Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Camden Council (202210749)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210749

Camden Council

21 March 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Water leaks into her property.
    2. loss of heating in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is an open-plan, one bedroom flat. The building the property is situated in has a District Heating System (DHS), which is a heat network that generates heat centrally and distributes it amongst multiple different properties.
  2. On 13 September 2021, the landlord contacted the resident due to the ongoing issues with the radiators in her property causing leaks. The landlord acknowledged that the heaters had been replaced previously. However, the resident was concerned as she had been informed by the landlord that there was a problem with the DHS due to rusting pipes which were resulting in leaks for multiple tenants. The resident was seeking compensation for the damages caused by the leaks, and had submitted a claim through the landlord’s public liability team.
  3. On 12 November 2021, the resident raised a complaint as there had been another leak in her property. She stated that the radiators had been changed more than 20 times since she moved into the property three years ago, and that she was often left without heating. She stated that there had been four floods in the flat due to the faulty radiators, and on several occasions, she had to rip up the carpet and replace it due to the damage; which the landlord said she was responsible for. The resident stated that she was staying with family due to the smell of mould in the property, and that the windows in the bedroom let in cold air, so her children were unable to stay in the room. The resident stated that the living conditions were unacceptable, and were impacting her children’s health. In addition, she added that she had contacted the landlord about the issue on numerous occasions but had been ignored.
  4. On 26 November 2021, the landlord replaced the heater in the resident’s property. On 10 December 2021, a damp survey of the property was completed, which stated that the carpet and walls had now dried, so no further works were required. However, it noted that the leak had stained the carpets.
  5. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 11 January 2022. It stated that the resident’s complaint was partially upheld. It also informed the resident that the DHS would be replaced as part of a planned replacement of the whole system, which would take up to four years. It informed the resident that any further incidents of leaks prior to the major works taking place would be treated as a reactive repair. It stated that the resident could claim for any damages through the landlord’s liability insurance and that it’s previous compensation offer was only in regards to a missed appointment. It apologised for the repeated issues the resident had experienced, and accepted that this was due to the system being at the ‘end of its useful life’ after 40 years. It also informed the resident that its liability insurer would consider any remedy for the damages and inconvenience the resident had experienced if the insurer accepted her claim.
  6. The landlord instructed a ‘clear-up’ company to complete works in the resident’s property which included treating the property for mould, shampooing and restoring the carpets and redecorating any affected areas.
  7. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint to this Service. She was unhappy with the ongoing issues relating to the leaking radiators in the property, which left her without heating for long periods of time and resulted in damage. She added that the landlord’s attitude and communication was unsatisfactory.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident informed this Service that a further leak had occurred in the property in February 2023. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect through its complaints process. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. It would be appropriate for the landlord to consider whether this leak was also caused by the DHS system in the building, and if so, to provide further compensation as appropriate.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs would be completed within 24 hours, and includes loss of heating and hot water between 1 October and 31 May, and any uncontainable leaks. It states that sometimes a temporary repair will be carried out to make the home safe and secure, and the full repair would be completed later. It states that essential repairs will be completed within 35 working days.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy conditions state that it is responsible for the services supplying water and heating mains to a property and the appliances for delivering these services which it has installed. It also states that residents must give access to the property for repairs to take place and if residents do not allow access, it may take legal action.
  3. The landlord’s tenancy conditions also state that the landlord is not responsible for damage to, or loss of, belongings from floods or water damage. It recommends residents to take out household insurance to cover their contents, but states that this condition does not affect a resident’s legal right to claim compensation from the landlord if the damage was caused by its negligence.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into her property

  1. It is not disputed by either party that the ongoing issues in relation to the leaks from the radiators were caused by the DHS at the property being at the ‘end of its useful life’. It is also not disputed that the resident’s radiators have been changed previously, and needed to be changed again in November 2021, due to the ongoing issues.
  2. Following the leak which occurred on 12 November 2021, the landlord attended within 24 hours to stop the leak, which was in line with its repairs policy. It then replaced the resident’s radiator on 26 November 2021, which was a total of 11 working days from the date of the leak and was also in line with its repairs policy.
