Camden Council (202126642)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126642

Camden Council

23 January 2024

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 requests for it to remove and reimburse her service charges for water storage tanks.
   2. The resident’s requests for it to restore her independent mains water supply.
   3. Its complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord of a flat in a building that has cold water storage tanks on the roof. The landlord is the freeholder of the building and it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. After the resident reported her concerns to the landlord in 2017 about her upstairs neighbour’s substantial works to their property affecting her water supply, its contractor carried out an inspection. This found that the works had caused both properties to share the same mains water supply, with the neighbour’s stopcocks now controlling the resident’s supply. The contractor therefore recommended that these be removed and that the neighbour’s property have valves fitted to control their own supply. The inspection also found that only the neighbour’s property was supplied by the cold water storage tanks on the roof.
4. The landlord subsequently agreed internally in 2017 that it was responsible for ensuring that the resident’s water supply was independent of her upstairs neighbour’s, as per the lease. After being chased by the resident, it agreed to ask the neighbour to carry out works as recommended by its contractor. The resident then chased the landlord about her water supply again in 2018, as well as about it continuing to charge her for her building’s cold water storage tanks, despite her property not being connected to these. It responded by explaining that it had unsuccessfully written to her neighbour many times for access to their property for the water supply. The landlord confirmed that it had therefore referred this for legal intervention, which it would update the resident on. However, it required her to continue to pay it for water storage while it investigated this, after which it would amend her account.
5. As the landlord continued to charge the resident for the cold water storage tanks, she queried its invoices in December 2020, including £3,412.52 for major works. She stated that it had not responded to her previous requests for it to remove the charges and refund her for them since 2017. This was despite the landlord and the water company confirming that her property was not connected to the storage tanks she was charged for. It therefore apologised to her about this and further investigated the matter from January 2021. The landlord subsequently agreed in April 2021 to credit the resident’s service charge account for the above major works charge. It also apologised for her distress and inconvenience and agreed to continue to investigate the annual charge for maintaining the storage tanks, as well as her water supply.
6. The resident nevertheless chased the landlord to resolve her water storage charges and water supply again in April and August 2021 because it had not yet done so. She then made a stage 1 complaint to it in September 2021 about this, the fact that she had to continue to pay the charges to it since 2017, and her many calls and emails about this to it in the meantime. The resident therefore repeated her requests for the landlord to remove and refund the charges and restore her independent water supply. She subsequently chased it for her overdue stage 1 complaint response in October 2021, which it apologised to her for and confirmed that the charges had been removed for 2020-21 onwards in November 2021.
7. The resident then chased the landlord about her water supply and for confirmation and details of her water storage charges refund in February 2022. The Ombudsman subsequently asked it to respond to her complaint about these issues at her request in March 2022, which it agreed to do. However, we again asked the landlord to respond to the complaint after the resident informed us in June 2022 that it had not yet done so. It then issued her with a final stage complaint response in July 2022. The landlord told the resident that her water supply complaint had already completed its complaints procedure with a noise complaint from her that was being investigated by the Ombudsman. This was despite its and our responses to the noise complaint making no reference to her water supply issue.
8. With regard to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord acknowledged that she had chased it for a response in at least October and December 2021 and February and March 2022. It apologised for its poor handling of this and that it had passed her water charges and supply complaints to its relevant departments as service requests. The landlord also confirmed crediting the resident’s service charge account £172.76 in December 2021 for her annual water storage charges since 2017. It accepted that it had only done so in 2021 after she had chased it, not effectively notified her of this or her major works credit, or responded to her stage 1 complaint. The landlord apologised for this, upheld the complaint for its poor administration and communication, awarded £50 compensation for time and trouble, and informed its service managers.
9. The resident contacted the landlord again to clarify her service charge refunds in July 2022. It confirmed that the water storage annual charge had been credited to her latest 2021-22 invoice, with her higher calculation being from estimated and not actual invoices. This also included the 2016-2017 charge, not credited because it was confirmed that the resident was disconnected from the water storage in June 2017. Her water supply case was nevertheless closed without a response in January 2023 because she was referred to the water company for this. The resident therefore complained to the Ombudsman about this and the handling of the charges. She sought for the landlord to confirm her independent water supply’s reinstatement via an engineer’s visit due to its agreements to do so and her lease. The resident also wanted her worry and anxiety from its handling of her case since 2017 to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has complained that the landlord’s handling of her water storage charges and supply has caused her personal worry and anxiety since 2017, which is very concerning. However, while some of its actions at that time are referred to by this investigation as background, its handling of these issues is only considered from December 2020 onwards. This is because, in accordance with the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This is normally within 6 months of the matters arising. In this case, the resident’s stage 1 complaint was only made to the landlord in September 2021. Therefore, this investigation has not considered its handling of the complaint since 2017, being more than 6 months prior to her stage 1 complaint. However, the landlord’s handling of the complaint has been considered from 9 months prior to this from December 2020. This is because, although this is not within 6 months, this is still a reasonable period. This is due to the resident regularly raising the matters that she subsequently complained about to the landlord with it from December 2020, which she only did infrequently before then.
11. The Scheme also states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning the level of service charges or the amount of their increase. However, while the resident disputed these for her building’s cold water storage tanks, the landlord’s handling of her requests for their removal and reimbursement is considered by this investigation. This is because it accepted that the charges should be removed and reimbursed and she has complained about its administration and communication of this.
12. In addition, under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. Therefore, while the resident’s water supply complaint has not exhausted its complaints procedure, its handling of this is considered by this investigation. This is because she has attempted to complain to the landlord about this since September 2021, but it closed her water supply case in January 2023 without responding to the complaint about this. This, and its incorrect description of the complaint as having been investigated by it and the Ombudsman alongside a noise complaint, are evidence of a complaint handling failure that action has not been taken for within a reasonable timescale.

