Camden Council (202339205)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339205

Camden Council

25 July 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

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she was without heating.
2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, she moved into the property in March 2018. The property is a one bedroom flat on the 2nd floor. The heating and hot water is controlled by a communal boiler system. The resident suffers from epilepsy, arthritis and mental health issues. Her children have additional support needs.
The resident first reported that she had no hot water approximately 2 months after she moved into the property. She continued to have intermittent issues with heating and hot water which she reported to the landlord on at least 9 occasions between 2021 and 2023. On 12 March 2023 the resident reported that she again had no heating or hot water. The landlord attended the property on 14 May 2023 and noted it had fixed the hot water, but “further investigation was required”.
On 4 December 2023 the resident made a complaint. She was unhappy at how the landlord had handled her reports of asbestos and explained that she had no heating in the property since March 2023. She explained that the situation was having a detrimental effect on the health of her family and said it seemed that the landlord was “waiting for a death to take place before being taken seriously”. She asked for compensation and to be moved.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 27 December 2023. It said that it fully upheld her complaint and regretted the inconvenience it had caused her. It explained that:
1. it was unable to comment on her complaint about asbestos, because the matter was subject to a legal disrepair case.
2. the delay in completing the repair to the heating was due to parts being obsolete. It said that it had identified that a new heating interface unit (HIU) was required. It explained that it was obtaining quotes and would prioritise the work.
3. it had requested temporary heaters for her property and said that it “remained committed to resolving the matter promptly”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 January 2024 and asked for her complaint to be escalated. She explained that all legal action in relation to the asbestos had been dropped in October 2023 and despite assurances it had made, she had not been provided with temporary heaters. She alleged she had witnessed contractors attending the building, but not getting out of their van to do any works. She said the situation was continuing to affect her health and wellbeing.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response on 1 February 2024. It said that it:
1. would continue to not comment on the issue of asbestos, as the matter was subject to legal disrepair.
2. would bring to the attention of its contracts manager her allegations about the conduct of the contractors.
3. would contact her within 5 working days with an update on the restoration of the HIU. It said if the repairs were unlikely to be completed in the near future, it would consider her options for decanting the property.
4. wanted to offer her £200 for time and trouble, and £180 for the delay in resolving the repair to the heating. It requested that she kept a copy of her heating bills so that once repairs were complete, additional recompense would be considered.
The resident approached the Ombudsman for support in February 2024. The day after the Ombudsman made contact with the landlord, it supplied the resident with temporary fan heaters. In recent contact with the Ombudsman the resident advised that she remains unclear as to what works, if any, have been completed to the HIU. She reports that she is “mentally exhausted” and feels unable to continue to challenge the landlord about when she will have a working heating system.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she was without heating.

It is recognised that the situation has caused the resident severe distress as she has experienced a lack of heating in the property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on the health of herself and her children. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. However consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
It is clear that the resident has experienced intermittent but repeated issues with the heating and hot water since she moved into the property in March 2018. This is documented within the landlord’s repair records, where it evidenced that several other residents in the block have reported the same problems. For example, between August 2016 and November 2022 the landlord recorded approximately 124 reports of heating or hot water not working across several flats in the same block. This demonstrates the extent that the issue has affected a number of residents and will be taken into consideration within the Ombudsman’s orders for a wider review.
It was around October 2022 that the resident engaged with solicitors to make a disrepair claim. On 24 November 2022 a disrepair survey was carried out in relation to the resident’s reports of asbestos and heating issues. Within the report, it noted that the heating system was “defective and in breach of the section 11 of the landlord and tenant act 1985, likely due to its age, general usage and lack of maintenance”. It recommended that the system be checked by a qualified engineer and its output increased to the required levels. It is not clear that the landlord took any action to address the heating issue as a result of the survey, and several residents continued to report issues with heating and hot water throughout the winter months.
The landlord has an obligation under the terms of the tenancy agreement to keep in repair and good working order the services that supply water, gas and heating. The landlord’s repair policy states that if a resident is without heating, hot water or both, then it categorises the repair as “urgent” for a response time within 3 days. In this case, when the resident reported that she was without heating and hot water on 12 March 2023, the landlord marked the job as an “emergency” for a response within 2 hours which was reasonable. However, it is not until 14 May 2023, 41 working days later that it attended to investigate the issue. The delay was unreasonable and fell significantly short of the service expected within the landlord’s repair policy.
On attendance to the property in May 2023, the landlord noted that whilst it had fixed the hot water, “further investigation was required” for the heating. However there is no evidence that it took further steps to investigate the root cause or come up with a plan of action. The landlord’s repair notes recorded the job as “closed” 2 days later due to “inactivity” which was inappropriate. By closing the job, the landlord failed to maintain oversight of the issue and further repairs went unactioned for a considerable period of time.