  3. However, the resident raised concerns to the landlord about the damages caused by the reoccurring leaks in the property, and the impact of this on her family. The landlord informed the resident within its stage two complaint response that previous compensation offered to her was not intended to reflect the damage to her belongings, nor the inconvenience she had to endure, as such a remedy would be subject an insurance decision and this would not be considered as part of the complaints process.
  4. In this case, it is evident that the landlord had provided the resident with compensation for a missed appointment, although it provided no evidence to this Service in relation to the date of the missed appointment, the amount of compensation awarded or any communication with the resident relating to this, which impacted this Service’s ability to determine whether the award of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. It should be noted that whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to refer any claims for damaged items to its liability insurers, the inconvenience of a situation is not something that needs to be claimed via insurance, and the landlord would have been expected to consider this during its complaints process and provide compensation if appropriate. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to its complaint handling expectations and obligations, in line with the Complaint Handling Code provided by the Ombudsman which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling.
  6. Furthermore, although this Service is not able to determine the liability of any damage to the resident’s possessions, the landlord had acknowledged that the leaks were occurring due to the condition of its DHS and, as such, it would have been appropriate for it to consider how it could put things right.
  7. The resident informed the landlord on 1 December 2021 that since moving into the property in July 2018, there had been uncontainable leaks from the radiators on six occasions, and other leaks which she was able to contain. In addition, she stated that the radiators in the property had to be changed on 20 different occasions. She also stated that she had repeatedly emailed and called the landlord, but it had not responded. However, the landlord failed to address these concerns directly, other than to acknowledge the ongoing issue and by stating that the system would be replaced as part of planned works which would take place over a period of four years. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that the DHS in the building needed to be replaced, and it was reasonable for it to consider the works as planned works, especially when taking into the account of the cost and extent of the works, its failure to address her concerns directly was evidence of poor communication on the landlord’s behalf, and it failed to show it was taking her concerns seriously.
  8. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the landlord for this case was minimal, with very few records of previous leaks, communications with the resident or sufficient repair logs. The landlord did provide a repair log of three incidents prior to the leak in November 2021, however, the records appear to relate to leaks from other properties in the building which impacted the resident’s property, and not related to the radiators in her property. It is therefore difficult for this Service to determine the extent of the inconvenience experienced by the resident. Nevertheless, as the landlord had acknowledged it was an ongoing issue, it should have considered how it could minimise the impact on the resident.
  9. It should also be noted that the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In view of this, it is recommended that it reviews its record-keeping processes.
  10. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight on complaints about heating, hot water and energy in social housing in February 2021 stated that in cases where there are issues with a DHS, the landlord should have a contingency plan in place for any interruptions in supply. Although the landlord committed to resolving any further incidents which occur prior to the system being replaced, and stated that it would do this in line with its repairs policy, it would also be expected to consider the distress and inconvenience of any further incidents, as well as ensuring it manages her expectations, sets out the actions it has planned to take to ensure there was a reliable supply of heating and hot water in her property, and to compensate her accordingly for any detriment.
  11. Whilst, in this case, the landlord had taken reactive steps to resolve the damage which had been caused, such as instructing a clean up crew who washed, shampooed and restored the carpets, redecorated and completed mould treatments, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate any proactive steps it could take, and to implement a plan to minimise the impact of any further incidents. The landlord is therefore ordered to create an appropriate contingency plan for any further leaks that may happen in the resident’s property due to the DHS. In addition, the landlord is recommended to consider appropriate compensation for any future incidents which occur as a result of the DHS system.
  12. However, the landlord has informed this Service that it has attempted to complete further repairs to the property since the complaint was escalated to this Service, but the resident has not provided access and it has since resulted to communicating with her solicitor. Although the landlord did not provide evidence relating to the repairs it was trying to complete, the resident is obligated to provide access for repairs as per the tenancy conditions. It is therefore recommended that the landlord communicates with the resident again about the repairs, and tries to come to an agreement for the repairs to take place.
