Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Islington Council (202103095)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103095

Islington Council

27 September 2023

 

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

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the consent that was granted for works affecting the communal area of her building.

Background

  1. The Council approved alteration works and issued a licence to alter to the leaseholder of the basement flat (the leaseholder) on 28 May 2019. The licence permitted the relocation of the communal electric meters and fuse boxes to a secure and fire-resistant cupboard in the communal hallway within the building. This provided an entitlement to conduct works in compliance with the licence. The fire safety risks associated with the works were covered within the licence.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint on 17 May 2020 which stated:
    1. She was shocked to see photographs of the “massive electrical installation, which is not only unacceptably ugly, but obstructs free passage through the hall.”
    2. The building was occupied by three leaseholders and two were not consulted about the works.
    3. Why was she not consulted, or alternative designs explored and discussed before works were approved.
  3. The landlord issued a stage on response on 9 June 2020 which confirmed:
    1. The leaseholder was responsible for the design and execution of the installation.
    2. It was unfortunate that other residents were not formally consulted about the meter relocation which would have been its preferred approach; however, it was satisfied that the leaseholder met the criteria with the plans.
    3. As the leaseholder was paying for the works, which were not being recharged to dwellings in the block, there was no legal section 20 consultation requirement.
    4. It found no failure in its service and advised the resident how to escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  4. On 21 June 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and advised of her “deep concerns” to read the landlord’s statement that “it was unfortunate” that residents were not formally consulted on the relocation of the meters. She asked if it was the landlord’s “preferred” approach to consult residents, “why was this not acted on?” She added that an expression of regret was simply “not good enough and having no legal requirement to consult “does not excuse the landlord’s failure to ask that a consultation should take place.”
  5. The landlord issued a stage one review on 6 July 2020 in which it confirmed:
    1. It was sorry that the resident was dissatisfied with its response.
    2. It sought advice from its planning and building control on matters raised in the complaint, who would review the works to ensure they met requirements.
    3. It concluded its review and advised the resident how to escalate her complaint.
  6. In response on 8 July 2020, the resident remained dissatisfied and requested that the landlord forward photographs of the hallway to the planning department. She expressed her concerns that the landlord had informed her that the leaseholder had gone through appropriate channels, yet the channels had no record of him having done so. The resident noted the “extremely confusing” process and “contradictory” responses.
  7. The resident sent a follow-up email on 20 July 2020 to escalate her complaint, after failing to receive a response from the landlord following her email on 8 July 2020.
  8. On 9 October 2020, the landlord issued a stage two response which said:
    1. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the complaint which was due to an increase in escalated complaint requests.
    2. It would have been “good practice” at stage one of the complaint to inform the resident that a grant of a licensee to alter is on the understanding that an applicant has or will obtain the necessary planning and conservation consent.
    3. Although the landlord was not required to consult other residents for a license to alter, it would be good practice to do so. It was revising its Alterations Procedure to ensure consultation with other residents, where alterations affected communal areas.
    4. It apologised for any stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    5. If the resident remained dissatisfied, she could contact the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  9. Following submission of retrospective planning permission for the relocation of meters on 17 November 2020, residents were asked to submit representations by 20 December 2020.
  10. The resident submitted a second complaint on 25 March 2021 which confirmed that:
    1. The cabinets had “wrecked” the entrance hall, and the licence to alter did not stipulate, as it should have done, that residents should have been consulted before moving the electric meters and fuse boxes.
  11. The landlord sent a stage one response on 14 April 2021, in which it confirmed:
    1. The application was approved under delegated powers.
    2. Consideration was given to the impact on the character of the building. The scheme had been amended to reduce the size of the cabinets and minimise the harm to the building.
    3. The resident was advised on how to escalate her complaint.
  12. On 22 April 2021, the resident responded, dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, particularly in relation to the access, and water ingress/fire risk issues. The resident noted that correspondence had been ongoing for a year at this point.
  13. A stage one review was issued on 7 May 2021 which confirmed that:
    1. A letter was sent to residents on 17 November 2020 to advise of the application. While the cupboards were not mentioned within the description, proposed drawings of the cupboards were available on the local authority’s website.
    2. It confirmed reducing the width of the shallower cabinet to retain the amount of accessible space between the door and hallway. This was considered enough to not detrimentally impact on the hallway as the entrance to the listed building.
    3. The resident was advised how to escalate her complaint.
  14. On 31 May 2021, the resident remained dissatisfied stating that the landlord was “shunting her backwards and forwards” and had not resolved her complaint.
  15. In a stage two response issued on 7 April 2022, the landlord stated:
    1. It apologised for the delays in responses.
    2. Planning and conservation officers had explored options to reduce the impact of the cupboards.
    3. Building control had addressed her concerns around fire risks.
    4. The landlord offered £100 compensation because of its delay in issuing a response, however, it had found no fault with its stage one response.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

