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

Camden Council (202320145)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320145

Camden Council

11 February 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of major works to the communal area.
    2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a flat on the upper ground floor of a medium rise block.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 28 December 2022. He said that major works to the communal areas had started around 3 years prior. He was unhappy with the unfinished works to the communal corridor on the upper ground floor where he lived. He said the landlord had removed the ceiling which exposed the concrete and structures, and temporary lighting. He was unhappy that he lived with unfinished works for 3 years. He was also unhappy with the lack of communication and updates about when it would complete the works.
  3. On 5 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delays and poor communication regarding the major works. It said it was “clear” it had not kept residents updated. It explained that needing to design and implement ventilation to the gas pipes in the ceiling caused the delays. It said it would write to all residents within the block that month with an update of the works and timescales.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 3 May 2023. He said the landlord had still not finished the major works to the communal corridor. He was also unhappy that it had not provided any updates as agreed in its stage 1 response. He asked it to complete the works.
  5. On 1 June 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of communication. It said it was reviewing quotes from its contractors and would hope to start works within the next 1 to 2 months. It said it would issue letters “shortly” to all residents with an update.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He remained unhappy with the unfinished works in the communal area. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 11 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident pays a service charge for the property. This includes amounts for ventilation, repairs and maintenance to the block and estate, and lighting maintenance.
  2. The landlord has provided minimal records related to the major works to the communal area of the block. Due to this, it is unclear when the major works started and how long the ceiling had been left exposed with temporary lighting. The resident said that the works started in 2019. In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, we have considered that the works started in 2019 for the purposes of this investigation.
  3. On 24 August 2022 and 7 September 2022, the landlord completed an inspection of the communal areas. It identified works required to ensure the gas pipework was suitably ventilated. The gas pipework was previously enclosed within the false ceiling which the landlord had removed during the major works to the communal area. The inspection report gave recommendations for how to install appropriate ventilation to the upper ground floor of the block.
  4. The landlord is responsible for carrying out major planned works at the property. There are no specific timeframes set out by the landlord for it to complete such major works. It is understandable that the timescale for this type of work can be changeable based on a number of factors, including contractor availability and scope of works required. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a landlord to provide an estimated timeframe of when it would complete the works. It would also be appropriate for it to provide regular progress updates so it keeps residents as informed as they can be.
  5. The resident’s complaint in December 2022 and his escalation in May 2023 included concerns with the landlord’s poor communication. He said it had not provided updates regarding the works required and when it would complete the works.
  6. Within both the stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord appropriately apologised for its poor communication and the distress and inconvenience caused. It provided the resident with details of the works required to install ventilation to the gas pipes, but it could not confirm any timescales. Good practice would have been for the landlord to have given the same information to the resident without the need for him to raise a complaint. It is a failing that it did not do so.
  7. In the stage 1 response the landlord said it would write to residents within the block with an update in January 2023. This was reasonable. In the stage 2 response it said it would issue letters to residents “shortly” but expected the works to start in around 1 to 2 months. Again, this was reasonable.
  8. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord completed these actions or sent any updates to the resident despite saying it would do so. This is a significant failing. The landlord therefore did not learn from its mistakes and failed to put things right for the resident. It should have kept the resident updated with the progress of works and reasons for any delays at the earliest possible opportunity. By not doing so, this caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  9. Additionally, within the resident’s escalation request, he said the landlord’s “latest response” was “inconsistent with (its) previous decision”. He added that it had previously told him he could not make further complaints about this issue. It is unclear what specifically the resident was referring to as we have not been provided with a copy of this. We therefore cannot establish whether the landlord communicated effectively or appropriately with the resident. This is a record keeping failure.
  10. In September 2024, the landlord told this Service that it had not yet confirmed a date for the works. It said the major works had “taken longer than expected.” Other than its complaint responses, there is no evidence to show that it has provided the resident with an update of the works and the likely timescale between 2019 and the time of this investigation. This is a significant failing.
  11. Overall, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge failings in its communication and the delays in completing the major works. However, its continued lack of updates meant that it failed to put things right for the resident. It therefore missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations and to learn from its mistakes. As such, the landlord failed to act in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from mistakes.
  12. The landlord did not offer any compensation for the impact caused to the resident by its poor communication and delays in completing the works. Considering the above, the landlord should pay £550 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication. It should also pay £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have had an adverse impact on the resident. The amounts reflect the length of time of 25 months since the resident’s initial complaint and the ongoing failings with its communication and overall delays.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of major works to the communal area.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. This should include specific reference to its poor communication and the overall delays.
    2. Pay a total of £750 compensation directly to the resident. This consists of:
      1. £550 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
    3. Write to the resident regarding the works. It should include a list of the required works and the date it expects to start and finish these works. It should also provide a key point of contact for who to contact (if needed) during the works.
    4. Confirm its intention to share the update of the required works and timescales to other affected residents within the block.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescale above.