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

Camden Council (202304143)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304143

Camden Council

30 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s behaviour.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a secure tenant since July 2000. The property is a 3-bedroom flat.
  2. On 8 November 2022, an engineer working for the landlord’s contractor attended the property to repair the boiler. The engineer was unable to gain access to the property, and because of this the appointment was rearranged for 10 November 2022. On 10 November, the engineer identified that new parts were required, and a repair was then scheduled for 29 November. This was rearranged for 1 December 2022, as the parts had not been delivered.
  3. During the appointment on 1 December 2022, the resident became concerned about noise coming from the bathroom where the engineer was working and asked him to be careful as she had new flooring. She also called the contractor to say she was concerned.
  4. On 5 December 2022, the resident complained about the engineer’s behaviour during the appointment and the condition he left her property in. She also said the engineer did not test whether the boiler was working before he left. She said she was upset at the way she was spoken to and the mess and damage the engineer had left.
  5. In its complaint response on 30 December 2022, the landlord said the contractor denied its engineer used bad language or damaged the bathroom floor. It said it had reviewed photos provided by the resident and was unable to identify any damage, and photos provided by the engineer showed the bathroom was left in a good condition. It said it would not send the engineer to future appointments at the resident’s home. It acknowledged a missed appointment on 29 November 2022 and offered £50 for this.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 January 2023. She said the response was inaccurate as she had not accused the engineer of damaging the floor. She said she had asked him to be careful as there was no protective covering on the floor. The resident disputed the contractor’s version of events and said she had a witness. She also said the contractor had not responded to her request for an inspection of the work. She wanted the engineer to be reprimanded, the damage rectified, and a review of practices to ensure protective floor coverings were used as standard.
  7. In its final response on 28 April 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay in its response. It said as there were differing accounts of what had happened, it was not possible to have a view on which version was correct. It said it was sorry there had been no post inspection of the work, but the photos taken by the resident and engineer gave the contractor a good appreciation of the work done. It also said the engineer would have felt intimidated by the resident taking photos and phoning his employer. It acknowledged there was water left on the floor and paintwork appeared damaged but said this was no more than would be expected. It said because of the damage and delay in responding, it was offering a further £50 compensation.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord had not acknowledged the behaviour of the engineer, the damage caused, and had not requested her witness statement. She wanted the contractor to be disciplined and re-trained in customer service, and an acknowledgement that leaving the property with the boiler unchecked was unacceptable. She wanted compensation for the distress caused and the damage to her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said she wanted the engineer disciplined. Having carefully considered the evidence, the Ombudsman will not consider this part of the complaint. This is because under paragraph 42h of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel matters. However, the Ombudsman can assess the landlord’s response to a complaint about staff conduct and whether it investigated this appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s behaviour

