London Borough of Islington (202405953)

Decision
Case ID	202405953
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The landlord has told us that the resident advised it that she considers herself to be vulnerable, although she has declined to provide it with details of her vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the attendance of a repair’s operative at her property.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the attendance of a repair’s operative at her property.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Attendance of repairs operative

6. The landlord recognised the inconvenience and distress the issue caused the resident. The compensation it offered her was in line with our remedies guidance and the detriment caused to the resident was minimal and short in duration.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not complete a meaningful investigation at stage 1 which may have resolved the resident’s complaint, without the need for her to escalate it. Although its stage 2 response offered her compensation for this, we do not consider it was appropriate for the inconvenience this caused her.

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. It provides the resident with an update on the effectiveness of the learning it advised her of in its stage 2 response, regarding training, process reviews and repair operative briefings.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100, made up as follows: £50 for its complaint handling failure, including the £25 its stage 2 response offered her, if it has not already paid this. £50 it offered the resident in its stage 2 response, if it has not already paid this. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 07 January 2026

 

 

 

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow this.

Our recommendation
It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff to ensure that its complaint policy is followed, focussing on the positive aspects of its stage 2 response.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 May 2024	The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on this date. She said: A “workman” had visited her property that day and wanted to take a picture of her door. She wanted it to tell her why a repair job had been booked at her property
16 May 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: Its records did not show it had booked a repair job at her property on 1 May 2024. It was possible that its repair operative had attended the wrong property, but there was no evidence of this. It had made its antisocial behaviour (ASB) team aware of the issue. It did not uphold her complaint as it was unable to find a service failure.
19 May 2024	The resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint: She believed it was a common occurrence for the landlord’s staff to be impersonated by a “fraudster”, and it should prioritise investigating this. She did not understand why it could not identify who the person was who visited her property. She asked it if it kept a check of its vans, global positioning system (GPS) equipment, uniforms and identification badges. She believed it had not contacted the police as it was protecting its repairs operative. She asked how many repair operatives it employed. It had changed her complaint definition, as its response insinuated that she had booked a repair job, and its response had suggested the person was a “fraudster” and not its employee. If so, why had it not reported this to the police. Its complaint response had the incorrect address for her.
20 May 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: The description of her complaint in its stage 1 response was reasonable, given her complaint suggested its operative had visited her home without prior agreement. It stage 1 investigation had questioned whether the person was impersonating its operative, but she confirmed the person was wearing its uniform, identification badge and drove one of its vans. As it had not had any of these items stolen it had no concerns the person was an imposter. Its stage 1 investigation had checked her repair records to see if any of its operatives had visited her property. This was no way an attempt by it to suggest she had booked a repair appointment. As its records also did not show any repair jobs for her neighbours, it was reasonable for it to conclude the operative had attended her property in error. It employed 150 repair operatives, and she was right to raise concerns with it about the validity of the operative attending her property. It was sorry that it had been unable to identify the person who visited her property at the time she raised her concerns. It had spoken with its fleet manager who checked its vehicle trackers, which showed an operative had attended her home in error on the 1 May 2024. Its repair operative had put the wrong address into their satellite navigation (satnav), which is why they visited her property. Its operative realised their mistake and tried to explain this to her. They asked to take a photograph of her front door to document the error, which was the correct thing for them to do. As she refused this its operative left and went to the correct address. The operative’s personal notepad had no record of visiting her property. It would only have known about the error by contacting its fleet manager or requesting every operative’s schedule for that day. Its stage 1 investigation should have been able to clarify the issue sooner and identified the operative and it was sorry it did not do so, given her concerns. It had put the wrong address on its stage 1 response due to an administrative error. It would be more diligent in its future response. As its response was emailed to her there had been no data breach. It was correct to tell its ASB team about the issue, for monitoring purposes, in case other resident’s reported similar issues. It had responded to her complaint at stage 1 within the timeframe of its complaints policy. It had asked its complaint and repair teams to consider how the issue she complained about could be prevented and if staff training or a review to working practices was needed. It had asked for briefings with its repair operatives to discuss what to do if they attend a property in error. It upheld her complaint and offered her £25 for inconvenience and distress, £25 for time and trouble, and £25 for its incomplete stage 1 investigation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us on 9 June 2024. She said: She suspected dishonesty from the landlord and its operative. The landlord had failed to identify the operative quickly and she wanted to know why they visited her property. She believed it had misled her that the operative could be a fraudster. She believed that the property that the landlord said its operative should have visited, had been sold or did not exist.

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.

