London Borough of Islington (202532654)

Decision
Case ID	202532654
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure
Date	1 June 2026

Background

The landlord attended the resident’s property to repair a leak in her wet room. It identified it needed to complete further repairs. The resident was unhappy with the time it was taking to resolve the issue and that she was without a shower for 3 months. The landlord agreed to the resident’s request to convert the room to a standard bathroom. However, she was unhappy with the quality of its work. The landlord has vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems due to health concerns. The resident has told us she has vulnerabilities due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cancer.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s bathroom and associated repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s bathroom and associated repairs.
There was reasonable redress 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 communication with the resident was not effective. Its response to the leak and repairs was disjointed and lacked oversight. There is no record it offered her support when she relied upon using a neighbour’s shower. Its compensation offer did not reflect the detriment to the resident as it failed to apply what was set out in its compensation policy for such issues.
The landlord’s complaint responses were in line with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its acknowledgment at stage 1 was not in line with the timeframe set out in the Code. However, it offered compensation for not sending its stage 1 response by the date it told the resident it would. The compensation it offered her was reasonable for minor failures.

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 29 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £459 compensation made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of a leak to the resident’s bathroom and associated repairs. £259 its stage 1 complaint response offered if it has not already paid this. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date	No later than 29 June 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of her bathroom, if it has not already completed this on 18 May 2026. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person should do the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure the surveyor: Inspects the resident’s bathroom to ensure it assesses the further repair concerns she has raised. The survey report must set out: Whether the landlord is satisfied there is no risk to the resident. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve any issues, together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to any issues if the landlord is responsible. The likely timescales to commence and complete any work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 29 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 August 2025	The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said she was disappointed about its lack of service. It had not resolved the problems and had sent different repair operatives who did not have clear knowledge of the repairs needed. She had been using her neighbour’s shower as a result.
17 September 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It listed the repairs for her bathroom it had attended between 20 June and 15 September 2025. It said: It recognised its delay in responding and was sorry for the inconvenience this caused her. It upheld her complaint due to the time it had taken to complete repairs to her shower and the inconvenience caused while it converted the wet room back to a standard bathroom. It offered her £258.32 compensation, which it rounded up to £259. This was made up as follows: £150 for inconvenience caused. £83.32 for service failure between July and September 2025. £25 for its delayed complaint response.
24 September 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: She did not accept its offer of compensation, as the tiles it had fitted were odd, cracked and too small. The grouting was not done correctly. The bath panel was not secure, and the vinyl flooring did not have skirting boards around it. The entrance to the bathroom was dangerous. The bathroom door and radiator needed to be changed.
22 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: It was sorry for its delay in completing its repairs. Its approach to tiles was to install 3 to 4 rows above the bath. It offered to remove the tiles above the ones it had installed and paint the wall, which she declined. It could arrange for its repairs team to visit the property to discuss the repair issues if she wanted. It upheld her complaint and was sorry its service did not meet its standards. It considered the compensation its stage 1 response offered was adequate.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said the landlord had not completed all its repair work and it had not contacted her to explain why.

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	Leak and Bathroom repairs
Finding	Maladministration

Leak

On 20 June 2025 the landlord raised 2 separate repairs about a leak in the resident’s bathroom. Its records show on the same day an electrician and then a plumber attended the property. The landlord’s evidence indicates it did not resolve the leak as it raised a further job on the same day to inspect the bathroom floor. This was reasonable in its attempts to identify the cause of the leak.
The landlord raised a repair on 4 July 2025 to make safe a leak from the resident’s shower. Its records show it traced the leak to the newly refitted bathroom floor. It completed an inspection of the bathroom on 11 July 2025. It found it needed to replace the shower doors. It discussed its inspection internally on 21 July 2025. It said it also found cracks in the tiles, and it told the resident not to use the shower until it checked the waste pipes. However, there is no record that shows it told the resident of this or kept her updated in its repairs progress. This caused the resident frustration as she chased it for answers on 21 and 22 July 2025. This was a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will regularly communicate with residents through the journey of a repair
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 August 2025. She said she had been without a shower for 2 months and despite different contractor visits, the landlord had not identified the cause of the leak. She contacted it again 28 August 2025. She said the landlord was “passing her from 1 team to another” and wanted it to update her urgently. There is no record the landlord contacted her to discuss the issue or offered her any support due to the lack of a shower. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will mitigate the stress and impact of repairs on residents.
The landlord visited the resident on 30 July 2025. Its records show she asked for it to remove the wet room and install a bath. She chased it for an answer on the issue on 7 August 2025. Its stage 1 complaint response said it raised a repair to convert the room back to a standard bathroom. However, there is no evidence of this in its records, or that it told the resident about the decision and how long its work would take. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it raised a works order on 19 August 2025 to convert the wet room. It said it altered its start date to accommodate the resident’s needs, which was reasonable. It stage 2 response said it completed this work on 24 September 2025. There is no record of the works in the landlord’s evidence, which was a record keeping failure. However, the evidence indicates work was completed on 24 September 2025, as on this date the resident raised concerns about the quality of its repairs.