  13. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to consider the detriment to the resident throughout its investigation, and to consider an appropriate level of redress for this incident or any future leaks which may occur, until the heating system is replaced. This was exacerbated by its poor communication and record-keeping, which is evident in the minimal evidence it provided to this Service. This constitutes a failing on the landlord’s behalf, and compensation is due in view of this. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation of £350 would provide adequate redress for the failings listed above, this is in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where the has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of loss of heating in the property

  1. In addition to the leaks experienced by the resident, she raised concerns to the landlord that each time the heating system failed, leaked or the radiators needed to be replaced, she was left without heating for one or two weeks.
  2. Despite the resident raising her concerns of the times she was left without heating as part of her initial complaint on 12 November 2021, the landlord failed to address the concerns during the stage one complaint response, and during its stage two response, it only referenced the heating issues to state that it was not its intention to leave the resident with unattended leaks and loss of heating, which it had addressed as reactive repairs until that point.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord provided no evidence to this Service of any actions it had taken to resolve the loss of heating experienced by the resident, or evidence that it had investigated her concerns to ensure its actions had been in line with its obligations, policies and procedures.
  4. The Complaint Handling Code provided by the Ombudsman sets out the Ombudsman’s expectation for a landlord’s handling of a complaint. It states that landlords should address all points raised in a complaint. Although the landlord had made reference to the heating within its stage two complaint response, it had not sufficiently addressed the concerns, and failed to show that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to raise a separate complaint about the resident’s concerns about the loss of heating she was experiencing in the property. If the landlord finds service failings during its investigation, then it would be appropriate for it to compensate the resident accordingly.
  5. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight on complaints about heating, hot water and energy in social housing in February 2021 stated that in cases where a DHS is faulty, landlords should have contingency plans in place for interruptions in supply. For example, by providing access to sufficient temporary heaters. Therefore, the landlord should ensure the resident had access to appropriate alternative heating at the time. Especially when considering that the incident happened in November 2021, and should have been treated as an emergency repair as per its policies. In addition, the resident stated that there had been several occasions where she was left without heating for an extended period of time. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to consider this during its investigation.
  6. Moreover, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that the windows in the bedroom of the property were allowing in draughts, which exacerbated the impact from the loss of heating. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to address this within the complaint, and to ensure any necessary remedial action has taken place.
  7. The landlord’s failure to adequately address these aspects of the resident’s complaint has led to further inconvenience for the resident, due to the additional delay in receiving a complaint response about these issues. This constitutes a failing on the landlord’s behalf, and compensation is due in view of this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, compensation of £200 would provide adequate redress for the failings listed above. This is in line with the remedies guidance provided by this Service which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range for cases where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of leaks into her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of loss of heating in the property.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks from the date of this letter:
    1. Pay the resident £550 compensation, made up of:
      1. £250 for distress and inconvenience,
      2. £100 for poor record-keeping and,
      3. £200 for the landlord’s failure to sufficiently address all of the resident’s concerns.
    2. Raise a separate complaint relating to the resident’s concerns about the loss of heating in the property due to the DHS system, and the draughts from the windows in the property and if failings are found, to compensate the resident accordingly.
    3. Create an appropriate contingency plan for any further leaks which occur due to the DHS, until it is replaced under the planned works and to provide a copy of the plan to the resident, and this Service for compliance purposes.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to do the following:
    1. Consider an appropriate level of compensation for the resident, for distress or inconvenience is caused by further leaks occurring in the property due to the DHS, until it is replaced.
    2. Attempt to communicate with the resident about the additional repairs it was trying to complete in the property, and to try to come to an agreement for the repairs to take place,
    3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to its complaint handling expectations and obligations, in line with the Complaint Handling Code provided by the Ombudsman and,
    4. Review its record-keeping processes to ensure that in future complaints it is able to provide comprehensive, clear and accurate records of any repairs, actions taken or communication with residents.