Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Islington (202419503)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419503

London Borough of Islington

23 September 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 leaseholder 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The time taken for the landlord to remove scaffolding.
    2. The landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s report of damage caused to the property by scaffolding it had erected.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the investigation.

Background

  1. The complaint concerns a leasehold property. The landlord has described the property as “a basement level, 3 bedroom maisonette conversion”. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 18 December 2023 the leaseholder complained to the landlord about scaffolding that was erected on the building which the property was situated in. In summary the leaseholder said:
    1. Scaffolding was erected on the building on 3 October 2023 to complete repairs to the roof and rainwater goods. She confirmed that despite the repairs being completed on 14 October 2023 the scaffolding was still in place – a period of 76 days.
    2. On 26 October 2023 she contacted the landlord to report that the scaffolding had damaged the property which had caused a leak into the dining room.
    3. Following several chasers to the landlord about the scaffolding an operative attended the building on 20 November 2023 to inspect the property.
    4. Despite chasing the landlord on multiple occasions for an update on when the scaffolding would be removed it had not responded. She believed that the landlord was not acting promptly in removing the scaffolding in retaliation to an earlier complaint which she had made about the same scaffolding.
  3. The leaseholder concluded the complaint by requesting that the landlord take immediate action to remove the scaffolding and “await further instruction on reimbursing for costs of damage caused” to the property.
  4. On 4 January 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. In summary the landlord said:
    1. It was sorry that the leaseholder felt that she was being ignored in respect of her concerns regarding the scaffolding. It explained that due to “staffing issues” it had not been able to respond as quickly as it would have liked.
    2. In response to the leaseholder’s report of a leak into the property due to the scaffolding a repair was booked for 20 November 2023. The record of the appointment confirmed that 2 outlets were unblocked and a note was left on the system advising that the scaffolding should be removed.
    3. It understood that the leaseholder had instructed an independent surveyor to assess the scaffolding. It acknowledged that the surveyor reported to the leaseholder that the scaffolding had been erected incorrectly and should be removed immediately.
    4. It issued the strike notice to its contractor for removal of the scaffolding on 6 December 2023. Its contractor confirmed that on receipt of the strike notice it attempted to contact the leaseholder on several occasions in order to gain access to the property’s rear garden. Its contractor made contact with the leaseholder’s father on 22 December 2023 who confirmed availability for the scaffolding to be removed later that day.
    5. It was sorry for the delay in removal of the scaffolding from the building. It acknowledging this had caused the leaseholder “worry and stress”. It would therefore like to award the leaseholder £184 compensation, comprising £84 for service failure and £100 for inconvenience.
    6. In respect of the leaseholder’s report of damage to the property she should make a claim via her leasehold insurance policy.
  5. On 6 January 2024 the leaseholder requested to escalate the complaint as she did not believe the landlord’s response was accurate. In summary she said:
    1. The contractor did not contact her on multiple occasions after it had received the strike notice on 6 December 2023.
    2. On 22 December 2023 the contractor did not speak with her father regarding access to the property’s rear garden. She stated that the contractor had spoken with the father of another leaseholder who lived within the building.
    3. Despite not being aware of the appointment on 22 December 2023 she granted access to the contractor. She confirmed that the scaffolding was not removed during the appointment as the contractor did not have the correct equipment with it.
    4. During the appointment on 22 December 2023 one of the contractor’s operatives was rude towards her in response to her request to remove their boots while walking through the property. She explained that the request was made for cultural reasons. She stated that she was “shaken” and “intimidated” by the incident. She noted that she had reported the incident to the contractor directly.
    5. It was unsatisfactory that the contractor did not bring appropriate protective floor coverings to use during the recent appointment to remove the scaffolding. She noted that the contractor was aware that it would have to go through the property during the appointment.
    6. It was unsatisfactory that the property had been damaged while the scaffolding was in place on the building and she was required to make an insurance claim on her policy for the make good works.
    7. The level of compensation was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
  6. On 2 February 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response. In summer the landlord said:
    1. Scaffolding was required in order to trace and remedy a leak affecting another property within the building.
    2. On 3, 5 and 11 October 2023 the leaseholder contacted it to request a start date for the repairs to the roof as the scaffolding was in place. It responded on 11 October 2023 to confirm that it would be in touch with the leaseholder shortly to schedule an appointment for the repairs to start.
    3. Following the appointment on 14 October 2023 to complete the repairs the leaseholder contacted it on 19 October 2023 to request that the scaffolding was removed promptly.
    4. On 26 October 2023 the leaseholder contacted it to report a leak into the property which was caused by the position of the scaffolding. In response it raised a work order to inspect the property.
    5. On 6 November 2023 the leaseholder provided it with a report by her independent surveyor “detailing the cause of the leak” into the property. It confirmed the report was reviewed on receipt – no further details.
    6. As part of its monitoring process following completion of works it was “obliged” to leave the scaffolding in place to ensure that the works completed had been successful.
    7. In determining the location of the scaffolding on the building it took into account health and safety issues such as escape routes. In planning the work it concluded that the “safest and most direct way” to reach the repair area was to erect the scaffolding on top of the property’s extension.
    8. In response to the leaseholder’s report that the property had been damaged as a result of the position of the scaffolding it would raise a work order to inspect the damage. Following the inspection make good works would be agreed.
    9. The leaseholder may submit a claim to its insurers for damage to her personal belongings. It provided contact details for its insurers.
    10. It was sorry that the leaseholder had not been contacted by the contractor after it had received the strike notice to arrange an appointment to remove the scaffolding.
    11. It had spoken with the contractor regarding the incident during the appointment on 22 December 2023. The contractor confirmed that it would investigate the matter through its internal processes. It would not be able to disclose the outcome of the investigation due to data protection.
  7. The landlord concluded by acknowledging that there had been a delay in removing the scaffolding following the repair to the roof. It also acknowledged that the level of service the leaseholder had received had fallen short. It confirmed that it would therefore like to make a new offer of compensation totalling £375, comprising:
    1. £125 for delay in removing the scaffolding.
    2. £100 for time and trouble.
    3. £150 for distress.

