From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Camden Council (202332543)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332543

Camden Council

23 April 2025


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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of low water pressure at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated:
    1. the landlord’s complaints handling.
    2. the landlord’s information management and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat. At the time of the complaint, the resident occupied the property under an introductory tenancy. The resident cares for her adult son who has cerebral palsy and learning difficulties.
  2. The resident’s tenancy began on 6 October 2023. On 9 October 2023, the resident emailed her Housing Officer to ask for assistance with recommissioning the property’s boiler. She explained that her son had medical needs and that she was his carer.
  3. On 30 October 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the water pressure at the property was very low. She said she and her son were unable to shower because only cold water trickled out of the shower head. The customer service team passed the issue to the voids team to investigate.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 November 2023 after an inspection visit the previous day. She said it had not been possible to shower since moving into the property because of the low pressure. The resident said this was seriously affecting her disabled son’s mental health. She asked the landlord to install a pump to increase the pressure, as the facilities did not meet her son’s needs. She complained about the time she had spent chasing multiple repairs since moving in.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 22 November 2023. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said:
    1. It had inspected the water pressure on 9 November 2023 and all water systems were “up and running”. The location of the tank in the property contributed to the low pressure when the showerhead was raised.
    2. It had met its obligation to provide sufficient bathing facilities because the property had a bath with shower hose for rinsing. It noted the hose should not be used as a stand–up shower.
    3. The resident’s son’s medical needs were not recorded on its repairs system. The landlord had contacted the relevant team to ask them to register her son as an enhanced tenant and follow-up on the resident’s emails.
    4. The resident could contact the local council’s adult social care team to request an assessment of her son’s needs. It could then review any recommendations for adaptations to the bathroom.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 November 2023. She said that the water pressure was low throughout the flat. The resident said that not having adequate showering facilities was a breach of their human rights and the landlord’s duty of care. The resident again noted her son’s disabilities and said that the lack of showering facilities had caused him to become depressed. The resident also believed that repeated issues with her boiler may be connected to the low water pressure. She asked the landlord to install a pump or electric shower.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 December 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord:
    1. Said that it was sorry to hear how the resident’s disabled son had been impacted but it could not improve the bathing facilities at the property without medical evidence.
    2. Noted the relevant parts of the resident’s tenancy agreement setting out its obligations. It concluded that it had provided “bathing facilities adequate for normal use.” As the system was working normally, it had met its obligations.
    3. Said that it did not control the mains water supply and that there was low water pressure in the area. It did not generally fit pumps because increasing pressure to one property may decrease the pressure to another.
    4. Invited the resident to provide medical evidence of her son’s bathing needs. It again referred to the possibility of an assessment by an occupational therapist via the adult social care team.

Events after the landlord’s final complaint response

  1. The resident provided medical evidence to the landlord on 11 January 2024. A letter from her GP confirmed her son’s disabilities. The letter said that the lack of showering facilities had negatively impacted the physical and mental health of both occupants. It noted that the inability to shower was causing the resident’s son “tremendous distress.”
  2. The resident referred her complaint to us on 11 January 2024. She is unhappy that the landlord has taken no action to address the low water pressure. She wants the landlord to carry out works to improve the showering facilities in the property to meet her son’s needs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told us that the lack of suitable showering facilities has impacted the physical and mental health of her and her son. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.
  2. The resident told us that it took a long time to arrange an assessment with an occupational therapist through the local council’s adult social care team. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, we will not investigate complaints that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) deals with complaints about the actions of the local council’s adult social care team, including how it handles requests for housing adaptations. For that reason, we have not investigated this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  3. We can consider whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances. In our assessment we have looked at whether the landlord took sufficient steps to investigate and to put things right where necessary, taking into account the particular needs of the household.
  4. As part of our investigation, we look at whether the landlord has given due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (“EA2010″) and/or the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA 1998″). This is relevant where residents or family members have physical and/or mental health conditions that are impacted by the issues complained about, either directly or indirectly.

