Camden Council (202217752)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217752

Camden Council

28 February 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. Repairs to the resident’s bathroom that caused the ceiling to collapse.
2. The associated damage to the resident’s property.
3. Personal injury caused to the resident.
4. The condition of the property before being let to the resident relating to the condition of the boiler and evidence of a leak.
5. The complaint handling and the level of redress offered.

Background

The resident occupies a property under a secure tenancy agreement which commenced on 19 July 2021. The property is a second-floor bedsit. The resident lives with epilepsy and a mental health condition.
A representative, who has acted on her behalf to communicate with the landlord about the complaint has supported the resident. Where events are discussed in this report, this will include her representative’s involvement, and referred to as ‘the resident.’
On 3 August 2021, the resident reported that there was a leak coming from the light in her bathroom ceiling. Although the landlord attended that day, the leak remained unresolved and caused a part of the resident’s bathroom ceiling to collapse on 1 September 2021. The landlord carried out the substantive repair of the leak on the same day and said it completed the decorative repairs on 10 August 2022. The resident said the decorative repair is outstanding.
The resident raised a complaint on 26 October 2021. She said that:
1. The landlord had delayed fixing the initial leak and this led to the collapse of her ceiling. She was concerned that a contractor had told her that the beams needed fixing, and this caused her concern about the ceiling collapsing again.
2. When she moved in, a contractor informed her that the boiler was condemned, and the landlord delayed fixing it.
3. She was vulnerable with complex needs and suffered an injury and damage to her property when the ceiling collapsed.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 February 2022 and partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It said that more could have been done at the initial repair which may have prevented the ceiling from collapsing. It offered her £100 for the distress of this.
The resident escalated her concerns on 4 March 2022 because:
1. She felt the compensation awarded was inadequate because it did not consider how the delays had impacted her vulnerabilities.
2. She felt that they overlooked her safety when they handled the repairs in her property.
3. There decorative repairs were not completed and there was a light fixture hanging from the ceiling.
The landlord issued its final response on 27 September 2022. It said that it partially upheld the resident’s concerns. It said this was because it could have done more to protect the resident between the initial report of the leak and when it fixed the substantive repair. It also identified it had delayed the handling of her complaint and re-offered her £100 for these issues.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case when a complaint is brought to us as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint. The resident sought damages for health impacts and an injury caused by the ceiling collapsing. People commonly call this a personal injury claim.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, tribunal or other procedure.”
This service cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, personal injury, without independent medical advice or a medico-legal report. Therefore, we will not consider this element of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, we will not consider this element of the resident’s complaint.
The resident told this service that her property was damaged, and this was linked to the leak and the collapse of her ceiling.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.”
The resident did not raise the damage to their property as part of the internal complaint procedure. The Ombudsman considers this to be a new and separate complaint. As a result, this service is unable to investigate this element of the complaint because the landlord has not had an opportunity to respond formally. The resident is encouraged to raise this separately with the landlord and should consult her insurance provider to raise a claim.

