Camden Council (202213332)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213332

Camden Council

15 February 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 the resident’s reports of low water pressure.
2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a sixth-floor flat. The resident was pregnant and lives with her young child.
4. On 18 May 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had very low water pressure which was affecting the hot water and heating in her property. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 19 May 2022 but was unable to resolve the problem. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2022 asking for an update which resulted in another appointment being arranged for 16 June 2022. The same technician returned and was still unable to resolve the problem. The landlord closed the case on 16 June 2022.
5. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 September 2022 requesting an update. Dissatisfied with the lack of response, the resident made a complaint on 22 September 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 October 2022. It accepted there had been failings during appointments and the correct tests had not taken place. The landlord acknowledged the works order was closed when a plumber said there was nothing they could do, and the cause of the problem could be related to the water company. To put things right the landlord advised it had contacted the water company to ask them to carry out tests on their supply, organised for a different contractor to attend the property to carry out the correct tests and asked for the resident’s co-operation with this. It offered £200 in compensation.
6. On 6 October 2002 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, staff conduct, the low water pressure still being unresolved and requested 3 years of service charge to be waived. The landlord provided its final response on 17 November 2022. In its response, the landlord advised the resident there were parts of the stage 1 complaint response that had been overwritten from another complaint including the compensation offered. The landlord advised that the water company had completed its tests and the water pressure in their supply up to entry of the block was not the cause of the fault. The landlord confirmed it was responsible for the pipes within the block, up to where the pipes enter the resident’s property. It said checks had been carried out at an appointment on 5 October 2022 and any required work had been completed. The landlord advised another appointment had been made for a different contractor to attend the property to identify if the loss of pressure was due to issues within its pipes. It stated it needed the resident’s cooperation to carry out further tests, but that the resident had not provided access to her property. The complaint was not upheld, and the landlord advised it was unable to agree to the resident’s request to waive 3 years’ service charge as it far exceeded the landlord’s remedies policy and procedure.
7. On 14 December 2022, the resident contacted this Service as she was not happy with the final response from the landlord. The resident was dissatisfied that her compensation request was rejected, and that the landlord did not have up-to-date information on her case. The resident wanted her case to be taken seriously by the landlord and her request for compensation to be reviewed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has referenced in her correspondence to the landlord that she experienced a high level of stress that resulted in a miscarriage. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health.
9. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route.  This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of low water pressure.

