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

Camden Council (202105321)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105321

Camden Council

21 November 2022


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. The resident’s concerns about the quality of repair work carried out in the bathroom of his property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property and the resident is the freeholder. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The building needed works in 2018 to remove external cladding.
  2. In 2018, the landlord carried out works at the resident’s property, which included removing the resident’s bath panel. However, when the landlord’s operatives put the bath panel back in place, they did not return to seal it. The resident informed the landlord of this at the time.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2020 to advise that water damage had occurred in the bathroom of the property due to the bath not being sealed. The landlord initially agreed to replace the bath panel, but after an inspection it stated that it was the resident’s responsibility as a leaseholder to replace the panel. The landlord stated that the damage was due to the resident not using the shower curtain properly. The resident disputes this, as he had no issues with the bath prior to the repairs carried out in 2018.
  4. The resident complained in April 2021 about the bath panel not being sealed which led to further damage, and that contractors had painted a wall a different colour as part of the initial works. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication throughout the process for remedial works.
  5. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint dated 22 September 2022, it apologised for its poor communication. It initially advised that an inspection would be arranged, and follow on works would be raised after this. It apologised for its complaint handlings delays, explained that it had completed mould washes in the property but apologised for the delays in remedial works. It later advised it was not liable for the bath panel as the damage was due to use of the shower, and decorations are the resident’s responsibility. It partially upheld the complaint throughout, and provided the resident with £150 for his time, trouble and inconvenience.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied as the landlord had changed its position on replacing the bath panel, had missed appointments for works and had poor communication throughout the process. The resident had hired a plumber who had inspected the bathroom and stated the damage had not occurred from the resident’s use of the bath. The resident believes the landlord is liable for the damage that has occurred, such as damp and tiles falling off due to damp. He believes the landlord is liable as the damage began following a period of repair works at the property. He is seeking for the bathroom to be repaired, and an increased level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. From evidence provided to this Service, it is clear that the resident first informed the landlord in October 2018 that the bath panel had not been sealed following a period of works at the property. He then reported the damage caused by the bath panel not being sealed on 14 December 2020. Given the length of time in-between these two dates and the availability and reliability of evidence, this investigation will use the initial report from 2018 as context for the more recent complaint, but our report will focus on the landlord’s actions following the resident reporting the issues again in December 2020.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that rising damp always needs to be resolved by its repair team, and all forms of damp should be reported.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also stated that the resident is responsible for pairs needed following leaks in the property.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy also states that the resident is responsible for internal decorations in his property, inside doors and tiles around a bath or sink.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response would be sent within 10 working days and a stage two response would be sent within 25 working days of receiving the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the quality of repair work carried out in bathroom of his property.