Assessment and findings

The time taken for the landlord to remove scaffolding

  1. The landlord’s information on repairs requiring scaffolding sets out that scaffolding will be taken down 10 days after the work is completed.
  2. The repairs requiring scaffolding were completed on 14 October 2023. In line with the landlord’s practice on scaffolding it should have been removed by 24 October 2023.
  3. The scaffolding was removed on 6 January 2023. This was 58 days after the repair work was completed. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s service standard for removal of scaffolding. This is a failing.
  4. While the scaffolding was in place the evidence shows that the leaseholder contacted the landlord on many occasions to request confirmation on when it was going to be removed. This included on 19 October, 26 October, 6 November, 23 November, 5 December, 18 December and 22 December 2023. Despite the leaseholder’s contacts we cannot see that the landlord responded to the leaseholder to provide information on when the scaffolding was going to be taken down. This is a failing. The landlord should have responded in order to keep her informed and to manage her expectations.
  5. In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in arranging for the scaffolding to be removed. It therefore apologised and awarded £375 compensation.
  6. The landlord’s apology was appropriate to demonstrate that it recognised that the service it had provided the leaseholder had fallen below what was expected and therefore that she had been impacted.
  7. The landlord’s guidance on compensation sets out that where it has provided a service which has fallen short it may offer compensation. As the landlord identified a failing in the service which it had provided it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy. The compensation offered to the leaseholder was proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint to reflect the impact of the delay, in addition to the distress and inconvenience she would have experienced. The level of compensation was also within the Ombudsman’s range for cases where there was a failure which adversely affects a leaseholder.
  8. The landlord delayed in arranging for the scaffolding to be removed and did not provide the leaseholder with updates. However the landlord has identified and acknowledged its failings and offered appropriate compensation in recognition of this. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the leaseholder which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s report of damage caused to the property by scaffolding it had erected

