Camden Council (202308569)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308569

Camden Council

20 January 2025

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 repairs to the toilet.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, which is an 8th floor bedsit in a purpose-built block. The resident lives alone. There are no recorded vulnerabilities.
On 12 August 2022, the resident reported a leak from his toilet. The landlord carried out a partial repair on 25 August 2022, returned with additional parts on 7 September 2022, and completed the repair. The operative noted that the wooden panels behind the toilet and parts of the floorboards beneath the toilet were rotten. The toilet had been sufficiently fixed to the floorboards to leave it stable, but a further appointment was needed to replace the panels and inspect the floor. As the resident was going away and did not know when he would be coming home, it was agreed that he would make contact on his return to organise a further appointment.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 November 2022 and asked it to replace the wooden panel behind the toilet. After this, a further 7 appointments were arranged, but the work was not completed, for the following reasons:
1. 24 November 2022 – a plumber was sent instead of a carpenter.
2. 30 November 2022 – a carpenter inspected but disagreed with the resident about the extent of the repair needed.
3. 4 January 2023 – a carpenter measured up.
4. 26 January 2023 – the materials were not ready.
5. 15 February 2023 – a further inspection was carried out.
6. 22 February 2023 – the materials could not be collected as the landlord’s joinery and paint shops were closed.
7. 7 March 2023 – an afternoon appointment had been booked, but the carpenter needed a morning appointment to allow time for collecting the materials and carrying out the work. They also needed an additional labourer to be booked.
On 16 March 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord saying:
1. He had been chasing the repair for 7 months.
2. After 10 appointments, the issue had not been resolved.
3. There had been missed appointments.
4. His toilet was wobbly, and the woodwork behind it was rotten and mouldy.
5. He had lost over £1,000 in income due to having to take time off work due to repair appointments.
After the initial complaint, a further 3 appointments were arranged but the work was not completed for the following reasons:
1. 4 April 2023 – the operative was delayed so the appointment was rebooked.
2. 6 April 2023 – a plumber was sent instead of a carpenter.
3. 18 April 2023 – materials could not be located.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 20 April 2023. It acknowledged that there had been an unreasonable delay replacing the boxing behind the toilet. A further appointment had been booked for this to be done on 12 May 2023. An appointment had also been booked for a damp and mould inspection on 20 April 2023. The landlord apologised and offered £200 compensation.
On 20 April 2023, a damp and mould inspection was carried out. This identified:
1. Mild mould around the living room windows.
2. Damp on the ceiling and below the mirror in the hallway.
3. A leak from the water tank in the kitchen.
4. A previous leak behind the toilet had been repaired, but there was no panel cover, the skirting board was damp, and the toilet base was moving.
On 12 May 2023, the repair to the panel behind the toilet was not completed as only 1 of the 2 required operatives arrived. On the same day, the resident asked that his complaint be escalated to stage 2. He wanted the repair to be carried out, or permission to instruct a private carpenter at the landlord’s expense, alternative accommodation in the meantime, and an increased offer of compensation. He said that the delay carrying out the repair had caused him significant distress, discomfort, and financial loss due to time taken off work.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 6 June 2023. It apologised for the missed appointments and delay. It said it would not provide temporary accommodation or pay for a private carpenter. It had arranged appointments to check the water tank (16 June 2023), carry out a mould wash (4 July 2023), and repair the toilet and panel (6 July 2023). It offered an additional £25 compensation for the missed appointment on 12 May 2023 and £50 for the resident’s time and trouble.
On 9 June 2023, the resident asked this Service to investigate.
On 27 June 2023 the landlord fitted a plinth under the toilet and the toilet was securely fixed to this. On 4 July 2023, a mould wash was carried out in the bathroom and kitchen. On 6 July 2023, the panel behind the toilet was replaced.

