Camden Council (202205534)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205534

Camden Council

26 January 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 the resident’s:
1. Right-to-Buy application.
2. Requests for reasonable adjustments.
3. Reports of damp and mould, loss of heating and hot water, and lack of insulation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right-to-Buy application.
Complaints which concern the Right-to-Buy applications made to a local authority fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As per paragraph (f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. As such, this element of the complaint has not been investiogated. The resident may wish to refer this part of her complaint to the LGSCO should she remain dissatisfied.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy on a one-bedroom flat on the first floor of a residential block owned by the local authority landlord. The resident is profoundly deaf, and she also suffers from depression and other mental health-related issues. The building is served by a communal heating and hot water system.
On 16 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said the external wall in her property was cold, which affected the living room and the bedroom. She requested that the landlord inspect the property and arrange for a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter to be present during the visit. The resident chased the landlord for its response on 10 February 2022 and 29 March 2022.
The landlord responded on 7 April 2022 and agreed to inspect the wall to assess whether it was suitable for insulation. On 6 May 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it had a ‘set budget’, which may run out before it was able to arrange for a BSL interpreter in person. However, it had arranged for a BSL interpreter via a remote link. The inspection took place on 18 May 2022. During the inspection, the resident reported to the landlord that she had ‘very limited’ hot water running out of taps in the property. The resident continued pursuing the repairs with the landlord on 31 May 2022 and 08 June 2022.
On 12 June 2022, the resident formally complained to the landlord and said it took the landlord 3 months to reply to her emails and another 2 more months after that for another response. She said that the property had no insulation and was cold, had mould, and no hot water or heating; “it was hopeless”.
The landlord responded on 30 June 2022 and said:
1. Its Capital Works team, overseeing the wall Insulation program, surveyed the property on 18 May 2022. The BSL interpreter who joined the inspection remotely explained to the resident that the property was unsuitable for insulation. This was due to communal heating and hot water service pipes running through the wall.
2. The resident reported an issue of inadequate hot water supply and low heating levels. The landlord sent an SMS text message to confirm that operatives would attend her home on 30 May 2022, but they could not access the property. The same situation occurred on 8 June 2022. According to the landlord, operatives rang the accessible doorbell, sent an SMS to the resident, and waited for 20 minutes but received no response. Due to the operatives being unable to gain access, the system closed the repair automatically.
3. It explained that the resident should call to schedule a survey for damp and mould, which is different from a wall insulation survey.
The resident responded on 2 August 2022 and said:
1. Operatives did not ring the doorbell or text her to notify her of their arrival.
2. She “struggled” with emails in English. She said her first language was British Sign Language and requested that the landlord make suitable adjustments to accommodate her needs. Despite her previous requests, she said the landlord had not provided her with this service.
3. She had raised the hot water and heating issue repair in January 2022, but the landlord only responded in April 2022 and did not respond again until its first response letter on 30 June 2022.
The landlord sent its final response letter on 13 October 2022 and said:
1. It had no records of issues being reported between “April and May 2022”. During its inspection on 18 May 2022, the resident reported issues with the hot water and heating, and this job was closed automatically as operatives were not able to access the property.
2. Its repair service recorded one communal hot water and heating job in February 2022.
3. Its contractor had emailed the resident in June, asking about the resident’s availability to carry out a damp and mould survey of the property, but the resident had not responded. It said it would arrange for a BSL interpreter to join the inspection.
4. It had informed the resident during the inspection in May 2022 that the wall was unsuitable for insulation. If the resident wanted to discuss this further, it could arrange a meeting with a BSL interpreter.
The resident first contacted this service on 20 June 2022. More recently, she informed this service in December 2023 that the landlord had installed new radiators throughout the property which also solved the damp and mould. However, she said other items were still outstanding, and there was no improvement with the landlord’s provision of BSL interpreter services.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s assertion that the landlord has discriminated against her has been noted. It is for the court to decide whether the landlord fulfilled its legal obligations under the Equality Act. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to any requests for adjustments it could make to accommodate the resident’s needs.
The Ombudsman has noted the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her health. It is beyond the expertise of this service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions and the impact on the resident’s health. However, where a failure on the landlord’s part is identified, this service can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement reflects the landlord’s obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair the structure and exterior of the property and to keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water, heating, and sanitation.
The Fitness for Habitation Act obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation by giving regard to whether the property is in repair, free from damp, and reasonably suitable for sanitary conveniences, and food preparation.
Landlords must consider the properties’ condition using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential health hazards. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The Ombudsman published the Spotlight report on Damp and Mould in October 2021, which stated that landlords should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report said landlords should take “proactive interventions” in diagnosing damp and mould issues in their properties.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which states it will respond to the complaint within 10 working days at stage 1 and 25 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs would be completed within 24 hours and includes loss of heating and hot water between 1 October and 31 May and any uncontainable leaks. It states that essential repairs will be completed within 35 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision or practice that puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says: “Landlords must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs. Landlords must ensure that their policy sets out how they will respond to reasonable adjustment requests in line with the Equality Act and that complaints handlers have had appropriate training to deal with such requests”.