  1. There is a dispute about the liability for the water damage and damp that has been ongoing in the resident’s bathroom. The resident has advised that, due to the bath panel not being sealed, it has suffered from water damage and has also resulted in the bathroom walls, door frame and tiling in the bathroom being damaged due to the resulting damp. The landlord has stated that this damage was caused by the resident failing to use the shower curtain properly, and therefore the resident is responsible for the damage. However, the landlord did acknowledge that the resident had spent time chasing the works and in view of this offered the resident £150 compensation for his time, trouble and inconvenience.
  2. Where there is a dispute, it is the role of this Service to determine whether the landlord acted appropriately following the resident’s reports, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. Whilst the landlord’s repairs policy does state that the resident is responsible for internal decorations, inside doors and tiles around a bath or sink, given that the resident had reported that the damage had been caused following works from the landlord’s contractors, and its failure to seal the bath panel, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the bathroom and any relevant damage to see if this was linked to the works it completed in 2018.
  4. In this case, the landlord did not arrange for an inspection to take place and the resident continued to chase the landlord for this until April 2021. In April 2021, the landlord has stated that there was confusion due to ongoing damp and mould works in the whole building. It stated that it believed the resident’s complaint referred to the damp that the whole building was affected by, and it asked for a contractor to assess this. Whilst the resident and contractor spoke, and the resident provided dates when he would be available, no appointment was arranged, and this is further evidence of poor communication from the landlord as it failed to appropriately set the resident’s expectations and arrange an appointment.
  5. In addition, whilst this Service acknowledges that the landlord has explained the confusion to the resident, the resident had provided photos of the bath panel on several occasions and referred to it numerous times.. A landlord is expected to maintain accurate and robust repair logs, in order to avoid similar situations. However, in this case, it is clear that the landlord failed to do this. Moreover, there was also confusion throughout the landlord’s internal communication such as on 14 July 2021, as it tried to investigate who had completed the previous works.
  6. Furthermore, despite the landlord stating several times that it would replace the bath panel, when it finally attended on 29 June 2021 to inspect the property, it completed a report and cancelled any further works from 26 July 2021 onwards, as it stated it was not liable for the damage and it would be the resident’s responsibility. Whilst it would normally be appropriate for the landlord to assess any works before determining its liability, in this case it had informed the resident several times that it would replace the bath panel, such as on 10 June 2021 and 16 July 2021. Therefore, it had already set the resident’s expectations that the landlord would be responsible for the work needed. The landlord’s failure to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations may have led to any damage being exacerbated as he believed the landlord would be carrying out the remedial work, and there was no need for him to arrange any remedial works himself. During this time, he continued to chase the landlord for the works and overall, the resident was impacted by the time and trouble he spent chasing the ongoing issues and the damage which had been exacerbated by the delays. This shows poor communication and it would be appropriate for the landlord to review its communication and repairs processes going forward to avoid similar issues in future.
  7.  In the landlord’s communication with the resident on 16 July 2021, it acknowledged that despite assurances, the contractors in 2018 did not return to seal the bath panel. It stated that, due to the length of time in between this repair and the concerns raised in in 2020, it was not able to report this as a defect, but it would complete any works required as a result of this issue. As the landlord had recognised that the contractors did not return, it would have been appropriate in these circumstances for the landlord to consider completing the works regardless of the resident’s general responsibilities as a leaseholder, as there was evidence that the previous works were not completed to an adequate standard.
  8. In addition, the resident has advised that, on 19 July an appointment was missed by the landlord’s contractors, and that the landlord had failed to address this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s claims of a missed appointment. However, the landlord responded and stated it would contact the resident over the upcoming week. From the evidence provided to this Service, it is not clear whether the landlord did arrange an appointment for 19 July 2021. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regard to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. Because the landlord did not provide any evidence relating to this, this Service has been unable to determine if the landlord acted appropriately, and therefore we can only conclude that the landlord did not complete repairs to a satisfactory standard at the time.
  9.  The contractors notes from 26 July 2021 which were provided to this Service stated that the tiles were not damaged due to the bath panel but were damaged due to water leaking and the grout had dissolved. It also stated that it was unsure if the resident did have a leak as this would be his responsibility as a leaseholder to check. It believed that the damage was not related to any works completed in 2018. It recommended that the resident uses a dehumidifier to assist in resolving the damp that was identified and considers getting a glass shower screen to stop water damage to the bath panel during a shower.
  10. The resident hired a private contractor to assess the issues he was experiencing at the property, and the contractor found that the issues were not due to how the resident was using the bathroom. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to review these findings, especially given the previous confusion in relation to the works.
  11. Ultimately, when considering the reasons listed above, the £150 compensation offered by the landlord is not sufficient and the landlord should pay further compensation to the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The remedies guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award compensation of £100 to £600 in cases where the landlord has acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  12. It is therefore the opinion of this Service, that further compensation of £250 would provide adequate redress for the failings listed above. This is in addition to the landlord’s in addition to the landlord’s offer of £150 which should also now be paid if it has not been paid already.
