London Borough of Islington (202429991)

Decision
Case ID	202429991
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	21 November 2025

Background

1. The resident is the leaseholder of a first floor 1-bedroom flat in a converted house. The lease began on 29 September 1997.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak.
   2. Requests for repairs to damp and mould, damaged plaster and peeling paint.
   3. Reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).
   4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak.
   2. Requests for repairs to damp and mould, damaged plaster and peeling paint.
   3. Reports of ASB.
   4. Associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak

4. The landlord significantly delayed inspecting and repairing the leak. It also did not provide any updates to the resident.

Requests for repairs to damp and mould, damaged plaster and peeling paint

5. Although the landlord referred the resident to its insurance team, it did not consider any redress for the effects of the leak. It did not assist the resident in mitigating the effects of the damp, mould, damaged plaster and peeling paint which was attributed to its leaking roof.

Reports of ASB

6. The landlord did not deal with the issue as ASB.

The associated complaint

7. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint at stage 1 or respond to all complaint issues.

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 19 December 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £1,550 made up as follows:   £700 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident for its failings in how it handled reports of a leak. £200 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident for its failings in how it handled requests for repairs to damp and mould, damaged plaster and peeling paint. £500 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident for its failings in how it handled reports of ASB. £150 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.   The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 19 December 2025
3	Order   The landlord must follow its ASB policy and procedures to deal with the issue of the cats creating a nuisance in the communal areas. This must result in the matter being resolved satisfactorily with incidents of ASB coming to an end.	No later than 19 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 October 2023 to 12 February 2024	On at least 7 separate occasions the resident reported a leak from the guttering. He said it caused damage to plaster, skirting boards, paint and created mould problems. He also reported a neighbour had installed a cat flap on the communal door to the building. He said stray cats were entering the building and using the hallway as a toilet.
20 February 2024	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said that faulty roof drainage had caused water to leak into his kitchen. He said it resulted in damage to plaster, flaking and peeling of paint, and mould. He also complained that the landlord had not removed the cat flap despite promising to do so.
6 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay logging the complaint and offered £25 compensation for that. It said a roofer attended on 2 January 2024 and identified a leak coming from the guttering. But it had since been unable to gain access to the garden area to erect scaffolding. It signposted him to his own insurance for any damaged belongings. It also said leaseholders have building insurance through the service charge to claim for fixtures and fittings. It offered £200 compensation for inconvenience and for the delays getting access for scaffolding.
21 April 2024	The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said the stage 1 response did not address the cat flap issue. He said no action had been taken by the repairs team, and the compensation offered was insufficient. He also said the buildings insurance team told him the repairs needed to be completed first before he could claim through insurance.
29 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request and said it would issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
28 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised it did not address the cat flap issue at stage 1. It said it had raised repairs to seal the cat flap, but it subsequently agreed to let the neighbour keep it and cancelled the repairs. I said it had caused further delays by not taking extra measures to gain access to the garden. A scaffolding contractor gained access to the garden on 23 May 2024 but could not erect scaffolding due to the garden being overgrown. It would try to assist the neighbour with clearing the garden and keep him updated. It reiterated the need to claim through insurance for damages. It increased the compensation from £200 to £425 for the additional delays and time and trouble.
Events since the final complaint response	The landlord erected scaffolding on 23 September 2024. It completed the repairs to the guttering and removed the scaffolding on 1 October 2024. It later arranged for a damp and mould surveyor to inspect the property in June 2025. It also wrote to the cat owner in June 2025 and asked them to clean up any mess promptly.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident brought his complaint to us, he wanted the repairs completed and an increased amount of compensation.

 

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	Reports of a leak.
Finding	Maladministration

8. Under clause 7(5)(a) of the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible to keep in good repair the structure of the building. This includes the exterior walls, the roof, the gutters and rainwater pipes. The leaseholder is responsible for keeping the interior of the property in good and substantial repair.
9. The landlord’s housing repairs guide sets out timeframes for repairs. The most appropriate category for the repairs reported is planned. This includes high value repair jobs which are often complicated to complete. The landlord required access, inspection, and scaffolding before completing the works. It should complete planned works in 60 working days.
10. The resident first reported the leak on 30 October 2023. On 7 December 2023 the landlord raised a routine 20-day work order for a roofer to inspect the gutters. It should not have delayed raising the inspection by over a month from the initial report. As it already delayed by a month before raising the inspection, it should have had a target date less than 20 days. The landlord inspected the roof just over 2 months from when the resident reported it.
11. When the roofer attended on 2 January 2024, he reported access was needed to the neighbour’s garden to erect scaffolding. The landlord then experienced issues gaining access to the neighbour’s property. However, it delayed until 6 March 2024 to ask its repairs team to follow its no access procedure. This delay was inappropriate.
12. At this stage the landlord had exceeded its 60 working days repairs timescale by 29 days with no progress in completing repairs. It did not provide updates to the resident to manage his expectation of when it would complete the repairs.
13. When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response of 28 May 2024 it had not yet completed the repairs. It told the resident it would keep him updated about the access issue. However, there is no evidence it provided any updates or information to him, which is a failure. The landlord completed the repairs on 23 September 2024.
14. In summary, the landlord took nearly a year to complete repairs to the roof. There were unexplained delays at each stage of the repair process. It took just over a month to raise an inspection. It took a further month to complete the inspection. Then a further 2 months before deciding to start the no access procedure. Then just over 6 months to complete repairs. There was also poor communication by not providing any updates about the access issue or repair works.
15. The landlord is to pay the resident £700 total compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its delays to repair the leak. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	Requests for repairs to damp and mould, damaged plaster and peeling paint.
Finding	Maladministration

