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

Camden Council (202225609)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225609

Camden Council

12 June 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 repairs including a leak into the resident’s kitchen and damp in the bedroom.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The resident is over 65 and the landlord is aware of this.
  2. On 7 September 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the paint around the top of her kitchen wall was starting to pucker. She said she believed this could be a sign of a leak from the property above.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint on 16 January 2023. She said the landlord had missed an appointment in relation to the repair of her kitchen ceiling on 12 January 2023. She reiterated that the kitchen wall was puckering and said the paint on the wall in the bedroom was flaking.
  4. On 31 January 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that it had missed an appointment for a mould inspection at the resident’s property and apologised for this. It offered the resident £25 compensation. It said it had attempted to book another appointment for the inspection to take place but had not been able to. It said it would attempt to contact the resident to book another appointment. Alternatively, the resident could contact it directly to book another appointment.
  5. The resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord on 12 March 2023. She said there was a hole in the kitchen ceiling which was getting bigger, and she was worried the ceiling may collapse. The leak had led to flaking plaster and mould. Her food and belongings had been damaged by water and flaking paint. She said the issue was affecting her health.
  6. On 22 March 2023, the resident complained again to the landlord. She said it had missed an appointment on 14 March 2023 and that its operatives had called her after an appointment booked for 17 March 2023, to say they had not been able to gain access. The resident said she had been at home and did not understand why the landlord’s operative had not called when they were outside the property. She said that the leak had damaged her kitchen appliances.
  7. The landlord said it carried out a mould inspection on 23 March 2023 but did not find any mould.
  8. The resident reported to the landlord on 31 March 2023 that her kitchen extractor fan needed replacing.
  9. The landlord said that it had scheduled an appointment to replaster the kitchen ceiling and for a mould wash to the hallway for 11 April 2023, but it had not been able to gain access. An electrician had attended on 20 April 2023, but had not been able to replace the kitchen extractor fan until the replastering had been carried out. It said it had scheduled a mould wash at the property for 21 June 2023, but the resident had declined this work as she said the plasterer had removed the mould.
  10. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 18 April 2023. She said she had not been able to use her kitchen fully for 2 months and had been emptying buckets of water. She said that the landlord had not booked an appointment to carry out repairs to the kitchen ceiling until 26 June 2023. The landlord’s plumber had told her that the leak was being caused by a faulty washing machine in the property above. The resident said this had been the cause of leaks into her kitchen in previous years. She said she was at serious risk of injury were her kitchen ceiling to collapse.
  11. The resident said that the landlord removed the washing machine from the upstairs property on or around 27 April 2023. She said that during the removal of the washing machine stagnant water poured through the ceiling into her kitchen.
  12. On 8 May 2023, the resident requested that the landlord escalate all her complaints to stage 2 of its complaint procedure.
  13. The landlord’s repair records show that it inspected the property for damp and mould on 25 May 2023 and identified that there were water marks running down the bedroom wall and that some parts of the wall needed replastering due to damp.
  14. The landlord repaired the kitchen ceiling on 27 June 2023. On 6 July 2023 it replaced the extractor fan in the kitchen.
  15. On 18 August 2023, the resident complained to the landlord again. She said it had missed an appointment booked for 14 August 2023 to inspect the damp in the property. She said she had not been able to use her kitchen whilst waiting for the landlord to repair the leak. She had asked the landlord to repaint her kitchen now that the leak had been repaired, however it had refused.
  16. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 12 September 2023. It confirmed the source of the leak was a faulty washing machine in the property upstairs. It said that the washing machine was the responsibility of the neighbour upstairs to repair or remove. It could not agree to compensate the resident for missed appointments, as it had not been able to gain access to her property on several occasions. The resident had reported streaks of water coming down the walls on 4 September 2023 and it had arranged an appointment for 14 September 2023 to inspect these. It said in accordance with its repairs policy it could not agree to redecorate her kitchen, however the resident could complete a liability claim to its insurer for damage if she believed there had been service failure on its part.
  17. On 19 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She disputed that she had not allowed the landlord’s operatives access to the property. She said that she had been at home on the dates in question, but no-one had attended. The landlord had cancelled the appointment to replaster the ceiling booked for 11 April 2023, as the washing machine in the property above had not yet been removed at that stage. She had reported the damp in the bedroom again as well as damp in the hallway to the landlord’s operatives when they were carrying out the plastering to the kitchen ceiling in June 2023.
  18. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 October 2023. It said it upheld its previous findings and recommended again that the resident submit a liability claim in relation to her damaged belongings if she did not have contents insurance. It advised that in relation to the decoration of her kitchen she may be able to access its handyman service for a small fee.
  19. The resident told the Service that the landlord had completed plastering works to remedy the damp in her bedroom on 4 December 2023.
  20. On 3 June 2024, the Service asked the landlord to provide evidence of what steps it had taken to contact the resident in the property upstairs. The Service also asked the landlord to provide copies of its responses to the resident’s complaints of 12 March and 22 March 2023, as well as its response to her request that her complaints be escalated on 8 May 2023. The Service also asked the landlord to confirm whether it had an external liability insurer or whether liability claims were handled by an internal insurance department. The landlord has not responded to this request for the above information.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained previously to the landlord that her property and possessions were damaged by leaks from neighbouring properties on multiple occasions dating back to 2017. This investigation will not revisit the Ombudsman’s determination on this earlier case (determined in November 2019) but will focus instead on the landlord’s actions following the resident’s report of 7 September 2022 of a further leak into her kitchen and the subsequent complaints she made about the leak as well as damp in her bedroom.
  2. The resident has mentioned in her complaint that her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. We appreciate that this would have been a difficult time for the resident. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. The Service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s tenancy conditions state that it is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The tenancy conditions state that the landlord’s buildings insurance does not cover residents’ possessions. Its tenants guide advises that residents should take out contents insurance to cover damage to their belongings.
  2. The landlord’s tenants guide states that the decoration of the property is generally the responsibility of the resident to maintain, including where there is a leak from the flat above.
  3. The landlord’s housing repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The policy also states that for residents who are over 65 and have no household or family members who can help with the repair, it has the discretion to carry-out some repairs that are the resident’s responsibility without charging for these.
  4. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. Its complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
  5. The landlord’s remedies policy and procedure states that where it has failed to provide a service it will award compensation of £25. The policy states that where distress, or time and trouble has been caused to a resident it can consider awards of up to £300 in compensation.

