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

Camden Council (202205007)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205007

Camden Council

26 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

Jurisdiction

  1. 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 complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of repairs to her bathroom window.
    2. The resident’s concerns about cleaning and caretaking quality in communal areas and the bin store.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. She lives in a ground floor flat.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported repair issues with her bathroom window frame on 6 February 2020. An operative attended on 12 February, and their notes state that they left the window secure and in working order. A follow up repair was noted as being needed, apparently to adjust the window hinges.
  3. There was no further action by the landlord. The resident has explained that she chased for updates between August and October 2020, until she was finally told in October that the repair had been closed due to the covid lockdowns.
  4. The resident has told this Service that the bathroom window handle fell off in early 2021.
  5. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 1 June 2022. She said the window frame and handle had still not been repaired which had made her property insecure and had caused damp and mould. She referred to issues from 2017 and 2020, and said she had “called over regular monthly intervals for an appointment.” She said that the broken window had posed a security risk, the “inability to ventilate the bathroom” had caused damp in the bathroom, and she had been unable to sell the property while the repair remained unresolved. She wanted the landlord to complete the repair and compensate her for any damage caused by the long delay.
  6. The resident approached this Service on 13 June 2022. She repeated her complaint about the window but added new issues about: the conduct of the landlord’s caretaker staff and estate manager, who she alleged had been abusive and intimidating to her; the upkeep of the bin store area; rubbish left outside her windows; and the smells from the bins going into her home. We forwarded the resident’s concerns to the landlord and asked it to respond to her in relation to the window repairs, the staff allegations, and the bin store upkeep.
  7. The landlord sent its first complaint response on 27 June 2022. It explained it had investigated the resident’s allegations about its staff, and concluded they were “unfounded”. It said its caretakers cleaned and maintained the bin areas on a weekly basis. It also said it only had one record for a window repair, which it had attended and made safe on 25 November 2021. It acknowledged that its operatives had intended to order a new handle, which had not been done. It apologised and said it would address the issue.
  8. The resident contacted this Service again, on 4 July 2022. She explained she was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response about the window and the bin area. She repeated her original concerns about the window. She also said she wanted the landlord to replace the internal bins with an external system, and to regularly inspect the cleaning standard in the building. We forwarded her concerns to the landlord on 14 July.
  9. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 25 July 2022. It set out the history of the window repairs, referring to the reports in February 2020, the impact of the covid lockdowns on the repairs, further work done in November 2021 left incomplete, and new repair work raised on 20 July 2022 following the resident’s contact. It acknowledged that the further work had not been completed and said it would arrange a further inspection and work on 5 August 2022. It said it would consider providing compensation for any failings once the work was complete. The landlord referred to previous discussions with the resident about the bin store situation and repeated the explanation it had given then – that it would not relocate or close the bin store area. However, it acknowledged that the resident’s photos showed rubbish being left in inappropriate areas and said it would remind tenants of their responsibility to dispose appropriately of refuse. It also said it would monitor its caretaking standards to ensure the appropriate work was being done. It concluded by referring the resident to this Service.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She disputed the landlord’s claim to have raised repair work in June/July 2022, on the basis that the repair job numbers it had referred to did not match those in her records.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. In her complaints the resident has asked this Service to consider a previous issue with her boiler and heating and hot water, dating back to  2016. No evidence of this issue being raised as a complaint to the landlord previously has been provided. Paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme states that The Ombudsman may not investigate matters which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. As such, this is not something the Ombudsman can investigate.
  2. The same is true of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s previous handling of her window repairs up until the end of 2020. There is no evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint with the landlord about the windows until June 2022, more than 18 months after the landlord told her in October 2020 that it had closed her window repair. Accordingly, this investigation does not consider the landlord’s historic window repair actions but will focus on the repair issues reported in the several months leading up to the formal complaint in 2022.
  3. The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint about the conduct of caretaking staff. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident raised this issue in her original complaint to the landlord but did not include it in her escalated complaint. Because of that it cannot be said to have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and will not be considered in this investigation.

