Camden Council (202304831)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304831

Camden Council

24 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:
   1. Reports of issues with the heating and hot water system.
   2. Reports of repairs to the kitchen window.
   3. The complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 2 bedroom flat.
3. On 10 October 2022 the resident reported having no heating and hot water in the property. The landlord raised an emergency repair and stated that someone would attend within the next 2 hours. The landlord’s repair records show that works to restore the resident’s heating and water took place on 13 October 2022.
4. On 31 October 2022 the resident reported that her bedroom window was stuck and could not open. The landlord confirmed that the first date available for it to attend was 21 November 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 November 2022 to request the appointment be rearranged due to having a hospital appointment. The landlord’s records show that it attended on 9 December 2022 to ease the kitchen window and that a new locking mechanism was required.
5. The landlord’s records show the resident reported very low heating in the property on 13 December 2022. The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 December 2022. She stated that she had been extremely unhappy with the service she had received over the past 2 weeks and referred to taking time off work for appointments, with no-one turning up. The resident said she was getting different responses regarding why she still had no heating and intermittent hot water. She said she would like the heating back on, constant hot water, and compensation for the loss of time taken and stress caused. The landlord raised a job on 23 December 2022 which stated that there was no heating in the resident’s property.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 March 2023. It apologised for the delays and upheld the complaint in full. It said it failed to take appropriate action to reinstate the heating and hot water and the level of communication was not what it would hope to provide. It recommended the resident fill out a heating rebate form via its website.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 March 2023 and stated that she still did not have any heating and the issue was not resolved. She said her neighbour who she shared the communal heating with also did not have any heating. The resident said she had health conditions, and she was using hot water bottles and electric heaters to stay warm. She said she had incurred higher bills using the electric heaters. She said the glass in her kitchen window had dropped, leaving a gap, and the landlord had not fixed it as it was waiting for parts. The resident said it had been months and heat was escaping through the gap. The resident requested a refund for her heating charges until the issue was resolved and compensation for the increased costs of heating, distress, loss of workdays, and poor service received.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 April 2023. It outlined the following:
   1. It confirmed the jobs which were raised in relation to the resident’s heating and the reported broken window. It said it responded within reasonable timescales to the resident’s reports of no heating and could not criticise the repairs service for the remedial action taken.
   2. It acknowledged the impact on the resident and that it would see if any further action could be taken to improve the heating performance long term.
   3. It apologised for the delay in repairing the broken window. It said it would raise it with the senior manager in the repairs service and ask that the resident is updated regarding the new locking mechanism.
   4. It reiterated the previous advice regarding completing a heating rebate form for the period of no heating between December 2022 and March 2023.
   5. It awarded a total of £200 in compensation. £100 was for the resident’s time and trouble, £50 was for the delay in responding to the complaint, and £50 was for the delay in repairing the window.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord did not address all the issues raised such as the time taken off work for missed appointments and the increased utility bill. She said the issue with the heating and hot water was ongoing, her health had suffered, and the compensation did not cover everything she had gone through.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. The resident has referred to her health and that the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the situation.
11. The resident has complained about the time taken off work waiting for repairs to be carried out. The Ombudsman will not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time taken off work, loss of wages or loss of employment. This is because whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. The Ombudsman can however consider any distress and inconvenience caused in the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue.
12. The resident has complained to the Ombudsman that the issues related to her heating and hot water reoccurred the following winter and the heating was turned off in the summer. As this complaint does not appear to have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, the Ombudsman cannot consider it in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme. This investigation has therefore focused on events up until the landlord’s final response on 6 April 2023, and events that post-date the complaints procedure have not been investigated here and are referenced for contextual purposes only.