Repairs to the resident’s bathroom that caused the ceiling to collapse

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on landlords to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of properties. Once it has been notified of repair by a resident, landlords are responsible for making repairs that are lasting and effective. The repairs should also be completed in a timely way to avoid impacting on the resident’s enjoyment and use of their property.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repairs where there is a danger to people or property. The landlord will attend within two hours if it is reported out of hours or in the daytime before 8 pm the same day or within two hours.
2. Urgent repairs that are not considered an emergency but need to be completed quickly. These will be completed within five working days.
3. Routine repairs, that are not considered an emergency or urgent, will be completed within 20 working days.
The resident reported the leak on 3 August 2021. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the same day. The landlord’s repair log said that repairs were completed on the same day. However, the repair logs did not provide further information about what it did at the appointment. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that the contractor cleaned the light diffuser and left it in working order. It also said that there was a large water stain on the ceiling, and this was evidence of a previous leak. As the repair records did not record this information, it is unclear how the landlord was able to make this assertion.
The landlord did not provide this service with sufficient evidence of what it did during any of the repair appointments outside of its complaint responses and completion dates noted in its repair logs. This amounts to poor record keeping which has prevented this service from conducting a thorough investigation into this element of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. 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 resident re-reported the leak on 28 August 2021. The resident said that she was told a plumber would attend within 6-8 hours, but nobody attended. She said when she chased this, she was told that her report was not an emergency. She said somebody attended at midnight and stopped the leak but told her she needed to book the ceiling repairs separately.
The landlord said in its complaint responses that it responded by:
1. Raising emergency works and attending the property on the same day.
2. As it was unable to gain access on 28 August 2021 it re-arranged the appointment for the following day.
3. It did not attend the following day because the operative booked for the repair was delayed at another job and all afternoon appointments were cancelled. There is no evidence that the resident was contacted about this.
4. It attended at midnight and could not gain access to the property above the residents to trace the leak, and it could not force entry.
5. On 3 September 2021, it contacted the resident above and informed them that the police would force entry if the neighbour did not provide access. It arranged an appointment for 7 September 2021 to trace the leak and complete the repairs. They were completed on this date.
There is no evidence that the landlord told the resident that her report was not an emergency. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on this element of the complaint.
There is no evidence that the landlord notified the resident of the need to re-arrange the appointment on 28 August 2021. This was inappropriate. It would have been reasonable to have notified her as soon as it was aware that the appointment was cancelled to manage the resident’s expectations and communicate openly with her about when she could expect repairs to be completed.
It is positive to note that the landlord acknowledged that it could have done more at its initial appointment by carrying out a more detailed inspection. It said had it done this it may have pre-empted and prevented the ceiling collapse. It also said that between 3 August 2021 and 1 September 2021, it could have done more to protect the resident.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord was not clear to the resident about the failures it had acknowledged. This is because it did not explain what it should have done, why it had not done this, and how it intended to prevent this from happening again. Whilst the landlord took responsibility for its failure, it did not identify or communicate the actions it would take to embed this into future working practices. The resident is likely to have felt let down by the landlord as it did not demonstrate it had taken her concerns seriously.
There is evidence that the resident reported the outstanding decorative repairs on 26 October 2021 and 4 March 2022. The resident said that the decorative ceiling repairs remain outstanding at the time of writing this report.
The resident said because of the delays she experienced; she feels unsafe to use her bathroom. She was concerned that the repairs were not to a good standard and that the ceiling could fall in again. She said that when the landlord came to plaster her bathroom ceiling the operatives were reluctant to do the job because they said the joists needed fixing. Therefore, when the resident saw that the landlord had replastered the ceiling without addressing the beams, she felt that the landlord was covering up the damage instead of fixing it.
The landlord said it responded to the follow on works by:
1. Raising works to board the ceiling on 3 September 2021. The repair logs show this work was completed on 10 August 2022.
2. Explaining that it completed a partial repair to the ceiling on 13 September 2021, however, the joists required drying before further works could begin. This formed part of its stage 1 response, however there is no evidence of this appointment taking place.
3. It also explained that when the plasterer returned on 14 September 2021, the contractor left the property part way through and could not gain access again despite trying at different times of the day. This formed part of its stage 1 response, however there is no evidence of this appointment taking place.
4. Booking an appointment to complete the work on 6 April 2022. This formed part of its stage 1 response, however there is no evidence of this appointment taking place.
The Ombudsman considers that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed the follow-on decorative works on behalf of the resident, having considered her vulnerabilities, and the distress she would have felt over the situation. This meant it was down to the resident to spend time and trouble chasing the landlord.
According to the records, the landlord knew about the decorative works starting on 26 October 2021. The works were finished on 10 August 2022. The landlord said that it could not gain access to the property, however it was unable to evidence this.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord unreasonably delayed in carrying out the decorative repairs because it took 179 working days outside of its repair timeframe. This was maladministration because the landlord should have resolved the repairs to the resident’s bathroom in a reasonable time and under its policy timescales. This impacted the resident by causing distress and inconvenience and prevented her full enjoyment of the property.
This service notes that the resident has said the decorative repairs are outstanding at the time of writing this report. The landlord will be required to inspect the property to assess if there are any outstanding works to the resident’s bathroom ceiling.

The pre-letting condition of the property

The landlord’s lettable homes standard states that it will make sure all its homes are fit to live in, secure, safe and comply with legal requirements before residents move in.
It also states:
1. It would test the gas system before residents move in, visit the property after they move in, and once a year to conduct a gas safety check to ensure properties will have safe and adequate heating.
2. It will ensure walls and ceilings will be sound, and without damp, large cracks, or loose plaster.
The resident said that there was evidence of a leak when the property was void and the landlord knew about this but failed to resolve it before she moved in. The landlord said that it could find no fault in how the pre-lettings team had dealt with the property. It also said that although there were “indications of damp” this was due to “external factors” and that later events supported this. The evidence shows that on the “void property survey” there had not been a damp survey or damp works within the property.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord was aware that there was an indication of damp. To comply with its lettable home standard, it should have ensured the property was without damp before the resident moved in. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have carried out any reasonable and necessary investigations into the reason behind the presence of the damp to ensure the property was let free from damp. The landlord failed to do this, and this was maladministration.
The resident said that her boiler was condemned and not fit for purpose when she moved into the property. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that it arranged for a contractor to inspect the boiler on 4 September 2021. At this appointment, the contractor identified the need for a new circuit board and display board for the boiler. They then recommissioned the boiler and verified its safety. This service is unable to confirm if this appointment took place because the landlord has not provided any evidence to substantiate this.
The evidence shows that:
1. The landlord conducted a gas safety check on 4 September 2020 which contained a warning notice that stated “metal capped” under the “immediately dangerous” category. There is also a gas safety certificate for the same date that states that the gas work was satisfactory, and the inspection passed, and remedial action was taken for the “metal capped.”
2. The landlord conducted a “void property survey” on 14 October 2020 which ticked the appropriate gas test and details. The only note relating to this states “Boiler overflow pipe need to fit other side of trap to allow washing machine waste collection.”
3. The landlord attended the property between 21 July 2021 and 3 August 2021 and conducted a heating service. There is no evidence of any findings of the landlord’s contractors for this appointment.
4. The landlord attended on 19 November 2021 to replace a fuse that was stopping the boiler from working.
Later appointments showed that the boiler required repairs, however, this service has no evidence to link this to the findings at the initial pre-letting inspection of the landlord.
The Ombudsman considers that there is no evidence of the boiler being condemned before the property was let to the resident. Therefore, this service can find no fault in the way the landlord handled this element of the complaint.
Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This combined with the delays experienced by the resident and poor expectation management around what the landlord intended to do and when was evidence of maladministration.

