London Borough of Islington (202421289)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421289

London Borough of Islington

11 August 2025

Updated 8 October 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:
1. A leak to the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s insurance query.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a 1-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a midrise block.
On 24 November 2022 the resident reported a leak to the block roof that was affecting his property. The landlord raised a repair that was subsequently cancelled. The resident reported further issues 6 months later. On 1 March 2023 the resident raised a query with the landlord regarding its insurance provider. The landlord did not provide a response to the query.
The resident complained to the landlord on 18 August 2023. He said there had been no progress with the roof repairs and his query had not been answered.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 September 2023. It agreed there had been a delay in completing the roof repairs and said it was waiting for a response to his insurance query. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for inconvenience.
On 13 November 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 8 December 2023. It said the leak had been repaired and offered the resident a response to his query. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £150.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In his correspondence with us, the resident states he has been reporting problems with the roof since 2011. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 18 August 2022 to 8 December 2023. This being 12 months prior to the resident raising his complaint, through to when the landlord issued the stage 2 response. We consider this a fair timescale for both parties due to the passage of time and availability of evidence.
Additionally, we are aware that the resident reported in January 2024 that the leak had not been fixed. These events are considered new, and have not exhausted the internal complaints process and have not been considered.

Leak

The resident’s property is on the top floor of the block. His lease sets out the repair responsibilities for the property. The landlord is responsible for the repair to the structure of the block, including the roof. The resident is responsible for repairs within his property. The landlord was aware the resident previously had problems with leaks from the roof.
On 24 November 2022 the resident reported a leak coming from above, causing damage to his property. The landlord raised a job to repair the roof the same day. It later cancelled the job, and the repair was not attended. It is unclear why the job was cancelled or whether the resident was informed.
Given the previous issues with leaks to the property and the damage reported by the resident, it was unreasonable of the landlord to cancel the job. In the absence of any evidence to support there was a reason not to complete the repair, we are unable to conclude the landlord acted in line with its obligations and policies.
On 14 April 2023 the resident told the landlord he had been experiencing a leak to the property since November 2022, and he wanted it to be repaired. He said the leak was affecting the bedroom and living room ceilings. The landlord attended the property on 26 April 2024 and completed a repair to the gutter box. The job was then closed.
On 11 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. He said the operative who attended the repair in April had been unable to assess the leak affecting the living room as there was no scaffolding erected to reach it. The resident said he was unable to pursue an insurance claim for the damage until the repairs to the roof had been completed.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the timescales it will attend repairs. It states it will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord responded to the repair in line with its policy. However, the job had not been completed. The landlord failed to record it had been unable to access the roof to conduct an inspection or put in place arrangements to facilitate a further inspection. This was unreasonable.
The landlord raised a job on 12 May 2023 to check all the repairs had been carried out. An operative attended the property on 15 May 2023 to photograph the rear of the building that needed scaffolding. The landlord raised a job for scaffolding to be erected on 23 May 2023. The scaffolding was erected on 10 July 2023.
On 8 August 2023 the resident asked for an update on the repairs. The landlord’s notes from that date state the scaffolding needed a safety inspection, and it would try and complete the inspection that week.
The resident raised his complaint with the landlord by phone on 18 August 2023. Notes of the call recorded the safety inspection of the scaffolding had not taken place and the damage to his property was getting worse. The notes also recorded the resident was dissatisfied he could not speak to the roofing team directly and the repairs team were unable to answer his queries.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 September 2023 and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said:
1. It had had attended the property on 26 April 2023 and completed a repair to the roof.
2. It returned to the property on 15 May 2023 to check the repairs had been completed. It identified further works needed to be carried out.
3. The scaffolding had been erected, and it had asked its contractor to expedite the repairs.
4. It acknowledged there had been a delay in carrying out the repairs and offered the resident £100 compensation.
The landlord’s response addressed its actions from the repair raised in April 2023. However, the requirement for a repair had first been reported 6 months earlier. The landlord would have been aware of this, as the repair raised in April noted the leak remain unresolved from November 2022. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the delays for the period November 2022 to April 2023 was unreasonable.
Furthermore, the landlord’s response failed to acknowledge it had closed the repair job in April with repairs outstanding. The evidence shows this was brought to the landlord’s attention by the resident on 12 May when he chased the outstanding works.
The resident chased the roof repairs on 6 October and 10 November 2023. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord provided him with an update.
On 13 November 2023 the resident escalated his complaint with the landlord. The same day, the landlord’s surveyor carried out a damp survey at the resident’s property. The evidence suggests the resident’s escalation request prompted the survey as there is no evidence of the landlord raising the survey prior to this date. The surveyor’s report recorded damp and staining within the property, and concluded the cause was a suspected leak from the gutter boxes.
The landlord completed identified repairs to the roof on 17 November 2023. This was almost 1 year after the resident had first reported the leak and significantly outside of its policy timescales. This was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response, dated 8 December 2023, the landlord said the repairs to the roof had been completed, but said to report if this was not the case. It acknowledged it had failed to provide the resident with updates and increased its compensation offer to £150.
The evidence shows there were significant delays in identifying the source of the leaks to the resident’s property and effecting the repairs. The resident’s first report of a leak was cancelled without being investigated. While the landlord completed some repairs in April 2023, it failed to raise further repairs when it was unable to access parts of the roof, until being prompted by the resident a month later.
The landlord failed to demonstrate empathy for his situation and failed to provide him with any updates as to when the situation would be resolved. This caused the resident inconvenience, time, and trouble which was evident in his communication with the landlord.
While the landlord was responsible for fixing the leak, it is not usually responsible for repairs within a leaseholder’s property. However, the prolonged delays to completing the repairs impacted the extent to which the resident’s property was damaged.
It is reasonable to conclude the damage would not have been as bad had the landlord effected the required repairs in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord should have reasonably foreseen the potential for damage due to the ongoing leak through the ceiling of the property.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it can award compensation for delays in providing its services and recommends £25 for every month of delay after the service standards period has passed. The policy also allows discretionary awards for time and trouble caused. In this case there was a substantial delay of 11 months in completing the repairs. The landlords offer of compensation of £150 in these circumstances was unreasonable.
The evidence shows the landlord did not fully accept its failings within the complaint responses. Its offer of compensation was lower than our remedies guidance for cases where there had been a long-term impact on the resident and was below what we consider to be appropriate to remedy the inconvenience cause by what was a significant failure by the landlord.
The combination of failings detailed above, together with the delays to affect a resolution, lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s property. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £500 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that have adversely affected the resident, and the offer of redress was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Insurance query

