Camden Council (202016028)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016028

Camden Council

16 December 2021

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 planned works.
The cost of the planned works.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(g) and (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction – the cost of the planned works. Paragraph 39 of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(g) Concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.

(i) Concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

Concerns about the cost of planned works are best considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property) as it can make a legally binding determination on these matters. This report will therefore focus on landlord’s handling of the planned works to the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is leaseholder of the landlord and moved into the property in 1994. The property is a one-bedroom basement flat in a street property that is divided into three flats.
Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building including the roof and window frames.
The definition of section 20 qualifying works is major works of maintenance, repair or improvement to a building that a freeholder is responsible for and towards which the relevant leaseholders are required to contribute under the terms of the lease. Under section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, freeholders are obliged to consult with leaseholders if the works are set to cost any one leaseholder more than £250. Where the works are so urgent that the landlord does not have time to consult, landlords can make an application under section 20 to ask the First Tier Tribunal to dispense with the requirements to consult.
There are three stages to the section 20 process. The landlord is required to write to leaseholders at each stage of the process. At stage one the landlord has to issue a notice of intention to carry out works: the landlord provides details of the works to leaseholders together with an explanation of why they need to take place. Leaseholders will be invited to comment on the proposed works and nominate a contractor to provide a quote; they have 30 days in which to respond.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within working ten days at stage one and within 25 working days at stage two. The complaints policy says that, if there are no grounds to investigate at stage two, it will contact the resident to explain its decision.
The landlord’s remedies guidance for housing complaints sets out the compensation it will award when where the standard of service fell below its accepted levels or when it made mistakes. This guidance includes payments for:

Time and trouble which includes the time and effort required from the complainant, the length of time taken, including response times, taken to deal with the problem and the complaint itself, and missed appointments by contractors or staff without prior notification. Where appropriate the landlord will pay up to £250 (exceptionally £500).
Distress. Low impact – the complainant has not suffered significant inconvenience or distress as a result of the events; the impact is not greater than a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept. Compensation of £20 to £40 a month.
Distress. Medium Impact – the events are clearly an injustice to the complainant and the service has markedly failed to meet the required standards. A repeated failure by the landlord to address the shortcoming, even of a low impact event, could give rise to consideration of medium impact level of compensation. Up to £75 per month.

Summary of events

On 1 October 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident with a section 20 notice of intention to carry out “Better Homes Externals” to the building. It said the estimated cost for the proposed work for the resident would be £17,288.56. It set out details of the work which included: scaffolding; asbestos‑related works; communal repairs, external repairs to the solid brick walls and pointing; fire risk assessment work, window and roof works. The original programme for this project showed a start date of 31 May 2019 and completion by 3 September 2019.
On 27 March 2019 the landlord’s contractors (the contractors) wrote to the resident notifying him that they would visit the property on 5 April 2019 to carry out a window measurement survey.
On 13 May 2019 the contractors wrote to the resident saying the scaffolding would be put up on 28 May 2019 (earlier dates for this had been pushed back).
On 17 July 2019 the contractors wrote the resident saying they would carry out an asbestos survey on 24 July 2019. It explained this survey must be carried out before the works started. (This was originally to take place on 17 June 2019.) It was later confirmed that no asbestos had been identified in the building.
On 20 June 2019 the landlord completed an incident report as the resident had reported that contractors had damaged a bird table. The scaffolding was finished on 28 June 2019.
On 1 July 2019 the contractors told the resident they would carry out an electrical test of the property on 12 July 2019. It explained this survey must be carried out before the works started. This was re-arranged to 5 July 2019 at the resident’s request.
On 9 July 2019 a validation survey was carried out. (This is to check the condition of the building to see if the planned work was required.)
On 17 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to points he had raised with them a few days earlier. It said:

It would provide him with a copy of the surveyor’s recommendations once issued and agreed.

It did not require planning permission to replace the windows and they were currently being manufactured.
Any costs for unreasonable delays would be removed from final contract costs recharged to the leaseholder; if delays were reasonable or had no cost implication then no reduction would apply.
It noted that the scaffolding had been up for two months and no work had yet been undertaken.
It regretted damage to the resident’s garden and asked what the contractors had done about it.

On 23 July 2019 the resident told the landlord he had reported the damage to the liaison officer and was awaiting the outcome.
On 29 July 2019 the landlord provided the resident with the copy of the validation survey. This set out the repairs to the building that would be undertaken and included minor repairs to the main pitched roof; brickwork re-pointing and gable stone copings refixed; single leaf door of resident’s property to be replaced; external decoration; existing fire alarm system to be upgraded; and some internal decoration. The landlord offered to meet with him to discuss it.
On 2 October 2019 the resident telephoned the landlord to complain about the lack of works undertaken to the building and having to live in darkness. On the same day the landlord again asked the contractors for details of work completed along with evidence.
On 6 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident following a meeting with him the previous day. It apologised to him for the length of time it had taken to complete the works to the property and explained the main cause was a late requirement change from the planners. It added there were three main areas of outstanding works which were the roof works and the issues related to the adjoining property; window installation and decorations. The landlord said there were some other small items which did not require scaffolding and these would be done following completion of the above priority areas. It also said that it would not recharge the additional hire charge cost for the scaffold and the brick pointing to the rear party wall.
On 12 November 2019 the resident told the landlord he was unhappy that he had been living in darkness due to the scaffolding for almost six months despite being told that it would only be up for four months. He asked for an update on what works had been completed and what was outstanding.
On 20 December 2019 the landlord told the resident what work had been completed including:

27 August to 23 September 2019 – racking and pointing works of the brickwork.

10 October 2019 – fire alarms installed.

12 September 2019 – emergency lighting installed.

The landlord listed the outstanding works: roof repairs, window replacement, garden handrail, rear access gate and rear garden fence. It said that the proposed date for works to be completed was 24 February 2020 and the scaffolding would be removed on 5 February 2020. It was eventually removed on 15 April 2020.
Meanwhile, on 21 January 2020 the landlord had arranged for contractors to visit the property on 24 January 2021 to take measurements of the garden fence, garden wall and handrail.
On 3 February 2020 the contractors told the resident that they would install new windows on 17 February 2020.
On 1 April 2020 the landlord shared with the contractors photos provided by the resident of work outstanding and work that he considered to be of poor quality.
On 17 April 2020 the contractors fitted three windows at the property.
On 8 June 2020 the landlord asked the contractors if they could fix his TV aerial that had been damaged and extractor fan which was not could be fixed
On 19 June 2020 the contractors told the landlord that there was still work to the ground and lower floor frontage from the approved validation survey report that was still outstanding including boundary walls; the communal entrance hall works were close to completion
On 26 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord saying that the work was incomplete despite being told that the scaffolding would be removed by 24 February 2020. He said there had been an eleven-month delay during which time he had been living in darkness due to the scaffolding. He said he had concerns about the carpet and thick underlay being removed from the hallway which had helped with the noise transference problems. He provided photos of the repairs that were outstanding and to demonstrate the dark conditions that he had been living in since the scaffolding had been up.
On 1 September 2020 the resident arranged to meet with the contractors on 18 September 2020 to discuss the outstanding issues.
In an undated letter the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said there had been overall poor management of the works, avoidable delays and failure to meet deadlines which had resulted in him living in “semi-darkness” for over ten months and “battling increasing depression”. He said the “constant effort” of trying to get issues resolved had been “exhausting” and was “still causing further stress and anxiety”. He added that there was “often sub-standard workmanship” spoiling the home he had kept to a high standard for 26 years. The resident gave examples of what he considered to be mismanagement. He said he wanted an explanation as to why this project “went so badly wrong” and acknowledgment of the inconvenience and distress caused to him.
On 16 September 2020 the landlord responded at stage one of its formal complaints procedures. It upheld the complaint and said that the planned works “should have been managed better” and apologised for that. It said that the issues in the resident’s complaint had been brought to the attention of more senior management and they would take the appropriate action to prevent this from happening again. The landlord added that this case would also be used as an example when the contract between it and the contractors was up for review/renewal. In terms of the delays, the landlord said that there was a delay in obtaining planning permission for the windows as the property was in a conservation area. It explained how the resident could ask to escalate the complaint.
On 6 October 2020 the landlord arranged for the kitchen fan to be removed on 12 October 2020 and for the rear door to be installed that day also.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord responded to the resident with an additional response at stage one of its formal complaint procedure which upheld the complaint. The main points were:

It had been brought to its attention that the property was not in a conservation area therefore the delays could not be attributed to that.

The contractors had visited the property on 18 September 2020 and confirmed the following outstanding repairs:
1. Ground works to front of property to be carried out.
2. Issue with making good at high level to front door.
3. Extractor fan in kitchen is to be removed completely.
4. New rear door to install.
5. TV aerial in bedroom to reinstate.
6. Making good around windows.
7. Ground works to rear garden to be carried out (access required).
8. Bird feeder to replace.
9. No windows in communal area to replace.
It said, alongside the contractors, it would draw up a program of works to complete these outstanding repairs along with other defects/snagging repairs the resident had brought to its attention.
The landlord confirmed that the programme of works should have been managed better and quicker, prior to covid. It offered compensation amounting to £760 made up of £250 for time and trouble; £30 for complaint delays (3 x £10); £480 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the scaffolding being up for so long at £40 a month for the period the scaffolding was in place.
It recognised the resident was not satisfied with that amount and explained how he could ask for a review.

On 3 November 2020 the contractors wrote to the resident saying that groundworks would start on the front of the property on 9 November 2020 and would take two working days.
On 4 November 2020, following an enquiry from the resident about works to the front of the building, the landlord wrote to the resident with details of these outstanding repairs and assured him that scaffolding was not required.
On 10 November 2020 the resident told the landlord that he was suffering from long covid and was in a support bubble with his 80–year–old mother. He said he did not want operatives coming through the property at that time.
On 26 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident saying it would not review his complaint. It explained that was because it would not reach a substantively different decision to the stage one response dated 8 October 2020 in which it had upheld his complaint, set out a number of repairs actions that would be undertaken and awarded him £760 in compensation. The landlord added that its contractors would contact him on 27 November 2021 to set out a programme to progress the remaining works at the property. It signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 25 June 2021 the clerk of works (responsible for inspecting construction work to ensure it meets standards and health and safety requirements) visited the building and drew up a schedule of snagging, unfinished items and additional works items etc. He identified forty items (this figure included seven additional items not included in the validation survey including damp in the property). Some of these items were included in the outstanding repairs set out in the complaint response of 8 October 2020 (paragraph 37).
On 8 November 2021 the landlord told the resident that render repairs to the front external of the building would start the following day and would take approximately 3-4 working days (weather dependent). It said it required access to carry out render repairs at the rear of the property. On the following day the landlord noted that, following a call with the resident, he could not provide access to the rear of the property until December 2021.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said the works were meant to have been finished in four months but he had “three years of living in squalor”. He added that he had had to pay to replace a TV aerial that the contractors had ripped out as he had been living without a TV for over a year. He said he had experienced electrical problems after the extractor fan had been disconnected and had no power in the electrical sockets in his living room or bedroom and had had to run extension cables from the kitchen. He said the landlord was aware of this but had not resolved it.
The resident also described work carried out by contractors in the previous week in the rain which meant that cementing and paint had been washed away and had therefore been a waste of time. The resident said he wanted the property put back in the state it was before the works started which he had always kept in a very good condition. He described the “huge stress” as well as inconvenience and frustration he had experienced as a result of these works.

Assessment and findings

In its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that it had not managed the planned works well and apologised for that. It explained that the delay in installing the windows was due to the building being in a conservation area (paragraph 35). It later acknowledged that that was incorrect and the delays could not be attributable to the building being in a conservation area (paragraph 37); the landlord did not offer an alternative explanation for the nine-month delay in installing the windows.
The landlord offered compensation to the resident as part of its response to his complaint. This included redress for time and trouble and the distress and inconvenience of having scaffolding up which made the ground-floor property very dark. The landlord also said the delays would be raised with senior management and it would take appropriate action to ensure that planned works were handled better in the future (paragraph 37).
Despite that assurance, the evidence shows that some eight months later, in June 2021, there were still 33 issues outstanding relating to unfinished work or snagging (paragraph 42). In November 2021 works remained unfinished. The landlord has not given a robust explanation for the delays in completing the planned works.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord recognised the impact on the resident by having scaffolding up for such a long time and offered compensation for the distress that had caused which was appropriate. However, the offer of £250 for time and trouble was the maximum usually applied in such cases and this was also appropriate.
However, since October 2020 the works remain incomplete. While the resident has recently refused access (paragraph 43), this had only a one-month delay in completing the works which started in 2019. These further delays have evidently caused frustration and distress to the resident and further compensation has been ordered below for the additional thirteen-month delay. It is reasonable to presume that the impact of such long delays has meant that the distress and frustration to the resident has increased as time went on. Therefore, compensation of £45 a month is appropriate.
The resident has reported to the landlord various damage by contractors to his home and garden (paragraphs 15, 30 and 44). The evidence provided by the landlord did not demonstrate what action had been taken in response to these reports. I have therefore made an order for the landlord to take action with regard to these matters.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the planned works.

Reasons

The landlord recognised its handling of the planned works had not been appropriate and offered compensation particularly for the distress of having scaffolding up for longer than was originally envisaged. However, despite its assurances, the planned works were still incomplete fourteen months later. Further compensation has therefore been ordered to reflect the impact on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and evidence such action to the Ombudsman:

A senior member of staff to make a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.

Pay the resident compensation of £585 in recognition of the time and trouble taken, as well as inconvenience and distress, caused by the further delays in completing the planned works.
Pay the resident the amount of compensation previously offered of £760 (if it has not done so already).
Review this case and then share the learning from this with the resident and the Ombudsman to ensure that planned works are handled better in the future.
Give the resident a named person whom he may contact with any further concerns about the unfinished works and snagging (with a direct dial telephone number and direct email address).
Write to the resident with a timeframe for when the works will be completed. This should include the dates it expects its contractors to be on site and what work will be completed on what day.
Provide regular updates to the resident by email on a two-weekly basis until the planned works have been completed.
Following completion of the planned works, ensure that the appropriate surveyor signs off the planned works in person.
Investigate the electrical problems the resident has reported following the removal of the extractor fan.
Consider reimbursing the resident for the cost of replacing the TV aerial that he said was removed by the contractors.
Ensure that appropriate compensation has been paid to the resident for any other items damaged by the contractors.