Water storage charges

13. The landlord’s service charge guide for its leaseholders confirms that it will demand estimated charges for its day to day and major works in advance of the next financial year and before the end of the current financial year. It will then send an actual adjustment of these charges for the previous financial year. The landlord is required to advise leaseholders of the credit to be put on their service charge account if their estimated service charge was too high. It is obliged to charge them a fair and reasonable proportion of its expenses in delivering services to them, including for replacing and maintaining communal water tanks, such as rooftop cold water storage tanks.
14. After discovering that her property was not supplied by her building’s rooftop cold water storage tanks, on 8 June 2017 the resident disputed the charges for this. The landlord nevertheless told her on 18 July 2018 that it required her to continue to pay these service charges while it investigated the matter, after which it would amend her account. The resident then contacted the landlord again on 21 December 2020 to dispute its latest service charge invoice for £3,412.52 for major works to the storage tanks. She repeated her previous requests for it to remove and reimburse her for such charges since 2017 which the landlord had not responded to.
15. The landlord subsequently began responding to the resident about her water storage charges from 7 January 2021. It apologised for the delay in its response, asked her for further information for it to review the reasonableness of the charges, and confirmed internally that her property was disconnected from the storage tanks. The landlord therefore agreed to update the resident’s service charge account to reflect this, and it credited £3,412.52 to the account on 14 April 2021 for its above major works invoice. This was because it found that she was not liable for this, as her property was not connected to or supplied by the storage tanks.
16. The landlord also apologised for the resident’s distress and inconvenience from receiving the water storage charges. It added that it had placed a note on its system to ensure that such charges were not passed on to her again. However, the resident continued to chase the landlord from 14 April 2021 onwards to be reimbursed for her annual water storage charges since 2017, as well as for confirmation that she would not receive these again. She contacted it to do so again on 28 April and 5 August 2021, before making and chasing a stage 1 complaint to it about this on 15 September and 24 October 2021, respectively.
17. The landlord then gave the resident another apology on 28 October 2021 for its delay in responding to her. It subsequently confirmed to her on 11 November 2021 that her latest and future service charge invoices no longer included water storage charges, and it provided her with her statement of actual charges for 2020-21, which confirmed that these were £0. However, she chased it to reimburse her previous charges for this since 2017 again on 23 February 2022, as well as for a breakdown to clarify what the charges and its above credit were for, and she then did so via the Ombudsman on 4 March and 28 June 2022.
18. The landlord nevertheless only confirmed in its subsequent final stage complaint response of 6 July 2022 that it had reimbursed the resident’s annual water storage charges since 2017. It explained that it had previously reimbursed the £172.76 total charges to her account on 17 December 2021 for 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2020-21. However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident that this had only occurred after she had chased it, and that it not effectively communicated this or the above major works credit to her. It therefore upheld her complaint for its poor administration and communication and awarded her £50 compensation for her time and trouble. The landlord also reported its findings to its relevant service managers to avoid such oversights and omissions in the future.
