Camden Council (202232069)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232069

Camden Council

6 October 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 handling of:
    1. reports of a leak from the roof entering the resident’s property.
    2. the resident’s concerns that she was not able to make a home insurance claim for the internal damage caused to the property, due to the repairs to the roof remaining outstanding.
    3. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder. The resident’s daughter is representing her in this complaint. The resident’s daughter has described the resident as elderly and stated that she has several medical conditions including a heart condition. The landlord’s records state that the resident has arthritis, a hip replacement and long standing back pain and frailty.
  2. On 20 January 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She explained that during the Covid-19 pandemic she complained that the roof was leaking. She stated that she was told that the roof could not be repaired due to Covid-19 regulations. The resident explained the leak became worse despite repeated reports to the repairs team. She also stated that water seeped into the kitchen causing electrical failure and she spent 16 January 2023 without any electricity.
  1. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 7 February 2023. The landlord stated it has inspected the last 12 months of repairs history and it could see that a work order was raised in October 2022 to repair the roof. Then works were completed in November 2022 to repair the roof. The landlord believed that the matter was resolved. However, the resident contacted the landlord at the end of November 2022 and reported that the leak was still present. The landlord stated that it inspected the property on 10 January 2023 and then carried out works to fill more gaps and holes in the cladding. The landlord also explained that its contractor stated that further work was required to repair the roof and it was in the process of assessing the quote. The landlord stated it could not provide any compensation, but as a leaseholder she could make a claim on the building insurance for any internal structural damages.
  2. On 16 February 2021, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated that she complained about water flooding the balcony several times in 2021 and 2022 and, had the issue been resolved, the water would not have entered inside her property. The resident explained that she expected a swift and satisfactory repair in the form of the pipe being replaced and compensation for the stress they have undergone due to the landlord’s negligence.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 25 April 2023. It explained that the history of issues shown on the repairs records did raise concerns that a general inspection was required. The landlord stated that it had asked the planners to arrange for the roof contractor to visit as soon as possible and provide a full condition survey and quote for the identified works. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in it providing its stage 2 complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the delay.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was for the landlord to repair the roof, replace the corroded pipe and provide compensation.
  5. The landlord stated in correspondence dated 22 September 2023, that it carried out the roof survey and repaired the roof. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of this and did not provide a copy of the surveyor’s report as requested. The resident has stated that the roof has still not been repaired and there is damp in the kitchen and damp and mould in one of the bedrooms.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak from the roof entering the resident’s property.

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the block including the roof foundations, external and internal walls, window frames and chimney stacks, gutters and rainwater and soil pipes.
  2. The resident raised concerns that a roof leak at the property was an issue from December 2019. However, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised until January 2023. In view of the time periods involved in this case and considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this report will consider specific events around six months prior to when the resident submitted her complaint in January 2023. This is because paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), explains that this service cannot investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within six months of the matters arising.
  3. The resident initially submitted a complaint to the landlord about the ongoing roof leak in January 2023. However, the Ombudsman has noted from the landlord’s repairs log for contextual reasons that there have been issues with the roof leaking since December 2019. The landlord previously carried out works to the roof in September 2021, which included repairing the steel gully joints.
  4. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property around six times between November 2022 and February 2023 to carry out repairs to the roof. The repairs included clearing the expansion joints and resealing them with sealant, filling cracks in the gully with sealant and also sealing the gutter. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord did try to repair the roof. However, it is evident that the majority of the repairs involved using sealant on the affected area which also included sealing a pipe which was identified as in poor condition. It is not effective or reasonable for a landlord to carry out the same repair method on more than 2 to 3 occasions, particularly if that repair method is not fixing the issue.
  5. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to complete a full roof survey after the second to third repair attempt. The survey would have provided the landlord with a qualified opinion of the cause of the roof leak and recommended works and provided it with a quicker solution to resolve the leak issue. The landlord only offered to carry out a survey of the roof in its stage 2 response issued in April 2023, which was a significant amount of time after the roof leak first started. Therefore, in this instance the Ombudsman does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to the roof leak.
  6. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it has completed the survey of the roof and repaired the leak. However, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with sufficient evidence to confirm this. It also has not provided a copy of the surveyor’s report to show that the roof survey was completed, which the Ombudsman requested on 18 September 2023. The resident’s daughter has also told the Ombudsman that the landlord has not carried out a roof survey or any repairs to the roof and there is still damp within the property. The resident’s daughter has also told the Ombudsman that when the landlord’s electrician visited their property in November 2022, he disconnected their extractor fan due to water from the roof entering the electrics of the extractor fan. Therefore, the resident has been left without a working extractor fan for approximately 10 months which is contributing to the damp at the property.
  7. The delay in resolving the leak, would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman recognises that it must be very difficult for the resident and her daughter living in the property with the leak which has resulted in damp in the kitchen and damp and mould in one of the bedrooms at the property. The landlord was also aware that the resident has several medical conditions and that she was elderly. Therefore, it was unacceptable for the landlord to have a leak outstanding for such a long period of time. The landlord should have prioritised the repair and resolved the issue quickly considering the resident’s circumstances.
  8. The landlord has acknowledged during its stage two complaint response that there have been delays in completing the proposed works to resolve the roof leak. However, the landlord has failed to apologise to the resident and offer compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by significant delays.
  9. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the roof survey has been carried out and that the roof has been repaired. The Ombudsman requires the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the roof and the resident’s property and draw up a schedule of works to repair the roof. The landlord should then carry out the necessary works to resolve the roof leak.
  10. There has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak from the roof entering the resident’s property. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1500 to recognise the significant distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced due to the landlord’s failure to resolve the leak at the resident’s property within a reasonable time period. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £1000 or more where there have been serious failings by the landlord which had a significant long-term impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she was not able to make an insurance claim for the internal damage caused to the property, due to the repairs to the roof remaining outstanding.