Assessment and findings

Toilet repairs

The landlord’s Housing Repairs Service booklet set out its repairs priorities and timescales as follows:
1. Emergency – where there is a danger to people or property – to be attended on the same day before 8pm (or within 2 hours if reported out–of–hours) to make the situation safe.
2. Urgent (Right to repair) – not an emergency, but must be completed within 3 working days in accordance with the government Right to Repair regulations.
3. Urgent – not an emergency, but would cause significant nuisance if not completed quickly – to be completed within 5 working days.
4. Routine – repairs that are not an emergency, or urgent – to be completed within 20 working days.
5. Programmed – complex repairs, subject to leaseholder consultation or involving specialist works – to be completed within an agreed timescale.
The landlord’s repairs booklet stated that a blocked or leaking toilet pan was an emergency repair, and replacing a toilet pan was categorised as an urgent repair. Blocked baths were categorised as urgent (right to repair), if the blockage was not caused by misuse. General carpentry repairs were categorised as routine repairs. The booklet stated that the landlord would provide an appointment at the time when urgent or routine appointments were reported.
On 12 August 2022, the resident informed the landlord that his bath was blocked and his toilet was leaking. On the same day the landlord raised a works order on its repairs system and booked an appointment for the bath to be repaired on 23 August 2022, 7 working days later. It was appropriate that the appointment was provided at the time the repair was reported, but the length of time between the report and the appointment was too long, as the landlord’s repairs booklet said that blocked baths would be repaired within 3 working days. This was unreasonable.
The landlord did not book an appointment for repair of the toilet until 23 August 2022. The appointment was booked for 25 August 2022 (9 working days after it had been reported). This was unreasonable as the landlord’s repairs booklet said that the leaking toilet was categorised as an emergency, which should have been attended on the same day.
The landlord attended and fixed the leak on 25 August 2022, but identified that a new toilet pan was needed to complete the repair. This was booked for 7 September 2022 (9 working days later), and completed on that day. The landlord’s repairs booklet said that replacing a toilet pan was an urgent repair which should have been completed within 5 working days. While there is nothing in the records indicating that the resident was not able to use the toilet, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not complete the repair within its own timescales.
When the toilet pan was replaced on 7 September 2022, the landlord’s plumber noted that as a result of the leak, the wooden panel behind the toilet was rotten beyond repair and needed replacing. They also noted that the wood underneath the toilet was rotten in parts. Although the plumber had managed to get a good enough fixing for the toilet pan to make it stable, it was noted that the floor needed further inspection and repair. The landlord did not book appointments for the repairs straight away at the request of the resident, as he was going away and did not know when he would be back. This was reasonable as the leak had been fixed and the delay was at the request of the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 November 2022 to request repair of the panel behind the toilet. On the same day, the landlord raised a works order on its repairs system to replace the panel and booked an appointment for 24 November 2022. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy. However, it did not raise a works order for the floor beneath the toilet until 6 June 2023. This was despite the resident reminding it of damage to the floor beneath the toilet and saying that the toilet was wobbly and unstable on 9 December 2022, 10 February 2023, 13 March 2023, and 12 May 2023. The landlord’s operatives also noted that the floorboards underneath the toilet were partially rotten, and the toilet potentially unstable on 15 February 2023, 6 April 2023, and 20 April 2023.
According to the landlord’s repairs booklet, the replacement of the panel behind the toilet and the repair to the floor were routine repairs, which should have been completed within 20 working days. However, it took 11 months for the landlord to complete these repairs. It therefore failed to complete the repairs within a reasonable period of time and was in breach of its own policy. The landlord’s records show poor oversight and management of the repair in a number of different areas, as discussed below.
When booking appointments, the landlord did not consistently send the correct type of tradesperson, or the right number of operatives, despite it having a record of the required personnel. On 24 November 2022 and 6 April 2023, a plumber was sent instead of a carpenter, and on 7 March 2023 and 12 May 2023 only 1 operative was sent when 2 were required. This was poor management of the repair, contributing to the delay in the repair being completed. We expect landlords to have accurate records and robust processes in place to ensure that the correct tradespeople and materials are available for the job. The evidence seen suggests that the landlord did not have these in place.
Despite the landlord’s carpenter having inspected and taken measurements for the materials needed on 4 January 2023, the next appointment, which was booked for 26 January 2023, had to be rearranged as the materials were not available. This was led to an unnecessary delay in the repair being carried out. There were further problems with availability of materials on:
1. 22 February 2023 – a painted plywood panel could not be collected as the landlord’s joinery and paint shop were closed.
2. 7 March 2023 – the appointment had not been booked early enough to allow time for collecting the materials.
3. 18 April 2023 – the carpenter could not find the painted plywood panel in the paint shop.
Furthermore, the carpenter’s notes for the 7 March 2023 stated that they had repeatedly asked for the appointment to be booked in the morning, to allow time for collecting the materials and carrying out the work. However, despite this, the previous 3 appointments had been booked in the afternoon, meaning that the work could not be completed. This is further evidence of poor management of the repair, contributing to the delay in the repair being completed.
No evidence has been seen that the landlord consistently communicated with the resident in a timely manner to inform him when and why scheduled appointments were not going ahead. For example:
1. 26 January 2023 – the appointment did not go ahead as the materials were not ready but, the resident was not contacted to reschedule the appointment until 10 February 2023.
