Camden Council (202212264)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212264

Camden Council

5 June 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. adaptations to the resident’s bathroom.
2. the repairs to the resident’s windows.
3. the damage caused to the resident’s wall and carpets by flooding.
4. the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor. The landlord has said it does not have any vulnerabilities listed on its systems for the resident. However, the repair logs identified the resident as an ‘enhanced tenant’ for repairs.
The resident’s occupational therapist asked the landlord to make “minor” adaptations to the resident’s bathroom on 13 July 2022. This was to make it more accessible for her. The landlord did not provide evidence that it had completed the bathroom adaptations.
The resident explained that her windows needed to be repaired because they were draughty in or around March 2022. The landlord said it replaced the mastic around the windows on 2 occasions between March 2022 and October 2022. It later said the draft excluders for the windows were the resident’s responsibility and it would not attend to further reports. As the resident continued to report issues with the windows it said it would conduct a survey and carry out any identified works. The resident explained her living room window and passageway window were still causing draughts and the landlord had failed to fix them adequately.
The resident explained that a leak from the property upstairs had damaged her carpets and walls. The landlord recognised there had been 7 leaks in 3 years regarding this. It said the leak was the responsibility of the leaseholder (who owned the property above) and not the landlord. As a result, it said it was not responsible for the redecoration of the walls of the resident’s property or any damage to the carpet resulting from the leak.
The resident raised a complaint on 8 September 2022 about the landlord’s handling of various repairs to her property including the adaptations to her bathroom, the repairs to her windows, and the damage to her property caused by the flat upstairs flooding her property. She explained she wanted the outstanding works completed and for the walls affected by the leak to be redecorated because she was disabled and could not afford to pay for this.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 23 September 2022. It said:
1. it upheld the resident’s complaint based on the length of time it had taken to carry out the adaptation works in the bathroom and resolve the issues she had with her windows.
2. the resident needed to make a claim with her contents insurer for any damage to her items related to the leak from the property above.
3. it would pay the resident £150 compensation for the time and trouble it had taken for her to submit her complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 November 2022. She said the work remained outstanding in her bathroom and she was still experiencing issues with her windows. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint on 8 February 2023, it said:
1. it agreed with its decision at stage 1 and the compensation awarded because:
  1. the damaged décor and goods were the responsibility of the resident and subject to an insurance claim. It said the resident could try to make a claim through its public liability insurer if she did not have contents insurance.
  2. it had been trying to arrange a date to complete the outstanding works with the resident since December 2022, but the resident was not progressing matters.
2. it did not normally redecorate for residents, but it would refer her to its handyman service for assistance.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident raised concerns about noise nuisance to the landlord in or around June 2023. This did not form part of the resident’s formal complaint on 8 September 2022. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure.”
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate this element of the complaint because it has not completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. Once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure the resident can seek further recourse from the Ombudsman, if required.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with this service, the landlord stated that the “complainant cannot simultaneously have a claim that it was dealing with through solicitors and then also make a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman unless the resident will be placing the disrepair claim which is still at the pre-action protocol stage on hold pending the outcome of the Housing ombudsman investigation.“
Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which: concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.”
On 3 November 2021, the Ombudsman issued guidance for landlords which recommended that landlords should continue to use the complaint procedure when the pre-action protocol has commenced and until legal proceedings have been issued to maximise the opportunities to resolve disputes outside of court. Therefore, this service has continued to investigate the complaint until such a time as a claim is issued in court, which deals with the same issues referred to the Ombudsman. The landlord was asked to confirm to the Ombudsman when a claim was issued to court, and we have not received any such confirmation at the time of writing this report. Therefore, this investigation will consider the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs, although this has been subject to a legal disrepair claim because the claim has not gone to court.

The landlord’s handling of adaptations to the resident’s bathroom.

