The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Camden Council (202211999)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211999

Camden Council

25 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of leaks from a soil pipe.
    2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged possessions following the leaks.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and lives in a 1 bedroom flat above a commercial unit. She has mobility issues and some health conditions.
  2. In January 2022, the resident reported water backing up into her kitchen sink. The landlord’s contractor attended to unblock the drains. The resident then advised the landlord that the blockage was backing up the condensing pipe to the boiler. She told the landlord the problem had continued for a few weeks; she did not have any heating and her electricity had been cut off. The landlord arranged the repair of the drains, and reinstated her heating and electricity.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the matter on 21 February 2022. She said that, since moving into the property in 1998, there had been several occasions where the drains had caused ‘back surges’. She wanted the landlord to carry out annual maintenance of the drains to prevent the water backing up, rather than being reactive to the problem. The resident asked the landlord to arrange for an inspection of her kitchen for refurbishment and renewal of the damaged kitchen units, flooring, walls and ceilings. She said she had had to bail water every day for 2 weeks, which caused her sleepless nights. She said the leaks also damaged her personal items. The resident explained that she had been without heating and hot water and her electricity kept tripping off. She said her heating system had taken around four weeks to be repaired.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 March 2022. It made the following points:
    1. It was partly upholding the resident’s complaint as it had not explained the type of service it offered, and it had not discussed possible options to prevent the issues re-occurring.
    2. It was arranging for a repair supervisor to attend the resident’s property, and inspect the void area below her flat (as this housed the pipework, including the soil stacks).
    3. It operated a reactive repair service for repairs such as blockages to drains, and did not have a cyclical programme for this. Its supervisor would assess the condition of the service that serves the property and would arrange any necessary works identified.
    4. Regarding the damage to the resident’s belongings, it said it would advise residents to have contents insurance. It said if the resident did not have this cover, she should complete a public liability claim if she wanted to hold the landlord responsible for the damage.
  5. After the resident submitted a liability claim to the landlord, this was turned down. The landlord said it could not be held responsible for incidents beyond its control, and the repairs had been completed within a reasonable timescale.
  6. In June 2022, the resident complained that she had only just received a response to have a supervisor inspect her kitchen. She wanted to appeal against the landlord’s decision for compensation. The landlord’s supervisor/surveyor inspected the property on 16 June 2022. It was agreed the landlord would replace the following items in the kitchen – 2 base units, a plinth, end panel, and a corner post. The resident was told the landlord would book in the repairs once the materials had arrived.
  7. The landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 29 June 2022. It noted the resident’s complaint was about the length of time it had taken for its supervisor to inspect the damage, and that its insurance team had turned down her insurance claim. It apologised for the delay in the supervisor attending her property, and offered her £150 compensation for this, and the time and trouble in her making a complaint. The landlord said it was unable to uphold her complaint about her insurance claim.
  8. The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said she had needed to chase the landlord since February 2022 for the repairs to be completed to her kitchen. She also explained the impact the leak had had upon her. The resident said she wanted compensation for the stress, damaged kitchen items, replacement flooring and carpet.
  9. A repair was booked to take place in July 2022 to replace the damaged kitchen items, but asbestos was then suspected and a survey arranged. This was completed on 1 September 2022.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 September 2022. It made the following points:
    1. After the resident reported the leak, the repair was completed within a reasonable timeframe.
    2. Insurance claims were outside the jurisdiction of the complaint process.
    3. It had awarded her £150 compensation for the delay in the supervisor carrying out an inspection. Works had been agreed to the kitchen.
  11. The resident brought a complaint to this Service in October 2022. She said the leak complained about had been repaired, but the outstanding issue was the renewal of her kitchen cabinets. She said she had been told there was asbestos in the walls behind the kitchen cupboards, but she had not heard from the landlord any further about this. The resident also advised that she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord, as she did not think this took into account the damage that had been caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident’s correspondence reports that she has experienced problems with water backing up into her kitchen sink on several occasions since moving into the property in 1998. However, she did not complain about this until 2022, and therefore this investigation focuses on events after January 2022. This reflects the Ombudsman’s approach that we do not investigate complaints which have not been brought to a landlord in a reasonably timely manner, and also reflects that the longer time goes on, the more difficult it is to effectively investigate a complaint. However, this investigation has considered some events after the response to the complaint under investigation, specifically the landlord’s actions to complete the unresolved kitchen repair works that it had acknowledged remained outstanding at the time of the complaint. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution process as this Service expects landlords to follow through on agreements made during its complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of leaks from a soil pipe

