Camden Council (202009780)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009780

Camden Council

29 May 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 the residents reports of:
1. Repairs to a communal gate.
2. Leaks in the guttering at the property.
3. Repairs to windows at the property and subsequent delays.
4. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the estate.

Jurisdiction

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder at the property and is subject to the covenants under the leasehold agreement. The landlord is a Local Authority.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord is to acknowledge within two working days and formally respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision and this would be acknowledged within two working days and a response provided within 25 working days.
The lease agreement states under Clause 4 Section 2(1) that subject to the payment of the ground rent and service charge the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the roof, foundations, external and internal walls, the window frames and timber and gutters at the property. The landlord’s housing repairs guide outlines that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the outside of the home and door entry systems and boundary walls and fences.
The landlord’s ASB policy has formal and informal remedies for dealing with noise and other nuisance. The policy highlights that measures such as mediation, conversations and letters can be used to address ASB issues and to stop or prevent an escalation in complaints. The landlord can also use acceptable behaviour agreements as a more formal remedy.

Summary of Events

It is not disputed that the resident had historically reported issues with the gate, windows and guttering at the property. On 4 June 2020, the resident made a formal stage one complaint to the landlord regarding a number of issues. These included:
1. Communal gate – The resident complained about the noise generated from the ‘heavy’ metal communal gate that was installed around ‘20 years ago’. He advised that over the years the gate had rusted and so when people leave through it the closure mechanism does not work properly and the gate slams shut. He said that he had informed the landlord of the issue and it had sent contractors on multiple occasions to fix without success. The resident wanted a proper mechanism installed or it to be replaced to a wooden gate.
2. Broken windows – The windows were ‘old, broken and rotten’ this had caused leaks with water entering the property. The landlord said it would replace the windows three years ago but there had been no progress.
3. Roof and Guttering – There were holes in the roof and guttering and water poured onto the front of the building and into the property, the landlord had failed to maintain the gutters for ‘years’ and last November erected scaffolding to fix the issues but it returned a week later.
4. Anti-Social Behaviour – The resident reported balls being kick against his garden fence and balls entering his property, the landlord failed to write to the perpetrators. There was also a neighbour who used a drill on bank holiday Friday and dumped debris and bags in front of the building. There was also an issue with residents throwing cigarette butt ends out of windows. These issues were affecting the residents work and health.
On 15 July 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and apologised for the delay. It said that it had been waiting for an update regarding the windows, and a quote from the contractors. It addressed the following issues:
1. ASB issues – It stated that it had assigned an officer to contact the resident within 10 days to deal with the issues raised in the complaint. It provided the resident an email address to contact if he had not heard anything within that time.
2. Communal metal gate – On 2 July 2020 it raised a job for a specialist contractor to attend and assess the current installation and advise if it needs upgrading and the cost involved. It was not confirmed if this took place, but the landlord agreed to update the resident as soon as possible.
3. The windows – It received a quote for aluminium framed windows which was found to be excessive, so it had gone out to re-tender. It also noted that the current aluminium sliding windows required servicing and the sills needed decorating. It advised that if the resident believed the landlord was at fault he could fill out the attached Public Liability Claim form. The Insurance Team will then carry out the necessary investigation into the resident’s claim and respond to it directly once they have made a decision.
4. Blocked and broken guttering – It had instructed its contactor to clear the front and rear gutters, this was passed to its subcontractor on 10 July 2020. There was no further information provided, the landlord advised it would update the resident on these works as well.
5. The landlord upheld the complaint regarding the length of time it had taken to rectify the repairs issues above. It apologised for any inconvenience caused due to the delays in carrying out the repairs.
On 18 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for the matter to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident raised the following issues:
1. ASB / estate management issues – He reported on going ball games, noise and music coming from his neighbour and believed that they were running a commercial football business from the backyard. He said that balls were still being kicked constantly at his fence causing damage and he wanted the landlord to investigate who was causing the damage/disturbance. He highlighted the distress and inconvenience this noise was causing his work and family. He outlined that the operative he was told to contact in the landlord’s stage one response had not bothered to respond to two emails he had sent.
2. Windows – He raised that the initial work orders were raised in 2018 and the landlord failed to follow up on the work. It highlighted the landlord obligation as the freeholders to repair the windows.
3. The resident asked that the landlord attach the public liability claim form as it was not provided with the stage one response.
On the 29 July 2020, the landlord attended the resident’s property to discuss the matters raised by the resident. The resident highlighted the issues raised in paragraph 7 above.
On 13 August 2020, an independent contractor assessed the roof and guttering repairs and provided a report. It was highlighted that all of the gutters at the property were full of debris & detritus, it was estimated to take 4 days to complete gutter clearance and repairs.
On 1 September 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two final response and addressed the following issues:
1. Metal gate at the property – When the landlord’s operative attended on 29 July 2020, he observed the noise from the gate and accepted that it was audible when the windows at the property were closed. It stated that it would initially install a rubber stopper and look for an alternative closure mechanism.
2. Windows at the property – It acknowledged a previous agreement that the windows would be replaced and sent out for competitive quotes. It was deemed that the remainder of the single glazed aluminium windows were serviceable, not beyond economic repair and did not need to be replaced. It advised that the specification for the window replacement works and overhaul of the remaining windows had been sent out to three contractors via an electronic tendering system.
3. ASB at the property – It apologised that the resident has been disturbed by the noise from the neighbours playing ball games. It said that it was not possible for the council to restrict such actions which were deemed as general household noise. It outlined that if the resident were affected by new incidents of noise and anti-social behaviour during unsociable hours it could contact the Council’s Responsive Patrol Service. It advised that it would also look at installing a bollard under the residents window to minimise ball games in that area.
4. Complaint handling – It investigated the resident’s complaint that previous emails had been ignored by the case management officer, it looked and was unable to find any emails between the resident and its officer. The landlord attached a copy of the Public Liability Form to this response.
On 3 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord in regard to its stage two final response. The resident stressed the urgency of the repairs issues as the communal gate had been banging multiple times a day and waking him. He acknowledged that contractors had come to clear the rear gutters at the property however it was the front ones that were causing the leak. He outlined that he had been waiting three years for the windows to be approved and replaced but the landlord failed to follow up with its contractors. He advised that the landlord failed to address the following ASB issues:
1. Ball games – That they were not only about noise but damage to the resident’s property. He said that there had been multiple instances of his fence being damaged by ball strikes. He asked that the landlord write to the perpetrators about the unacceptable behaviour.
2. The erection of a large building in one of the small private gardens – There was a commercial venture taking place inside with multiple people coming and going disturbing residents. The erection of the building destroyed part of a communal fence and numerous communal plants and encroached significantly on the communal area. He wanted to know if the landlord gave permission for such a structure to be built as it will have an effect on the value of his own lease and he said that he would need to seek further legal guidance.
It can be confirmed by this service that the landlord contacted the alleged perpetrator in regard to the above mentioned ASB issues in February 2021. The landlord asked that they cease operation immediately and find alternative arrangements.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to a communal gate.

