak, causing black mould to be present in the room.
6. The works had highlighted negligence from the landlord, over a protracted period, including a lack of maintenance to the water tanks, which had contributed to the leaks. She said that a contractor had told her that the water tanks had “never been treated or maintained or monitored by the freeholder”.
7. Some of the works completed by the landlord’s contractor had been of a poor standard, including on one occasion, the waterproofing layer that was applied had blocked the only drain on the terrace, causing further flooding.
8. At the time of the complaint, various works remained outstanding including removal of the scaffolding, moving a stopcock that serviced another property, removing a second faulty water tank on the roof and completing internal works to make good the damage caused by the damp and mould.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2023 in which it said:
1. It acknowledged there had been a delay between the repair being raised on 16 January 2023 and the Section 20 consultation process commencing on 21 March 2023.
2. There was a change of contractor in June 2023 from an external company to the landlord’s in-house roofing team.
3. Its records show the repairs were completed on 10 October 2023.
4. The resident would need to raise any damage to her fixtures and fittings via the buildings insurance policy, paid for by the leaseholder’s service charges.
5. The resident needed to claim for any damage to her property and personal possessions via her own home contents insurance. The landlord said that if she did not have this insurance, she could contact the landlord to raise a claim via its insurer instead.
6. It offered the resident £493.30 compensation comprised of:
  1. £209 compensation offered in a previous stage 1 complaint.
  2. £25 for time and trouble.
  3. £50 for inconvenience.
  4. £208.30 for services failures over 5 months. This was calculated as £41.66 per month.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 2 November 2023. She said:
1. That the landlord had confirmed “that everything we submitted in our complaint is accurate and correct and there are no disputes on this”.
2. The landlord’s response did not give any reason for the “unacceptable time taken to complete the repairs”.
3. She was not satisfied with the level of compensation and did not feel that this represented the level of distress and inconvenience she had experienced.
4. It was the freeholder’s responsibility to manage repairs effective and she felt that it had not done this.
5. The leak had occurred and repairs were required only because of inadequate previous work and negligence from the freeholder. She said that she and other leaseholders had incurred additional service charge costs because of this.
6. She could not use her terrace for 264 days.
7. She was still waiting on responses to queries and outstanding works including the stopcock on her terrace, which serviced another flat and a second water tank on the roof, which required repair or removal.
8. Works that had been completed were not done correctly, namely that the water proofing had covered the drainage, so water had subsequently flooded into house.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 November 2023, in which it said:
1. Its water tank team were “not aware” of the outstanding water tank on the roof of the property, but that this had now been raised for that team to address.
2. It was prepared to arrange a plumber to move the stopcock which was located on the resident’s terrace, but which serviced another flat. It had tried to contact the resident to arrange this but was awaiting a reply.
3. It was increasing the compensation previously offered in the stage 1 complaint response to £816.60, comprised of:
  1. £416.60 for service failures over a 10-month period, including loss of use of a bedroom and the terrace. This was calculated at £41.66 per month.
  2. £150 for poor communication.
  3. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  4. £100 for the resident’s time and effort spent pursuing these matters.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 22 January 2024 seeking an investigation into the time taken to complete the repairs and the landlord’s negligence. The resident was seeking additional compensation for these factors and not to pay for ongoing works, as the resident felt these were caused by the landlord’s negligence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident made a previous complaint to the landlord on 8 March 2023 and the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 4 April 2023. This is not the complaint which was escalated through the landlord’s complaint process and to the Ombudsman to consider. For this reason, it will be referenced for information only in this report and has not been considered as part of this investigation.
As part of the resident’s complaint, she has queried the level of charges raised by the landlord and stated that she believes that residents should not pay for elements of the repairs, as these have been caused by the landlord’s negligence.
This service does not consider the level or increase of any service charge payments and this investigation will not comment on this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Similarly, ‘negligence’ is a legal term, and the Ombudsman cannot make a legally binding decision on whether or not the landlord has acted negligently.
For these reasons, should the resident remain dissatisfied with this element of the landlord’s service, she may wish to consider seeking independent legal advice on the possibility of progressing a query regarding the service charge to the First Tier (Property) Tribunal, by raising a tort negligence claim in the courts or making a claim against the landlord’s insurance.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep complete and accurate records of its complaint stages and associated processes, such as repair logs, inspection reports and other communication to and from its residents, contractors and third parties.
This expectation is set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which states that landlords must:
1. Conduct investigations in “an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.”
2. Ensure that a full record of the complaint is kept, including “any review and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared.”
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), which is available on our website, further highlights the need for effective record keeping with recommendations which include:
1. A minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support the wider business processes.
2. Ensuring that databases can be easily interrogated and that data can be extracted when needed.
The Regulator of Social Housing also enforces good information management through its ‘Tenant involvement and empowerment standard’, which includes regulations which require the landlord to:
1. “Provide choices, information and communication that is appropriate to the diverse needs of their tenants.”
2. “Have an approach to complaints that is clear, simple and accessible that ensures that complaints are resolved promptly, politely and fairly.”
The resident in this case has complained regularly that the landlord has not correctly logged, actioned or followed up on correspondence that it had received from her. She said that this meant she needed to chase the landlord for responses on a number of occasions.
Following a request for evidence from the Ombudsman, the landlord has provided very limited records of its interactions with the resident, third parties or internally. Crucially, there are significant pieces of documentary evidence that have not been produced, such as call notes with the resident or correspondence with its contractors. In response to the Ombudsman’s evidence request, the landlord’s response was “none held on file”.
This has greatly limited the ability of the Ombudsman and the landlord itself to assess and monitor this case and is a significant failing by the landlord. Our Service has used other documentary evidence, including the accounts and records provided by the resident to decide this case.
On this basis, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping in this case and orders have been made in respect of this below.