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says the landlord will attend as soon as it can on the same day for emergencies, while the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations say that loss of heating or hot water, total loss of electric power, and blocked drains and soil stacks, should be resolved within 1 day. If repairs are not carried out within that timeframe, then compensation of £10 may be applicable, with an additional £2 paid for each further day, up to a maximum of £50.
  2. When the resident initially reported a blockage on 23 January 2022, the landlord’s records report that a plumber attended the same day and cleared this. That was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The resident made a further report on 26 January 2022, leading the landlord to raise a works order in the early hours of 27 January 2022, saying the ‘back surge’ from the kitchen sink was affecting the boiler and had tripped her electricity. An electrician attended the same day and repaired the electricity fault, however a plumber was due to attend that day for the repair and missed the appointment. This and a failure to arrange for a plumber to attend the same day were service failings.
  3. On 28 January 2022, arrangements were made for attendance by a plumber,  who visited the property on 29 January 2022 and found the soil stack was blocked which they could not clear. The same day, a repairs job was raised to a drainage contractor. The drainage contractor attended on 30 January 2022 and cleared the blockage which was due to hardened caustic soda. The plumber’s attendance on 29 January 2022 exceeded the 1 day timeframe in the landlord’s repairs policy as well as the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations by 1 day, so there was a further service failing at this point. Although it is not possible for this investigation to say that this leads to liability on the part of the landlord, this may have led to some distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. After the initial repairs were carried out by the drainage contractor on 30 January 2022, the resident told the landlord on 1 February 2022 that she was again without heating and hot water. The landlord raised this as an emergency repair, which was appropriate, and the drainage contractor returned that day. It cleared a heavy blockage, but thought descaling of the stack pipe needed to also take place. On 2 February 2022 the resident then told the landlord that she had experienced a further leak. She said that she had called the drainage contractor who told her they had done a partial repair as they were awaiting approval for the flushing of the drains. The contractor reattended on 3 February 2022 and identified the stack pipe was full of grease. They carried out extensive cleaning and descaling of the stack pipe. The same day, an electrician attended and restored the resident’s electrics.
  5. It is likely the leak of 2 February 2022 could have been prevented if the stack pipe had been descaled during one of the two earlier visits. However, the immediate leak had been resolved the previous day, and it is not evident that the contractor could have known that a further leak would occur before the descaling had taken place. Although the landlord understood in early February 2022 that the resident’s heating and hot water had been restored, the resident confirmed that her boiler had still not been fixed. This repair did not take place until 11 February 2022, however, the landlord provided the resident with portable electric heaters, which was appropriate.
  6. It is noted that the resident wants the landlord to inspect the drains as part of a cyclical programme. The landlord says it operates a reactive repair policy to blockages from drains, and does not have a cyclical repair programme for this. It is not for this Service to tell a landlord what repairs should form part of its cyclical works. While the resident’s concerns about the drains and desire for these to be maintained is understandable, it is up to the landlord what works it carries out on a cyclical basis. It is noted though that the landlord arranged a further inspection of the drains in late 2022, which demonstrates the landlord gave regard to the resident’s concerns about potential further issues with the drains.
  7. However, it is not satisfactory that the landlord does not demonstrate it fully recognised some aspects of its handling. There was a missed appointment by a plumber, and a plumber eventually attended 1 day later than they should have, which would have impacted matters. There were also at least 7 plumber, drainage and electrical contractor visits, in addition to boiler contractor visits. This does not seem entirely reasonable, and this and the delayed resolution to the matter will have caused the resident some unnecessary distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen

  1. After the leaks in the kitchen, the resident advised the landlord that her kitchen units had been damaged, as well as her kitchen flooring. In the landlord’s initial stage 1 complaint response on 22 March 2022, it told the resident it was arranging for a supervisor to inspect the property. However, this did not take place until June 2022, after the resident had chased the landlord about this on at least two occasions. This was too long.
  2. The supervisor agreed that some of the resident’s kitchen units needed replacing, and raised a works order for this in June 2022. The supervisor noted the living room flooring was squeaking, but did not comment on the kitchen flooring. As the resident advised this Service in October 2022 that the only outstanding issue at the time was the kitchen cabinets, it is assumed that the flooring issue has since resolved.
  3. The landlord recognised that there had been an unacceptable delay with the supervisor’s visit, and it offered the resident £150 compensation. That was a reasonable and proportionate response for the delay up to June 2022. However, there were then further delays. The landlord’s contractor thought there may be asbestos in the kitchen, and so a survey was needed before any work could begin. This was requested on 8 July 2022 and was completed on 1 September 2022. The survey found there was no asbestos.
  4. It is accepted the landlord could not arrange any work until it had been established whether or not there was asbestos. But despite it being established there was no asbestos present on 1 September 2022, the landlord did not realise that it could go ahead with the repairs until 24 November 2022. The repair appointment was booked for mid-December 2022, and so the landlord’s failings here caused over three months of unnecessary delay.
  5. It appears this delay caused the resident further problems with her kitchen, because when the contractor attended her property in December 2022, it was found that her worktop was completely rotten and a further repair needed to be arranged for this. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £150 compensation to recognise the inconvenience the further delay caused her between September and December 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged possessions following the leaks

