London Borough of Islington (202410511)

Decision
Case ID	202410511
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 June 2026

Background

In October 2022, the landlord reduced the hours of service for heating and hot water to properties on the resident’s estate. In 2023, it told him it planned to install meters on the estate properties, and it would consult residents about the service hours. In 2024, the landlord told the resident that it did not plan to reinstate a 24-hour service after it installed the meters.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about reduced hours of heating and hot water.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about reduced hours of heating and hot water.
2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord excluded the resident from its consultation on reduced service hours. It did not show that it considered the impact on him of its decision or any alternative provisions. It did not communicate clear timescales for its plan to rollout meters.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It did not address all the resident’s complaint points and caused confusion by giving incorrect and conflicting findings. It did not put things right through its complaint process.

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.	No later than 28 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, as follows: £300 for its handling of his concerns about reduced hours of heating and hot water. £100 for its handling of his complaint. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 28 July 2026
3	Action plan The landlord must provide to the resident and us, by the due date, a copy of its action plan to rollout the meters. This should include: Clear timescales for planned actions in the rollout. Decision on whether it will consult the resident’s estate about reinstating 24-hour service ahead of the planned rollout, including a timeframe. If it decides not to consult the resident’s estate, it should explain its reasons.	No later than 11 August 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about the lack of heating and hot water between midnight and 6am. He was unhappy it did not consult residents before reducing the hours of service. He said it had now told residents it planned to keep the reduced hours after installing meters. He said the landlord was depriving him of the right to control his heating and hot water supply. He considered this to be a breach of his human rights.
28 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and upheld the complaint but did not say why. It did not address the resident’s unhappiness with its lack of consultation. It said it: made the decision to reduce the service hours in response to the cost-of-living crisis to control costs for residents reduced hours on other estates from 18 to 13 per day, but reduced them from 24 to 18 on the resident’s estate because it was a heat interface unit (HIU) site explained that residents paid into a single charge pooling system, and it made the change to ensure they shared costs fairly, as otherwise non-HIU estates would have subsidised HIU estates recognised it was not convenient for all residents, but the increased energy costs would have put many in an unaffordable position it was consulting residents on the 13-hour service about a potential change it had reconsidered and once it had installed 80% of the meters it would reinstate 24-hour service; it explained why had changed the boiler operation hours and they would now come on at 4 am instead of 6 am to allow warm up time apologised for the inconvenience caused, but it made the decision to balance the needs of all residents
22 April 2024	The resident escalated his complaint because he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to restore full-service hours only after it had installed 80% of the meters. He asked it to clarify how it would calculate the 80% as some properties had private heating systems and asked for a timeframe. He said the landlord had not made an adequate attempt to justify its decision to reduce service.
21 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and repeated its earlier explanation. It added that it wrote to residents in September 2022 to consult. It said it explained the reason for the change and when it would go live and gave a deadline for response. It said 67% of the 719 residents that responded were in favour. It did not give a timeframe for the meter installation but explained the rationale and criteria for the 80%. It said that its stage 1 response had upheld the complaint, but this was incorrect as it had not found a service failure.
10 June 2024	The resident told the landlord that its response was factually incorrect; it had not consulted or informed the residents of his estate in September 2022. He provided a third-party stage 2 response in which it had accepted the lack of consultation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had not consulted about the original decision to reduce the service hours. He said he wanted a full consultation and the full hours reinstated. He told us recently that the landlord did not install the meters and he had no further information about this.

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	Reduced hours of heating and hot water
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

We explained to the resident that we do not have the power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. For this reason, any new or ongoing issues after the landlord’s stage 2 response must be addressed through its complaint process before we can investigate.
The resident pays for heating and hot water through his service charge. His lease allows the landlord to withdraw or amend services and facilities. It is not within our remit to decide whether the provision or withdrawal of services covered by the service charge were reasonable. This would be for the First Tier Tribunal to consider.
It is also not within our power to decide if the landlord breached the resident’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998; that is for the courts. We have instead considered if the landlord’s actions in its handling and introduction of changes to provisions were fair and reasonable.

What we did investigate

We asked the landlord to provide evidence that it consulted the resident prior to introducing the change. It confirmed that it consulted other estates but did not include the resident’s estate. It said this was because his estate had “unique properties” not mirrored in the others. It said it had exchanged correspondence with him afterwards.
The landlord did not explain what made the resident’s estate “unique” or why this meant it could not consult the estate. If the proposed changes differed from those at other sites, the landlord should have tailored its consultation accordingly. It was not reasonable to exclude the resident’s estate. The landlord consulted other estates in 2022 but not this one, which meant it did not give the resident the same opportunity to provide feedback.
Its lack of consultation with the resident’s estate also meant it did not consider the impact of its proposed changes. It did not consider residents’ individual circumstances and vulnerabilities, or any alternative arrangements where needed. This was not reasonable.
The landlord said the resident was copied into correspondence it exchanged with the estate’s tenancy management organisation (TMO); this was after the service reduction took effect. This correspondence primarily focused on the rollout of meters and its plans to consult residents.
Evidence shows the resident was not alone in raising concerns about the landlord’s communication. Records show other residents also had questions and did not feel adequately or accurately informed. While this is not a group complaint, it provides context for the resident’s experience.
The resident asked the landlord to provide timescales for the consultation and meter roll out, including in his escalation. It said it would reinstate a full service once it had installed 80% of the meters, but it did not provide a timescale for this. It only said the meters would be installed “eventually”. This was not a reasonable response.
The landlord and the resident told us that a meter has not been installed in his property as of June 2026. This means that 2 years after the resident made his complaint and the landlord proposed a potential resolution, it has not made any meaningful progress to implement it.
Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord must apologise to him and pay him £300. This amount is consistent with our compensation guidance. This recommends awards in this range for when there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
The landlord must also write to the resident with an action plan for the meter installation and provide clear timescales against planned actions. It must consider if it will carry out a consultation with his estate, and when, about the ongoing reduced service hours ahead of the rollout. It should write to the resident to explain its decision. If the resident is then unhappy with that decision, he may make a new complaint about this to the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Code. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also followed the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint at both stages within the specified time. Its stage 1 response was late, but it updated the resident and explained this. It then issued the stage 1 response in line with its policy and apologised for the delay, which was appropriate. Its stage 2 response was issued in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not address the resident’s complaint points. He specifically complained about its lack of consultation with him in 2022, but its stage 1 response did not address this. Its stage 2 response then incorrectly said it had consulted him when it had not.
The landlord upheld the complaint at stage 1 but did not explain why or offer any redress. Its stage 2 response then overturned this decision based on inaccurate evidence. This further added to the confusion. It had the opportunity to address its failings and put things right, but it did not do so.
The landlord must apologise to the resident and pay £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We had to request evidence from the landlord as it did not give us sufficient information to fully investigate the complaint. This was a failure to meet its obligations to us as a member landlord, and it caused an avoidable delay to our investigation.

Communication

The landlord has not always communicated clearly with the resident. At times it has relied on the TMO to share information with him when it should be doing this directly. Our Centre for Learning provides landlords with useful resources for effective communication.