19. The resident then chased the landlord again on 19 and 25 July 2022 for a breakdown to clarify her water storage charges and its credits to reimburse these. It subsequently provided this to her on 1 August 2022, when it explained that she had been reimbursed £172.76 for her actual charges since 2017-18 and not the £568.29 that she had calculated from her estimated charges since 2016-17. This was because the estimated charges had already been amended by the actual charges that followed them, with 2016-17 not being reimbursed for as the contractor’s inspection confirming that there was no liability for this was in June 2017.
20. It is therefore of concern that the landlord took from before 21 December 2020 until 14 April and 17 December 2021 to credit the resident’s account for her water storage charges since 2017-18. This is because its contractor’s above inspection had already confirmed that she had not been liable for the charges over 3 and a half years earlier, but it still took almost another year to fully reimburse her for these. This was an inappropriately excessive delay in crediting the resident’s account, which was contrary to the landlord’s service charge guide for its leaseholders. This is because it took an unnecessary length of time to investigate, confirm, and reimburse charges that it was already aware were not fair or reasonable, as required by the guide.
21. This is also because the resident experienced unnecessary additional time and trouble from having to chase the landlord to get the above credits to her service charge account. She did so on at least 6 occasions on the above dates before it reimbursed her, which was unreasonable and would have added to the distress and inconvenience that she would have experienced from this. It is additionally of concern that the resident asked the landlord to confirm that she would not receive the water storage charges again on at least 5 occasions from 14 April to 11 November 2021 before it confirmed this.
22. The resident also requested a breakdown from the landlord to clarify the water storage charges and credits on at least 5 occasions, including via the Ombudsman, from 23 February to 1 August 2022 before it provided this. This, and the fact that it took until 6 July 2022 to communicate the credits that it had made to her, was inappropriate. It was therefore suitable that the landlord repeatedly apologised to the resident for its above delays, acknowledged that this was poor administration and communication, and awarded her compensation in recognition of her time and trouble. This demonstrated that it sought to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.
23. The landlord’s remedies policy and procedure recommends that it recognise time and trouble with compensation from £100, and that it recognises delays at the rate of £20 per month. Therefore, while it was reasonable that it attempted to recognise the resident’s time and trouble by awarding her compensation, its award of £50 to her for this was not in line with its policy and procedure’s recommendation for this. The landlord has consequently been ordered below to increase this award to £150, which is also within the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for such considerable time and trouble. This is particularly because of its poor communication and lack of engagement, which resulted in the resident having to chase it on several occasions, causing her clear frustration and inconvenience.
24. The landlord has also been ordered to pay the resident the above compensation because, while it made a number of apologies to her for its delays in handling her water storage charges, it did not follow its service charge guide for its leaseholders. This explained that the landlord would inform the resident if her previous estimated charges were too high, and that it would subsequently adjust these with credits to her actual service charge account that it would advise her of.
25. It was suitable that the landlord additionally sought to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes. This is because it informed its relevant service managers of its poor administration and communication in the resident’s case, in order to avoid such oversights and omissions in the future. However, it is of concern that the landlord did not specify exactly what action it would take to do so. It has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs with regard to service charge administration and communication, including their application of its service charge guide for its leaseholders. This is in order to prevent the landlord’s failures in the resident’s water storage charge case from occurring again in the future.