Complaint	Attendance of repairs operative
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. The landlord’s evidence shows that it responded to the resident on the same day she raised her concerns. This was reasonable. It advised her that it had not booked any repairs at her property and asked if she had taken the name of the person who had visited.
9. The resident told the landlord on 2 May 2024 that she had reported the matter to the police, as she did not take the name of the person who had visited her property. She provided it with a police reference number and said that the person had said they were at her property to repair her toilet. Its stage 1 response told her that it had no record of a repair job to her toilet. However, there is no evidence that it checked its records for similar repairs to other properties in her area. Had it done so it could have resolved the resident’s concerns at an earlier date. This was not reasonable and caused the resident inconvenience.
10. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not provide the resident with an answer about the identity of the person who had visited her. Its response indicates that it believed it was possible that the person was impersonating its operative. This was not reasonable and caused the resident distress as she made further reports to the police about the incident on 17 May, 19 May, and 20 May 2024.
11. As the landlord’s stage 1 response could not identify the person who had visited her, it caused the resident inconvenience as she continued to chase it for answers. On 20 May 2024 she contacted it asking it to confirm whether the person was an imposter or not. Although its stage 1 response did not confirm this either way there is no evidence that the landlord sought to deliberately mislead the resident or was being dishonest, as she had said it had.
12. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had informed its ASB team of the issue. However, as it was unable to confirm whether the person was its operative or not, it was reasonable that it shared this information. This shows it was taking the welfare of the resident into account in its handling of the issue.
13. When the resident escalated her complaint, she said she believed the landlord had not contacted the police as it was protecting its repairs operative. However, there is no record within the landlord’s evidence that supports her view. It was reasonable for the landlord to try and resolve her complaint through its internal complaints process, before deciding whether it needed to involve the police. However, it would have been reasonable to have confirmed its position on this to the resident as it knew she had contacted the police.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident explained that one of its repair operatives had visited her property by mistake. This was reasonable. It also told her that it had difficulties identifying the operative due to their personal notepad not having a record of visiting her property and the additional steps it had taken to confirm its operative had visited her in error. This was also reasonable.
15. The evidence shows that post internal complaint the landlord responded to a freedom of information request from the resident about the issue. It provided her with its operative’s vehicle travel information and the repair job worksheet for the property they were meant to attend. This was reasonable and shows the landlord was committed to resolving the complaint for the benefit of the resident.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 response recognised the impact its failures had on the resident and offered her £50 compensation as a result. This was in line with our remedies guidance for cases where the detriment to the resident is minimal and of a short duration.
17. With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we consider the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress and no further award of compensation or orders has been made.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at both stages within 5 working days, as stated in its complaint policy. This was reasonable.
19. The landlord provided the resident with its responses within the timeframe of its complaints policy of 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This was reasonable and in line with its complaint policy.
20. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 May 2024. She was concerned that the landlord had changed her complaint definition. However, there is no record that it contacted her to clarify this. This was not reasonable and a failure by it to follow the Code which says landlords must clarify complaint definitions if an aspect is unclear. Its stage 2 response told her that its definition was reasonable based on the nature of her complaint and that it categorises complaints to the nearest description on its systems. This was reasonable.
21. On 8 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord why the person who had visited her property did not call its repairs team at the time to confirm their visit was a mistake. This was a reasonable question to pose. Although its stage 2 response told her it would review its working practices and provide staff training, there is no record that it directly answered her question. This was not reasonable and a record keeping failure.
22. The quality of the landlord’s stage 1 response was poor and does not demonstrate it completed a meaningful investigation or had a collaborative approach across other teams and departments to resolve the resident’s complaint. Had it done so it is reasonable to conclude it could have offered the resident the remedies its stage 2 response did. This was a failure by it to follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which says landlords must ensure appropriate remedies are provided at any stage.
23. The landlord’s failure to resolve the issue for the benefit of the resident at stage 1, caused her inconvenience and distress. However, we acknowledge that the resident’s complaint took 23 working days to complete the landlord’s internal complaint process and the impact its failure at stage 1 had on the resident was minimal.
24. The resident told us that she believed the property the landlord’s operative should have visited had been sold or did not exist. We have not seen evidence that shows the property does not exist. Although the resident provided evidence that a property had been sold it is still possible that the landlord’s operative would have needed to visit as it may have been a leasehold property and a landlord and tenant relationship would still exist.
25. The quality of the landlord’s stage 2 response was good. It provided the resident with answers to her complaint, as well as the additional queries she raised during the complaint’s process. It was positive that it showed learning from her complaint in the staff training, processes review and briefing with repair operatives.
26. The landlord’s stage 2 response indicates that the information it gathered during its investigation was available to it at stage 1. It was not reasonable that its stage 1 investigation did not obtain this information, to resolve the resident’s complaint at an earlier stage. It offered the resident £25 compensation for its incomplete stage 1 investigation. However, while this went some way to acknowledge the impact on the resident, it was not in line with our remedies guidance for cases of service failure and we do not consider it was sufficient.
27. With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident a total of £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This includes the £25 its stage 2 response offered her and is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises minor failures that the landlord’s offer of compensation did not appropriately acknowledge.
28. We have also ordered the landlord provides the resident with an update on the staff training and process reviews its stage 2 response advised her of. We have also recommended that the landlord completes training with its complaint handling staff focussing on the positive aspects of its stage 2 complaint response so it can effectively handle any future complaints.

Learning

29. The landlord’s stage 2 response was compliant with the Code, and it should consider using this as a learning tool for its complaint handling staff on how to respond to complaints well.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was adequate. However, it could have scrutinised its records better during its stage 1 investigation.

Communication

31. Overall, the landlord’s communication was good. It responded to contact from the resident promptly and its complaint handling was within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy.