London Borough of Camden Council (202233880)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233880

Camden Council

6 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlords handling of the residents reports of ongoing water leaks from the flat above.
2. The landlords handling of the residents complaint and the amount of compensation offered.
3. This Service has also considered the landlords record keeping.

Background

The resident has occupied, a 1 bedroom first floor flat under a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a council since 21 August 2018. The resident lives there with her husband.
The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the household. The resident has told this service that she has developed extremely high blood pressure, has only 1 kidney, and an irregular heartbeat for which she is undergoing investigation with a hospital cardiology team. She also takes sleeping tablets.
The resident has said that she has experienced an ongoing leak at her property for the past 4 years from the flat above. Some have caused extensive flooding and damage to her property, for which she and her husband have been liable for repair. The resident experienced 3 leaks throughout 2022. The landlord sent operatives out to trace the leaks on a number of occasions, but regularly were unable to gain access to the flat above. As a result it is not clear what caused the leaks, and often no works were completed. The landlord had told the resident that the neighbours in the flat above her were vulnerable.
The resident made a formal complaint on 23 October 2022. She said she had experienced 5 leaks in the property since she moved in, and 3 so far this year. The leaks were always in the same place and their walls were now disfigured with blown and cracked plaster. A plumber advised the cause was potentially a leak from pipework between the above neighbours floor and their ceiling. Allegedly an inspection of the flat above and associated pipework had been completed and the resident was told there were no concerns. Two weeks later the resident came home to pools of water and a large crack in the lounge ceiling. In 4 years they had been put to the cost, time and trouble of plastering and redecorating their flat 3 times. They requested a thorough investigation by the landlord to resolve the issue.
In the complaint response of 8 November 2022, the landlord did not uphold the residents complaint. It said it could only look back 12 months and had identified 2 reports of a leak, to which the landlord had attended but there were no conclusive findings. As a result it determined no service failure had occurred. It offered to send a plasterer around to inspect and offered the resident some decorating vouchers.
The resident was not happy with this response, and escalated her complaint (exact date unclear). She had been advised following a visit by the housing officer and plumber that a heating pipe between the flat above and hers was the likely cause. This would be a big job to repair and would be undertaken by the landlords heating specialist. She had chased the repair several times with no response, and remained living in the flat nervously waiting for further floods or the ceiling to collapse.
The stage 2 response of 14 March 2023, upheld the residents complaint. It acknowledged the distress to the resident over a protracted period of time and although there had been access problems with the flat above, more could have been done to progress the issue. It noted works agreed for inspection and testing had also not been progressed. Compensation was offered for £250 (time, trouble, inconvenience, and late complaint response) and £100 of decorating vouchers.

Post Internal Complaint Process (ICP)

The resident told this Service that she had received an email from the landlord in June 2023 confirming that it was satisfied it had resolved the leaks from the flat above.
Post ICP repairs records indicate that the landlord raised jobs and sent operatives out in relation to a leak from the flat above the resident on 21 June 2023, 11 July 2023, 18 October 2023, and 4 December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has stated in her complaint to this service that she believes her health has suffered as a result of living in the property and the problems she has experienced over the last 4 years.
The Ombudsman does not doubt her views on this. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury insurance claim.
If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she should seek independent legal advice or contact the landlords insurers.
In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6-12 months of the matters arising.
While the historical incidents, of leaks in the resident’s property going back 4 years (as set out above), provide a contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events following the leak in January 2022. This is within 1 year of the resident logging her formal complaint with the landlord on 23 October 2022.

The landlords handling of the residents reports of ongoing water leaks from the flat above.

The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to repair and maintain the structure of the home including any shared parts of the building which the home is a part of. This aligns with its repairing obligation at section 11 of the landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Repairs must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
Each time the resident reported a leak from the property above, the landlord has attended within a reasonable time period and in accordance with its emergency repair response time, which was reasonable.
The landlords’ records stated that it had attended the flat above the resident 8 times between January 2022 and February 2023, to investigate or trace and resolve a leak. From the repair records submitted to this Service, it is clear that when the leaks were reported, a plumber attended to assess the property. While the plumber could not always gain access to the property, works were carried out by the plumber to resolve the issue when access was gained.
While this Service noted the above, this Service also considers that it would have been reasonable to expect from the knowledge of historical events and the number of more recent attendances required that the problem would warrant a more proactive and strategic approach by the landlord. However, at no point in the repair’s history was it evident a technical officer or surveyor was called in to investigate the underlying cause of the persistent leaks into the resident’s property.
The resident said that she was told by the landlord’s plumber and housing officer, that the suspected cause was the heating pipework leaking between the two flats. It would have been reasonable to expect that if this was the suspected cause, the neighbour’s floors would be lifted, or the residents ceiling removed to inspect the associated pipework. This would have enabled the landlord to fix the issue or rule it out.
It is understood based on the information provided by the landlord that it did not consider the above issue to be the likely source due to the fact that the ceiling stain was found to be old, and no leak occurred when the heating system was running. The landlord further explained that it would have been inappropriate to lift the flooring since this would have been intrusive and disruptive for both residents. Under the circumstances, this Service finds the landlord’s considerations to be reasonable. It is noted that the resident did not agree with the landlord’s handling of this issue.
Moving on, it was evident that there was an issue with access from the neighbour’s above. The landlord’s tenancy conditions require that residents must give the landlord or authorised personnel access to inspect or repair the home.
Moreover, the tenancy conditions state that if the landlord needs access urgently and a resident does not agree, or cannot be contacted, it has the powers to force entry into the property without a court order. Examples of when it might do this included when there is a serious leak of water from their home or a need to repair something that poses a health and safety risk to a resident or their neighbours.
There was no evidence, despite the detriment to the resident, that the landlord speedily used the powers it had available through the conditions of tenancy or any other measures, to gain quicker access to the neighbours property. It is understood that the landlord issued a warning letter to the neighbour in March 2023. While it was reasonable that the landlord issued the letter, the delay in issuing this letter and progressing with other measures to gain access was unreasonable, particularly as the neighbour was not providing access since October 2022.
The resident said she was advised by the landlord in an email that the neighbours above were vulnerable, which is why access was difficult. The resident provided evidence to support the information provided which this Service has reviewed.
Under the circumstances, residents can be considered vulnerable for a number of reasons, including physical and mental health conditions, age, frailty as well as a number of socio-economic reasons.
Once on notice of a vulnerability the landlord has a responsibility to give consideration as to whether, in line with the Equality Act 2010, the person concerned has a disability as defined by law. If this was established for the neighbour the landlord might have needed to consider reasonable adjustments, to ensure they were not disadvantaged, but the conditions of tenancy would still apply.
While the Ombudsman would always encourage landlords to give due consideration to and adopt a sensitive approach to residents with vulnerabilities, it would not advocate the landlord not doing anything, especially when behaviours are impacting on other residents or the wider community.
The stage 2 investigation also concluded that the landlord could have done more to expedite access into the neighbours property to address the leak. The resident was convinced that had the landlord done so, the detriment to her and her home would have been significantly less. The resident particularly explained that she was living in a state of constant and unnecessary anxiety. With the problem identified and ongoing, but not being resolved, she said she lived in constant fear that the ceiling would collapse or that she would be subject to flooding. This was not reasonable.
The landlords repairs policy places responsibility for surface cracks to plaster work and internal decorating on to residents. The resident states that she has had to makegood and redecorate her property 3 times in 4 years following the leaks from pipework or sanitaryware from the property above.
Case law requires that a landlord who has an obligation to repair, also has an obligation to make good any damage to decorations as a result of the repair work. This duty applies both to damage that occurs because the landlord fails to comply with a repairing obligation and to damage which occurs as a result of the repairing work.
In the most recent incident, the landlord offered for a plasterer to inspect. This would be reasonable if plastering works were ordered and completed, but no records to this effect were noted and the resident has confirmed despite the inspection no plastering has been carried out to date.
The landlord also offered the resident decorating vouchers. This was not appropriate, the damage had been caused by faults from the landlord’s property above which it had failed to successfully address, the landlord therefore had a legal obligation to carry out the works to make good and decorate and it should have done so.
Post complaint information from the landlord indicated that operatives were called out several times for the same issue

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint and the amount of compensation offered.

