London Borough of Islington (202441073)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy about the condition of the property when she moved in following a mutual exchange, and the landlord’s handling of subsequent repairs. The landlord is aware that she is autistic and has a mental health condition.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs
   2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs

5. The landlord did not carry out repairs in line with the timescales set out in its Repairs policy and did not communicate reasonably with the resident while the issues were outstanding. It left works outstanding after its stage 2 response, without a clear plan for getting these issues resolved.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to escalate one of the resident’s complaints, despite her making it clear she remained unhappy, likely contributing to further delays in it identifying the source of damp and mould and completing lasting repairs.

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.

What we have not considered

7. The resident raised a complaint in July 2023 about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and related repairs. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 14 August 2023. We have seen no evidence the resident responded to the landlord to request escalation of this complaint, and it appears she accepted its resolution at that time.
8. As this complaint did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints process, we have not investigated the landlord’s handling of repairs prior to this. We have only considered its handling of repairs from 15 August 2023 onwards.
9. Since the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process, it has identified that the property may be suffering from subsidence, and it has referred this to its insurer. While the resident has told us she is unhappy about this possible subsidence, this issue did not form part of her complaints to the landlord and it has not had the opportunity to investigate this. So, we have not investigated this and the resident would need to raise this with the landlord as a new complaint if she would like it to investigate this.
10. The resident told the landlord that the damp and mould has impacted her and her dog’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

11. The resident raised a problem with her kitchen tiles on 29 September 2023. The landlord attended on 8 December 2023, outside of its repairs policy timescale of 20 working days for routine repairs. It removed tiles and found that sections of the wall were damp and needed to dry before it could carry out re-tiling.
12. On 30 October 2023, the resident told the landlord that damp and mould in the property had left it in a poor condition. She asked for help with her electricity as she had purchased a dehumidifier and said it was costing a lot to run. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this request at that time, which was not appropriate. It took no further action until it carried out a damp survey on 14 December 2023, again outside of its policy timescale.
13. The survey said there was no damp or mould issue and plaster just needed time to dry out. However, the landlord has since said that this report was inaccurate and it no longer works with this contractor. It is not clear when it realised this report was inaccurate, though it is reasonable that it appears to have acted when it realised this.
14. In its stage 1 response of 19 December 2023 the landlord said it had carried out a survey on 11 October 2023. We have not seen a copy of this report, but the landlord said it had identified that the rear patio needed levelling. It said this work was not raised due to the contractor no longer working for it. It was not appropriate for it not to raise this work due to a change of contractor.
15. The landlord said it found water ingress in the property during the damp survey on 14 December 2023 and it was going to arrange follow-up. It offered compensation of £125 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, which was proportionate to the delays at this time. However, it failed to provide a clear timescale for it to complete the outstanding work.
16. The landlord raised a job on 21 December 2023, which it subsequently cancelled as the scope of works was incorrect, which was not appropriate. It did not complete any further work until another damp survey took place on 22 February 2024. This identified many repairs issues across all rooms of the property, as well as external issues that were causing water ingress.
17. The landlord completed some work March and April 2024. However, it still did not resolve the root cause of the damp. The resident told it on 1 May 2024 that she was very frustrated by the process and it was affecting her mental health. It undertook another damp survey on 8 May 2024 which identified further external problems that were causing water ingress and said a CCTV drain survey was needed. The landlord carried out a further damp survey on 1 August 2024 but completed no substantive work during this period, which was not appropriate.
18. On 25 October 2024, the resident raised a further complaint, as she said the property was unsafe. She asked the landlord to provide an urgent plan for repairs and for it to complete them correctly. The landlord’s internal records of 31 October 2024 said it was going to propose to move her into temporary accommodation. However, it is not clear whether it discussed this with the resident.
19. In its stage 1 response of 20 November 2024, the landlord revised its previous compensation offer to £1,574.90. This offer was reasonable to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. However, it again did not set out a clear scope of outstanding works or a timescale for completion of these.
20. On 5 December 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had not had access to a toilet since the previous morning and could not use her microwave or oven due to ongoing work. She said she had been told she would be moved into temporary accommodation while work was completed but this had not happened. It should have been evident to the landlord that a lack of toilet and cooking facilities would cause the resident further distress and inconvenience. However, there is no evidence the landlord responded to her immediate concerns, which was not appropriate.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 18 December 2024 acknowledged that the repairs issues had only been partly resolved. However, it again failed to set out a scope of outstanding works or a timescale to complete these. It offered additional compensation relating to utility bills and the resident’s purchase of a dehumidifier but did not recognise any additional distress and inconvenience caused to her. Its response at this time was not reasonable.
22. The landlord has continued to carry out repairs and surveys since its stage 2 response. However, a damp survey done on 14 November 2025 found that there were still issues with damp in the property.
23. The landlord has kept comprehensive records of the repairs and surveys it has carried out, and it is evident that it has tried to fix the problems. However, its records also show that there have been repairs completed poorly and it has not always followed through with works identified in the surveys. This has led to the damp and mould problems being unresolved more than 2 years after the resident raised them.
24. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports of no access to a toilet or cooking facilities. It has also failed to demonstrate that it took the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration throughout its handling of the repairs, including not keeping her updated regularly.
25. The landlord’s Repairs policy says that it will set high standards for the quality of work carried out and when it gets things wrong, get them sorted quickly. Its actions in this case did not demonstrate these service standards and were not appropriate.
26. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £700 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing damp and mould issues. We have made this award in line with the landlord’s Compensation policy, taking the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £2,425.

27. The resident raised a complaint on 4 December 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this the following day. It sent its stage 1 response 10 working days later, on 19 December 2023, in line with its Complaints policy timescale of 10 working days.
28. The resident responded to the landlord on 28 December 2023, saying its compensation offer was not enough. She asked for a phone call to discuss this further. As she had not received a response, she chased the landlord on 22 January 2024. In this email she said she had ‘not received an update on her complaint’ which indicated she thought the complaint remained ongoing.
29. We have seen no evidence the landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint and it did not escalate it to stage 2. It should have considered escalation, given the resident clearly stated she thought the complaint remained outstanding. It was not appropriate that it did not clarify with the resident whether she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
30. The resident complained again on 25 October 2024 as repairs remained outstanding. We have seen no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy. It sent its stage 1 response 18 working days later, on 20 November 2024, which was not in line with its policy timescale.
31. The resident spoke to the landlord the same day and asked it to escalate the complaint. She wanted further compensation and a reassuring plan of action in relation to outstanding repairs. The landlord did not send an acknowledgement in line with its policy.
32. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 December 2024, 20 working days after the resident requested escalation, which was in line with its policy.
33. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in a timely manner, apart from a small delay at stage 1 of the final complaint. However, its failure to escalate the complaint in December 2023 likely contributed to its failure to resolve the outstanding repairs in a timely manner and resulted in further delays and the resident needing to make an additional complaint.
34. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to escalate the complaint in December 2023. We have made this order with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind.

Learning

Communication

35. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It has not demonstrated that it kept the resident reasonably updated during the ongoing repairs and it failed to clarify whether she wanted a complaint escalated, which likely contributed to the failures identified in this report. The landlord should ensure that it processes allow for accountability and responsibility for monitoring communication it received, to allow it to respond in an appropriate and timely manner.