Corporate complaints policy

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy, in place at the time of the complaint, comprised a two-stage complaints process, with an intermediate stage where the stage one complaint was reviewed, before a complaint was progressed to the final stage. The timeframe for providing a stage one response was 21 calendar days, and ten working days for a stage one review. The timeframe for providing a stage two response was 28 calendar days.
  2. The landlord published an updated complaints policy on its website on 23 March 2023. This provides updated complaint stages and timeframes for dealing with stage one and stage two complaints which correspond with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Compensation policy

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy offers financial compensation to “reflect injustice that the complainant has experienced.” Under “time and effort,” the policy states that complaints that have not been investigated properly, or where appropriate remedies have not been offered at an earlier stage, can be awarded between £100 and £300. Under “distress,” the landlord must consider the age of the complaint, length of time involved, as well as vulnerabilities and disabilities. Awards of £100 up to £1000 may be given for severe or prolonged stress.

Determination (decision)

  1. The resident submitted her initial complaint on 17 May 2020. The landlord responded on 9 June 2020 and asserted that it was “unfortunate” that the resident was not consulted, prior to the works commencing, but it had no legal requirement to do so. While this may have been the case, the Ombudsman can understand the shock and distress this would have caused the resident.
  2. The resident was perplexed by its use of the word “unfortunate” and felt it “smacks an attempt to avoid responsibility.” This service acknowledges her upset at the language used, but also understands that wording can be subject to interpretation and opinions on the tone used may differ. Nonetheless, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have apologised for the distress this caused.
  3. On 21 June 2020, the resident persisted in her attempts to clarify, why on this occasion the landlord had not followed its “preferred approach” and was deeply concerned that it had not acted upon it. Despite her requests for an answer, the landlord’s stage one response was silent on the matter. The landlord missed the opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity, only exacerbating the frustration caused to the resident, ensuing in a complaint escalation request.
  4. The resident pursued her complaint on 8 July and 20 July 2020, after failing to receive a response following her escalation request. This was an unreasonable delay in progressing the complaint through its complaints process, requiring the resident to spend unnecessary time in pursuing the matter, to get a response.
  5. The landlord issued a stage two response on 9 October 2020. This was 39 days outside of the landlord’s 28 calendar day timeframe for responding. It was reasonable that the landlord apologised to the resident and explained why its response was delayed, however, it failed to keep the resident suitably informed, or provide holding responses in the interim.
  6. The landlord identified learning from the complaint and confirmed it would amend its Alterations Policy. This was an appropriate step, aimed at mitigating similar complaints. This service can understand that while this will be beneficial for other residents, it did not resolve or “put things right” for the resident. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the inconvenience that had been caused, however, it could have gone further in considering the detriment caused because of its handling of the matter.
  7. The leaseholder applied for retrospective planning on the relocation of the meters in November 2020. The resident submitted a second complaint in March 2021, which repeated her previous complaint. In a stage one response issued on 14 April, three days outside its ten-calendar day timeframe, the landlord reconfirmed its position on the matter.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied, and the landlord issued a stage one review on 7 May 2021, which confirmed that while the cupboards were not detailed in the description (provided in November 2020), drawings had been available on the local authority’s website. While that may have been the case, the focus of the resident’s complaint centred around the design and installation of the cupboards, and therefore the landlord could have done more to ensure detailed information was easily accessible to the resident.
  9. The resident responded, expressing feeling “shunted” back and forth. Due to the nature of the complaint, and departments involved, the landlord was required to refer certain aspects of the complaint to its building control or planning departments. However, its approach to the complaint was at times disjointed, which caused confusion for the resident who was provided “contradictory information” by different departments. The lack of complaint ownership, necessitated the need for the resident to go “back and forth” between different departments, prolonging an already complicated process.
  10. The landlord’s stage two response was issued on 7 April 2022, 219 calendar days after the resident informed the landlord that she was dissatisfied with its response. This was a significant departure from the landlord’s prescribed timeframe, set out in its complaints policy. Again, there is no evidence that the resident was advised that there would be a delay in response and failing to manage the resident’s expectations.
  11. This service has considered the remedy offered by the landlord and the circumstances of the case. While the landlord offered £100 for the delay in issuing its second stage two response, it did not go far enough to compensate the resident for the detriment caused because of its failings.The landlord’s overall responses to the complaint demonstrate a lack of resident focus, which appears partially caused by a lack of collaborative approach between internal teams. The complaints process was not used as an effective tool and led to time and trouble for the resident. The failings amount to maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about the consent that was granted for works affecting the communal area of her building.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to provide its second stage two response within its prescribed timeframes detailed within its complaints policy. Furthermore, the complaint response did not put things right for the resident and did not address her specific concerns fully. The compensation offered did not sufficiently redress the resident, or appropriately consider the distress and inconvenience that was caused.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in its complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident £300 for the adverse effect caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling and the time and delay caused to the resident in having to pursue the matter.