London Borough of Islington (202339937)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, first-floor flat. The resident has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lives with her son, who has learning difficulties.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of bathroom ceiling repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of bathroom ceiling repairs.
   2. There was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of bathroom ceiling repairs

5. The landlord was aware that the resident was without a bathroom light after making this safe due to a leak from the flat above, but it did not offer temporary lighting until 50 days later.
6. Although the leaseholder of the flat above was responsible for the leak that then caused the bathroom ceiling to collapse, the landlord made insufficient efforts to contact the leaseholder to ensure its repair.
7. The landlord noted at 10 and 12 weeks after the collapse of the bathroom ceiling that the resident had been without use of her bath due to plaster from the collapsed ceiling blocking the plug, yet it took no action to address this on either occasion.
8. The resident was without bathing facilities for at least 4 months.
9. At no point did the landlord consider or discuss any temporary measures with the resident, such as providing temporary accommodation.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it would review bringing forward the ceiling repair and update the resident, but there is no evidence that it did this.
11. The landlord failed to make a call back within a reasonable timeframe.
12. There is no record of the resident’s stage 2 escalation call.
13. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for further assistance regarding making a compensation claim for belongings lost due to the leak.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

14. We are unable to consider complaints about matters that have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. For this reason, we have not considered the resident’s reports of mould after the landlord issued its final response to the complaint in January 2024. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to her recent reports, she can raise this as a new complaint to the landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her new complaint, she may be able to refer the matter for us to investigate as a separate complaint.