Leak in the property

Clause 7(5) of the resident’s lease agreement says that the landlord is required to “repair, clean, improve, redecorate and keep in good order and condition […] the structure of the building”. This includes the roof, joists, gutters, drains, channels and boundary walls.
It is not disputed that the resident first raised a repair request related to leaks, as part of this complaint, on 16 January 2023. It is also not disputed that the repairs were not completed for over 264 days, until 10 October 2023. While outside the scope of this investigation, it is noted that the landlord’s own repair records indicate that this repair was first raised in May 2022.
Within its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that it did not initiate a Section 20 consultation with residents, regarding the costs of potential repairs until 21 March 2023. It did not give an explanation for these delays in either complaint response and this was a failing. No evidence has been seen that a possible approach was considered to secure dispensation from the courts from a section 20 requirement. It is not reasonable to expect residents to wait for repairs for this period of time without any action being taken to mitigate the water ingress in the meantime. This was a significant failing, which caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident, over a protracted period.
Within the resident’s complaint and escalation to the landlord, she indicated numerous occasions when she chased the landlord or its contractors for a response or update on the works. This included:
1. On some occasions, contacting the landlord to check on the status of repairs, to be told they have been cancelled.
2. Waiting in for repair appointments that were not attended on several occasions.
3. Advising contractors of the works to be completed when they attended as they attended, on several occasions, without clear instructions or scopes of work from the landlord.
4. Arranging appointments between the landlord’s contractor and other residents herself, to assess which properties were serviced by the water tank and stop cock located on her terrace.
It was unreasonable for the landlord to place an onus on the resident to chase for updates and seek or provide information to contractors. This is a landlord function and it should have been proactively managing the repairs, its contractors and the communication with the resident without the need for her intervention or oversight. As previously discussed in this determination, the landlord’s poor record keeping cannot but have adversely impacted its ability to manage the repairs and communications in an effective manner.
As part of her complaint, the resident asserted that the landlord had been negligent in its repairs of the water tanks and that this had contributed to the leaks. As explored above, this Service cannot make a legal determination of negligence, however it is noted that the landlord did not assess its actions in this regard, to consider whether it had breached its duties or acted negligently.
Within the complaints process, the landlord’s redress included:
1. An apology for the delays.
2. An offer of £809.60 compensation in total. A breakdown of this can be found at paragraph 10(c) above.
3. Referring the resident to her own insurer to claim for damages to her personal possessions.
4. Referring the resident to the block insurance for claims for any damage to her property, including any fixtures and fittings.
While it is positive to note that the landlord apologised for the delays and offered compensation, its offers of redress were not sufficient in this case because:
1. The landlord’s apology was not, at any point in the complaint’s process, accompanied by a reasoned and detailed explanation for the delays.
2. The resident had experienced protracted delays of around 10 months before the repairs were completed. Compensation of £809.60, including a monthly element of £41.60 for loss of amenity, is not sufficient in this case. Within its complaint response, the landlord cited the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and said that its compensation offer was in line with this. This is not correct for the level of detriment caused to the resident over a sustained period and an order has been made in respect of this below.
3. The landlord did not consider the resident’s position that it had been negligent, prior to referring her to her own insurers to make claims for damages to her property and possessions. In cases of negligence, the liability for any costs would fall to the landlord or its insurer. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this or appropriately signposted the resident to a claim against its own insurers.
4. By the conclusion of the stage 2 complaint process, the resident said that she was still awaiting completion of other works including moving a stopcock that was located on her terrace and repairs / removal of a second water tank on the roof of the property. There has been no evidence supplied by the landlord to show if or when it has completed these works.
Overall, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property, due to:
1. Unreasonable delays in progressing the repair to the roof, and associated processes, such as the Section 20 consultations.
2. Repeated poor communication with the resident and its own contractors, including incorrect information and missed callbacks.
3. An onus placed on the resident to chase for updates and seek or provide information to contractors, rather than this being managed by the landlord.
4. Insufficient redress, including compensation, for the length of delay and the detriment caused to the resident over a protracted period.
5. A lack of accountability or internal examination to assess whether the landlord was at fault for any aspects of the repair, either during its complaint responses or when referring the resident to her own insurer to raise a claim.
Orders and recommendations have been made in respect of this below.

Determination

There has been maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1000 compensation for the time and trouble spent pursuing the completion of the repairs over a protracted period. If the landlord has paid the £809.60 it previously offered (or any part of it), it may deduct this from the total ordered above. This must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her accounts.
2. Provide an update to the Ombudsman regarding the matters which remained outstanding at the conclusion of the resident’s stage 2 complaint, including the relocation of a stopcock and the repair or removal of the second water tank on the roof. If it has not already done so, it must also provide this update to the resident.
3. Review its processes for sharing works information with contractors to ensure that they have sufficient details prior to the works commencing. The landlord must assess what action it can take to improve this and provide an action plan showing how it will implement this in a period not exceeding a further 8 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to undertake a case review to identify:
1. The causes for the delays in actioning the repairs in this case.
2. Why it did not assess its own liability or potential negligence in this case, when this concern was raised by the resident.
3. Why it did not maintain complete and accurate records of correspondence with the resident and its contractors and assess what impact this had on its handling of this case.
4. What actions and learning it can implement to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified in this determination. The landlord must provide an action plan showing how this learning will be implemented within the organisation in a period not exceeding a further 12 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Review and circulate the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information management to all relevant staff (to include those handling complaints), to highlight the importance of complete and accurate record keeping.
2. Review the Ombudsman’s ‘Learning from severe maladministration’ report published in June 2025, which focussed on rebuilding relationships with leaseholders, particularly in complaints involving leaks. It may wish to use this a basis for corporate learning or discussions in relation to this case.