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the engineer’s behaviour was misconduct. Instead, the Ombudsman can determine whether the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint about the engineer’s behaviour in line with its policy, and whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it will investigate complaints. It says it will contact the resident to ensure it has understood the complaint when further clarification is needed. The policy says it will respond to initial complaints within 10 working days, and where a complaint is escalated, it will respond within 20 working days. The policy also says it will keep the resident informed if there is a delay in responding. The landlord’s policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that complaints involving allegations and counter-allegations about behaviour, sometimes with little corroborating evidence, can be the most difficult for a landlord to resolve. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider all available evidence and act proportionately.
  4. As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide:
    1. A brief explanation of the allegations made, including copies of any related correspondence, internal notes, and telephone notes.
    2. Any records of the landlord’s investigation into the allegations.
    3. Copies of any feedback or notes from the contractor about the allegations.
    4. Copies of any correspondence sent to the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman has noted that the only information provided by the landlord are copies of correspondence between the resident and landlord about the complaint, and photos taken by the resident.
  6. In her complaint on 5 December 2022, the resident said she became concerned the engineer would damage her newly installed floor, as the engineer had not put down a protective floor cover and there was a loud banging noise. Because of this, she said she spoke with the engineer about her concerns and phoned the contractor’s office. She said the contractor then called the engineer, and she heard him swear and say he was leaving. She said the engineer was rude to her, and left water on the floor, dirty water from the boiler in the toilet, and caused damage to the boxing and decoration. The resident said the engineer did not turn the boiler back on and did not check it was working before he left.
  7. In its complaint response on 30 December 2022, the landlord said it had asked the contractor what happened during the appointment. The contractor said it received a phone call from the resident, who wanted a supervisor to attend her home. The call was transferred to a supervisor who said they would speak with the engineer about the resident’s concerns. The contractor said it then phoned the engineer, and asked him to stay calm, finish the job, and let it know the outcome. The contractor said the engineer told it he had dropped a tool, but nothing was damaged as he had dust sheets protecting the area. The contractor said it told the engineer it had spoken to the resident and asked her to allow him to complete his work. The contractor said at no point did the engineer swear.
  8. The Ombudsman has not seen any contemporaneous records of contact with the resident on 1 December 2022 or copies of communication between the landlord and contractor about the complaint. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord did not request the resident’s witness statement, which it could have used to assess its response. However, there was nothing to stop the resident submitting this to the landlord. The Ombudsman has also noted there is no record of the landlord speaking with the resident to seek clarification when she escalated her complaint.
  9. The Ombudsman cannot determine which version of events was correct but has noted that the landlord formed an opinion about the events when it said in its final response that the engineer “would have felt intimidated” by the resident taking photos and phoning his manager while he was working.
  10. Based on the records provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman has found that the extent of the landlord’s investigation into the complaint was limited to reviewing the resident’s complaint, viewing photographs taken by the resident and engineer, and getting a statement from the contractor.
  11. It is the Ombudsman’s view that there was an opportunity for the landlord to seek clarification from the resident and carry out a more thorough investigation into the complaint. This may have provided the resident with an assurance that it took her concerns seriously. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s failure to carry out a more thorough investigation was a service failure.
  12. The resident complained about damage caused by the engineer. The Ombudsman is not able to assess this, as we cannot determine damage based on photos, and no evidence is available on the condition of the property prior to work being carried out. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord relied on photos to determine the outcome of the complaint, and neither the contractor nor landlord carried out post work inspection. As there was a dispute about damaged caused, the Ombudsman has found that it would have been good practice for the landlord to have carried out an inspection.
  13. The resident said the contractor did not test the boiler after work was completed. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with documentation showing work was completed and has noted that this part of the resident’s complaint was not addressed in the landlord’s response. Because of this, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether work was completed properly. However, it would be good practice for the landlord to provide the resident with a record of work carried out when undertaking work on a boiler.
  14. Records provided by the landlord show it responded to the resident’s initial complaint in 17 working days, which was outside the 10-working day timescale set out in its complaints policy. When the resident escalated the complaint on 3 January 2023, the landlord did not respond until 28 April 2023, which was 82 working days later. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to explain there would be a delay in its response. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the failure to respond to the complaint in line with its policy was another service failure by the landlord.
  15. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure by the landlord in the way it investigated the complaint. The landlord failed to carry out a thorough investigation and it failed to respond to the complaint in line with its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code. The Ombudsman has noted that in its final response, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint and damage caused by the engineer. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the compensation offered was insufficient in the circumstances. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, service failure is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a minor failure. In this case there were 2 service failures, and the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident with £100, which is in addition to that offered at stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process.
  16. The resident informed the Ombudsman in May 2024, that the compensation previously offered had not been paid to her. Because of this, the Ombudsman is ordering the landlord to pay this to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s behaviour.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £200, which includes an additional £100 for the failures identified in this report and £100 previously offered. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears.
  3. The landlord is ordered to conduct a review of this complaint to identify opportunities to prevent a recurrence, and how it can improve complaint handling. In carrying out a review, it should pay specific attention to how it communicated with the resident.
  4. The landlord is ordered to confirm to the Ombudsman that the above orders have been complied with within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord review the standard use of protective covering when working in resident’s properties.
  2. It is recommended the landlord reviews information provided to residents on completion of boiler work.