On 13 July 2022, the resident’s occupational therapist requested the following adaptations to be actioned at the resident’s property:
1. the removal of the current wash hand basin and installation of an accessible-height wash hand basin.
2. the removal of the standard toilet in situ and replacement with an accessible-height toilet
3. the removal of the “worn” flooring in situ and to supply and fit slip-resistant vinyl floor covering. The client should be offered a choice of standard colours.
4. to fit a screw-down aluminium threshold strip at the doorway.
5. the removal of the grab rail above the bath and installation of a new grab rail horizontal in place of the previous grab rail.
6. the installation of a new grab rail vertically adjacent to the shower hose.
7. a bath replacement.
8. an inspection of the mixer taps and shower hose as they were “constantly” dripping and to replace them with new mixer taps and shower hose if needed.
The occupational therapy team chased the adaptations on 15 September 2022. The landlord said it had raised an order for the adaptations on 14 September 2022. This was 45 working days after the original request from the occupational therapist. This was inappropriate because there was an unreasonable delay in raising the work.
The landlord did not provide an adaptation policy to our service. Therefore, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s repair policy timeframes. The policy states repairs that are complex or require specialist parts will be classed as a programmed repair. These will be completed in an “agreed timescale.”
The Ombudsman expects repairs to be completed within a reasonable timescale. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair, but it is industry best practice for routine repairs to be completed within 28 days where possible. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
On 23 September 2022, the landlord’s stage 1 response said that it had referred the works to its repairs team, but it could not carry out the works due to capacity. It said it would instruct an alternative contractor to carry these out who would contact the resident with an appointment.
There is no evidence the landlord’s contractor contacted the resident. This was inappropriate because the landlord failed to demonstrate it acted in accordance with its repairs policy to action the repairs or to agree to a timescale for them to be completed. Alternatively, the landlord failed to provide evidence of the appointment it had arranged with the resident. The Ombudsman considers in both instances, this to be evidence of poor record-keeping.
There is no evidence the landlord communicated its delay to the resident, outside of its complaint responses. This was inappropriate because it would have caused uncertainty to the resident about when she could expect her bathroom to be completed. This is further evidence of poor record-keeping. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The landlord did not provide evidence of completing the adaptations in the resident’s bathroom. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had tried to contact the resident on several occasions to arrange for the “outstanding works” to be completed. The landlord did not provide evidence of it contacting the resident to arrange the repairs. This was further evidence of poor record-keeping.
As part of the resident’s engagement with her solicitor in September 2023, there is evidence the resident had refused to allow access to the landlord so it could complete some of the work due at the property. It also shows the resident explained she was following legal advice by asking the landlord to arrange the repairs in advance with her solicitors. However, it was unclear if the works that were in dispute in this exchange were related to the bathroom adaptations. The resident told the Ombudsman that she had ultimately declined the works to the bathroom because she was frustrated with the landlord’s lack of progress, however, it was unclear at which time she did this.
The Ombudsman has been unable to determine if further delays to the completion of the works are due to a failure on the landlord’s part. This is because the Ombudsman is unable to hold the landlord responsible for delays that are attributable to the resident declining access for it to complete the works. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for not allowing access, but this would have been beyond the landlord’s control.
However, based on the evidence, the landlord did not demonstrate it had completed the bathroom adaptations in the 14 months between the initial report (July 2022) and the resident potentially declining access (September 2023). This was maladministration because the landlord did not complete the repairs within a reasonable time or agree on a timescale with the resident for when the repairs would be completed.
Overall, in addition to the poor record keeping as noted above, the Ombudsman is not satisfied it acted in accordance with its statutory obligations or the timeframes in its repairs policy. The resident explained the delay meant she had to postpone a knee operation. Therefore, it is clear the landlord’s delay caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The landlord should pay the landlord £750 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience related to its delay in completing the bathroom adaptations. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range in cases where the landlord has made errors which affected the resident, and the landlord has not done enough to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s windows