Reports of issues with the heating and hot water system

13. The landlord’s repair policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the appliances it installed to provide heating and hot water. It states that for total or partial loss of space or water heating between 1 November and 30 April, this would be categorised as an emergency and the contractor will be asked to attend the same day. It states that under the “right to repair” repairs must be complete within 3 working days.
14. The Decent Homes Standard 2006 states that even if the central heating system covers most of the house making a dwelling decent, under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) a landlord must be sure that the home is warm enough for the occupant.
15. The landlord’s records indicated that on 13 December 2022 the resident reported that the heating was very low. The landlord attended on 22 December 2022, the notes stated that it had flushed the riser and turned the heating on fully. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the heating had not completely gone, it would have been reasonable for it to have attended the property sooner given the time of year and reports regarding the gap in the window. In line with the Decent Homes Standard 2006, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the resident’s home was warm enough during that time and there is no evidence that it did.
16. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident reported a total loss of heating prior to her formal complaint. The landlord’s records show the resident reported no heating on 23 December 2022 and the landlord’s records show that it did not attend the residents property until 17 January 2023. In its complaint responses the landlord did not provide an explanation of why there was a significant delay in attending to the report. The report should have been responded to as an emergency and it is a failing that it did not attend sooner.
17. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it had responded within reasonable timescales to the resident’s reports of no heating and intermittent hot water. Its records do not support that statement. The landlord’s response also conflicts with the stage 1 response which stated that it had failed to take appropriate action to reinstate the heating and hot water. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord did fail to meet its repair obligations on more than one occasion.
18. The resident reported having to use electric heaters and hot water bottles to keep warm. She said that she had a health condition and could not afford to end up in hospital. It is not clear when the resident had use of the electric heaters and whether they were provided by the landlord. However, the resident made these reports during a time of colder weather. The landlord should have considered the vulnerabilities reported and ensured the resident had access to sufficient heating throughout the time of her reporting. It is a further failing that it did not do so.
19. The resident reported no heating again on 19 January 2023, just 2 days after the landlord had completed its repair. The repair notes show that the landlord’s contractors requested the job be raised to the resident’s property as the communal repairs were not resolving the issue. It was positive that the contractors recognised the issue was reoccurring and it would not be reasonable to keep taking the same action. However, it was a failing that the landlord did not attend until 25 January 2023 and that the same action was taken as on previous visits. It is therefore not surprising that the resident and other tenants reported no heating again on 3 February 2023, 9 February 2023, 14 March 2023, 26 March 2023, and 29 March 2023. The landlord attended to some of the reports in line with its policy for loss of heating, but not all.
20. In her stage 2 escalation the resident said she had paid on average an extra £100 on her electricity bill. While it was appropriate for the landlord to have signposted the resident to its website for a heating rebate, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered any increase in bills too. The landlord had the opportunity to consider this in its compensation offer and chose not to do so. While it is difficult to determine the exact increase in bills, due to the time passed, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to order the landlord to pay the reported £100 in utility costs.
21. At the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord’s response suggested that the issue was resolved. It stated that it would raise the issues with its mechanical and electrical team to see whether there was any further action that could be taken to improve the heating system in the long term. Given that the resident reported the issue had reoccurred following the stage 2 response, an order will be made for the landlord to confirm the outcome of it raising the issues. If no appropriate action has been taken to address the issues in the long term, the landlord must carry out a major service of the communal heating system. This is to ensure that sufficient action is taken by the landlord to attempt to prevent the issues from reoccurring.
22. Ultimately, it was the landlord’s responsibility to have explored all available options to have the repairs completed urgently and satisfactorily. It was positive that the resident was advised to request a rebate for her heating and she was able to do so, and that some compensation was offered for her time and trouble. However, the delays were not appropriate and its responses were reactive, rather than proactive, which led to the issue reoccurring. The landlord failed to outline how it assessed the impact of the reports made and how its handling of them was fair in all the circumstances. The landlord also failed to consider the resident’s increase in utility bills. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of issues with the heating and hot water system.
23. The landlord should pay the resident a further £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her reports of no heating and intermittent hot water. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance taking into account that the landlord acknowledged some of the failures but it did not account for all the failures.