Water supply

26. The resident’s lease confirms that she has the right to free and uninterrupted passage and running of water to and from her property through her building at all times. The lease also permits the landlord to access the property for inspections and repairs with at least 48 hours’ written notice. It is permitted to give 3 months’ written notice to require defects at the property, including from additions and improvements, to be amended by the resident before it may enter to do so itself at the resident’s expense.
27. On 8 June 2017, the landlord’s contractor also confirmed that the resident’s property’s mains water supply was controlled by her upstairs neighbour’s stopcocks following works to their property. The contractor therefore recommended works to return control of the resident’s water supply to her, which the landlord confirmed internally that it was responsible for under the properties’ leases on 4 December 2017. It then informed her on 2 July 2018 that its many attempts to write to the neighbour to access their property for this were unsuccessful, and so it had referred the matter for legal intervention, which it would subsequently provide updates on.
28. The resident nevertheless continued to chase the landlord to restore her independent mains water supply from at least 10 January 2021 onwards. This was because it had still not accessed her upstairs neighbour’s property in order to do so after many requests. However, the resident reported that the neighbour’s tenants were now happy to allow access, so legal intervention might not be necessary. The landlord therefore agreed to investigate this, and it subsequently told her on 30 March 2021 that it needed to tell her neighbour to pay to restore the water supply because they had made unauthorised changes to this.
29. However, the resident then further chased the landlord to resolve her property’s independent water supply on 28 April and 5 August 2021 before her stage 1 complaint to it about this on 15 September 2021. She went on to chase it for a response to the complaint on 24 October 2021. The resident explained on the latter date that the landlord had still not resolved the water supply after many calls and emails from her. She therefore again asked it to restore the independence of her water supply.
30. The landlord subsequently apologised to the resident on 28 October 2021 for its delay in responding to her about her water supply, which it agreed to chase its housing management team for. She nevertheless continued to chase it about this on 23 February 2022, including because she repeated that her upstairs neighbour was no longer restricting access to it. However, it was only after the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s water supply complaint at her request on 4 March and 28 June 2022 that it gave us an update on this. It said that it was responsible for the water supply, as her and the neighbour’s freeholder, and that it was chasing its housing management, leaseholder, and repairs services to confirm which of them would lead on this.
31. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 6 July 2022 then incorrectly described the resident’s water supply complaint as being separately investigated by it and the Ombudsman with a noise complaint from her. She therefore continued to chase it about the unresolved water supply on 19 July 2022, when she said that its staff could not progress this because of the above question over which of its services was responsible for leading on it. The landlord nevertheless closed the resident’s water supply case on 31 January 2023 without recording a response to her. It noted that this was because she would have to contact the water company to resolve the water supply instead.
32. The resident subsequently chased the landlord about her water supply again on 3 February and 23 March 2023. She explained that the water company was only responsible for her property’s mains water supply up to her building’s boundary. The landlord was then responsible for providing her with an uninterrupted water supply under her lease. The resident also repeated that its contractor’s original inspection, and its staff’s subsequent communications, had understood and accepted that it was responsible for reinstating the independence of her water supply from her upstairs neighbour.
33. The resident therefore asked the landlord to resolve the issue by arranging for an engineer to inspect her upstairs neighbour’s property. This was in order to confirm that the neighbour no longer had control over the water supply following their plumber’s assessment. However, the landlord only confirmed internally on 17 April 2023 that it was responsible for resolving the water supply, with its different services being responsible for arranging access and carrying out works for this.
34. It is noted that the landlord’s contractor confirmed that the resident did not have an independent mains water supply before the period covered by this investigation on 8 June 2017. The Ombudsman is unaware of the reasons why this issue remained outstanding during that earlier period. This is because, as well as being outside the scope of this investigation, it is not practical for us to require the landlord to have kept detailed records of the matter for that length of time. However, having been provided with its records about the resident’s water supply since December 2020, and her communication and complaints about this, we can comment on the steps that we would have expected it to have taken for this from that point onwards.
