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

Camden Council (202322143)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322143

Camden Council

6 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disruption to the heating system.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which he sublets to a tenant. The property is on the fourth floor of a block of flats, owned and maintained by the landlord. The flat is heated via a communal system which the landlord is responsible for.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 November and 3 December 2022 to report that the bedroom and living room radiators were not working. The landlord’s contractor attended on 12 December 2022 and flushed the system, which it said had remedied the problem. However, the resident made a further report on 16 December 2022, saying the problem had reoccurred.
  3. The resident raised his complaint on 11 January 2023. He said the landlord did not maintain the heating system well enough, had declined to register his subtenant as a vulnerable person, and had treated him unfavourably due to race and religion.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 February 2023. It stated that it had attended on multiple occasions, however, it apologised for the delays completing the works. It said it had resolved the issues in full on 30 January 2023 and there had been a good service since then.
  5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 27 February 2023. He said he disputed the landlord’s stage 1 findings, and it had ignored his complaint about racially motivated behaviour.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 June 2023. It said it had found no evidence of discrimination but apologised that the resident had this impression. It reiterated its stage 1 findings regarding its handling of the repairs.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained dissatisfied with the response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. There is evidence that the resident’s subtenant made reports about the heating system directly to the landlord. This Service recognises that the landlord has no direct relationship with the subtenant. This investigation will refer to all reports as being made by the resident, and any references to his subtenant are for context only.
  2. The resident complained that the landlord and its contractor had discriminated against him on the grounds of race and religion. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise, and we will not be investigating whether discrimination has or has not taken place. This investigation will look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was reasonable, fair, and proportionate in the circumstances.
  3. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) which states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.
  4. The resident told the landlord and the Ombudsman that he has been reporting issues with the heating system since 2015. However, this investigation will consider the events which took place between 23 November 2022 (when the resident made a fresh report about the heating system) to 19 June 2023 (the landlord’s final response).
  5. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme which states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”.
  6. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he has reported further issues with the heating system since this complaint. This report will not consider these further issues, as the resident has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
  7. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. It is open to the resident to contact the landlord and raise a separate complaint. If the resident does this and is not satisfied with the landlord’s final response, he can ask the Ombudsman to open a new investigation.

