Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Camden Council (202112376)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112376

Camden Council

17 January 2023


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:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for it to investigate the cause of a leak into his property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The landlord is the freeholder of the property, which is a 7th floor flat in a high–rise block of flats.
  2. On 2 August 2020 there was a leak into the resident’s property from the floor above. On 26 June 2021 the resident raised a complaint in which he said the leak in August 2020 had been from an unknown area on the 8th floor and that the landlord had refused to help him because he was a leaseholder. He said the leaseholder of the flat above him had said there had been no leak from their property. He said that the landlord had an obligation to investigate the leak. He provided a report from the fire service, who had attended because of the leak on 2 August 2020 (this does not provide confirmation of the source of the leak).
  3. In its stage one complaint response, issued on 19 August 2021, having spoken to the resident the day before, the landlord confirmed that the complaint was about a call a resident had made about the leak. It does not confirm the date of the call. It said that it could not ““provide comments” on “the leaks” from 2 August 2020, as it could only go back one year when investigating complaints. It also said that the resident had been unhappy that it had not sent anybody to “investigate the cause of the leak in June 2021”. It noted that the resident had been advised that if the leak was from one leaseholder property to another, there was nothing the landlord could do. It also apologised for not having done more in June 2021 as it said it should have attended to see where the leak was coming from, as it may have been from a communal area and it could also have assisted by contacting the other leaseholder.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint in August 2021 as although the property was no longer affected by the leak, he wanted the landlord to investigate the source of the leak and said it had already delayed that by a year. The landlord replied to say that it would not investigate a leak that was not current.
  5. In its subsequent stage two complaint response on 25 August 2021, the landlord said the most likely origin of the leak was the property above, although acknowledged that as freeholder it did have a duty to protect the fabric of the building from damage, and if there was evidence of a risk of such damage it would take action, invoking its Freeholder’s rights and Landlord’s powers. However, where damage was not structural, the incident would be a private matter between the two leaseholders. It said if the leak had been from a communal area then it had a duty to investigate it, but as the leak stopped, no inspection took place. It said the repairs service was a reactive one rather than a preventative one and so it would not have attended after the leak had stopped. However, as the resident was concerned that the leak may have come from the communal area it would look at that area for “evidence of any faults” and would address anything it found either as a reactive repair, or via planned maintenance. It also signposted the resident to the Leasehold Advisory Service for further advice.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on the day he received the stage two complaint response, as he felt the landlord should be doing more to investigate the cause of the leak, to prevent a recurrence.
  7. In the information the landlord provided to this Service it confirmed it had no call records or repair logs relating to a leak at the resident’s property. However, the landlord’s stage one complaint response had referred to both a leak in August 2020 and it failing to investigate a leak in June 2021, and internal emails from April 2022, said that there was no leak when the complaint was raised. Therefore, this Service requested clarification from the landlord, asking it to confirm whether there was a second leak in June 2021 and, if so, the date it was reported, along with the date the complaint was raised (as the version the landlord had provided was undated). The landlord responded that it was informed of a “potential leak” in June 2021 and that the complaint was raised on 26 June 2021. The Ombudsman also asked it for confirmation of when the advice that it could do nothing if the leak was between leaseholders was given, and the landlord responded that it was given in June 2021. This Service also asked it for the outcome of its inspection of the communal area, but has not provided that information.

Assessment and findings

  1. The timeline of events in this case is unclear, and it has not been possible to establish exactly when the resident first contacted the landlord about the leak that occurred on 2 August 2020, as d the landlord said it could not “provide comments” for it in its stage one complaint response, and has confirmed that it has no call records or repair logs regarding a leak at the property. It does however appear to accept that there was a report of a leak in June 2021. As the landlord itself has noted, as the freeholder, it has a duty to protect the fabric of the building from damage, and if the leak was from a communal area it had a duty to investigate it. Therefore, as it appropriately acknowledged in its stage one complaint response, when the resident reported the leak, it would have been appropriate for it to have done more to establish whether the leak could be coming from the communal area and to have offered to contact the other leaseholder.
  2. When the complaint was raised in June 2021, although the resident was concerned that the leak may recur if the source of it had not been established, the landlord has confirmed that the leak could “no longer be observed” and there is no evidence that it had recurred since August 2020. Therefore, the landlord’s initial reluctance to inspect the communal area was reasonable, as it not clear that an inspection 14 months after the event would be able to establish anything of significance. However, once the landlord agreed in its stage two response that it would inspect the communal area, it would have been appropriate to have inspected it within a reasonable timeframe, updated the resident with its findings, and kept accurate records of this. It is not clear if the first two actions have taken place but when this Service requested the findings of the inspection, the landlord did not provide them. Therefore, this Service will be ordering the landlord to provide the resident with an update of the findings of its inspection, if it has not already done so, and to update its records accordingly.
  3. To conclude, the landlord appropriately recognised that it does have some obligations where a leak occurs in such circumstances and apologised for not doing more to establish whether the leak was coming from the communal area, offering to do so. This was a reasonable remedy to the issue raised. , However, while it was reasonable that the landlord was hesitant to inspect the property so long after the leak, once it agreed that it would, it should have done so promptly, and be able to evidence this. . There is no indication that this inspection has taken place, which is a service failure, and would have been frustrating for the resident. To remedy the frustration caused, this Service will be ordering it to award compensation of £100 for this aspect of the complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available online)..
  4. finally, the landlord provided this Service with a large volume of records that were not relevant to this complaint and it is of some concern that it has not been able to provide records of the report of the leak, or the results of the inspection of the communal area. Therefore, this Service will also be ordering the landlord to review its record keeping process.

Complaint handling.

  1. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, when the resident raised his complaint on 26 June 2021, he should have received an acknowledgment within two working days and then a stage one complaint response within 10 working days (with the option of adding a further 10 working days if needed). However, due to an admin error the complaint was not acknowledged until 18 August 2021, and although the landlord then took appropriate steps to reply promptly the following day, this was still outside the timeframes quoted in the landlord’s complaint policy.
  2. Furthermore, in its stage one complaint response, the landlord advised that it could not provide comments on the leak of 2 August 2020 as it only goes back a year when investigating complaints. This was unreasonable as the only reason it had exceeded the one-year time frame was because of its delay in acknowledging and responding to the complaint. In addition to this, the complaints policy actually says that residents should “submit the complaint within 12 months after the date of the incident”, which the resident had done by submitting the complaint on 26 June 2021. Although it said it would not go back more than a year, the landlord did make some reference to what it should have done when the leak was reported (without specifying the date of the report). Therefore, the impact on the resident of it saying it would not go back more than year was minimal, as it still addressed the main issue of how it should have responded to the report. However, it was still unreasonable to incorrectly imply that the resident was at fault for not raising a complaint in time.
  3. In view of the above, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of service failure that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident, the landlord will be ordered to pay the resident £75 for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to investigate the cause of a leak into his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

 

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £175 compensation, comprised of £100 in respect of its response to the resident’s request for it to investigate the cause of a leak into his property, and £75 in respect of its complaint handling.
    2. Update the resident (and the Ombudsman) of the outcome of its inspection of the communal area, if it has not already done so.
  2. Within six weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord is ordered to review its record keeping process and to provide this Service with confirmation of any steps it will be taking to improve it.