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

Camden Council (202310075)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310075

Camden Council

31 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s queries about service charges for fire risk assessment works.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a second-floor flat. The block where the property is situated contains 3 flats and the landlord is the freeholder of the block.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 3 January 2023. In this she stated:
    1. the landlord had carried out fire assessment works on the block at some point before 2020. She had raised concerns with the landlord in 2020 about the works completed. Specifically that it had overcharged her for the work, but the landlord had not responded to this in 2020 or 2021.
    2. the landlord had re-sent a final demand for the service charges associated with the fire assessment works in November 2022 but it had still not responded to her concerns.
    3. she considered the landlord was harassing her and she did not understand why the block was the only block on the street which had fire assessment works completed.
    4. she wanted the landlord to address her concerns and set up a system for leaseholders to challenge costs or poorly done work by contractors.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2023. In this it said:
    1. it completed the fire risk assessment works as part of an existing long-term agreement created in 2015. It consulted the resident and other leaseholders in the block in September 2017 prior to the work taking place.
    2. the resident can dispute her outstanding service charges of £2,927.86 from the cost of the fire assessment works. However, the landlord said:
      1. the costs of works would be dependent on bids from contractors and may not always be at rates the resident considered reasonable.
      2. if the resident considered the quality of the work was not sufficient compared to the bill of works she would need to explain what she was disputing.
      3. it considered that the bill of works provided in 2020 was reasonable as it was consistent with the estimates that the landlord made in September 2017 when it first consulted leaseholders.
    3. the landlord accepted it had delayed responding to the resident’s queries and apologised for this. However, it stated that from its consultation, service charge demands and responses to the resident’s emails it had given her sufficient information to explain what the service charges were for. Further that she was obligated to pay these under the terms of the lease.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 January 2023. In this she stated:
    1. she had described in her original email of 20 January 2020 why the quality of the work did not reflect the costs the landlord had billed her for.
    2. the landlord’s contractor had not used a scaffold tower when the work was completed but she had been billed for this.
    3. the landlord had not answered her question about why it had only carried out fire assessment works to the block where her flat was situated.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023. In this it:
    1. acknowledged it had delayed providing a response and apologised for this.
    2. reiterated that the reasons for the fire assessment was to bring the block up to current fire regulations. It stated that it tended for these works in line with its procurement process and provided her and other leaseholders with details of the estimated costs during the consultation in September 2017.
    3. stated that the fire assessment works had also been completed to another block in the street and similar properties in nearby streets for which it was the freeholder. 
    4. stated that it had addressed the resident’s concerns appropriately and, as she still had service charge arrears, she needed to contact it to discuss repayment.
    5. signposted the resident to contact the First Tier Property Tribunal and outlined that this could make decisions about service charges including the reasonableness of service charges or the standard of work charged for. It also advised the resident of her right to appeal to the Ombudsman.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident told this Service that she wanted to be charged correctly for the work that happened and for the landlord to improve its processes.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  2. From the available evidence the resident was aware of the reasons why she disagreed with the service charges at the time of her email to the landlord on 20 January 2020. Though she did not make a formal complaint at the time she wrote to the landlord to state that she considered the works were unnecessary, did not have confidence in the landlord’s bill of costs and to explain why she considered she had been overcharged for the itemised work.
  3. The resident told this Service that, from March 2020 up until the time of her formal complaint, she was helping care for a terminally ill relative. We appreciate that this will have been a difficult time for her. In the resident’s account of events she described contacting the landlord on several occasions from December 2020 to ask it to respond to her queries from 20 January 2020. With this in mind, we do not see that there is evidence that the resident could not formally complain about the issues she raised on 20 January 2020 and how the landlord had handled responding to these.  
  4. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns on 12 April 2021. It explained the reasons for the fire assessment works and advised her that she could make a formal complaint if she remained unhappy. Whilst we recognise there was a significant delay in the landlord’s response the resident did not make a formal complaint until 3 January 2023, nearly 3 years after she was aware of the reasons she disagreed with the service charges and 20 months after the landlord responded to her queries and advised her that she could make a formal complaint. As the resident did not make this formal complaint to the landlord (set out in paragraph 1(a) above) within a reasonable period we will not be investigating this part of her complaint in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme.  
  5. It is also worth stating that in line with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. As the resident’s complaint to the landlord was focused on the reasonableness of the charges, compared to the work completed, we may have declined to investigate this in line with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme even if the formal complaint had been made to the landlord within 12 months. This complaint may be suitable for the First Tier Property Tribunal to determine, as suggested by the landlord, and the resident may want to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service about this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
  2. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement. The Code was updated in 2024, following the previous version in 2022 that was in place during the time of the events complained about.
  3. Following the resident’s formal complaint on 3 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2023, 10 working days later. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code.
  4. In line with the Code’s complaint handling principles the Ombudsman expects that landlords should acknowledge the complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days of receipt. As part of this acknowledgement the landlord should define the complaint with the resident to set out its understanding of the complaint and the outcome the resident is seeking. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or defined the complaint with the resident before issuing its stage 1 response.
  5. This was a failure by the landlord. Though it addressed points raised in the resident’s letter from 20 January 2020 in its stage 1 response it did not discuss with the resident why she considered the landlord had not addressed her concerns.
  6. Following the resident’s escalation request which the landlord received on 25 January 2023 there is no evidence that the landlord contacted her about her complaint until it issued its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023. This was a failure by the landlord because:
    1. the landlord took 96 working days to provide the resident with a stage 2 response. This was inappropriate as it significantly exceeded the timescales in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
    2. in line with the Code the Ombudsman expects that when a resident escalates a complaint to stage 2 landlord should define the complaint with the resident to set out its understanding of the outstanding issues and the outcome the resident is seeking. The landlord did not do this, which was inappropriate. It is understandable that this would have added to the resident’s frustration as she considered the landlord had not addressed the reason for her complaint with its stage 1 response.   
    3. in line with the Code, the Ombudsman expects that if the landlord cannot provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the escalation request it should provide an explanation to the resident with a clear timeframe for when the response will be provided. This should not exceed a delay of 10 days without good reason. The landlord did not do this, which was inappropriate as the resident was not kept updated about her complaint.  
  7. As set out previously the landlord acknowledged its delay in providing the stage 2 response and apologised to the resident. However, it did not acknowledge its other complaint handling failings or offer any other remedy to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was not a reasonable remedy to put things right for the resident considering the extent of the delay and the other complaint handling failings which the landlord did not identify in its response. 
  8. In summary there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in that it:
    1. significantly delayed responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 in line with the timescales of its policy and the Code.
    2. did not inform the resident that there would be a delay in issuing the stage 2 response or keep her updated during its handling of the stage 2 complaint.
    3. did not acknowledge or define the resident’s complaint at either stage of the complaints process.
  9. The resident told this Service that she was primarily looking for the landlord to improve its processes around complaint handling for this part of her complaint. The Ombudsman has recently published a special report into the landlord’s complaint handling in line with paragraph 49 of the Scheme (Housing Ombudsman Special report on Camden Council) which contains several recommendations for the landlord to review its complaints process including to ensure that acknowledges complaints and provides a timely response.
  10. For this reason we have not ordered the landlord to review its complaint handling process in relation to this complaint specifically. However, 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.
  11. As we have found maladministration in complaint handling the landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code and acting on the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s special report.     

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her queries about service charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. This is because the resident was aware of her reason to complain about how it had calculated her service charges in January 2020, and how it had responded to her queries by April 2021, but she did not make a formal complaint to the landlord within 12 months.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
    1. issue the resident with a written apology for its handling of her complaint. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
    2. pay the resident £100 in compensation in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.