Camden Council (202322732)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322732

Camden Council

28 March 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 the resident’s reports of increased energy costs following a water tank repair.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is the local council.
On 18 June 2023 the resident reported there was no water coming from a water heating tank in her property.
In response, the landlord logged an emergency for the same day, completed a temporary repair, and raised follow-on work.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord completed the follow-on work to the water tank.
On 4 July 2023 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. Her complaint, in summary, said:
1. During the second visit, the operative noticed that an emergency switch for the tank was switched on.
2. Her electricity bills had increased during the period between the first and second repair.
On 25 July 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It apologised to the resident and said:
1. It checked its systems and found no information that its operatives had done anything to the switch on both visits.
2. It did not uphold her complaint.
On 15 August 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. She said the stage 1 investigation was not thorough enough and felt the response was biased. She said the landlord should have discussed the situation with its contractor.
On 5 September 202,3 the landlord responded to her at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It said:
1. Its contractors leave notes on systems so that it does not need to ask its operatives about what happened during repairs.
2. It was not “proportionate and necessary for a complaint investigation to expend resources in seeking to interview the contractors.”
3. Its position from the stage 1 complaint was unchanged.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint. She said the landlord has not properly investigated the issue. She is seeking an apology and compensation for the increased energy use.

Assessment and findings

The landlord has a repairs policy. It categorises repairs into different response times, and says:
1. Emergency repairs will be completed on the same day.
2. Urgent repairs will be completed within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
When the resident first reported the repair to the landlord it logged a temporary repair and completed follow-on work within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This was an appropriate and positive response.
When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint, she said her electricity bills had increased during the period between the 2 repairs. The resident said this was because a heating switch for the storage tank was left switched on by the first contractor.
The Housing Ombudsman has seen no evidence which conclusively shows the switch was left on by the contractor. When reaching a decision, the Ombudsman relies on evidential records provided by the landlord and/or the resident to determine if something happened or not. Therefore, whilst we acknowledge the resident’s testimony about this, due to the lack of specific evidence, we would not be able to confirm whether the switch may or may not have been left on by the contractor. As there is insufficient evidence to confirm the landlord was responsible for the resident’s increased electricity costs, we will not order the landlord to pay for these costs.
When the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints procedure it said it checked its systems and could see no information about anything being done to the switch at either visit. It said on this basis it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain the steps it had taken to investigate her complaint at this stage and communicate its decision.
When the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure, she said its investigation at stage 1 was not sufficient enough. She felt the landlord should have spoken with its contractor and the staff involved.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it did not consider it appropriate to “expend resources” by speaking to the contractor. It said its position from the stage 1 complaint response was unchanged. This was an unreasonable position to take, particularly in view of the resident’s justifications for her escalation request. The landlord should have interviewed the contractors. The landlord’s position would have not helped to improve the relationship between the landlord and the resident. The landlord also missed an opportunity to identify any potential training requirements for its contractor by taking this position.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, available on our website, says that landlord officers who investigate complaints should have access to staff at all levels to facilitate the prompt resolution of a complaint. This should include the possibility for the investigating officer to discuss complaints with staff and contractors who were involved. It also says complaints handlers should consider all relevant information and evidence to reach a decision. Whilst the landlord was right to utilise its systems, it missed an opportunity to comprehensively investigate the issues raised through both stages of its complaints procedure by speaking with the contractor. This was a failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It would have been understandably frustrating and distressing for the resident to feel that the landlord was not fully investigating her concerns.
For the reasons outlined above, we have made a determination of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of increased energy costs. In deciding what steps the landlord now needs to take to put things right, we consider our remedies guidance, available on our website. The guidance says that compensation between £50-£100 may be awarded where we have a found service failure. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for this.
We also recommend the landlord arranges staff training for its complaints handlers. This is to ensure that it uses its internal complaints procedure to fully address its residents’ concerns and explores a variety of approaches to understand what went wrong when investigating complaints.
The resident’s request for the landlord to interview the staff concerned is noted and we understand her reasons for this. However, due to the passage of time, we are not making any further orders or recommendations for the landlord to now speak with its contractor or complete a further review of what happened. This is because memories fade over time and an individual’s recollection of an event may not be as reliable compared to when the issues were still “live” with the landlord. Staff may have also left the organisation or taken on new roles. We acknowledge the resident’s disappointment that the contractors were not interviewed and this has been taken into account when looking at compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of increased energy costs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of increased electricity costs.
1. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any potential rent arrears.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with this order within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommend that the landlord arranges training for its complaints handlers to ensure all residents’ concerns are addressed and comprehensively investigated through its internal complaints procedure.