This evidence indicates the resident first reported this issue to the landlord in August 2020. Although this is not within the timeframe that this investigation is considering, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it is relevant to note the context in which the resident raised her complaints.
The landlord’s repairs policy states routine repairs will be carried out within 20 working days. The Ombudsman considers that a reasonable time to complete routine repairs is usually 28 days.
On or around 15 February 2022, the resident reported that her windows were causing draughts to her property. The repair logs note the subsequent report is related to “follow-on works” relating to this time. This indicates that the landlord did not complete the initial job it raised for the windows in August 2020. This was inappropriate because it contributed to the delay experienced by the resident.
The landlord noted at the same time it raised a job to “inspect the property to fit PVC moulding around the window and apply mastic as required.” It detailed the job as complete on 3 March 2022.
The resident went on to report the windows being draughty again and on or around 23 June 2022. The landlord raised a duplicate job to the one raised in February 2022. It noted the job as complete on 4 October 2022.
The Ombudsman notes that no inspection reports or other contemporaneous records of the landlord’s findings were provided for either of the above reports. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether any inspections took place when these were, and if they were consistent with the landlord’s repairs policy.
In addition, the Ombudsman cannot verify what the landlord detected as the cause of the issue and if any repairs were identified at any stage. This is a significant failure because the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the landlord followed its repair policy or acted reasonably in the circumstances to address the resident’s reports. Due to a lack of evidence, we can only conclude that the landlord did not act reasonably in response to the repairs.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response the resident re-reported the same issue on 16 March 2022. It said it did not attend the property because it told the resident it was not responsible for draught excluders. The landlord’s repair records do not provide evidence of this event. This is evidence of further poor record keeping.
The landlord also said as part of its complaint response it would arrange for a specialist contractor to inspect the windows. There is no evidence of the landlord having completed this survey or that it produced its findings to either the resident or the Ombudsman. This was a failure because the landlord did not demonstrate it acted fairly and reasonably by doing what it said it would do. This could have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord.
The resident explained to the Ombudsman that her passageway window and living room window remained draughty. She was concerned about how this would affect her in the winter months because she was worried about excess cold. This indicates the landlord did not provide a lasting and effective fix to the windows in line with its statutory repair obligations. Given the resident reported this issue in February 2022, this means this has been unresolved for over 2 years. This is a significant and unacceptable delay by the landlord.
The Ombudsman considers that the failures taken together, as noted above, caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident over an extended period and was maladministration. As such the landlord should pay £950 compensation for failing to demonstrate it made a lasting and effective fix to the resident’s windows between September 2022 and May 2024. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above.

The landlord’s handling of the damage caused to the resident’s wall and carpets by flooding

