London Borough of Islington (202426038)

Background

1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom ground floor flat. He is vulnerable as he is legally blind and has diabetes. He first reported a leak on 6 July 2024, and that the bedroom ceiling collapsed the next day. The landlord resolved the leak by 10 July 2024 and chased the resident’s leasehold neighbour to complete a lasting boiler repair as the boiler was involved in the leaks. It made the bedroom ceiling safe on 25 July 2024 and completed a permanent repair in September 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak and the associated bedroom ceiling repair.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated bedroom ceiling repair.
   2. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Leak and ceiling repair

4. The landlord completed its leak and permanent bedroom ceiling repairs within its timeframes and acknowledged appointment handling failings. However, it delayed making the bedroom ceiling safe. It did not consider the impact of the resident being unable to use his bedroom during its delay, despite being aware of his vulnerabilities. While it initially chased the leaseholder neighbour to complete related repairs, it stopped pursuing this in late 2024 and failed to confirm works were finished. As a result, the compensation the landlord offered in its complaints process did not adequately remedy the overall impact of these failings on the resident.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord’s complaint handling policy was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (our Code), which was statutory at the time. The landlord did not respond within the timeframes set out in our Code.

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.

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.

6. The resident first reported this leak on 6 July 2024. The landlord attended the same day in line with its emergency repairs timeframe of one working day. It identified water damage but noted the ceiling ‘looked and felt safe’. There is no evidence to suggest its assessment was incorrect at the time.
7. The resident reported the ceiling had collapsed the next day. The same day the landlord completed emergency repair works and cleared the loose ceiling edges, checked the leak was inactive, and arranged for its electrician to isolate the lights. It raised jobs to repair the ceiling (make safe) and identify the source of the leak. It attended the next working day to clear the rubble and leave a dehumidifier. The landlord’s records show it resolved the leak by unblocking the neighbouring drainpipe on 10 July 2024. It noted the leak was caused by a blocked drainpipe interacting with the leaseholder neighbour’s boiler. This was appropriately within its urgent repair timeframe of 3 to 7 working days. This shows the landlord was initially responsive and took steps to mitigate the impact of the leak.
8. The landlord delayed making the resident’s ceiling safe. Its policy says it will make a repair safe within its emergency repair timeframe of 1 working day. When the landlord attended on 9 July 2024, it did not complete the temporary repair. It reported insufficient time and that the resident’s bed was in the way. This showed poor repair planning as it should have planned enough time to complete the job. There is also no evidence it asked the resident to move the bed before the appointment. The landlord provided no evidence it assessed the ceiling as safe prior to completing this and it referred to this as a ‘make safe’ repair on 24 July 2024. However, it completed the temporary repair on 25 July 2024, demonstrating a 16 day delay which was unreasonable.
9. The landlord referred the permanent repair to its major repairs team on 9 July 2024. It arranged a quote the same month and kept the resident updated on its progress. It completed the overall repair before its post inspection on 24 September 2024, within the 12 week major repairs timeframe in its repairs policy. The landlord clearly stated this timeframe in its initial repair communications and reiterated this later when the resident expressed dissatisfaction. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s request to rebook an appointment on 30 August 2024 due to his surgery. Rebooking the work for 2 weeks later on 13 September 2024 was reasonable given contractor availability and the short notice.
10. The landlord acknowledged several failings in its appointment scheduling. It apologised its contractor re-arranged several appointments, asked the resident for photos when it could not attend, and could not complete any work in its appointment on 29 August 2024.
11. The landlord delayed chasing a permanent repair to the leasehold neighbour’s boiler involved in the leak. In this situation its responsibility was to inform the leaseholder of their duty to repair and chase this to completion. We can see the landlord contacted the leaseholder on 19 August 2024 and arranged for its surveyor to inspect the boiler on 5 September 2024. Its surveyor highlighted several issues with the boiler.
12. The landlord reasonably asked the leaseholder in October and November 2024 to rectify these issues. However, it failed to take reasonable steps to chase this repair to completion as it then did not chase the leaseholder again until our investigation and provided no confirmation the repairs had been completed. The resident said as the landlord had not confirmed this repair was complete, he was left concerned this may cause further leaks. As such we have made the above order for the landlord to action.
13. The resident told us there has since been a later leak from a different pipe. He said he was concerned this leak was also linked to his neighbour’s boiler. We have not seen any evidence to show this was directly connected to the first leak. If this happened within the last year and the resident is unhappy about the landlord’s response to the later leak, he has the option to bring a complaint to the landlord’s attention.
14. The resident made a claim on the landlord’s liability insurance for his damaged belongings. The landlord’s insurance department told him he did not have a valid claim, and he should claim on his contents insurance. It is not our role to decide whether an insurance claim should have been successful. The landlord’s advice was reasonable as claiming on his contents insurance would have been a valid route to achieve his aim, following the unsuccessful claim through its insurer. The resident told us he had applied for contents insurance through the landlord’s scheme a month before the leak, but it was not active at the time of the leak. He said he tried to claim but it was rejected on this basis. The landlord responded reasonably as it is the resident’s responsibility to arrange contents insurance for their belongings, and this leak occurred 10 years after he moved into the property.
15. The resident told the landlord about sleeping on his sofa after the leak. This was due to the ceiling flaking and damage to his bedroom furniture. The resident informed us at the time of the investigation that he was still sleeping on his sofa due to damage to his bed. We were sorry to hear this, but this should have been part of the insurance consideration. However, we have considered the inconvenience caused by the 16 day delay in making the ceiling safe.
16. Despite being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord failed to consider the increased impact to him of the bedroom being unusable. The resident reported feeling uncomfortable sleeping on the sofa and told the landlord on 24 July 2024 it was not helping his pain levels. It is not our role to decide if the landlord’s actions affected the resident’s physical or mental health. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord to not consider the impact on the resident of its delay given it was aware of his health at the time. The resident reported the landlord’s scheduling issues, and failure to confirm his neighbours completed the boiler repair caused him distress, inconvenience and frustration.
17. The landlord acknowledged its appointment scheduling failure and offered the resident £100 and a £15 voucher for the failed appointment. However, the landlord had not addressed or attempted to put right the impact on the resident of its delay in making the bedroom ceiling safe. We have ordered the landlord pay the resident an additional £66.98 for the loss of use in this case. We calculated this compensation in line with our compensation guidance.
18. Our compensation guidance explains in cases where the household’s circumstances, mean there is an exacerbated impact on the resident we may order further compensation. In line with this we ordered an additional £100 for the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s failings caused the resident.

19. At the time, the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaints policy were not in line with our Code. This was a statutory responsibility at the time. Our Code says a landlord should respond within 10 working days of acknowledgement at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy to align with our Code.
20. The landlord did not provide copies of its stage 1 acknowledgement or the resident’s escalation request. Therefore, we could not assess if the landlord responded within our Code’s acknowledgement timeframe of 5 working days.
21. The landlord responded 6 days late, outside the timeframe set out in our Code at stage 1, and a further 6 days late at stage 2. We have not seen evidence this delay significantly impacted its handling of the substantive complaint or caused detriment to the resident. We ordered an apology which is a sufficient remedy for this.

Learning

22. The landlord delayed making the ceiling safe and did not consider the additional impact of this on the resident given his vulnerabilities. It should make sure to coordinate repairs in line with its repairs policy and consider the impact on each individual to reflect their different circumstances.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord should keep clear records of its complaints communication. This will help it clearly evidence it responded within its policy timeframes.

Communication

24. The landlord clearly communicated its major repairs timeframes to the resident. The leaflet it sent was clearly set out and explained this information well.