The resident stated that one of the main issues that needed to be addressed is the repairs to the communal entrance gate at the property. The resident acknowledged that the landlord had historically sent contractors to address the issue, however it persisted and the resident made a formal complaint on 4 June 2020. The landlord appropriately raised an order for a speciality contractor to attend the property on 2 July 2020 and assess the current installation and its need for upgrading, it is unclear from the information provided if this took place. The landlord attended the property on 29 July 2020 and an operative observed the noise from the gate and accepted that it was audible when the windows at the property were closed. It stated that it would initially install a rubber stopper and look for an alternative closure mechanism, it is unclear if any works are yet to be performed.
The landlord had an obligation under its repairs policy to repair common entrances at the property. The evidence from the landlord demonstrates that there was a two-month delay in the inspection of the gate from when the issue was reported by the resident. Under the landlord’s repairs policy it has an obligation to perform routine repairs within agreed upon time periods with the resident. The landlord however failed to properly keep the resident informed about the progress of the gate causing further distress and inconvenience. Overall, the landlord failed to take appropriate steps in relation to the resident’s complaint about the gate and try to resolve the issue and complete the repair to a satisfactory standard within a reasonable time. The landlord failed to offer the resident compensation for the delay or distress and inconvenience caused.

Leaks in the guttering and roof.