Reports of repairs to the kitchen window

24. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairing windows is categorised as a routine repair and is to be completed within 20 working days.
25. From the evidence provided, the initial report made on 31 October 2022 appeared to be in relation to a bedroom window which could not open and there was no reference to a kitchen window. However, both the landlord and resident have stated that the initial report of the kitchen window was made on 31 October 2022. Following this, the landlord made an appointment to attend the property on 21 November 2022, which was then rearranged by the resident. From the information available, the landlord’s initial response to the reports made were reasonable.
26. The landlord attended on 9 December 2022; it said it had eased the kitchen window but a new mechanism was required. Following contact from the resident, the landlord’s internal emails dated 19 January 2023 show it queried whether the new locking mechanisms were in stock and if the follow on works could be booked. The internal emails stated that the operative was off sick, so it was unable to get an update. The follow on appointment took place on 4 May 2023, 5 months after the initial appointment and 1 month after the stage 2 response. Again, there was no evidence of the landlord being proactive in completing the repair. This led to the resident being caused unnecessary stress and inconvenience due to the gap in the window, which was further exacerbated by the reoccurring loss of heating and hot water.
27. On 11 March 2023, the resident raised that she had health conditions and needed to stay warm. She also raised concerns regarding heat escaping through the gap in the window. Given the vulnerabilities raised and the reported loss of heating, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider any temporary measures it could have taken to help seal the gap. In not doing so, this caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident in her attempts to keep herself and the property warm.
28. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that it had been months since the window had dropped, that the repair had not yet been completed, and it apologised for the delay and its lack of communication regarding the repair.   It said it would raise it with the senior manager within the repairs service and ask that the resident is contacted with an update on the new locking mechanism. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay.
29. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
30. The landlord acknowledged some of its mistakes. However, the landlord failed to consider the overall conditions in the property and that the situation could have been mitigated if it had considered interim measures. It was positive that the landlord made an offer of redress to put things right, however, the £50 offered was not proportionate, given the circumstances. With that in mind the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen window.
31. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an additional £200 would provide adequate redress for the overall failings listed above. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord made an offer of action and compensation but it does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident.

Complaint and level of compensation offered

32. The landlord has not provided the complaints policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. However, it’s remedies policy refers to following Housing Ombudsman guidelines which would have expected the landlord to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
33. The landlord’s remedies policy states that where there has been a supply failure of landlord-controlled heating or water for 3 consecutive days or more between the last week of September to the end of May, it will refund its customers. It states the refund will be based on the gross weekly charge made to the resident. It states that in addition to a refund, it will pay compensation when landlord controlled heating or hot water loss is longer than 5 days. It states it will only pay compensation when it has not provided alternatives.
34. The landlord took 50 working days to respond to the resident at stage 1 and 18 working days at stage 2, the delays were not appropriate. From the landlord’s complaint responses, it was unclear why there were such delays and what action it would take to prevent it happening again in future.
35. While the landlord acknowledged some of its failures and made attempts to put things right, it has already been identified that it did not acknowledge all of its failures. The stage 2 response conflicted with the stage 1 response regarding responsibility for the delays in repairs to the heating and hot water, and it did not address all the issues raised by the resident. The resident referred to the landlord missing appointments, and while the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any missed appointments, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded with its findings. This led the resident to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman, whereas further clarification regarding the issues raised may have helped to reach a satisfactory resolution for the resident.
36. The landlord’s remedies policy refers to awarding compensation for distress, however, the landlord did not consider the distress to the resident in its compensation offer. It also states that it will pay compensation when landlord controlled heating or hot water loss is longer than 5 days, however, this was not factored into its compensation for the times when it did not attend to the resident’s reports within 5 days. The landlord did appropriately advise the resident to claim for a heating rebate and it appears the resident successfully managed to do so following the stage 2 response. However, the total compensation offered was not reasonable, orders have already been made to account for the distress and inconvenience caused and additional expenses.
37. Overall, the landlord did not put right all its failures in handling the resident’s complaint and the level of the compensation offered. While it was appropriate to recognise the resident’s time and trouble, it did not fully recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. It also did not do enough to address all the issues raised. As such, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, and the level of compensation offered.
38. The landlord offered £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to award an additional £100 to account for its failure to provide appropriate remedies for all the issues raised. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge all the failures and put them right.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the heating and hot water system.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen window.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, and level of compensation offered.

Orders

40. The landlord must confirm the outcome of its consideration for a long term solution to the heating performance and if no action was taken, it must carry out a major service of the communal heating system.
41. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £700 comprising of:
    1. £200 it previously offered, if it has not already paid this.
    2. £100 for the increase in the resident’s electricity bill.
    3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of unreliable heating and hot water throughout the winter.
    4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the window.
    5. £100 for the additional failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
42. In light of the findings in this case, the landlord must review its handling of any other complaints about heating and hot water issues from residents who shared the same communal heating.
43. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.