In or around February 2023, the landlord wrote to its leaseholders regarding a change in its insurance provider. It invited leaseholders to submit their comments for consideration. On 1 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked if the new insurance provider would be made aware of his previous claims in relation to damage caused by leaks in the roof. He said it was vital the insurance company were aware of the issues as he intended to make a further claim.
The landlord’s customer care standard is published on its website. It states when a customer contacts it by email, they can expect:
1. An email confirming receipt within 2 working days.
2. A full reply within ten working days or an explanation of any delays with a new date for a full reply.
The evidence shows the landlord failed to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s query in line with its customer care standard.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 13 April 2023 and received no reply. He contacted the landlord again on 8 August 2023 and was informed his query had been passed on to the relevant team. On 18 August 2023 the resident complained he had not received a reply to his query.
On 5 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the resident’s query regarding insurance had been passed on to the insurance manager and it would update him further when a response was received. The response failed to acknowledge there had already been a 6-month delay in answering the resident’s query and it had failed to meet its customer care standards. This was unreasonable.
The resident chased the response with the landlord on 11 September 2023. The landlord apologised but provided no update on his query. On 13 November 2023 the resident escalated his complaint and said his query had not been answered.
On 8 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said its claims handler had already advised the resident his claim had been denied. The landlord’s response did not answer the query the resident had submitted 9 months earlier. Furthermore, it offered no apology for the length of time it had taken to respond. This was also unreasonable.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it can award compensation for delays in providing its services and recommends £25 for every month of delay after the service standards period has passed. The landlord’s failure to consider compensation in these circumstances was inappropriate.
The landlord provided the resident with an answer to his query on 3 January 2024, 10 months after the query had been raised. The landlord has provided no evidence as to why this information could not have been given to the resident sooner.
The evidence shows the landlord failed to resolve the matter at an earlier stage, despite the resident chasing it for an update. The landlord’s mishandling of the resident’s request caused the resident inconvenience, time, and trouble. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to answer the question posed by the resident and failed to apologise for the delays. The landlord’s failure to follow its customer care standard left the resident waiting almost 10 months for a reply to his query. This was well beyond the timescales the resident could expect and unreasonable.
These failings lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s insurance query. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £225 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that have no permanent impact on the resident, and where the landlord has made no attempt to put things right. The compensation is calculated using the landlord’s compensation policy for delays (9 months delay x £25 = £225).

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s insurance query.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £725 compensation. This is inclusive of the compensation offered within the landlord’s complaint responses. This is made up of:
  1. £500 for its failings in handling reports of a leak and subsequent damage.
  2. £225 for its failings in handling the resident’s insurance query.
3. Attend the resident’s property to assess the extent of the damage caused to the property by its failings. With the resident’s agreement it must consider what internal remedial works it is willing to complete, or fund, to put right the damage caused. It should write to the resident to confirm its decision, giving a full explanation. If it decides not to complete any internal works, it should provide every assistance to him with making a claim via the landlord’s liability insurers, should the resident wish to do so. The landlord should provide us with a copy of the notes or report made from the visit to evidence this.
4. Due to the failures in communication experienced during the complaints process, the landlord should provide the resident a single point of contact as part of the compliance with orders and as a point of liaison for any subsequent works.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance of the orders in the timescales set out above.