Low water pressure

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms that, by law, it must repair and maintain the services within the property. This includes the water supply from the meter and the appliances and fittings that use water inside the property. The landlord notes this does not apply where pipes and appliances are the responsibility of a utility company.
  2. According to its records, the landlord first inspected the water pressure at the property on 9 November 2023. This was 8 days after the resident first reported the issue, which was inside the landlord’s 20 working day timeframe for routine repairs. It was appropriate for the landlord to attend the property to investigate the low pressure, so it could decide whether it was responsible for carrying out any works to address the issue.
  3. The landlord’s inspections did not identify any defects or repairs issues. The landlord’s position was that the system design, location of the water tank and general low pressure within in the area, all contributed to low water pressure within the property. The landlord’s conclusion was reasonable, as it was based on the advice of the experienced repairs operatives that visited the property.
  4. The resident says that the landlord should install an electric shower or pump, and that it was unreasonable to refer her to the local council’s adult social care team for an assessment by an Occupational Therapist (OT). Works to install an electric shower or pump would be outside of the scope of the landlord’s routine repairs policy. These works could be considered an improvement, which a secure tenant may complete at their own expense with the landlord’s permission, or an adaptation.
  5. Government guidance on adaptations says that local councils have a statutory duty under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to provide adaptations for eligible people with a disability. Local councils deliver these adaptations through Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs). We therefore consider that the landlord acted in accordance with this guidance when it suggested the resident contact the adult social care team for an assessment and provided contact details.
  6. We would expect the landlord to follow up in writing to explain its position after the inspection on 9 November 2022, and to provided information and guidance on making a request for adaptations. In the circumstances, as the resident made the complaint the day after the inspection, the landlord provided this information in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 November 2023, which was appropriate.
  7. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response that because there was a bath with a showerhead for rinsing, the property had “sufficient” bathing facilities. Although it encouraged the resident to request an OT referral, it did not take steps to understand more about the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities and consider whether a change to the general approach outlined in its policies was appropriate in the circumstances. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns, and it first requested medical evidence in the stage 2 response of 12 December 2023. This was approximately 6 weeks after the resident first reported the issue. The landlord could not reasonably conclude that the existing facilities were adequate or “sufficient” if it had not asked about the particular needs of the household.
  8. There is no evidence that the landlord recorded the resident’s son’s disability on its housing systems and no evidence that it considered its obligations under the EA2010. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have considered whether there were any reasonable adjustments it could make. Had the landlord contacted the resident to understand more about her son’s needs, it may have identified alternative ways of assisting him to bathe that did not require such extensive works. In the circumstances, the landlord did not take a fair and reasonable approach to resolving the issue.
  9. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of low water pressure. The landlord was aware of the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities, and it could have done more to support him. The issue was causing the resident and her son considerable distress and inconvenience. The landlord should have made enquiries into their circumstances and identified whether there was any additional support it could provide. It should also have considered whether it was required to make any reasonable adjustments under the EA2010 to address the resident’s son’s bathing difficulties.
  10. Payment of £250 compensation is appropriate in the circumstances, to reflect the stress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of the landlord’s service failure. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, which says such sums are appropriate where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident(s).
  11. The resident has told us that an assessment was completed by an OT at the end of last year and recommendations made to the landlord for adaptations. She says that she has not received a response from the landlord, and it has not completed any works. We have made a specific order that the landlord consider the OT recommendations and the findings of this report, and that it writes to the resident to inform her of the outcome and next steps.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord will provide a response within 25 working days. The landlord’s policy states that it places an emphasis on achieving a resolution when responding to complaints.
  2. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s complaint, and it provided responses at each stage within the timeframes set out in its policy. This demonstrates a commitment to provide timely responses.
  3. At stage 1, the landlord clearly outlined its position and provided advice to the resident about contacting the Adult Social Care team for a referral to an OT. It was appropriate to assist the resident by signposting them to the relevant team. The landlord noted that it had not recorded the resident’s son as an enhanced tenant. It committed to rectify this but did not do so. It also did not apologise for the failure to record this information, or to make further enquiries, when the resident first notified it on 9 October 2023.
  4. The landlord should ensure that throughout the complaint response they openly accept responsibility for any failings identified and apologise. It should also complete any actions identified, and follow-up where necessary to make sure this has been done. This does not appear to have happened in this case.
  5. In the resident’s complaint escalation, she said that the landlord had breached its duty of care to her and her son and breached their human rights. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not specifically address these comments. The landlord should have clearly outlined its position on its obligations to the resident under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010. It should also have explained whether it believed it had a duty of care to the occupants of the property and, if so, whether this had been met. Where the landlord disagrees with the resident, it should say why and explain its position.
  6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling. In line with our remedies guidance as referenced above, we have made an order below that the landlord pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise the impact on the resident of its failure to follow-up on the actions it identified, and to provide a sufficiently detailed response.

Information management and record keeping

  1. The resident said that the landlord passed her back and forth between the voids and repairs teams after she first reported the issue with low pressure on 30 October 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence of its internal communications about this issue, or any communications between the resident and the repairs and voids teams. The landlord should keep records of internal discussions and contact with the resident in the form of system notes or copies of correspondence. Its failure to provide this information has limited our ability to investigate the complaint.
  2. The resident first informed the landlord that her son had medical needs on 9 October 2023. She provided further information about the nature of her son’s disabilities on 31 October 2023. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord recorded this information on its systems, or that it asked the resident to supply more information or evidence until the stage 2 complaint response of 12 December 2023.
  3. The landlord has explained that its repairs team does not hold specific information about vulnerabilities but that it would receive a warning notification if it had registered a resident for an enhanced service. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said that it had asked the resident’s Housing Officer to register her son as an enhanced tenant. We have not seen any evidence that it did so.
  4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s information management and record keeping. In line with our remedies guidance as referenced above, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for the stress she experienced because the landlord failed to record the household’s vulnerabilities on its systems.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord is its handling of the resident’s reports of low water pressure at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its information management and record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Review any recommendations for adaptations provided following the OT assessment, if the landlord has not already done so, and write to the resident to confirm whether it will complete any of the recommended works and, if so, when these works will commence. If it decides not to carry out the recommended works it should give the resident an explanation for that decision.
    3. Review the failings identified in this report and contact the resident to discuss her son’s needs. The landlord should then consider whether there is any additional support it will provide, in line with its policies and procedures, and write to the resident to confirm any action it will take.
    4. Pay the resident £500 compensation, made up of:
      1. £250 to recognise the stress and inconvenience the resident experienced because the landlord did not adequately consider the household’s vulnerabilities when responding to her reports of low water pressure.
      2. £100 to recognise the impact on the resident of its failure to respond to all the points raised in her complaint.
      3. £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because the landlord failed to record the household’s vulnerabilities on its systems.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its policies and procedures for establishing and recording any vulnerabilities within a household, and for communicating these to its repairs team.