  13. It would be appropriate for the landlord to repair the damage to the resident’s bathroom in view of the fact that it had previously agreed to do so and the damage may reasonably have become worse as the resident was waiting for the landlord to complete the repairs and therefore did not know he needed to arrange the repairs himself.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1.  The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlord’s complaints handling. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 08 April 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the complaint within one working day. It provided its stage one response on 27 April 2021, which was a total of fourteen working days from the date when the complaint was raised. This slightly exceeded the timeframe as listed in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code, which both state that a stage one response should be sent within ten working days, however the delay was not significant.
  2. Following this, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 22 May 2021. The landlord sent what appears to be an initial stage two response on 16 July 2021 which failed to meet the criteria for a complaint response as set out in the Code as it did not state what stage the complaint response was for, nor did it provide instructions on complaint escalation for the resident.
  3.  However, the landlord later advised on 27 July 2021 that this was not its final response, and it provided a further stage two response on 22 September 2021. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the stage two complaint as stated in its complaints policy and the Code, rather than sending an interim response. If the landlord intended for the interim response to be a holding response, it would have been appropriate for it to explain that this was a holding response, include a reason for the delayed response, and the date in which the resident could expect a full response by. In this case, this did not happen. This is further evidence of the landlord failing to manage the resident’s expectations and ultimately poor complaint handling from the landlord.
  4. In addition, the landlord has stated in its stage two response on 22 September 2021 that the resident’s complaint had not been approved for a complaint escalation during his initial request on 22 May 2021 and that what appeared to be an initial stage two response on 16 July 2021 was actually the landlord attempting to get the repairs service to communicate further with the resident. Whilst this was poor communication, the landlord did acknowledge that this had impacted the resident and apologised for the lack of clarity and the delays in escalating the complaint. However, it would be appropriate for the landlord to review its training for complaint handlers going forward to ensure it maintains effective communication with residents throughout the process and follows its internal complaints process and the Code correctly.
  5.  The landlord sent the stage two response on 22 September 2021, this was a total of 85 working days following the resident’s initial request for the complaint to be escalated and a total of 38 working days from the resident chasing his complaint escalation on 29 July 2022. This is outside of the 25-working day timeframe as listed in the landlord’s complaints policy, and is further evidence of its poor complaint handling. The landlord’s policy of a 25-working day stage two response timeframe does not confirm with the guidance in the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service, which states that a stage two response should be sent within 20 working days or if that is not possible, a holding response should be provided and the extension should not be more than a further 10 working days without a good reason. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to review its complaint handling policy to ensure it is in line with the expectations of this Service.
  6.  From the evidence provided to this Service it is clear that there was also an element of poor record-keeping in relation to this complaint which exacerbated the delays, and confusion for both parties. Internal communication from the landlord on 14 July 2021 shows that it believed the resident’s complaint was about a mould wash being done to the entire building, it advised that follow on works had been done to complete the mould wash to the bathroom ceiling in the property but no further works would be completed. In addition, due to this confusion, the stage one response was focused on the mould works, and the landlord advised the resident that a contractor had been trying to discuss the works with him. As a result, the resident believed that the follow on works he was expecting in relation to the ongoing issues with the bath panel had been raised and would be completed. This is further evidence of the landlord failing to manage the resident’s expectations throughout the process. The landlord failed to address all of he resident’s concerns as stated in the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service.
  7. Similarly, the landlord advised in its stage two response that it had been unable to locate the resident’s email from 29 July 2021, which was when the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated a second time. This is further evidence of poor record-keeping.
  8. The landlord did acknowledge that its complaint handling had been poor, and advised that the £150 compensation offered to the resident for time, trouble and inconvenience also represented the delays the resident had experienced in escalating his complaint.  However, when considering that the compensation was also in view of the landlord’s poor service in relation to its repairs, the amount is disproportionate. In addition, the landlord failed to acknowledge or provide redress for its poor record-keeping, and it did not fully understand how the lack of communication and the confusion caused between both parties has impacted the resident. Further compensation is due in view of this. The landlord also failed to acknowledge how it can improve its service going forward to avoid similar situations happening in the future.
  9.  In line with the Remedies Guidance as set out above, this Service recommends compensation of £50 to £100 in cases where the landlord has made an offer of compensation, but it does not fully reflect the detriment to the resident, and is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that a further £50 compensation would provide adequate redress for the complaint handling failings identified above.  This would bring the total compensation for complaint handling to £100, taking into account the landlord’s earlier offer of £50.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the quality of work carried out in the bathroom of his property.
  2.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation, which is inclusive of the £150 previously offered if it has not yet been paid. This is made up of:
    1. £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the bathroom repairs
    2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling errors.
  2. The compensation should be paid within four weeks of the date of this letter.
  3. The landlord is ordered to complete the repairs needed to resolve the damp issues in the resident’s bathroom including repairs to the bath panel and tiling.

Recommendations

  1.  It is recommended that the landlord reviews the timescale for stage two complaint responses in its Complaints Policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
  2.  To reduce the likelihood of a similar situation occurring in the future, it is recommended that the landlord considers additional training for complaint handlers to ensure its complaints policy is followed correctly going forward.