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Housing Act 1985 to maintain and keep in good repair the structure of the property including walls and ceilings.
The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. it is not normally responsible for damage to or loss of resident’s fixtures and fittings including furniture or carpets. This is the case even if it is linked to a repair that it is responsible for.
2. residents are responsible for repairs to surface cracks to walls, ceiling plaster, vinyl floor tiles and decoration.
During the complaints procedure the resident asked the landlord to decorate the walls affected by the leak from the upstairs property. She said she could not afford to do this. She also said the carpets remained wet and affected by damp because of the leak.
Where a leak causes damage to the structure of the property including walls and ceilings, it will be the landlord’s responsibility to make repairs to its property under its statutory duty to repair. However, this does not always extend to redecoration. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is not liable for redecoration or damage to carpets. Residents are encouraged to take out their own contents insurance to cover their possessions, including carpets from sudden, unexpected damage such as from leaks.
The landlord may be liable for a leak or flooding that causes damage to a resident’s possessions if it owns the property causing the leak or if the resident’s property is in a state of disrepair due to negligence by the landlord. In cases where there are third parties such as leaseholders, it is common for the leaseholder to be responsible for the pipes that exclusively service their flat. However, obligations may vary between leases regarding repair obligations.
The cause of the leak and who was responsible for it was not in dispute in this case. This is because the evidence shows the leaseholder took responsibility for the leak and any subsequent repairs. The leaseholder said the cause of the leak was a faulty pipe under the bath and they intended to do a bathroom refurbishment to resolve this in March 2023.
In this instance, the landlord demonstrated it acted reasonably by frequently contacting the leaseholder and reminding them of their repair obligations. The landlord also attempted to communicate regularly with the leaseholder and later appraised the completed work. This was reasonable in the circumstances. Landlords can force entry to leasehold properties to carry out repairs, but they should only do this if they have made reasonable efforts to contact the leaseholder and provided notice for them to complete repairs. In this case, the landlord was not in a position to force entry as the leaseholder was co-operating and arranging repairs.
The landlord also explained to the resident during the complaints process:
1. she should make a claim on her contents insurance for any damage caused by the leak.
2. if she did not have contents insurance she could try to make a claim on its public liability insurance.
3. it would refer her to its handyman to see if it might be able to assist the resident.
As the leak was not the landlord’s responsibility to repair, it did not have any legal or policy obligation to decorate the resident’s walls or replace her carpets that were damaged by the leak. It is positive to note the landlord referred the resident to its handyman service for further assistance. However, the resident said this did not materialise. The landlord ought to have monitored this action through its complaint procedure.
Whilst the Ombudsman recognises this is an unfortunate situation that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, there is no evidence the landlord was obligated to do anything further. On this basis, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the way the landlord handled this element of the resident’s complaint.
The resident said to the Ombudsman she did not want to claim back the damage through her contents insurance for the damage because she felt that the leaseholder should be liable for this. The resident may wish to consider any further legal redress she may have concerning the leaseholder by seeking independent legal advice. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to assess the actions of the leaseholder, as we can only investigate the landlord’s actions. Therefore, we cannot comment on this matter further.
The resident also explained to the Ombudsman that the plaster on her ceiling, although renewed in or around September 2022, needed replastering. She said this was damage resulting from a further leak in the upstairs property in January 2023. The Ombudsman will recommend the landlord inspect the resident’s ceiling to assess any work required under its statutory repair obligations for this.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states:
1. landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 of the complaint process within 10 working days of logging the complaint.
2. landlords must respond at stage 2 of the complaint process within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 25 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. within 7 working days at stage 1.
2. within 50 working days at stage 2.
The landlord responded at stage 1 in line with its published timescales. However, it failed to follow the timeframes within its complaints policy and the Code when it responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. This was maladministration. There was also no evidence the landlord communicated its delay to the resident or explained when she might receive a response. This was inappropriate because it did not act in accordance with the Code and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord offered the resident £150 during the complaint procedure for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. Whilst it is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right for the resident, the landlord’s remedy failed to adequately address and acknowledge the substantive failures concerning its handling of the resident’s repairs. The landlord would have been aware at the time of the complaints procedure it had delayed in actioning the occupational therapist’s request in July 2022. It did not offer a remedy for this. This was maladministration because the landlord failed to address the full detriment of the resident.
The landlord should pay £100 compensation for the above-mentioned failures linked to its complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above which suggests awards in this range when the landlord has made an offer to the resident, but this did not reflect the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom adaptations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damage caused to the resident’s wall and carpets by flooding.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s reports of noise nuisance are outside of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. write to the resident to apologise for:
  1. the delay in carrying out the bathroom adaptations.
  2. its failure to demonstrate it made a lasting and effective fix to the resident’s windows.
  3. its poor communication regarding delays for the work required to the resident’s bathroom and windows.
  4. its failure to adhere to the timeframes set out in the Code for its complaint responses and to put things right through the complaint handling procedure.
2. pay the resident £1,800 compensation. This is in addition to the compensation already awarded during the complaint procedure. This consists of:
  1. £750 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the resident’s bathroom adaptations between July 2022 and September 2023.
  2. £950 for failing to demonstrate it had provided a lasting and effective fix to the resident’s windows between September 2022 and May 2024.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. the landlord must pay the resident the compensation offered to the resident during the complaints procedure if it has not done so already.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 56 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must conduct a senior management case review. This review should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. It should aim to identify:
1. why it delayed in actioning the occupational therapy referral in July 2022.
2. why it failed to demonstrate it had communicated with the resident about the delays to her bathroom adaptations between July 2022 and September 2023.
3. why its repair records did not contain details of appointments it referred to in its stage 2 response.
4. why it failed to provide adequate repair records relating to the window repairs including inspection notes and/or findings.
5. why it failed to follow up on the resident’s referral to its handyman service as per its stage 2 response.
6. why its overall repair records failed to contain important details such as reporting dates, appointment dates, findings from inspections and associated repair works.
7. how it will prevent these failings from occurring in the future.
The landlord is ordered to:
1. use its best endeavours to start any recommended works by the occupational therapist and complete these within a period not exceeding 12 weeks. If it cannot start or conclude the works within this time, it must explain the reasons to the resident and the Ombudsman when this will be done.
2. provide evidence of compliance with this order no later than 12 weeks from the date of this determination.
The landlord is ordered to:
1. contact the resident to arrange a further inspection (survey) of the windows. The inspection must be arranged at a mutually convenient time for the parties but within 28 days of the date of this determination.
2. within 14 days of the inspection, the surveyor must provide a written report, with date-stamped pictures (with the resident’s consent) detailing the condition of the windows. The survey report must identify any outstanding repairs or actions the landlord must take to ensure the windows are in good working order. It must also include a schedule of repairs and works to be completed to address the draughts at the property.
3. use its best endeavours to start any recommended works and complete these within a period not exceeding 12 weeks. If it cannot start or conclude the works within this time, it must explain the reasons to the resident and the Ombudsman when this will be done.
4. provide evidence of compliance with this order no later than 12 weeks from the date of this determination.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord inspect the resident’s property to assess any outstanding work required to her ceiling under its statutory repair obligations.