Complaint handling and level of redress

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states:
1. Landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged at stage 1.
2. Landlords must respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords can extend the response time but should explain when it will respond. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
3. Landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident after stages 1 and 2 in clear, plain language the details of any remedy offered to put things right.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 October 2021. The stage 1 response was issued on 15 February 2022. This was 67 working days outside of the requirements set out in the Code. The Ombudsman considers the landlord unreasonably delayed in issuing its complaint response to the resident.
This service also notes that it failed to acknowledge or account for its delays in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman expects landlords to communicate any delays and the reasons behind them with residents. As well as to provide a new timeframe within which it will respond.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 March 2022. The landlord acknowledged this request on 25 April 2022 and 22 July 2022 and said it logged the complaint on 26 July 2022. The landlord issued its final response on 27 September 2022, which was 122 working days outside of the requirements set out in the code.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord unreasonably delayed issuing its complaint response to the resident. In addition, the landlord failed to manage the complaint effectively because it had to return to the resident to confirm she still wished to have her complaint reviewed on two occasions between April and July 2022.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to have sufficient resources to manage and track complaints effectively. Although this service notes the landlord acknowledged its delay at stage 2 of the complaints process and explained that it was because of resourcing issues, it did not provide evidence that it notified the resident of this before issuing its final response.
This was maladministration because the resident felt that her complaint was not being progressed and that she was not being taken seriously. It also meant that the complaint process itself was protracted without explanation which resulted in a delay in being able to access this service.
It is concerning to note that in addition to this, the formal responses indicated to the resident that the subsequent follow-on works were carried out within its policy timeframes. This was inappropriate because it was misleading based on the delays in completing the decorative repairs. The Ombudsman expects landlords to conduct thorough investigations whilst investigating complaints to ensure it provides accurate and clear information to residents. This was maladministration because the landlord did not acknowledge its failures.
The landlord offered the following redress to the resident:
1. £100 at stage 1 for distress and inconvenience of not conducting a more detailed inspection during the first appointment.
2. £100 at stage 2 for the “slow progress with the repairs investigations in August 2021” and the complaints process.
It is unclear if a total of £200 was offered through the complaints process or if the offer at stage 2 replaced the previous offer at stage 1. This was a service failure because the landlord was unclear about how much compensation it was willing to offer the resident.
The Ombudsman considers that this was not sufficient to address the failures found in this report. This is because it failed to recognise:
1. The length of time that some of the repairs remained outstanding.
2. The distress and inconvenience on the resident for its failure to carry out a detailed inspection at the initial appointment.
3. The time and trouble of the resident in pursuing the repairs through to completion.
4. The impact on the resident’s vulnerabilities when it delayed in carrying out the repairs.
5. The delay in progressing the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(f) the Ombudsman has not investigated the complaint about the injury caused to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the complaint about the associated damage to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the repairs to the resident’s bathroom that caused the ceiling to collapse.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the condition of the property before it was let to the resident. This relates to the condition of the boiler and evidence of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the complaint and the level of redress offered.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report, explain the lessons it has learnt, and how it intends to apply these lessons in the future to make its service provision more efficient.
2. Pay the resident £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures. This is comprised:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in handling the repairs to the bathroom ceiling.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the handling of the property before it was let to the resident.
  3. £250 for the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of redress.

This replaces the compensation offered to the resident during the internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to deduct any sum already paid to the resident during the internal complaints process.

Arrange to inspect the property to assess if there are any outstanding works required to the resident’s bathroom ceiling. If works are required, an appointment for these repairs must be scheduled with the resident within 14 days of the inspection.
Provide evidence of compliance to this service.
Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
1. Review the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ spotlight report and deliver training on it to its customer-facing staff. This is so that it can:
  1. Assess how it is performing against the recommendations and implement any recommendations that it feels would aid it to further implement good record keeping across the organisation.
  2. To understand the impact of poor record keeping on relations with residents.
2. Review its repair working practices to ensure that sufficient investigations are carried out at initial appointments to identify the extent of the repairs at the earliest opportunity.
3. Arrange for complaint handling refresher training to ensure staff are aware of:
  1. The requirements for response timeframes as set out in the Code.
  2. The importance of effective communication with residents when it is experiencing delays and providing clear timeframes so it can manage expectations of residents and they can understand when they can expect a response.
  3. The importance of clarity around offers of redress and whether they are stand-alone or in addition to previous offers made during the complaints process.