Handling of bathroom ceiling repairs

15. On 4 September 2023, the resident reported that a water leak from the flat above was coming through her bathroom ceiling and light. The landlord appropriately raised an emergency repair, which it attended within the 2-hour timeframe specified in its repairs policy. It made the bathroom light safe but noted it could not reinstate this until the leak had been fixed. Although the leaseholder of the flat above was responsible for the leak, there is no evidence that the landlord tried to contact the leaseholder to address this, which showed disregard for the resident’s situation.
16. On 8 September 2023, the resident reported that the bathroom ceiling had collapsed due to the leak. The landlord raised an urgent repair and visited twice that day, within the 24-hour timeframe specified in its repairs policy. It noted that the leak was containable, removed the rest of the ceiling and cleared the debris. Although the landlord acted appropriately to make the bathroom safe, there is, again, no evidence that it tried to contact the leaseholder. Nor is there any evidence that it considered the impact on the resident and whether it needed to provide any temporary measures, such as temporary accommodation. This showed a lack of empathy for the resident’s situation and likely caused her distress.
17. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will make an appointment to visit again to complete a repair following an emergency make safe. However, it was not until a week later, on 18 September 2023, that the landlord raised a job to revisit the resident. It is unclear why it did not do this sooner, which, again, showed disregard for her situation.
18. When the landlord visited the resident on 25 September 2023, it reported that the leak needed fixing and that this had also damaged the kitchen ceiling. It visited the flat above for the first time, but there was no answer. It is unclear why the landlord did not visit the flat sooner. Following the no access visit, we would have expected it to make further attempts to contact the leaseholder to try to resolve the leak or consider obtaining legal advice about gaining access to the flat but there is no evidence that it did this. This was also another missed opportunity for the landlord to consider whether it needed to provide the resident with any temporary measures.
19. On 24 October 2023, the resident declined the landlord’s offer of a temporary light while she had no ceiling or light in her bathroom. The landlord visited the flat above for a second time, but there was no answer so it posted a card to provide its contact details and confirmed it would return on 31 October 2023. When it returned, there was also no answer but there is no evidence that it tried to contact the leaseholder again until another unsuccessful attempt on 13 November 2023, which was not reasonable.
20. When the resident complained on 15 November 2023, the landlord noted that she could not use the bath due to plaster falling into the plug hole from the collapsed ceiling. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System, prepared in consideration of the Housing Act 2004, states sanitary accommodation (bathrooms) should be of hygienic design and construction. Despite noting that the resident had been without bathing facilities for an extended period, the landlord took no action. This showed a further lack of empathy for her situation.
21. When responding at stage 1 on 29 November 2023, the landlord said the delay in completing repairs was due to being unaware if the leak had been fixed, which was not its responsibility. Although it said it would try to complete the repair work sooner than 27 December 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action to establish whether it could do this. Nor is there any evidence that it updated the resident in this regard, which was not appropriate.
22. The landlord further noted on 5 December 2023 that the resident had been without bathing facilities for 3 months.  It unsuccessfully tried to contact her to arrange a visit to check if the leak had been fixed.  That it needed to check with the resident rather than hold the information on its own records, indicates an issue with its record keeping. We would have expected the landlord to make further efforts to contact her, but it did not, which was not appropriate. It is also unclear why repairs scheduled for 27 December 2023 did not then take place, which further indicates an issue with its record keeping.
23. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed it would carry out works to the bathroom ceiling on 8 January 2024, as the leak had been stopped. The conditions of tenancy state the landlord will make good the damage or offer a decorations allowance if it carries out repairs that involve damaging the decorations in the property. This will only apply to the areas affected. We understand that the landlord has since repaired the ceiling and lighting following the repair of the leak, but it is unclear whether redecoration of areas affected by the leak remain outstanding with due consideration of the resident’s vulnerability.
24. The landlord apologised that repairs were taking longer than expected because the leak was from a leaseholder property that it was not responsible for. It offered £200 compensation for distress and £150 for inconvenience caused. We would have expected the landlord to make significant efforts to ensure the leak was fixed as soon as possible so it could complete repairs in the resident’s home or if this was not possible to consider temporarily rehousing her. The resident was without a light in her bathroom for 50 days before the landlord offered temporary lighting, and it also noted on 2 occasions that she had been without bathing facilities but took no action.
25. We consider it appropriate to require that the landlord provides financial redress that recognises the loss of the use of the bath equivalent to a 20% net rent reduction. The period considered for this calculation is from 8 September 2023, which is when the resident reported that the bathroom ceiling had collapsed, up to the landlord’s final complaint response on 4 January 2024. During this time, the resident’s weekly rent was £128.58. Therefore, the landlord should reimburse £433.50.
26. The failings identified and the excessive length of time that the resident was without bathing facilities represent severe maladministration due to the significant impact that this had on her.

27. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (April 2022). The landlord has a published complaints policy that complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
28. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the timeframes specified in its policy.
29. The resident requested a call back when she asked to escalate her complaint on 5 December 2023. We would expect a landlord to respond to a call back request within a reasonable timeframe. However, there is no evidence that it did this, which likely caused the resident inconvenience.
30. The landlord has not provided details of a phone call that took place on 19 December 2023 during which the resident explained why she wanted to escalate her complaint. This indicates an issue with its record keeping.
31. When the landlord initially visited in response to the resident’s report that the bathroom ceiling had collapsed, it noted there was, ‘…a lot of stuff in the bath’. The resident requested compensation for items damaged due to the leak when she formally complained. She also asked the landlord to help by providing photographs of the damage caused. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses said it could not award compensation via its complaints process, but, if the resident did not have contents insurance, she could make a claim via its public liability insurance. To do this, it provided the email address and phone number for its homes and communities team. However, it did not explain whether it would offer any further assistance, which demonstrated a lack of care.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord’s record keeping was poor in this case. It was unclear why repairs did not go ahead as planned and no log of its stage 2 escalation call with the resident. The landlord must consider completing a self-assessment against our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It needs to ensure that it has processes and procedures in place that enable effective and regular communication with its residents. In this case, the landlord failed to keep in regular contact with the resident to update her regarding the repairs and did not respond to a call back request within a reasonable timeframe. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord must consider how it can improve its communication with residents.