The information on the local authority’s website says: “Each department will provide BSL interpreters for residents if requested in advance.”
In this case, the resident had requested the landlord arrange an inspection of her home and for operatives to attend the inspection with a BSL interpreter. She made this request in January and repeated it in February. In March, she provided the landlord with dates in April when she was available for the inspection. However, in May, the landlord said it had a “set budget” that may run out by the time it could schedule a BSL interpreter in person. This was not appropriate. The landlord had 5 months to arrange a date for its operatives to attend with a BSL interpreter.
The landlord, however, arranged for a BSL interpreter to join the inspection remotely. It apologised and advised that it would provide an in-person BSL interpreter in future inspections. The landlord acted appropriately here.
Throughout the complaint process, the resident made it clear that she found it difficult to communicate in writing. Between the landlord’s first response letter on 30 June 2022 and the resident escalation request on 2 August 2022, the resident said:
1. “The housing department [of the local authority] did not provide BSL interpretation service”.
2. “I stress and struggle with English and with emails. My first language is British sign language. Please make suitable adjustments for my needs.”
3. “I have tried to email the Council’s complaints team at all times, but they have not provided me with a British sign language interpreter.”
The resident explained that she had mental health-related conditions that made it harder for her to communicate in writing. The resident was able to contact the landlord in BSL using its SignVideo service, which she said was a good service. She was also able to read and respond to a short text message in English. However, she explained it was difficult for her to converse in writing, such as using the text messaging service the landlord offered or reading formal documents and letters, such as the landlord’s complaint responses.
The landlord overlooked this detail in its assessment of the resident’s individual needs. It failed to adjust its processes and procedures to suit the resident. In this case, this would have been to adjust its written communications, to ensure these were in a format suitable to the resident’s needs. This was in response to her mental health condition. Therefore, to suit her individual needs, the landlord should have offered to communicate its formal complaint response in BSL, which was the format suitable to the resident’s needs.
In its final response letter, the landlord offered the resident the opportunity to discuss the report of the wall insulation with a BSL interpreter. This was a good offer, which should have been extended also to its formal complaint responses. Despite the landlord recording vulnerabilities for the resident, it overlooked the resident’s difficulty with written communication, and therefore, it failed to tailor its responses effectively to suit her needs. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange a conversation with the resident and a BSL interpreter to communicate its complaint responses. This was a failing by the landlord and amounted to maladministration.
With regard to the resident’s claims that the operatives did not text her on arrival and did not ring the accessible bell, the Ombudsman does not dispute that this may have been the case. In the absence of records, however, this service is unable to determine what did happen. The role of this service is to assess how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint that operatives did not ring the bell.
There is evidence that the landlord gave operatives detailed instructions on what to do on arrival at the resident’s property. In response to the resident’s concerns that on a specific day, the contractor did not ring the bell, the landlord investigated with its operatives and found they documented when they arrived at the property, sent 2 text messages to the resident, rang the bell, waited for 20 minutes, and as they had no access to the property, they left. Based on the available evidence, it was reasonable that the landlord did not investigate this further. However, the landlord should have been proactive and ensured there was no malfunction with the resident’s accessible doorbell.
In summary, the resident was frustrated at not being able to converse with the landlord, particularly when making a formal complaint. Understandably, this caused distress and frustration, and it made the resident feel disadvantaged. It further took the resident time and effort to bring the complaint to this service.
The landlord did not identify failings and, therefore, did not offer to put it right or learn from the outcomes. An order has been made below in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances where a failure adversely affected the resident, which may not have a permanent impact.
A further order has been made below for the landlord to learn from the outcome in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, loss of heating and hot water, and lack of insulation

Throughout the case, there were shortcomings with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s assertion that she raised repair requests between January and March 2022. At stage 2, it could not definitively say whether it inspected the resident’s home in April or May. This was not appropriate. Evidently, the resident did contact the landlord in January, February, and March 2022 and reported issues with damp and mould, lack of insulation, and that the property was cold and had limited hot water. She chased the issue in April, and in May 2022, the landlord visited her home. If there was an additional visit in April 2022, the landlord failed to record it.
Good record keeping is vital to maintain a record of a landlord’s actions. It is also important in instilling confidence in the landlord and its management systems and information. Landlords should, therefore, take steps to ensure that their record-keeping practices are adequate. The Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 spotlight report on knowledge and information refers specifically to these types of incidents, and the landlord is encouraged to consider the impact its knowledge management has on the quality of its housing services. Further to consider are its legal responsibilities alongside the apparent benefit of retaining and maintaining adequate records.
The landlord said the only communal heating and hot water repair it had in this period was raised on 4 January 2022. This repair, however, was not actioned until 10 February 2022. This was a failure by the landlord. A heating and/or hot water fault in January and February is considered an emergency repair. The landlord failed its repair obligation under its policy and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
The contractor visited the resident’s property on 10 February 2022 and identified a fault. According to the records, it advised the resident to contact a different contractor responsible for dealing with the district heating system. The landlord closed the job order on the same day due to “inactivity”. Its notes said it would raise a new job when the resident called back. This was not appropriate.