10. The resident’s lease confirms the landlord is responsible for maintaining the water pipes under and within the block except where pipes exclusively serve the resident’s flat. The water pipes within the resident’s property are her responsibility. The lease also states that the resident should have free and uninterrupted passage and running water to and from her property. The service charge guide for leaseholders confirms the landlord is responsible for communal water pipes.
11. On 18 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about low water pressure which was affecting her hot water and heating. The landlord contacted the resident by text with an appointment date of 7 June 2022. However, when the resident called the landlord to ask for the appointment to be brought forward, the landlord did amend the timescale reasonably and booked an appointment in for 19 May 2022, the next day.
12. Due to staff sickness, the resident received a text on 19 May 2022 saying her appointment was cancelled and rebooked for 25 May 2022. The resident rang the landlord about the cancelled appointment and the landlord responded reasonably by arranging another plumber to attend the original appointment. The plumber was unable to identify the cause of the low water pressure at the visit and suggested a supervisor visited.
13. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2022 asking for an update. From the evidence provided it appears the landlord had not actioned the plumber’s notes and it was only when the resident rang that a supervisor was contacted.  This was unreasonable, the landlord should be monitoring the outcomes of appointments and taking the appropriate follow-up action in a timely manner.
14. The plumber’s request for a supervisor to attend the property was denied and the plumber was instructed to return to take water standing and operating pressure tests. Despite this action being decided on 26 May 2022 the resident was not contacted by the landlord until 7 June 2022 to arrange this appointment. This delay in contacting the resident to book in another appointment unnecessarily prolonged the resident’s wait for a resolution. The landlord has provided no explanation for why it did not arrange this sooner.
15. When the plumber returned on 16 June 2022 the evidence does not show the requested tests were carried out and does not show any action was taken. This appointment would have caused the resident frustration as there was no resolution and resulted in further delays. The notes from the plumber read “was here before, there is nothing we can do to increase water pressure to flat as all stopcocks fully open”. The plumber suggested the water company might be responsible and the works order was closed. In the Ombudsman’s view, this should not have been closed without identifying whether the external pipes were the cause of the low water pressure, and without communicating with the resident. This was unreasonable.
16. There was no evidence provided by the parties of any subsequent events in the case until 21 September 2022 when the resident contacted the landlord to request an update. It appears no action was taken by the landlord until the resident raised a complaint on 22 September 2022.
17. On 23 September 2022 the landlord called the resident to arrange an appointment. The resident declined to make an appointment at that time saying she would call back at a more convenient time. The Service can infer that the appointment was booked as it took place on 5 October 2022. However, records do not show when this appointment was booked, therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether the timescale involved to return to the property was appropriate and reasonable. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep robust records of communication with residents.
18. The appointment on 5 October 2022 was to take pressure test readings to identify the location of the low water pressure, however, the contractor attending did not carry out the tests in the correct location of the resident’s property as had been requested by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord stated the tests were “inconclusive” and the visit “futile”. The landlord apologised for this in its stage 1 complaint response and appropriately attempted to put this right by booking another appointment with a different contractor. However, this meant there were further delays in resolving the problem and added further frustration and inconvenience to the resident. 
19. On 6 October 2022 the landlord’s second contractor contacted the resident to arrange an appointment to carry out the water pressure tests from the correct location. The resident declined due to the frustration and inconvenience she had experienced to date. While it is understandable why the resident would be feeling this way, any delay to the landlord carrying out tests because of no access provided by the resident was reasonable. However, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to have arranged these tests 97 working days after the resident reported the low water pressure. The delay in conducting these tests and conducting them correctly was not appropriate or reasonable. The landlord should have insured that a full and detailed inspection was undertaken at the first appointment, it should not have needed to arrange multiple visits to inspect the water pressure. The failure to do so meant that the landlord was unable to advise the resident on where the issue was, who was responsible, and how it could be fixed.
20. There was also a delay in the landlord contacting the water company to ask them to carry out pressure tests on their water supply. This was only actioned due to the resident’s stage 1 complaint despite the plumber advising this should be considered in the notes of the visit made on 16 June 2022. The delay in contacting the water company was unreasonable and further demonstrates that the landlord did not act on this issue with any urgency.
21. The resident referenced problems being able to speak with the right department and being transferred between departments as nobody was taking ownership of her problem. It is evident from the delays in actioning technician notes and closing the works order without resolution that there was a lack of ownership. Insufficiently robust procedures and a lack of ownership led to unreasonable delays.
22. The stage 1 complaint response from the landlord on 6 October 2022 offered £200 in compensation. While it was reasonable that the landlord offered compensation to recognise the “distress and inconvenience caused”, the Ombudsman does not feel this was enough due to the number of failings the landlord acknowledged in its response and the length of time the problem had been unresolved. Furthermore, the Service is aware that upon receiving the resident’s dissatisfaction with the compensation amount, she was informed that this offer had been made by mistake as was “part of the previous overwritten complaint”. Despite the resident’s expectations being raised, and the clear need for the landlord to recognise its oversights, no alternative offer was made.
23. In resolution of her complaint, the resident requested that the landlord waive her service charge costs for 3 years. It was reasonable for the landlord to decline this request as any offer of compensation would be separate from the resident’s obligation under her lease to pay towards the service charges. Her service charges were also made up of costs for services that did not form part of this complaint and the complaint did not relate to a loss of these services over 3 years. The landlord’s position on this was not unreasonable. As no compensation was offered in the stage 2 complaint response, however, the landlord missed the opportunity to put things right.
24. Despite a request from this Service, no evidence has been provided by the landlord to confirm that the location of the low water pressure was identified and who was responsible for this, that the problem has been resolved, or that the resident has been signposted appropriately. Evidence dated 25 November 2022 indicated that the matter was not resolved because a stopcock could not be accessed at a visit due to built-in kitchen units. The landlord should have taken a more proactive approach to establish where the low water pressure was and how this needed to be resolved. The landlord failed to do this despite a significant amount of time having passed.
25. The landlord did not acknowledge the length of time that the low water pressure had been outstanding for, or the little of progress that had been made to resolve the problem. While the landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that further investigations could not progress without the resident’s cooperation, it had already had several opportunities to take the required action before this point. Therefore, it was unreasonable to identify this as the barrier to resolution.
26. In light of the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the reports of low water pressure, the landlord should award the resident £350 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This Service has ordered the landlord to establish the cause of the low water pressure and if responsible for it, complete the work. If the landlord establishes that the cause of the issue derives from a fixture or fitting within the resident’s property that it is not responsible for, it can offer to complete the work and recharge the resident for it, or signpost the resident appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

27. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 internal stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 25 working days. The landlord’s policy also states, “we will discuss your concerns with you and agree timescales with you and keep you updated on the progress of your complaint”.
28. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint was sent on 6 October 2022 which was 10 working days after receipt of the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate and in line with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the stage 1 complaint contained overwriting from another complaint and referred to water ingress in a bedroom during a rainstorm which did not relate to the resident’s complaint. While the Ombudsman appreciates this was human error, the landlord should have robust processes in place to ensure any such errors are captured before complaint responses are sent to residents. It was not appropriate for the response to be sent to the resident with details of somebody else’s complaint listed, this added confusion and frustration for the resident. It suggests that the landlord did not offer a tailored response specific to the resident’s circumstance and this is contrary to the very sentiment of the complaint handling process.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent on 17 November 2022 which was 30 working days after the resident’s stage 2 complaint was received. This was 5 working days outside of the landlord’s policy. The landlord stated the delay was due to high workloads.
30. There was no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to advise of the delay which meant the landlord did not adhere to its own policy of keeping the resident updated about the progress of her complaint. It also did not comply with the Code which states if a landlord needs to extend the timeframe for a response it should provide an explanation to the resident and a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. As the landlord would have been aware of high workloads, it would have been reasonable to contact the resident to advise her of the delay to manage her expectations. It would have also been appropriate to do this to comply with its own policy and the Code. However, the landlord did not do this.
31. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses did not address all the resident’s points made in her complaints. The resident referenced concerns about staff conduct in both her complaints. She reported being spoken to rudely by telephone operatives and being “bullied and verbally abused”. However, the landlord did not address these issues in its responses. It was clear in the resident’s correspondence to the landlord that the staff issues had added frustration and distress to the situation, so it was inappropriate and unreasonable for the landlord to ignore these points.
32. The resident also asks in her stage 2 complaint escalation why she was not provided with notes and updates about the job and why she was not informed the job had been closed. These points were not addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The Code states that the landlord must address all points raised in complaints. By not addressing all the points the resident made meant the landlord also did not follow the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord was not fair to the resident as it did not answer her concerns and by not addressing the issues it did not enable itself to put things right or for it to learn from outcomes.
33. It would have been appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation in its stage 2 complaint response due to the overwriting errors identified in its stage 1 complaint response.
34. The Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £100 for its complaints handling failures in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of low water pressure.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £450. This is comprised of:
    1. £150 for the landlord’s failures and delay in handling the resident’s report of low water pressure.
    2. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of low water pressure.
    3. £100 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
38. The landlord is ordered to establish the cause of the low water pressure and if responsible for it, should complete the work to resolve the matter. If the landlord establishes that the cause of the issue derives from a fixture or fitting within the resident’s property that it is not responsible for, it can offer to complete the work and recharge the resident for it, or signpost the resident appropriately. The landlord must set out its findings and its intended action in writing and share a copy with both the resident and this Service.
39. The landlord must contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report to show it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

40. It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping practices and carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
41. It is recommended that the landlord puts into place robust processes to ensure complaint responses that are sent out to residents have a process of proofing to ensure responses with incorrect information, such as overwritten responses, do not get sent out again.
42. It is recommended that the landlord conducts staff training to ensure all points that a resident raises in a complaint are addressed in the landlord’s complaint response.