35. It is therefore very concerning that, despite the landlord being aware of and accepting responsibility for ensuring the independence of the resident’s mains water supply for the period covered by this investigation, it has not done so to date. It is similarly of concern that it failed to provide her with a clear formal response about this issue during the same period. In the over 3 years covered by this investigation from December 2020 onwards, the resident also requested that the landlord respond to her about and resolve her water supply on at least 11 occasions, including via the Ombudsman. It nevertheless only told her that it was responsible for this and agreed to chase its services to resolve the matter, without taking any further action to do so or formally responding to her about this.
36. The landlord instead incorrectly referred the resident to unrelated noise complaint responses before closing her water supply case as being the water company’s responsibility. This was inappropriate because its contractor and staff had already accepted that it was responsible for ensuring that she had an uninterrupted water supply under her lease, free from her upstairs neighbour’s control. This raised a legitimate expectation on the resident’s part that the landlord would resolve the issue, as it had agreed to do, as well as confirming that it was obliged to do so by the lease.
37. The landlord was responsible for ensuring that the resident had an uninterrupted water supply as the building’s freeholder. It is inappropriate that the landlord took no proactive action to resolve this for the resident, however, despite having the capability to do so. As per the lease, it was within the landlord’s power to access the resident’s neighbour’s property for inspections and repairs with at least 48 hours’ written notice. It was additionally permitted to give the neighbour 3 months’ written notice to require them to amend the water supply before it entered their property to do so itself at their expense. However, other than repeatedly writing to the neighbour to request access to the water supply, the landlord failed to inspect, repair, or require the neighbour to amend this since December 2020, which was inappropriate. This was also despite the resident’s reports from January 2021 that the neighbour’s tenants would give it access for this.
38. The landlord additionally failed to issue the resident with a single clear formal response to her water supply case. This meant that it did not give her confirmation that it had taken up its responsibility to ensure that her water supply was not being controlled by another leaseholder. This also meant that the resident did not receive clear next steps from the landlord of the actions that it would take in order to resolve this, or a timescale for their completion. This was inappropriate because she was entitled to receive such information from it for a service that it was obliged to provide her with under her lease.
39. The landlord’s only acknowledgement or remedy to the resident for its above failures in the resident’s water supply case was its apology to her for its delay in responding to this. Although it subsequently still failed to issue her with a response. Therefore, the landlord failed to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair in the resident’s case, by not resolving and responding to her about her water supply, and to put things right, by not actively seeking to remedy the issue.
40. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to write to the resident to acknowledge and apologise to her for the above failings in resolving the issues with her water supply. It has been ordered to put things right by arranging an inspection of her upstairs neighbour’s property in order to confirm whether or not they still have control over her water supply. The landlord has been ordered to then write to the resident outlining the findings of its inspection, to confirm its responsibility for her water supply as per the lease, and clear next steps for the issue to be resolved, if it has not done so already.
41. The landlord has also been ordered below to put things right by recognising its delays in responding to and resolving the resident’s water supply in line with its above remedies policy and procedure. It has been ordered to do so by paying her £720 further compensation in recognition of the over 3 years or 36 months of delays that she experienced from it in this case, at the rate of £20 per month as recommended by the policy and procedure. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for substantial redress, including to recognise the resident’s resulting worry, anxiety, distress, and inconvenience.
42. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to carry out a case review to identify exactly why the failings found by this investigation occurred, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these failures from occurring again in the future. It shall provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review. The landlord has also been recommended below to ensure that its staff learn from the outcome of her case by reviewing their training needs in relation to its responsibility for its leaseholders’ water supplies, and for repairing and communicating about these in a clear, formal, and timely manner. This is in order to prevent its failings from occurring again in the future.