It is acknowledged by both parties that there had been historic issues with the guttering at the property with contractors attending in November 2019 to fix the issue, however it subsequently returned. The resident raised the issue of damage to the guttering and roof in his stage one complaint on 4 June 2020. The landlord had an obligation under the lease agreement to repair and maintain the guttering and roof at the property. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and contracted out the repair on 12 July 2020 with a report being provided on 12 August 2020 and subsequent works being undertaken. After the landlord’s stage two response the resident stated that the contractors had fixed the rear gutters but it was the front gutters causing the issue. It was unclear from the information provided if the contractors returned to address the issue, however this can be raised by the resident as a new complaint if necessary. Overall, from the information provided the landlord had taken approprate steps in line with the lease agreement to address the problem with the gutters however further works may need to be performed to put the issue right.

Repairs to windows at the property and subsequent delays.

Under the leasehold agreement the landlord has an obligation to repair and maintain the windows at the property. The resident claims that it first made the landlord aware of the issue in 2018 and the works were approved however no information was provided to this service by either party about the historic nature of the works. Due to the length of time it is not approprate for this service to consider the historic failure as it was not raised within 12 months of the alleged breach however it does provide context to the issue.
The resident first made a formal complaint to the landlord on 4 June 2020 and complained that the windows were ‘old, broken and rotten’ which had caused leaks with water entering his property. The landlord highlighted in its stage one response that it had received a quote for the works to be completed but it was deemed to be too expensive and the job was put out for tender. Under the landlord’s repairs policy it has an obligation to perform routine repairs within agreed upon time periods with the resident. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delays in its stage one and two complaint responses however it failed to take a resolution focused approach and communicate the next steps or time frames to the resident. The landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident caused distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to offer any compensation to the resident for the acknowledged delays and from the information provided by the landlord it is not clear if the works are yet to be completed.

Reports of ASB at the estate.

This dispute is between the resident and a neighbour at the estate who is alleged to have been running a football clinic from the property causing noise and damage to the property. He also raised issues regarding the erection of an outbuilding and reports of fly tipping at the estate. It should be clarified that the role of the Ombudsman is not to investigate and establish whether the reported behaviour occurred or not. The Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the complainant’s reports were in line with its legal and policy obligations.
The evidence provided demonstrated that the resident raised the issues in his stage one complaint on 4 June 2020. The landlord stated on 12 July 2020 that it had assigned an officer to contact the resident within 10 days to deal with the issues raised in his complaint however the evidence provided by the resident suggests that this did not occur. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to make reasonable attempts to contact the resident. Under the landlord’s ASB policy it has the obligation to investigate each report of ASB but in this case it failed to address a number of issues raised by the resident. The landlord provided documentation that it contacted the alleged perpetrator in February 2021 about the alleged incidence of ASB however this represents an unacceptable seven-month delay responding to the resident’s complaints, which is not in line with its ASB policy. Overall, the landlord failed to take reasonable steps in dealing with the residents reports of ASB which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to a communal gate.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to windows at the property and subsequent delays.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the estate.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect to the leaks in the guttering at the property.

Reasons

It is evident that the landlord had an obligation to repair the entrance gate at the property. The landlord was made aware of the issue and failed to have it properly rectified within a reasonable timeframe as per its repairs policy. The landlord’s failure to repair caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident and it did not offer any compensation to put right the issue.
The landlord failed to take a resolution focused approach in communicating the delays to the repairs of the windows at the property. The landlord also failed to provide approprate timelines in which the repairs would be complete, this caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord failed to adequately investigate the resident’s reports of ASB inline with is policies and procedures and failed to address a number of the issues raised by the resident. It is clear from the evidence provided that there was a seven-month delay in contacting the alleged perpetrator regarding some of the alleged issues.
The landlord took a resolution focused approach and commissioned a report and subsequent works to be carried out to the guttering at the property. Not enough information was provided to determine if further works were completed but this can be raised again by the resident as a new complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £350 comprising:
1. £100 in respect to the delayed approach in addressing repairs to a communal gate at the property.
2. £100 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the delay in repairs to the windows at the property.
3. £150 in respect to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident regarding delays in addressing anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the estate.
That the landlord is to identify and carry out any outstanding repairs to the gate and windows in line with its repairs policy and report back to this service upon completion.
The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

This investigation has identified potential problems in the landlord’s record keeping, which meant that it was not able to provide information or evidence supporting or explaining how it considered the resident’s complaint. The specific reason for this is not known. However, the landlord is recommended to examine its procedures to identify why this information was not provided, and to take steps to rectify whatever shortcomings are found.