The landlord failed to exercise a degree of empathy toward the resident. It failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, the length of time she had been trying to raise the repair, and whether waiting for the resident to call back was the best customer service it could provide to the resident at that time. This was a failure by the landlord.
Conversely, the resident has maintained that the repair in February was a missed appointment and that operatives did not attend her property at all. The landlord failed to investigate what did happen. This was not appropriate.
It is also clear that the landlord was aware of the issues with the district heating system, which started as early as 2019, as evidenced by its communication with its operatives: “This is an ongoing issue of poor circulation [of the heating system] causing the lower floors to suffer in peak demand. We will get increased call volumes in the coming months and must decide on a long-term strategy”. The evidence shows broader issues with the heating and hot water system.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight on complaints about heating, hot water, and energy in social housing in February 2021 stated that landlords should have contingency plans for times a district heating system was faulty. There is no evidence that the landlord had a contingency plan in place. The heating issue at the resident’s property was not addressed at that time. This was not appropriate.
The resident informed this service that the landlord has since upgraded the radiators in her property, and the heating issue has now been solved. The landlord recently installed a new basin with a mixer tap. Whether this solved the hot water issue in the resident’s bathroom is unclear. The fact remains, however, that the resident was without sufficient heating and hot water throughout the winter of 2022. This was not appropriate.
This report does not intend to address each of the outstanding repairs listed, given that a significant delay of 6 months has already been established. This in itself is outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescales and is considered by this service to be unreasonable. However, with regard to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, as explained above, the resident reported this in January 2022. The landlord attended in May 2022. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. This was a failure by the landlord.
The resident informed this service that the landlord had recently installed new radiators in the property, which seems to have solved the damp and mould in her property, as provided sufficient heating throughout. But for at least winter 2022, she lived in a cold property with cold water running in all but the electric shower. It had damp and green mould had spread in the bedroom and on her clothes. This caused distress and inconvenience; in the resident’s own words, it made her feel the situation was hopeless.
The landlord, however, did not acknowledge failing on its part, and as such, it did not offer any compensation to the resident. In recognition of the distress and prolonged inconvenience experienced by the resident and for the loss of enjoyment of her home, further orders have been made below to put this right for the resident. This service has calculated compensations in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where maladministration by the landlord has occurred; the landlord’s response further exacerbated the situation and undermined the landlord-resident relationship. A full breakdown of the compensation can be found in the orders section below.
It is unclear which repairs are still outstanding at the resident’s home. To resolve the complaint, an order has been made below for the landlord to inspect the resident’s property with a BSL interpreter in person. Together with the resident, it should identify the outstanding repairs and create an action plan to solve the issues identified.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident started her email of 16 January 2022 by saying: “I am writing this letter to complain about the landlord”. It is of concern that the landlord failed to capture the resident’s complaint successfully. The landlord officially responded to the resident on 30 June 2022. This meant that against a target of 10 working days set in its policy, the landlord responded 166 working days later. Against a target of 25 working days for stage 2 responses, the landlord’s final response letter was 73 working days late. The landlord failed to register, acknowledge, and respond to the resident’s complaints within its policy timescale. This was not appropriate.
The gesture of offering a BSL interpreter should have been extended to the landlord’s formal complaint responses, particularly at stage two, in light of the fact the resident specifically requested this in her escalation request. The failure to offer this service made the resident feel the landlord did not listen to her and overlooked her needs as an individual. It caused frustration and distress, expended time and effort, and inconvenienced the resident who felt she needed to escalate her complaint to this service to be heard.
As explained above, the landlord did not identify a failure on its part and, therefore, did not attempt to put it right. An order has been made below to put this right for the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Finally, there is no indication that the landlord identified learning from the case. A further has been made below for the landlord to review the case and identify action it would take to ensure failings identified in this report do not reoccur.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the aspect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right-to-Buy application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, loss of heating and hot water, and lack of insulation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,841.07 broken down as follows:
1. This service has considered the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her home due to the damp and mould, loss of heating and hot water, and lack of insulation. From 16 January 2022, the date the resident made the complaint, and 13 October 2022, the date of the landlord’s final response letter, this service calculated compensation based on 10% on the weekly rent of £129.23 paid by the resident for 38 weeks and awarded £491.07.
2. £350 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
3. £750 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, loss of heating and hot water, and lack of insulation.
4. £250 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must inspect the property together with a BSL interpreter in person. It must work with the resident to agree on the outstanding items of repairs. The landlord must then form an action plan, with times for completion (to be adhered to). A copy of this action plan must be sent to this service.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to Identify all other residents who may have been affected by the defects in its district heating systems serving the resident’s block and similar blocks the landlord is aware of, as per its 2019 correspondence. This should include those who have not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure. It must work out an action plan to address the heating situation in these properties with times for completion (to be adhered to). A copy of this plan must be sent to this service.