  1. The resident raised as part of her complaint that she has not been able to make a home insurance claim for the internal damage caused to the property due to the repairs to the roof remaining outstanding.
  2. The Ombudsman recognises that it must have been difficult for the resident and her daughter living in the property with the internal damage. However, there is no supporting evidence to suggest that the resident was unable to submit a claim to her insurer even though the repair to the roof was still outstanding such as correspondence from the insurer confirming this.
  3. The landlord also stated in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident could claim on the building insurance for any internal structural damage to her property. The leasehold property benefits from buildings insurance which is intended to cover costs such as repairs to the interior of the resident’s property following a leak and the landlord would not be expected to pay these costs rather than the insurer.
  4. The Ombudsman believes that the landlord took reasonable steps in response to the resident’s concerns about claiming for the internal damage at the property. Therefore, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she was not able to make a home insurance claim for the internal damage caused to the property due to the repairs to the roof remaining outstanding.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code states that a stage 1 complaint response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy which was relevant at the time it issued its stage 1 and 2 responses to the resident explained that the landlord would provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. The policy also explained that the landlord would provide a stage 2 complaint response within 25 working days. The stage 2 response timescale referenced in the landlord’s complaint policy at the time was not compliant with the stage 2 response timescale referenced in the code. However, a recent check of the landlord’s website shows that the landlord has updated its response timescales in line with the code.
  3. The resident first submitted her complaint to the landlord on 20 January 2023. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 February 2023. The response was sent approximately 12 working days after the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. Whilst any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience for the resident, the response time was only two days late and therefore would not have caused a significant impact.
  4. On 16 February 2021, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the complaints process. It took over 2 months for the landlord to provide its stage 2 response, which was provided on 25 April 2023. The overall delay was not significant, but it would have caused some inconvenience for the resident, as she was delayed in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
  5. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there was a delay in providing its stage 2 response to the resident. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the delay. The compensation offered to the resident is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance referenced above and also compliant with the landlord’s compensation policy, which states that it offers £25 per month for failure to provide a service. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak from the roof entering the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she was not able to make an insurance claim for the internal damage caused to the property, due to the repairs to the roof remaining outstanding.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the concerns about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the roof and the resident’s property and draw up a schedule of the required works to permanently repair the roof. A copy of the surveyor’s report and schedule of works should be sent to the resident and to this service.
  2. The landlord to provide a written apology to the resident for its handling of the roof leak. The apology should come from a senior member of staff at director level within the landlord’s organisation.
  3. The landlord to pay the resident £1500 compensation for its handling of the roof leak within the resident’s property.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.
  5. The landlord to carry out the necessary required works to permanently resolve the roof leak.
  6. The landlord to carry out a review into the resident’s case and identify any areas for improvement. The review should be completed by a senior member of staff at director level. The landlord should draft a report on its findings and provide a copy of the report to this service and the resident.
  7. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within eight weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer made in its stage 2 response of £50 in compensation if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding that there was reasonable redress by the landlord for its complaint handling errors is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.