The landlord’s handling of a leak from the property above

  1. The landlord acted reasonably in apologising to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 31 January 2023 for the missed appointment on 12 January 2023, and in offering her £25 compensation for this. This was in line with its compensation policy and recognised the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. The landlord was correct to advise that it was not its responsibility to repair a leak coming from a washing machine owned by the resident in the property above. This is because landlords have no obligation to repair privately owned appliances. Where a leak is not the responsibility of the landlord to repair, it is important that it can demonstrate that it has followed a set process to ensure that the leak stops. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to show that it had made multiple attempts to contact the resident in the upstairs property, issuing warnings and ultimately applying for an injunction if necessary to gain access to the property to repair or remove the washing machine.
  3. It is acknowledged that this process can take time, however, the resident reported to the landlord that she was worried that there was leak on 7 September 2022 and the landlord did not remove the washing machine from the upstairs property until around 27 April 2023, nearly 8 months later. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence to show what steps it took to gain access to the property above to identify the source of the leak and what contacts/correspondence it had with the resident in the upstairs property to advise them that the leaking washing machine was causing damage to the resident’s property and belongings. Furthermore, it has not provided any evidence to show that it updated the resident as to what steps it was taking. This was a failing by the landlord which will have caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident and may have given her the impression that it was not doing anything to ensure that the leak stopped.
  4. The landlord’s said there were times when their operatives attended and did not gain access to the resident’s property. The resident has disputed the landlord’s account and has said she was at home on each occasion. The onus is on the landlord to prove that its operatives did attend the property as arranged, such as photographs showing attendance at the door. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence to show that it was unable to gain access on the dates in dispute. Without evidence of this, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord’s operatives attended on the dates in question or that there were unavoidable delays due to lack of access. It is recommended therefore that the landlord ensure that its operatives take photos and leave cards to demonstrate that they were not able to gain access when this happens. It is recommended that the landlord proactively follow-up with letters and phone calls to rebook appointments when they have not been able to gain access. Where there are repeated instances of non-access, the landlord should seek to understand the reasons why residents are not allowing access and take reasonable steps to address this such as providing reassurance to the residents where needed. As noted above, it is accepted that the landlord attempted to rebook the appointment it missed on 12 January 2023, but there is no evidence that it took steps to rebook appointments in relation to the dates it said it had not been able to gain access to the property. This was a failing by the landlord.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had arranged an appointment to replaster the resident’s kitchen ceiling on 11 April 2023, but it was unable to gain access. The resident said that this appointment was cancelled as the washing machine had not yet been removed from the upstairs flat. The evidence supports the resident’s account as the landlord removed the washing machine on or around 27 April 2023, and it would not have been practical for it to replaster the resident’s kitchen ceiling with the washing machine still in situ due to the risk of it causing further leaks.
  6. The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy in advising the resident that it would not repaint the resident’s kitchen after it had repaired the kitchen ceiling. This is because the landlord’s repair obligations were to repair the structure of the property and do not include internal decoration. It acted reasonably in informing the resident that she may be able to use its handyman service for a fee should she wish this service to repaint her kitchen. However, under its housing repairs policy, set out above, the landlord can consider carrying-out repairs that are not normally its responsibility where a resident is over 65 and has no household or family members who can help. The landlord was aware that the resident was over 65 and there is no evidence that it took steps to establish whether she had anyone who could help her with the repainting of her kitchen, and if not, whether it should consider repainting the kitchen for her. It is recommended that the landlord consider whether it would be appropriate for it to offer to repaint the resident’s kitchen in line with its housing repairs policy. The landlord should explain its decision to the resident in writing.