The resident’s reports of repairs to her bathroom window

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that it is responsible for the installation and repair of window frames. The landlord’s tenants handbook states that tenants are responsible for “Window catches and stays and security locks”.
  2. The resident disputes the work the landlord said it did because the job numbers it gave are different. However, the job number she was comparing to was for the work raised in 2020, which the resident told this Service was closed in October 2020. Accordingly, any subsequent work done would have had a new job number, which is presumably why the numbers are different. 
  3. The landlord explained to the resident that it had not taken any follow up action after the November 2021 visit until she raised the matter again on 1 June 2022. The repairs were not completed until 5 August. The landlord explained that the delay was caused by sending operatives to the wrong address but gave no other explanation for the lack of action and delay.
  4.  At review stage, the resident reiterated that they dispute the repair of November 2021 was ever conducted. The repairs records provided by the landlord do not show a repair conducted on this date.
  5. The landlord has not provided repair time frames, but the general industry standard is between 20 and 28 days to attend and resolve routine repairs. In the absence of clear details about what this repair entailed, and based on the information provided, it appears to have taken from 21 November 2021 to 5 August 2022 to resolve. The landlord acknowledged its failing, and apologised, but did not provide any compensation at the time. Instead, it said it would consider providing compensation when the work was complete. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord did so, leaving the complaint unresolved. In the circumstances of the window apparently being inoperable, and the lengthy wait, this was a serious omission.
  6. The resident said in her complaints that being unable to open the window to ventilate the bathroom led to damp forming. Excess damp levels could potentially indicate structural or repair problems, which the landlord would be responsible for inspecting and resolving. If the resident is experiencing excessive damp or mould issues in the bathroom following the window repair, she should report this to the landlord and ask it to inspect the issue.
  7. The resident told the landlord that she had concerns about security and safety due to the window being insecure prior to the initial repair in February 2020. Following this, the issue of damp was of concern to her, as the window could not open.

Cleaning and caretaking quality in communal areas and the bin store

  1. The resident reported that other residents were misusing the communal waste storage room, which is next door to the resident’s flat and provided photographic evidence to the landlord. She also raised concerns as to the standard and frequency of cleaning of the bin store. She also complained about the smell emanating into her flat and that other residents were not using the bin store appropriately.
  2. In the landlord’s stage one response of 27 June 2022, it stated that the bin store was cleaned on a weekly basis.
  3.  The landlord’s Cleaning Schedule states that refuse areas should be cleaned on a daily basis. This is in contradiction to what the landlord said in its complaint response of 27 June 2022.
  4. In its Stage 2 complaint response of  25 July 2022, the landlord acknowledged there were issues with the bin storage room and advised it would write to residents to remind them of their responsibilities in disposing of their waste correctly. It also reiterated its finding of 2012 that because the modern bins were too large to keep in the store, waste was left loose in the storage area and placed into the storage bins daily by the caretaker. The landlord said that bins were then brought from the rear of the building to the front, filled and returned to the rear.
  5.  The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of other tenants misusing the bin facility was reasonable. The actions taken by other tenants are not controlled by the landlord, and so writing to residents reminding them of their responsibilities was an appropriate first step. If the resident continued to report this behaviour in the future (and provided meaningful evidence) the landlord would be expected to consider what further steps it could and should take.
  6. However, in its stage two response the landlord did not either correct the information on cleaning frequency given to the resident at stage one (and confirm the frequency the bin store is actually cleaned), or apologise for the service failure in failing to ensure the bin store was properly managed and cleaned daily as per its cleaning schedule. Given the evidence which supports a failure on the landlord’s part, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this, which it also did not do.
  7. As such, the evidence suggests it is likely that the smell the resident was reporting may have been made worse by the landlord’s failure to adhere to its cleaning schedule. This would likely have been exacerbated by the unorthodox method of managing the building’s waste due to the landlord being unable to move the bin store, or fit the modern bins into the store itself.
  8. The landlord’s responses regarding its reasons for not moving the bin store were reasonable, as was its plan for managing the waste in light of the challenges it was facing. However, given that it was aware rubbish was being left loose, and that some resident may be misusing the area it was even more important for it to ensure it adhered to its cleaning schedule in order to minimise or eliminate any negative impacts this may have upon residents. That there is evidence it failed to do this; or to reassure the resident it was adhering to the schedule; is a failure that likely had a negative impact upon the resident, and amounts to maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of repairs to her bathroom window.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about cleaning and caretaking quality in communal areas and the bin store.

Orders

  • It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident £900 compensation. This is to be comprised of:

 

  • £300 for the maladministration identified in respect of the resident’s reports of repairs to her bathroom window;

 

  • £600 for the maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cleaning and caretaking quality in communal areas and the bin store

 

Evidence of this payment must be provided to this Service.

 

  • Review its cleaning records for the period of the resident’s complaint and confirm to both this Service and the resident whether daily cleaning and moving of the rubbish was being undertaken during this time. The landlord must also confirm to the resident the planned cleaning schedule and any additional measures it will be taking to ensure the bin storage area and waste is managed appropriately and the resident is not negatively impacted by smells or loose waste.

 

  • Provide evidence that correspondence reminding residents of their responsibilities has been sent, or send the correspondence within 4 weeks of the date of this review, providing evidence of this to this Service.