  1. On 26 October 2023 the leaseholder contacted the landlord to report that the property was experiencing water ingress caused by the scaffolding on the building. In response and on 27 October 2023 the landlord raised a work order for “a roofer to attend and inspect and rectify roof leak affecting the dining room”. This was appropriate.
  2. The appointment went ahead on 20 November 2023. The landlord recorded that 2 outlets were unblocked. It was appropriate that the landlord attended to the blocked outlets as they were identified as an issue. However the record does not demonstrate that the landlord investigated the leaseholder’s concerns that the scaffolding had caused damaged to the property which had resulted in water ingress. This is a failing.
  3. The landlord should have documented that the leaseholder’s report was considered and its position on the matter. This is because a landlord should be able to demonstrate how it is meeting its obligations. It would also have been appropriate as the leaseholder had provided the landlord with a report from an independent surveyor, prior to the appointment on 20 November 2023, which set out that damage had been caused to the property by the scaffolding. The independent surveyor noted:
    1. The scaffolding had “been placed not only directly on top of the back addition with no support to the ground but also directly above the patio door’s frame, which only has a small Catnic lintel suitable to support a small number of brick courses, not a three storey metal tower”.
    2. “The top brick course is also starting to present small joint cracks. The bricks are not fractured, but the cracks can be easy access for water during heavy rain, not to mention the overload over the patio doors might have affected the roofing structure and water-tight layer”.
  4. As part of its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that it would raise a work order to inspect to see if the property had been damaged by the scaffolding. This was appropriate to determine if any repair work was needed for which it was responsible. Despite the landlord’s commitment to inspect the property, the evidence does not document that an inspection took place at that time. This was a failing.
  5. On 12 September 2025 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder to arrange an appointment to “inspect the affected areas” of the property in relation to the complaint. We note that the landlord’s request was made after we had contacted it to confirm that we would be starting our investigation into the complaint. It is appropriate that the landlord has made contact with the leaseholder to arrange the inspection. However it is unsatisfactory that the inspection has been outstanding for a period of approximately 19 months and appears to have only been progressed as a result of intervention from us. It also demonstrates that the landlord did not have clear oversight of the issue.
  6. The leaseholder provided us with an update in September 2025. She confirmed that she had arranged for repairs to be completed independently of the landlord to make good the damage caused by the scaffolding. She explained that she had taken this action as water was able to come in through the ceiling and therefore it could not be left unattended.
  7. There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the leaseholder’s report of damage caused to the property by scaffolding it had erected. The landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it took appropriate steps to investigate the leaseholder’s concerns regarding damage to the property during the appointment on 20 November 2023. In addition the landlord did not inspect the property as it committed to doing so as part of its stage 2 response. The leaseholder will therefore have experienced inconvenience, distress and uncertainty.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. In responding to the complaint the landlord provided the leaseholder with details of its insurers for damage to the property. While we cannot comment on the outcome of an insurance claim, as we cannot determine liability, we will consider whether it was fair and appropriate for the landlord to advise the leaseholder to pursue an insurance claim. As the leaseholder had alleged that the landlord was responsible for the damage as a result of its actions in relation to the scaffolding it was fair and reasonable for it to signpost her to its insurers. This is because the insurer will consider if the landlord had acted negligently and was at fault.
  2. As part of the complaint the leaseholder raised concerns about the conduct of an operative during the appointment on 22 December 2023. Within its complaint response the landlord confirmed that it had liaised with the contractor regarding the incident. It also set out that the contractor was sorry for the leaseholder’s experience and explained that the incident was being investigated internally by the contractor. This was a reasonable response demonstrating that the landlord had taken the leaseholder’s experience seriously and acknowledged how it had made her feel.
  3. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. This is because it provided appropriate responses to the leaseholder in relation to her concerns about damage to the property and the conduct of an operative.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress to the leaseholder in respect of the time taken to remove scaffolding which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this part of the complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the leaseholder’s report of damage caused to the property by scaffolding it had erected.
    2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the leaseholder in respect of the failing identified by this investigation.
  2. The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, pay the leaseholder £400 compensation. This is in recognition of the landlord’s poor response to the leaseholder’s report that the scaffolding had damaged the property and the distress, inconvenience and uncertainty she will have experienced as a result.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the leaseholder the £375 compensation it awarded itself in consideration of the complaint if it has not already done so.