2. 22 February 2023 – the appointment did not go ahead as the materials could not be collected, but the resident was not contacted to reschedule the appointment until the following day.
3. 7 March 2023 – the resident was sent a text message on the day to reschedule the appointment.
4. 18 April 2023 – the appointment did not go ahead as the materials could not be located, but no evidence has been seen that the resident was informed of this.
As a result, the resident waited in needlessly and was left not knowing why no one had attended. This was frustrating for the resident and further damaged the landlord/tenant relationship.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 20 April 2023, provided a detailed account of the matter. It referenced its repairs records, setting out what had gone wrong, and apologised for this. While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged these failings and apologised, it did not address the problem with the floor and the unstable toilet. The offer of £200 compensation was also not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. The landlord also did not provide a position on the resident’s reports that he had lost income due to the number of appointments/missed appointments.
The stage 2 response, on 6 June 2023, also provided a detailed account of the matter, and acknowledged and apologised for the landlord’s failings. This was appropriate. However, the landlord did not provide an explanation of why it would not provide temporary accommodation or pay for a private carpenter. The offer of £275 compensation (the £200 offered at stage 1 plus the offer of an additional £75) was also not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
Considering the landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet, including the panels behind and the floor underneath this, multiple failings have been identified, including:
1. Repairs not completed within the landlord’s timescales.
2. It did not consistently send the correct type of tradesperson, or the right number of operatives for the job.
3. It did not ensure that the required materials were available for booked appointments.
4. When booking appointments, it did not consistently allow enough time for the repair to be completed.
5. Missed appointments.
6. Poor communication with the resident.
7. Long delay raising a works order for the floor to be repaired.
As a result of the landlord’s poor management of the repair the resident had to wait 11 months for the required repairs to be completed in full, experienced frustration, inconvenience and distress, and waited in for an unnecessary number of appointments. Cumulatively, the identified failings constitute maladministration on the part of the landlord.
Therefore, the landlord is ordered to apologise and undertake a review of learning from this case. The landlord has also been ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for maladministration, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. This amount takes into account the resident’s frustration, inconvenience and distress whilst wating for the repair, and the time and trouble he took chasing the landlord to carry out the work. This order replaces the landlord’s previous offer.
The resident’s report that he had to miss over 10 days of work due to the number of appointments, including missed appointments, is acknowledged. Whilst the tenancy agreement says the resident is obliged to provide access for repairs, this investigation has identified multiples instances where appointments were arranged but the repair not completed. Therefore, the amount of compensation has been ordered to reflect the inconvenience caused, but this Service cannot take into account specific loss of earnings.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy current at the time said that it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond in full at stage 1 within 10 working days. Residents had a right to request escalation to stage 2 if they were unhappy with the stage 1 response. The landlord would acknowledge the request to escalate the complaint within 5 working days and respond in full within 20 working days of escalation. The policy included provision to extend the timeframe to respond at stage 1 or stage 2 by 10 working days. In such circumstances, the landlord would provide an explanation to the resident for the reasons for the extension and a clear timeframe for when the response would be received.
The resident complained to the landlord on 16 March 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. The stage 1 response was provided late, 24 working days after the complaint. While the landlord did apologise for the delay within the stage 1 response, it did not contact the resident prior to this to explain the reason for the delay and request an extension of time. The landlord therefore did not act in accordance with its complaints policy.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 12 May 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation. However, the stage 2 response was provided on time. The tone and content of the landlord’s response at both stages was appropriate, being sincere and thorough, and showing empathy.
Considering the landlord’s complaint handling overall, the lack of acknowledgement at both stages, and the late stage 1 response constitute service failure on behalf of the landlord. It has been ordered to apologise and pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failure where the impact on the resident was minimal or of short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum Director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £550 (inclusive of the £275 already offered) broken down as follows:
  1. £350 for the resident’s inconvenience and distress arising from its handling of repairs to the toilet.
  2. £150 for the resident’s time and trouble chasing the landlord to carry out repairs.
  3. £50 for its poor complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must undertake a review of learning from this case and share a written report of its findings with the resident and this Service. Specific attention should be given to:
1. Compliance with its repairs policy timescales.
2. Oversight and management of repairs, including:
  1. Ensuring that the correct type and number of operatives are booked for repairs appointments.
  2. Ensuring that the required materials are available for booked repairs appointments.
  3. Ensuring that repairs appointments are booked to allow enough time for the required work to be completed.
  4. Ensuring all aspects of reported repairs are captured and translated into works orders.
3. Communication with the resident.
4. When and how the landlord will incorporate the findings of the review into its day-to-day operations.