Disruption to the heating system

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will ask its contractor to attend to an emergency repair by 8pm the same day, or within 2 hours if there is immediate danger. Emergency repairs include a total or partial loss of heating, between 1 November and 30 April.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported a loss of heating in the living room and bedroom on 23 November 2022. Its contractor tried to attend that afternoon; however, the subtenant was not available, so it rearranged the visit for 25 November 2022. The landlord responded to the resident’s report in line with its repairs policy, although it is not clear whether the second visit went ahead.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 December 2022 to report a further loss of heating and hot water in the property. The landlord recorded this as an emergency repair with a 2-hour response time, however its contractor did not attend until 6 December 2022, 3 days later. The landlord’s records do not explain the reason for this delay. In the absence of further evidence, the landlord failed to adhere to its repairs policy on this occasion.
  4. During the visit on 6 December, the contractor identified that it needed to flush the system so arranged follow–up works and offered temporary fan heaters, which the subtenant declined. The records show that it completed the follow-up works on 12 December 2022 which restored the service. In the context of needing to book further works, this timeframe was reasonable, as was its offer of temporary heaters in the meantime.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 December 2022 to report that the heating would not stay on. Its records show that it booked an appointment for 19 December 2022, however it is unclear whether this visit went ahead and there is no further detail about the nature of the reported issue. There is therefore only limited evidence that the landlord responded to this report, and it is not possible to conclude whether this was within its timescales. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord.
  6. The resident complained about the problems with the heating system on 11 January 2023. He said the landlord had not adequately maintained the system. He also said the landlord had declined to register his subtenant as a vulnerable person, and he felt that the landlord and contractor had behaved unfavourably due to his ethnicity and his subtenant’s religion. He asked the landlord to compensate his subtenant for the disruption.
  7. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it again on 16 January 2023 to report that the heating system had broken down altogether again that day. The contractor attended the same day and delivered oil filled radiators. This was a different form of temporary heating to the one previously declined. It returned on 30 January 2023 to vent the bedroom radiator, which it said had resolved the issue in full and restored the service. The landlord responded in line with its repairs policy, and it was good practice to make a second and alternative offer of temporary heating.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 February 2023. It said it had responded to the resident’s reports within a reasonable time, however, acknowledged that there had been delays completing the works. It explained that this was partly due to the works being complex as it transpired that there were 2 separate problems which meant the initial remedial works had not fully resolved the issue. It also said there had been communication difficulties between its contractor and the subtenant. The landlord apologised for the delays, and said the system was now working. It also said the resident could apply for a refund of heating charges.
  9. Section 5.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code April 2022, which applied at the time of the complaint, states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord did not address the resident’s other concerns about discrimination in its stage 1 response, which was a failing.
  10. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 27 February 2023. He said he disputed the factual basis of the landlord’s investigations, and the landlord was seeking to exonerate the contractor. He also said the landlord had not responded to his reports of discrimination. However, the resident did not elaborate any further on either point. The resident repeated his request for compensation and asked the landlord to assure him that it would fully address the issues with the heating system.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 June 2023. It did not change its findings regarding the matter of the heating system. It said it could not guarantee there would be no future issues as the system is complex and could be subject to a variety of faults. However, the landlord said it believed the repairs had been effective and it had returned the system to good working order. This was reasonable and adequate, as the landlord had relied on its records and the resident did not explain why he disputed the facts.
  12. The landlord’s remedies policy states it will make a pro-rata refund of service charges when there has been a supply failure of landlord-controlled heating for 3 consecutive days or more, between “the last week of September to the end of May”. It reiterated that the resident could complete a heating rebate form to apply for a refund.
  13. The landlord acknowledged that the disruption had been inconvenient for the subtenant, but said its responsibilities were towards the resident himself and it was for him to consider any claim for redress made by his subtenant. This was reasonable, as there is no direct relationship between the landlord and the subtenant. However, it did not address the resident’s complaint that it had declined to record his subtenant as a vulnerable person on its enhanced scheme (which gives priority to repairs for vulnerable tenants in certain cases). The landlord told the Ombudsman that this was because the scheme is only for its own tenants, however it would have been useful to see this explained in its responses to the resident.
  14. The landlord apologised for not responding to the resident’s reports of discrimination at stage 1. It said it found no basis for this in the history of the resident’s complaint, and it refuted the reports. It would have been helpful to have seen evidence of the landlord’s investigations at the time of the complaint, as its response did not detail how it reached this conclusion.
  15. The resident told the Ombudsman that he does not believe the landlord responded to his concerns about racism. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said, “even though we refute your accusations on this issue, I am sorry that it is your impression that you have been subjected to racial and religious discrimination.” The Ombudsman’s special report into the landlord’s complaint handling, published November 2024, identified cases where the tone of the landlord’s responses may have led to perceptions that it was not genuine. The tone and phrasing of the landlord’s response in this case may have contributed to the resident’s view that it had not taken his reports seriously.
  16. However, the resident did not give any further detail about his allegations in his initial complaint or escalation request. He told the Ombudsman that it had been difficult to provide evidence, which is understandable given the subject matter, and the Ombudsman does not dispute his reports. However, there is no evidence that the landlord failed to address any specific allegations of discrimination, and its stage 2 response rectified its failing to include this at stage 1.
  17. Whilst its response to the allegations of discrimination were brief, the landlord did not have any specific information to assist with its investigations. It has provided an account of a conversation held with the resident about his claims of racial discrimination. However, it said this took place in January 2024, around 7 months after it issued its final response. Therefore, it has not addressed the matter of the adequacy of its response, and it is advised to consider how it could be thorough and more empathetic in its communication.
  18. Overall, despite the noted shortcomings, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It acknowledged that there had been failings due to delays, apologised for this, and gave the reasons. It explained how the resident could request a rebate of charges, and why it was not responsible for paying compensation to the subtenant.
  19. This report has commented on the landlord’s record keeping and the tone of its responses, however these are both key areas highlighted in the Ombudsman’s special report into the landlord, and this investigation will not make any duplicate orders or recommendations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports of disruption to the heating system.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord told this Service that the resident has not yet claimed for a rebate of service charges. If the resident does submit a claim, the landlord should assess this in a timely manner in line with its remedies policy. The landlord told the resident that he could locate the form online, however it should make this available in other formats if needed, to ensure the process is accessible for the resident.