It is understood that the impact on the resident during the summer months was reduced as she did not require use of the heating. As a result, she made no further reports until 24 October 2023. During her call to the landlord, she reiterated she had been without heating since March 2023. She reported that the situation was affecting her mental health and having a negative impact on her arthritis as she was unable to keep warm. The landlord did not respond to these specific concerns. It took no steps to prioritise the repair to take into consideration her vulnerabilities and it did not make any contact with the resident until 13 December 2023. The delay was inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of urgency and empathy towards the resident.
In making her complaint on 4 December 2023, the resident expressed that she was living day by day with an electric heater which she had purchased herself. It was clear from her correspondence that her distress was evident, as she asked the landlord whether it was “waiting for a death to happen before being taken seriously”. There is no evidence that the landlord responded promptly to her concerns. Furthermore it did not raise an urgent repair in accordance with its policy, and she had to chase it again a week later which was unreasonable.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response on 27 December 2023 that it had not completed the repair works within a timely manner. It explained that the reason for the delay was because parts had been highlighted as obsolete and a new HIU was required. Whilst it is not disputed that this was the case, the landlord did not fully acknowledge that it had been aware that the system was dated and required a thorough investigation following the findings noted within the disrepair survey in November 2022, a year earlier.
The landlord had several opportunities to explore a long term resolution for the repeated breakdown in heating and hot water. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was committed to resolving issues “promptly”. However there is limited evidence that it sought appropriate advice in a timely manner and it continued to close jobs down prematurely without a thorough investigation. For example on 3 January 2024 the landlord noted that it was “awaiting advice – job closed”. This was inappropriate and did not demonstrate a commitment to resolve the issue for the resident.
6 days after the landlord closed the job on 30 January 2024, the resident and others in the block reported the same issue of no heating or hot water. On this occasion the landlord attended within 24 hours which was appropriate. Whilst it identified there had been a power cut and it was able to reset the boiler, it took no steps to update the resident of the long term plan with regards to the upgrade of the HIU. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate open communication with the resident.
The landlord has an obligation under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) to ensure that it minimises the risk of excessive cold by keeping heating systems appropriately installed and maintained. With regards to centrally controlled heating, the landlord has a responsibility to ensure that its systems operate in a way that does not allow residents to be exposed to cold indoor temperatures. In this case, it is clear that the resident notified the landlord on at least 3 occasions that she had to purchase her own heaters because the landlord had not provided her with any heating between March 2023 to February 2024.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged her concerns and made assurances that it would arrange for temporary heaters, it repeatedly failed to do so. It is not until it was approached by the Ombudsman that the landlord arranged for the heaters to be delivered on 21 March 2024. Internal notes from its records did not explore why it had taken so long to provide the resident with temporary heating and noted that the action “simply wasn’t followed through”. This was inappropriate and the delay caused the resident considerable discomfort, distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time.
The landlord’s final complaint response to the resident on 1 February 2024 was an opportunity for it to conduct a thorough investigation, recognise its failures and put matters right. However its response was inadequate. Whilst it acknowledged that the resident had experienced time and trouble, and there had been a delay in resolving the repair, it provided her with no reassurance of when the matter would be resolved. Furthermore there is no evidence that it followed up on assurances that it would provide her with an update within 5 working days which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s remedies policy sets out circumstances in which it will consider compensation for a failure in service. It says it will do this by considering the amount of time, risk of harm and distress a resident has experienced when making an offer of compensation. It notes that distress identified as “severe and prolonged” can be considered for up to £1,000 in compensation. Furthermore it has specific guidance for staff dealing with complaints about a supply failure of landlord-supplied heating where heating or loss of water lasts longer than 5 days. This is calculated at £2.50 per day for loss of heating and an additional amount of £1 per day for loss of water. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its remedies policy when making its final offer of compensation and the amount it offered was not reflective of the resident’s experience.
The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s loss of amenity and the level of rent paid throughout the matter being outstanding. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident’s current rent is £164.82 per week. The resident had some benefit of living in her property during that time and therefore was liable to pay rent. However it is clear that she had a lack of adequate heating between Mach 2023 to March 2024, which affected all rooms over a considerable period of time. Taking this into account, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of 25% of the rent covering the period from 12 March 2023 to 24 March 2024, to reflect the loss of amenity. The total amount of rent payable over that period was £8,850.53, so the compensation ordered for loss of amenity is £1,770.11.
The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that it has no evidence of any specialist survey or reports it has undertaken to assess the condition of the HIU. Without these, the landlord cannot reasonably demonstrate that it has effectively reviewed the situation and established the outcome required to resolve the issue. Despite further requests for evidence made by the Ombudsman, the landlord has not provided an update on the current status of the repair. This is inappropriate and does not demonstrate that the landlord is committed to resolving the issue within a timely manner in accordance with its repair obligations.