In July 2020, the Housing Ombudsman published a new complaint handling code, with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their resident’s quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. All member landlords were required to complete a self-assessment against the Code and take appropriate action to ensure their complaint handling was in line with the Code, by 31 December 2020.
As the landlord was a council it continued to implement its corporate complaint handling policy, which it aligned with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s (LGSCO) guidelines, rather than create a separate complaint handling policy for its landlord functions. The landlords complaint handling policy was therefore not Code compliant. The Code became statutory on 1 April 2024, which means that landlords are now obliged by law to follow its requirements.
However, it had a 2–stage internal complaints process which aligned with the Code, and its response times for a stage 1 complaint was 10 working days from acknowledgement, which the landlord had met.
The resident escalated her complaint on 23 October 2022. The landlord’s response time for stage 2 was 20 working days, unless in exceptional circumstance an extension is required. The Ombudsman’s Code requires that any extension must be agreed with the resident and not exceed 10 working days.
The landlord responded on 14 March 2023, which was a 99 working day response time, this significantly exceeded the landlords own quite protracted extension timescales and was not Code compliant. The Code also states if the response cannot be completed in the timescale specified, an extension must be agreed with the resident, and there was no evidence that it had been, which was not reasonable.
The landlord did accept the response was out of time, it apologised for this and offered the resident £50 compensation for the delayed response which was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
The Code also requires that the landlord should address all points raised in the complaint. The resident raised her concerns in both complaints about the excessive noise at night, from the residents above, banging and moving furniture about and disrupting her sleep.
The landlord did note in the stage 2 response this issue was part of the complaint, but it failed to investigate how it handled the ASB. This meant in both its stage one and stage two responses, the resident’s concerns on this issue went completely unanswered, which was not appropriate or Code compliant.
The landlords stage 2 complaint response did appropriately uphold the residents complaint. It recognised that leaks started in January 2022 and not August 2022 as the stage 1 suggested. It found a number of failings in identifying and resolving the leaks in the residents property, and acknowledged this caused distress to the family for a significant period of time.
The response acknowledged and apologised for the number of reports of no access from the neighbour above and accepted the landlord could have done more, including collaborative working to improve access time, which was reasonable.
The code requires that complaint responses detail the remedy offered to put things right, and any outstanding actions. The landlord acknowledged that pressure testing of the neighbour’s boiler had been ordered but had not been carried out. As a resolution it arranged for a named officer to follow this through with the repairs team and to be the residents point of contact. Once repairs were completed it agreed to send a plasterer to inspect.
This however did not fully explain to the resident how the problem would be resolved and the actions it was taking to achieve it. Had it done so the resident might have had some confidence in the resolution, and not felt the need to escalate to this Service.
It was the landlords investigators view that financial compensation was applicable. The landlord offered £100 for the residents time and trouble, £100 for the distress and inconvenience and £50, as mentioned earlier, for the delay in the stage 2 complaint response.
The Code requires that any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. In calculating the amount the landlord needed to have considered that:
1. The resident experienced a total of 3 leaks from the flat above during the complaint period affecting 3 separate rooms in her property ( living room, bathroom, and kitchen). There was evidence of staining, blown plaster and cracking to walls and ceilings in all rooms, which had already been repaired and re-decorated twice in the preceding years.
2. She also had to take time off work to provide access on a number of occasions to operatives. She said she had to consistently chase the landlord for updates and repairs.
3. There had also been a number of failings, in the complaint handling, in addition to the delay, which were not recognised, and prolonged resolution.
4. The resident spent many months with the stress and worry that the ceiling might collapse and that she was at risk of further leaks or flooding. Having experienced 5 previous episodes of leaks from the flat above, her concerns were not unfounded and would have caused her a lot of distress.
The landlord has the ability within its compensation policy to award amounts of £100 – £300 for time and trouble and from £100 up to £1000 for severe and prolonged distress. The landlord offered the minimum on both, which was not appropriate.
The total sum of £250 offered was not in the Ombudsman’s view commensurate for the level of service failure, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It was not proportionate and not within the range the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a significant long-term impact on a resident.

Record Keeping

This investigation has raised concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service. This is not only so that evidence can be provided to the Ombudsman when requested, but because this assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of a property, enabling outstanding works to be monitored and enabling provision of accurate information to residents. Records also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may engage in.
If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records, and specify documentation that we would expect to be available in the handling of a specific type of complaint. The landlord was unable to provide a significant amount of information that the Ombudsman requested. These omissions indicated poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked, which in turn made the investigation unnecessarily more difficult.
It was noted the majority of the landlords evidence consisted of repairs system records for the resident’s property, the flat above, and the complaint responses. A number of the dates and information quoted from these records in the complaint responses did not match the information on the system records provided to us.
The repairs records generally lacked any detailed information on findings and outcomes. There were no supporting file notes, technical reports or email trails between teams, the landlord and contractor or the landlord and resident to indicate any findings or action plans to resolve either the building fault or access arrangements.
The resident was aware of actions and had been given information verbally, that was not evident in the landlords records, but was confirmed in the complaint responses. This included the root cause of the leaks being heating pipework between the flats and an inspection that was carried out by the landlord in September 2022.
The complaint investigation also identified that access to the flat above was eventually arranged through collaboration with the Housing Team, this was not evident in any of the records provided.
The failings identified in the landlords record keeping was not reasonable. Aside from the reasoning set out in paragraph 54, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, it is unlikely that we would be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents reports of ongoing water leaks from the flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents complaint and the amount of compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
1. Apologises to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Arranges for a surveyor to review the works completed so far, inspect the neighbours property, and produce a report (copy to this service) that either:
  1. Confirms satisfactory works have been completed to resolve the leak and post inspection has confirmed its success.
  2. Or drafts a specification of works required to resolve the leak, with a reasonable timeline for completion.
3. Arranges for a surveyor to visit the residents property to carry out a full inspection and compile a specification of works to rectify the damage caused by the leaks and redecorate, with reasonable timescales for completion. Written copy of the outcome to be provided to the resident and this Service.
4. Pays the resident the sum of £1000 in addition to the £250 compensation already offered ( total £1250), broken down as follows:
  1. £600 for the stress and inconvenience of the failings identified in the landlords handling of the leaks.
  2. £400 for the failings identified in the landlords complaint handling.
5. Contacts the resident to discuss if she wants to pursue her complaint with the landlord about the noise nuisance experienced from the resident above.
The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 8 weeks, completes a self-assessment against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management. To address the failings identified in its record keeping. Providing a copy to this service.
Since the Code has become statutory the landlord it has adopted a complaint handling policy that aligns with the Ombudsman’s Code as well as well as meeting its requirements from the LGSCO.