Camden Council (202307850)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307850

Camden Council

19 December 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 at the resident’s home.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and she lives in a 2 bedroom flat. The landlord is a council which owns and manages the resident’s home.
The resident moved into her home around 21 November 2022. On 2 December 2022, she reported that the flat was cold as the windows were draughty and the heating was not sufficient. The landlord raised orders for the windows to be inspected and a heater repaired.
Between 5 December 2022 and 10 January 2023, the landlord raised further orders relating to the draughty windows, heating and damp.
The resident complained on 14 February 2023 saying:
1. A damp and mould inspection had been booked for 7 February 2023. She had taken time off work but no one came.
2. Other appointments had been missed too and she was “sick and tired” of having to wait in for appointments.
3. Her windows had been inspected which had taken only 3 minutes. She felt it was a waste to have to wait in for such a short visit.
4. She would like to be compensated and to be kept informed of appointment changes.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 16 February 2023 which said:
1. It was upholding the complaint as it had “not provided a good service”.
2. It had booked another appointment on 24 February 2023 for the damp and mould inspection.
3. It was sorry for the inconvenience caused and offered £25 compensation.
The resident replied that she was not satisfied with the outcome as the compensation did not cover the wages she had lost.
The landlord escalated her complaint and gave its stage 2 response on 27 April 2023. It said that it upheld her complaint and increased its compensation offer to £75.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She said the landlord’s repair service was inadequate and she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response about missed appointments and the compensation it had offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman carried out an investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The investigation reviewed 57 determinations made by the Ombudsman between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024. It identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement.
We published our special report in November 2024 and it is available on our website. The landlord accepted our recommendations and is developing an improvement plan. We will monitor its implementation of the improvements needed.
Some of the failings we have identified in this case are similar to those found in our special investigation. While we have referred to the failings identified in this case, we have not made any orders that would duplicate the recommendations in our special report.

Handling of repairs at the resident’s home.

The landlord’s repair policy is set out in its online tenants’ handbook and specifies the following timescales for repairs:
1. Emergency repairs defined as those causing serious risk to people or property. The landlord will attend within 24 hours to at least make the property safe and secure.
2. Non-emergency essential repairs defined as those causing serious discomfort or inconvenience. The landlord will complete work within 35 days.
3. Non-essential repairs defined as those not causing serious discomfort or inconvenience. The landlord will complete work within 125 days.
In our special report, we highlighted a common theme of gaps and inaccuracies in the records the landlord had provided for our investigations. We found this to be a failing in this case also. For example, the landlord’s repair records did not show what priority it had given to some of the repair orders it had raised. For other repair orders, it was not clear from the landlord’s records what work, if any, had been done.
The resident told us that she had reported repairs by telephone. There were only limited references to the resident’s reports in the landlord’s repair records and we saw no separate records of telephone contacts.
The cause of the resident’s complaint had been that she had taken time off work for repair appointments that had then been rescheduled. The landlord’s repair records showed that some appointments had been rescheduled multiple times.
For example, the landlord had raised an order relating to the draughty windows on 9 December 2022. Its repair log showed that the contractor had rescheduled the appointment 6 times. This included 3 occasions when appointments were rescheduled on the day of an appointment.
This repair was completed on 12 May 2023 which was 154 days after the landlord had raised the order. This was later than the 125 day timescale specified in the landlord’s policy.
Similarly, the resident had referred to an appointment for a damp and mould inspection being missed in her complaint. Again, this was confirmed by the landlord’s repair records.
An appointment had been booked for 7 February 2023. The resident had called to find out why the surveyor had not arrived during the agreed appointment time and was told he was running late and would not be able to visit that day. While another appointment had been scheduled for 23 February 2023, the landlord’s records did not confirm whether it took place.
The records suggested that the inspection had been done by 24 March 2024 as the resident was chasing the follow on repairs that had been discussed at the visit.
The repair records showed it had taken a further 12 days for the landlord to order a mould wash. The records suggested that the cause of the delay was that the landlord did not have a record of the outcome of the inspection and needed to ask the surveyor what follow on work was needed. This delay would have been avoided if the landlord had adequate information management practices in place at the time.
The landlord’s records suggested that the mould was treated on 17 July 2023 which was 161 days after the resident had reported the issue. This was later than the landlord’s 125 day timeframe for such work.
It would also appear that some of the work identified during the mould inspection was not done at all. For example, the landlord had raised an order for ventilation to be installed in the bathroom on 6 April 2023. The contractor had rescheduled the appointment 3 times including twice on the day of the agreed appointments.
Although the third appointment was kept by the contractor on 20 June 2023, it had sent the wrong tradesperson and no work was done. The landlord had raised a new order for the work on 15 August 2023 which was marked as completed on 19 October 2023. However, the resident told us that no ventilation had been installed.
The landlord had also caused the wrong tradesperson to attend to the resident’s heating. It raised an order on 5 December 2022 for its contractor to repair a faulty storage heater. The contractor arranged for an electrician to visit on 16 December 2022 but the electrician found that the heating system was not electric and that a plumber was needed. This meant a new order had to be raised.
This did not cause further delay because the landlord raised it as an emergency repair. However, the landlord should have known what type of heating was in the property and should have raised the order correctly in the first instance.
The plumber that attended later on 16 December 2022 had advised the resident to ask for a heat loss assessment to check whether the radiators were the correct size.
The landlord did an assessment on 20 February 2023. It was not clear from the evidence seen why it had taken 2 months for this to happen. However, the landlord had installed a larger radiator in the bedroom 11 days later which was a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s mishandling of the resident’s reports meant that it took over 5 months to repair the windows, replace a radiator and treat mould growth. This was not a reasonable timeframe and caused inconvenience to the resident who lived with the disrepair for longer than she should have and had to chase the landlord to resolve the issues. She was also inconvenienced by having to take time off work to be at home for multiple repair appointments which often did not take place.
The resident told us that trying to get the landlord to resolve repairs had taken a lot of time and energy. She explained that while the repairs had been done, she had found it stressful to have to persistently chase the landlord and contractor. She told us that she now only reports repairs if she absolutely has to and tries to resolve issues herself to avoid having to deal with the landlord’s repair service. She did not want us to order the landlord to install ventilation in her bathroom.
The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.
The landlord had offered £75 compensation for a missed appointment through its complaints process. We do not consider this to be sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience caused. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay additional compensation.
The compensation awarded is not to reimburse the resident for lost wages as we recognise her obligation to give the landlord access to carry out repairs. We have awarded compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused by the multiple missed appointments and delays in completing some repairs.

Handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. Its complaints procedure at the time said it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and give a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It would give a stage 2 response within 25 working days.
In our special investigation we had noted that those timescales were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) published in March 2022. The landlord has revised its policy and response timescales since the events in this case.
The resident complained on 14 February 2023 and the landlord gave its stage 1 response 2 days later on 16 February. The speed and content of the landlord’s response showed that the landlord had not adequately investigated the complaint.
For example, the landlord’s response had not addressed the resident’s points about other repair appointments having been missed or why she had needed to wait in for an inspection that had only taken 3 minutes. Nor did it address her requested resolution to be kept informed of progress and appointment changes in future.
The landlord’s response did attempt to put things right for the resident by scheduling another appointment for the mould survey. However, it should have explained why the previous appointment had been missed. Doing so would have shown that the landlord understood what had gone wrong.
It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained how it had calculated the £25 compensation it had offered.
When the resident explained why she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, it appropriately escalated her complaint on 22 February 2023.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 27 April 2023. This was 45 working days after it had escalated her complaint. This was later than both the 20 working day timeframe in the Code and the 25 working day timeframe in the landlord’s complaint policy.
The landlord could have extended its response timescale if it anticipated not being able to respond within the agreed timescale. We saw no evidence it did so. This caused inconvenience to the resident who had to chase for the stage 2 response.
The landlord should have apologised for its late stage 2 response and explained the reason for the delay in providing it.
The landlord’s response showed it had, again, not adequately investigated the complaint. It did not acknowledge that further appointments had been missed since its stage 1 response. Nor did it explain why appointments had been missed or acknowledge the impact on the resident. This again meant the landlord missed the opportunity to identify what had gone wrong.
The landlord did increase its compensation offer to £75. However, it failed again to explain how it had calculated the offer or why it felt the amount was reasonable under the circumstances.
The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the statutory Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements of the Code are not being met.
In this investigation we found failures in complaint handling. The landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs at the resident’s home.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise. The landlord must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy of its letter.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £400. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs. We have calculated this in consideration of the delays, multiple missed appointments and impact on the resident. The landlord may deduct the £75 it offered through its complaint process if it can evidence it has already paid it.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. We have calculated this in consideration of the inadequate investigations at both stages, the late stage 2 response and impact on the resident.