Overall there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she was without heating. The landlord has failed in its responsibilities under section 11 of the landlord and tenant act 1985 and has not demonstrated a duty of care to the resident, in accordance with its HHSRS obligations. The landlord has advised that since it has become aware of the Ombudsman’s investigation in March 2024, it has discussed temporary move options with the resident and referred her for housing support. Whilst it is positive that the landlord has now engaged with the resident, its offer of support has been considerably delayed and has contributed significantly to her feelings of worry and distress.
As a result of its failures, a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
On 23 October 2023 the landlord was issued with a wider order as part of case 202220378. The wider order compelled the landlord to review its staff training needs to ensure that it “responds to requests for repairs appropriately, raise quotations for approval with major revenue, and progress works orders involving more than 1 contractor in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures”. The case was closed on 26 January 2024 after it was deemed that the landlord had complied with the orders.
It is concerning that the landlord has not fully embedded the learning from its previous wider order, as events in this case have similarities and postdate its previous review. The landlord must now carry out a review of its practice, specifically in relation to responding to requests for repairs related to communal heating systems. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings. The case will remain open for 6 months after the review report has been finalised for further monitoring, to ensure robust compliance.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord was delayed in responding to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. In accordance with its policy, the landlord should have responded to the resident within 10 working days, or by 16 December 2023. However there response was delayed and the landlord did not apologise to the resident which was unreasonable.
There is no evidence that the landlord made contact with the resident prior to responding to her complaint. This was a missed opportunity for it to have understood the full extent of her complaint, to ensure that it addressed all of her concerns. As a result, it failed to address key aspects of her complaint including her request to be moved and compensation for the lack of heating. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate a solution focussed approach to her complaint.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint related to her dissatisfaction with the way the landlord handled her reports of asbestos. The Ombudsman approached the landlord for further evidence about her reports, but did not receive a response.
In November 2021, the Ombudsman issued guidance for landlords on disrepair claims. It explained that landlords should continue to use the complaints procedure until legal proceedings have been issued in order to maximise the opportunity to resolve issues out of court. In this case, no legal proceedings had begun and the resident was not engaged with her solicitor after October 2023. Therefore the landlord’s refusal to comment on the aspect of asbestos was unreasonable. An order has been made for the landlord to revisit this aspect of her complaint and provide her with a final complaint response, which the resident can refer back to the Ombudsman for further investigation if she remains dissatisfied.
The resident made it clear to the landlord on 9 January 2024 that she was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint at stage 1, and reiterated aspects of her complaint that the landlord had not responded to. The landlord failed to acknowledged the resident’s complaint within a timely manner, and again failed to contact her to discuss her concerns in depth before responding on 1 February 2024 which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s final response to the resident was an opportunity for it to put things right for the resident and provide a robust resolve to her concerns, however it failed to do so. It is important that when responding to a resident’s complaint, landlord’s ensure that resident’s expectations are managed and it does not promise anything that cannot be delivered. In this case, there is no evidence that it followed up on assurances that it would contact her within 5 working days to update her of the outcome of the restoration of the HIU. Furthermore it failed to arrange for the temporary heaters in a timely manner.
It is important that landlords learn from outcomes as a result of the resident’s complaint. However there is no evidence that the landlord took any learning or explained what service improvements it would implement to ensure that the situation did not happen again. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate a customer-focussed approach or offer any solutions to benefit both the resident and others faced with a similar situation. Furthermore, it’s offer of compensation did not reflect the time and trouble experienced by the resident in bringing her complaint.
Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. There were initial failures to respond to the resident within the timescales set out within the landlord’s complaint policy. Aspects of the resident’s complaint went unanswered in both responses. The landlord’s final response did not go far enough to put matters right for the resident and it did not learn from outcomes. It is only once the Ombudsman became involved that it has made more recent contact with the resident, yet it has not followed up on the reassurances it made within its stage 2 response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that she was without hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. arrange for a senior member of staff responsible for the landlord’s housing function to apologise to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £3,020.11 in compensation. The amount to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The amount includes:
  1. £1,770.11 in recognition of the loss of amenity, caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports she was without heating, referenced in paragraph 23 of this report.
  2. £1,000 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s reports she was without heating.
  3. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. advise of the update with regards to the replacement of the HIU, providing specific dates for completion. The update should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman and include a date for post-inspection following the upgrade.
4. contact the resident to establish the cost she paid for her own heaters and review her heating bills as referenced in its stage 2 response dated 1 February 2024.
5. contact the resident to discuss and then provide her with a written final complaint response in relation to her concerns about asbestos.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs related to communal heating systems. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. an exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred;
2. identification of all other residents in the block who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure, for the period from 2018 to present;
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. the findings and learning from the review;
2. recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future;
3. the number of other residents who have experienced similar issues;
4. the steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.
The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 2 weeks of receiving this report to agree the terms of reference, timeframe, and milestones for the review.