  7. The resident first reported that there was paint flaking off her bedroom wall in her complaint of 16 January 2023. The landlord’s repair records show that a mould report was carried out on 25 May 2023 which identified damp in the bedroom and that sections of the wall needed replastering. The resident said that the landlord made an appointment to inspect the damp in the bedroom and hallway for 14 August 2023 but that no-one attended. The landlord said it made appointments to carry out mould washes in the resident’s property but was not able to gain access on multiple occasions, however it has not provided evidence to the Ombudsman of this lack of access. The resident has confirmed that the landlord completed plastering works to address the damp in the bedroom on 4 December 2023. This was well outside of the landlord’s 20 working day timescale for completing routine repairs and was an unreasonable delay on its part which left the resident waiting over 10 months for the damp in the bedroom to be remedied. The delay would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  8. The resident complained to the landlord that there was damage to her belongings caused by the leak. The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident that she could submit a liability claim to its insurance team if she believed that it was liable for this damage. Matters of liability and negligence fall outside the complaints process and the landlord is entitled to use a separate insurance process to deal with complaints of this nature. The Service has asked the landlord to confirm whether liability claims are dealt with internally or whether these are dealt with by an external insurer. However, it has not responded. If the resident were to submit a liability claim for damage to her belongings and this was dealt with by an insurance team internal to the landlord, the resident could complain to the landlord if she felt it had not dealt with her claim correctly. Once any complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, she may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied.  If, however, liability claims are dealt with by an insurer external to the landlord, it would be outside of the Ombudsman’s role to investigate as the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of external insurers, only at the actions of the landlord.
  9. The resident complained that the landlord’s handling of the leak had affected her health. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to look at whether it could take any steps to support the resident and/or refer her to other agencies who may be able to provide support. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to advise her that she could pursue a personal injury claim with its liability insurer should she wish to do so for damage to her health. The landlord should pass on its insurer’s details to the resident now so she can make a claim if she wants to. As noted above, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health, therefore we could not comment on the outcome of any liability claim the resident were to make in relation to her health.
  10. The landlord’s failings in this case amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. The guidance states that where maladministration has been identified which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident submitted complaints about the leak on 12 March 2023 and on 23 March 2023. On 8 May 2023 she asked that all her complaints be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to show that the landlord responded to either of the complaints the resident submitted in March 2023, or that it responded to the request she made in May 2023 that all her complaints be escalated to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. This meant that the resident had to raise her concerns again on 18 August 2023 leading to a delay in her receiving a response from the landlord of over 5 months. This was a significant failing on the part of the landlord which will have caused further time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. As noted above, where maladministration has been identified, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that £100-£600 should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 for its failures in its handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint. 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the following compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Service is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
    1. £300 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of the repairs.
    2. £250 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Ensures that its operatives take photos and leave cards to demonstrate that they were not able to gain access when this happens and proactively follow-up with letters and phone calls to rebook appointments when they have not been able to gain access.
    2. Considers whether it would be appropriate for it to offer to repaint the resident’s kitchen and writes to the resident to explain its decision regarding this.
    3. Provides the resident with details of how to contact its liability insurer so she can make a claim for damage to her health if she wishes to do so.
    4. If the landlord assesses a liability claim for damage to the resident’s possessions internally rather than referring it to its liability insurer, it should write to the resident to explain the reasons for its decision.