Associated repairs

The landlord raised a repair on 24 July 2025 to inspect a vanity unit after the resident reported the leak had damaged this. Its evidence does not show when it completed this repair. However, its stage 1 complaint response said it installed a new unit on 15 September 2025. The resident did not dispute this. The landlord’s records show it raised a repair on 30 October 2025 as it had not sealed around the vanity unit, and water was draining underneath it. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will drive a first-time fix approach for all repairs.
The landlord raised repairs on 24 July 2025 as the shower pump was not working and new wall tiles had cracks in them. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if it completed these repairs or if it no longer needed to as it agreed to convert to a standard bathroom. This was a record keeping failure.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 24 September 2025 she raised concerns about the bathroom tiles, bath panel, condition of a radiator and door threshold. The landlord’s records show on 30 September 2025 it recorded the resident would not allow it access to complete these repairs. She wanted it to replace all the tiles and the bathroom radiator. The landlord contacted her on 1 October 2025 and said it would not replace all the tiles. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy that says it cannot match existing tiles. Its stage 2 complaint response said it had offered to remove the new tiles it had installed and make good the wall. As the room was no longer a wet room it would not have been reasonable to expect it to retile the entire room
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 October 2025. She raised further concerns about the repair issues she outlined on 24 September 2025. She added the bathroom had 3 different types of tiles, the new toilet was not fully installed, and the bath panel was loose. The resident has told us the landlord has resolved the wall tiles issue. However, she said there were still ongoing problems with a leak behind the toilet and bath, it did not change the radiator, and black marks keep appearing on the floor. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said it could arrange to inspect the bathroom to find a solution for the resident. She has told us it was due to inspect the bathroom on 18 May 2026.

Overall

The landlord’s compensation policy says a surveyor will investigate a loss of water supply related to keeping fittings in good repair. There is no record that it did this and its complaint response did not address or dispute the resident’s comments that she was without a shower for 3 months. This was not reasonable.
The landlord’s complaint responses apologised for the inconvenience its handling of repairs had on the resident. This was reasonable. Its stage 1 complaint response offered the resident £234 compensation in total for its handling of the issue. This went some way to address its failures. However, we do not consider it was proportionate in view of the impact the issue had on the vulnerable resident. Particularly the loss of bathing facilities.
The evidence shows the landlord’s approach to resolving the issues in the resident’s bathroom was confused. Its communication with her was not effective and the evidence shows its repair efforts lacked coordination. It is a concern there is no record it considered what support it could offer her when she was without a shower and relied on using a neighbour’s facilities. This was a failure to follow its fair, inclusive and accessible services commitment which says it will identify at the earliest opportunity if support is needed and will discuss these needs with the resident.
We have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales to acknowledge and respond to residents’ complaints.
The landlord’s sent its stage 1 acknowledgement 6 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This was 1 working day over the timeframe set out in the Code. Although, the delay was minor, it was still a complaint handling failure.
The landlord sent its stage 2 acknowledgement on the same day the resident escalated her complaint. This was reasonable and in line with the Code.
The landlord sent both of its complaint responses within the timeframe set out in the Code. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response offered the resident £25 compensation for its delay in responding. This was because its response was 1 working day after the date its stage 1 acknowledgement had said it would respond. This was reasonable even though its response was 9 working days after it had sent its acknowledgement, which was in line with the Code.
We have made a finding of reasonable redress. There was minimal detriment caused to the resident from the landlord’s delay in sending its stage 1 acknowledgement. Its offer of compensation, although not related to this was in line with our Compensation guidance for minor failures.

Learning

There is learning for the landlord from the resident’s complaint. It should ensure its offer of compensation reflects the full circumstances of the case and its compensation policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s response to the issue the resident raised. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report if it has not done so already.