Complaint handling

43. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure requires it to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and final stage complaints within 20 working days. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) obliges the landlord to recognise the difference between service requests requiring actions to be taken and complaints raising dissatisfaction with responses to such requests. It is required to accept complaints unless there are valid reasons not to do so, and to clearly set out the circumstances where complaints are not considered in its complaints policy. The landlord must provide residents with a detailed explanation setting out the reasons why a complaint is not suitable for the complaints process and their right to take that decision to the Ombudsman. A full record of the complaint, any review, and the outcome must be kept at each stage, including dates received and all correspondence.
44. The resident’s stage 1 complaint of 15 September 2021 was not responded to by the landlord at all, contrary to its complaints policy and procedure’s requirement for it to do so within 10 working days. In the absence of a response, and following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 4 March 2022 and requested that it respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord was further prompted by us to do so on 28 June 2022, but it did not offer this until 6 July 2022. It therefore took 83 working days following our contact before a response was provided. This was unreasonable. While the landlord recognised for itself that it had mistakenly confused the resident’s initial complaint with a service request, the Code clearly sets out how a landlord can distinguish between the two.
45. In the landlord’s complaint response, it stated that it would not respond to the resident’s water supply complaint. The landlord’s final stage response incorrectly stated that this was because that complaint had already been responded to with a separate noise complaint from the resident. It later closed her case about this on 31 January 2023 without issuing her with a response, as it wrongly stated that she would have to contact the water company about her water supply.
46. The landlord therefore also contravened the Code’s requirement for it to accept complaints unless there are valid reasons not to do so by closing the resident’s water supply complaint without a valid reason. This is because its decision not to respond to the complaint was based on incorrect information that it had responded to this elsewhere, and subsequently that this was a matter for another organisation to deal with. This is also because, even if the landlord had accurately identified the resident’s water supply complaint as being for the water company, it did not respond to her about this appropriately.
47. The Code instead required the landlord to provide the resident with a detailed explanation setting out the reasons why her water supply complaint was not suitable for its complaints process and her right to take that decision to the Ombudsman. However, the fact that it closed her case about this without a response meant that she was not provided with any such explanation, reasons, or the right to take the complaint to us.
48. The above failures also suggest that the landlord did not follow the Code’s requirement for it to keep a full record of the resident’s complaints, any reviews, and the outcomes at each stage, including dates received and all correspondence. This is because it failed to issue a stage 1 response to either of her complaints, did not escalate the complaints after first being contacted by the Ombudsman, incorrectly referred her water supply complaint to unrelated complaint responses, and wrongly closed this without a response. The landlord has therefore also been ordered below to acknowledge and apologise to the resident for its above complaint handling failings in her case, as well as to carry out the case review mentioned above in relation to these.
49. The landlord took over 9 months from the resident’s stage 1 complaint in September 2021 to issue her with any response to her complaint in July 2022. It also only did so after being repeatedly being chased by her and the Ombudsman to provide a response, which was only at the final stage and not at stage 1. Furthermore, the fact that the landlord closed the resident’s water supply complaint after another 6 months in January 2023 without any response has meant that this investigation is the only response to that complaint. The landlord was therefore responsible for the resident experiencing considerable unnecessary additional time and trouble from its total delays of 15 months in relation to her formal complaints. She also further experienced this from having to chase it and to contact the Ombudsman in order to get a response.
50. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of its total complaint handling delays of 15 months in her case. This is at the rate of £20 per month for delays recommended by its remedies policy and procedure. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failures that adversely affected the resident, which were not acknowledged and no attempt was made to put things right. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy and procedure and the Code. This is in order to prevent its complaint handling failings in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.

Determination

51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The resident’s requests for it to remove and reimburse her service charges for water storage tanks.
    2. The resident’s requests for it to restore her independent mains water supply.
    3. Its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

52. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,170 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
       1. £150 in recognition of her time and trouble from its poor administration and communication in her water storage charge case.
       2. £720 for the 36 months of delays that she experienced from its handling of her water supply case.
       3. £300 for the 15 months of complaint handling delays that she experienced from it.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to acknowledge and apologise to her for its above failings in handling her water supply case and in its complaint handling.
    3. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s upstairs neighbour’s property within 4 weeks in order to confirm whether or not they still have control over her water supply. The landlord shall then write to provide the resident with a clear formal response outlining its inspection’s findings, its responsibility for the independence of her water supply, and clear next steps with a timescale for it to ensure this, if it has not done so already.
    4. Carry out a case review within 8 weeks to identify exactly why the failings found by this investigation in its handling of the resident’s water supply case and in its complaint handling occurred, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these failures from occurring again in the future. The landlord shall provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review.
    5. Contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the below recommendations.

Recommendations

53. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to service charge administration and communication, including their application of its service charge guide for its leaseholders. This is in order to prevent the landlord’s failures in the resident’s water storage charge case from occurring again in the future.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to its responsibility for its leaseholders’ water supplies, and for repairing and communicating about these in a clear, formal, and timely manner. This is in order to prevent the landlord’s failings in the resident’s water supply case from occurring again in the future.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy and procedure and the Code. This is in order to prevent the landlord’s complaint handling failures in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.