16. Implied into every lease is the covenant of quiet enjoyment. This means that the resident’s enjoyment / use of their property should not be unreasonably interrupted by the actions or inactions of the landlord. This is also supported by paragraph 7(1) of the lease. This states the resident may peacefully hold and enjoy the premises during the term without interruption by the landlord.
17. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord is obligated to repair the roof. Due to its failure to repair the roof in a reasonable time, the resident’s property has suffered damage. This damage has interfered with his use and enjoyment of the property.
18. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assist the resident in mitigating the effects of the leak. The resident could not do anything about the leak internally until the landlord met its repairing obligation. The landlord could have provided him with dehumidifiers and offer mould washes to reduce the interference with the enjoyment of his property.
19. In both its complaint responses, the landlord told the resident to make a claim through his own contents insurance for any damaged belongings. It also said he could make a claim through its building insurance for fixtures and fittings. However, he could not make use of the insurance until the leak had stopped so that all liability could be assessed.
20. The landlord’s interference with the resident’s use and enjoyment of his property continued up until the leak was fixed. As a result of its failure to mitigate the effects of the leak inside the property we have found maladministration.
21. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its failure to consider requests to repair the damp and mould, damaged plaster and peeling paint. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	Reports of ASB.
Finding	Maladministration

22. ASB is defined as any conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. Any conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. Or any conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
23. Under the landlord’s ASB policy, it considers residents not keeping pets under control to be nuisance behaviour. It states this is especially the case when happening in communal areas of its buildings.
24. The landlord’s ASB procedure sets out its commitment to working in a “trauma informed way” with both reporters and perpetrators of ASB. It says that where it receives reports of ASB it will complete a risk assessment and action plan with the reporter. This is to be a live document that it would review and update as the case progressed.
25. When the resident first reported on 30 October 2023 that he was experiencing issues with cat fouling in the communal areas, the landlord should have investigated the matter as ASB. There is no evidence it did so, which is a failure. The ASB reported fits the category of lower risk cases. The landlord should have advised the resident of its policy in this type of case. Its policy suggests a referral to its commissioned mediation service.
26. The landlord did not complete a risk assessment with the resident of non-urgent cases. Its standard minimum contact with reporters of ASB is monthly. The resident had to chase updates and eventually make a complaint. It also did not produce an action plan.
27. On 4 December 2023 the landlord raised a repair to board up the cat flap. There is no evidence this was done as part of its ASB process.
28. The landlord attended on 5 February 2024 to inspect the door and raise further work to board up and seal the cat flap. This was over 2 months after initially raising the repair and is a failure.
29. The landlord returned on 28 March 2024. The operative recorded the cat owner would fight to keep the cat flap and involve lawyers. It is unclear exactly when, but the landlord later decided to allow the cat owner to keep the cat flap. There is no evidence it considered the resident’s concerns, or that it completed any risk assessment at any point in making its decision. This is not appropriate.
30. The evidence indicates that the landlord has been slow to respond to the resident’s reports. It failed to act in accordance with its ASB policy. It also did not keep the resident informed of progress. Since the final response, it raised an ASB task to look into the cat fouling the communal area. However, we have only seen evidence that it wrote to the cat owner asking them to clean up any mess promptly. It is unacceptable for residents of the building to have to tolerate faeces and urine from cats inside the communal hallway.
31. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to treat the issues with the cat flap as reports of ASB. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The associated complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

32. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out clear expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. At stage 1 of its complaints process, landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It should issue a response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 of its complaints process, landlords must acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. It should issue a response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the Code.
33. In this case the resident submitted a complaint on 20 February 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint, which is not compliant with the Code or its own policy. It issued its stage 1 complaint response 11 working days later. This was outside the 10-working day timescale, but it apologised for the delay and offered £25 compensation.
34. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not address all aspects of the complaint. The Code states that landlords are expected to respond to all aspects of the complaint as defined by the resident. In this case, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the cat flap. This omission was inappropriate and is a failure of the dispute resolution principles to be fair, learn and put things right.
35. The resident’s request to escalate on 21 April 2024 was acknowledged 5 working days later. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in 20 working days, which addressed all complaint points. This was in line with the Code and the landlord’s own complaint policy.
36. In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling was not compliant with the Code or its own policy at stage 1 of its complaints process, due to not acknowledging the complaint or addressing all complaint points. While its stage 2 complaint response was timely, it did not offer any redress for failing to deal with the cat flap issue at stage 1. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and have ordered it to pay the resident £150 in compensation. This amount reflects the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling, and the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Learning

37. The landlord did not follow its ASB policy in relation to the reports of ASB made by the resident. Landlords should ensure its staff recognise ASB and take appropriate action to ensure its ASB policy is followed.
38. The landlord should review why there were delays at each stage of its repair procedure and what should be done to rectify this.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. The landlord has not provided evidence of any inspections of the communal areas. Some of its repair records are also unclear and do not detail the full nature or outcome of the works completed, or the times the work was completed. At times, this has affected our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

40. The landlord has provided no evidence of sending the resident any updates or correspondence about repair jobs it raised. The landlord should explore ways to maintain consistent contact with residents while repairs are ongoing.