  1. The resident advised the landlord that her personal belongings had been affected by the leaks (clothing, shoes, electrical items, and crockery). The landlord told the resident that it may ask her to make a claim under her contents insurance cover, if she held this. Alternatively, she could make a claim against the landlord. The resident chose the latter. It is not known if the resident has contents insurance. The landlord’s insurance team took action to review and respond to the claim and this was appropriate, given it is not this Service’s jurisdiction or expertise to decide on matters of liability and negligence.
  2. The insurance team noted that a report was received on 26 January 2022 and that the stack pipe was identified to be full of grease on 3 February 2022, so they seem to have considered the timeframe of events. However, as noted in our assessment of the handling of the leaks, there was a missed appointment by a plumber, and a plumber eventually attended 1 day later than they should have. This will have had a knock-on impact on events, including when the full extent of the blockages were identified, therefore a recommendation is being made for the landlord to review the claim to ensure it is satisfied it has no liability.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 February 2022 about the leak she had experienced, and that she wanted the landlord to carry out annual maintenance of the drains. She also wanted the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the damage to her kitchen, and said she had to bail water every day for two weeks. The resident asked the landlord to liaise with the repairs department to commit to rectifying the issue. The landlord responded to the resident on 1 March 2022 and acknowledged her complaint. However, it then concluded that the resident had not make a complaint, but instead had made a request to repair a leak. It advised the resident it would not be considering the matter as a complaint, as she had not contacted the repair department to raise a works order. It said it had done this for her.
  2. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code explains that a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” It also says the resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such, and landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. The landlord later advised the resident on 10 March 2023 that it was looking into her complaint, and asked her some questions about the repair issue. It therefore did treat her complaint as such, but the landlord caused the resident unnecessary confusion by previously saying that it was not considering the complaint, and that it was raising a repair for a leak that had already been repaired.
  3. The landlord also operates a two-stage complaint handling process in which it aims to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 25 working days (though extended for complex adult and children social care services). The landlord did not always comply with these timescales.
  4. The resident initially complained on 21 February 2022, and a stage 1 response was not provided until 22 March 2022, which was 11 days outside the ten working day timeframe. The resident did not escalate this complaint to the second stage of the process. The resident’s second complaint was made on 15 June 2022, and the landlord provided its stage 1 response in line with its complaints policy. However, the resident then escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 30 June 2022, but the landlord did not provide its stage two response until 5 September 2022. This was 21 days after the 25-working day timeframe had passed.
  5. The landlord does not demonstrate that it fully acknowledged the above and the inconvenience its handling will have caused the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
    1. its handling of leaks from a soil pipe;
    2. its handling of repairs to the kitchen; and
    3. its handling of the complaint.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged possessions following the leaks.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300. This comprises £50 for the handling of leaks from a soil pipe; £150 for the delays carrying out repairs to the kitchen between September and December 2022; and £100 compensation for its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should also pay the resident £150 compensation previously offered in respect of delays to the kitchen repairs up to June 2022, if this has not already been paid.
  3. The landlord should confirm its compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to reconsider the resident’s compensation claim for damage to her possessions, taking into account the findings of this report that there was a 1 day delay in attendance by a plumber. If it remains of the view that it is not liable to pay her any compensation, it should refer the matter to its insurers.
  2. The landlord to review the frequency of ‘back surges’ at the block of flats due to the blocked soil pipes and consider:
    1. the cause of the blockages and if there is any action it can take to try and reduce the number of reported blockages, such as pre-emptive clearances.
    2. whether the frequency should inform how similar reports of blockages from residents at the block should be responded to it in future.
  3. The landlord to review the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to remind itself of its obligations in respect to raising and responding to complaints.