Camden Council (202214399)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214399

Camden Council

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of and works outstanding by contractors.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property which is a third floor flat. He has lived at the property since 2015.
The landlord’s remedies (complaints) policy states as follows:
1. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 25 working days.
2. In its complaint response it will acknowledge when things go wrong, apologise, improve procedures so similar problems do not happen again and pay a financial remedy if applicable. It is committed to learning from complaints.
3. When deciding on suitable remedies, it will consider a number of aspects including the following:
  1. Amount of time a resident spent trying to resolve the issue.
  2. Difficulty the resident experienced trying to resolve the issue.
  3. Distress to the resident.
4. For severe and prolonged distress it will award up to £1000 compensation.
The landlord’s code of conduct for employees states as follows:
1. Misconduct may lead to a verbal or written warning. If conduct does not improve following a verbal or written warning, the staff member will get a final written warning or a senior manager may dismiss them. Very serious (gross) misconduct will normally result in dismissal.
2. Misconduct includes conduct or behaviour which falls below standards, for example, rudeness or abusive behaviour.
3. An example of very serious (gross) misconduct would be assault on a client, employee of councillor.

Summary of events

A contractor company were instructed by the landlord to carry out major works to the communal heating system in the block and individual properties in 2018.
On 21 June 2018 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord and stated as follows:
1. The works done had been of an unacceptable standard, contractors had not attended when they should have and work was still outstanding.
2. He had lost income due to having to take time off work to be home for the contractors.
3. He had asked a contractor if he was going to clean up after himself and the contractor responded in an “aggressive and intimidating” way. The contractor had asked if he wanted a “ruck” and during a phone call, the contractor told who he was speaking to that the resident would “go down to the office if [he] had any bottle.” He found this behaviour to be concerning and advised the landlord that his wife did not feel safe in the property.
The following day (22 June 2018) the landlord responded and apologised for what the resident had experienced. It stated it had spoken to the contractor who had apologised for the incident. The landlord noted that the situation may have been “misconstrued.” It advised the resident that it did not tolerate such behaviour and that a different contractor would be allocated to work within the resident’s property. The landlord advised that it was trying its upmost to complete the works on time.
On 26 June 2018 the contracts manager asked the resident if it could arrange to attend his property to discuss the issues he had raised and to complete the outstanding works. The landlord’s records indicate that this took place on 16 July 2018. There are no notes provided by the landlord about this meeting however the resident stated that it had been agreed that no-one from the contractor company would enter his property again.
On 4 December 2018 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. He reiterated that contractors had not attended when they should have and work was still outstanding. He had lost income due to having to take time off work for the appointments.
2. His carpet had been damaged and the shower needed to be repaired due to an increase in water pressure caused by the work to the heating.
3. He had tried to resolve the situation with the contractor but he was not satisfied with the responses or the compensation he had been offered. This Service has not seen correspondence in regard to this compensation although from the resident’s later correspondence with the landlord, he was offered £60 for the damaged carpet and £60 for the shower.
4. The work was still unfinished and he would be paying an independent contractor to “repair the substandard work” once compensation had been agreed.
5. The situation with the contractor having been aggressive had not been managed “adequately or safely”.
On 6 December 2018 the landlord responded (it is not clear if this was a stage 1 response) and stated as follows:
1. It had visited the resident and had the contractor removed from site due to the issue reported by the resident. It had raised this formally with the contractor company.
2. The issue with the installation was to be arranged between the resident and the contractor company and compensation would be offered by the landlord. The landlord stated it had thought this had been done but it apologised that the matter had not been resolved. The landlord offered to visit the property with the contractor to agree the compensation and clarify what work was outstanding.
3. It had received assurance that the resident was happy with the “finished product.”
On 17 December 2018 the resident responded and stated as follows:
1. He asked for the outcome of the investigation into the contractor’s behaviour.
2. He had been quoted £300 by an independent contractor to complete the work. The contractor company had agreed to pay this.
3. He had taken time off work on 5 occasions (between March and April 2018) to be present for works to be carried out but these were either cancelled the day before, the contractors did not attend or the work was not to an acceptable standard. The contactor had declined to compensate him for the days off work.
4. He had not indicated he was satisfied with the works and had not been given a satisfaction survey.
On 18 December 2018 the landlord advised the resident that it could instruct the contractor to pay up to £500 in full and final settlement. This Service has not seen confirmation that the resident accepted this, however on 8 January 2019 the landlord advised him that it had instructed the contractor company to pay the resident £500 as “full and final payment”. The resident responded and reiterated that the landlord had not answered his query as to why it had recorded that he was satisfied with the works.
On 10 January 2019 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. He reiterated his concerns that the landlord had not dealt with his reports about the contractor appropriately. He had asked to know the outcome of the investigation but the landlord had not responded.
2. He reiterated his concerns that the landlord had recorded that he was satisfied with the works. He stated that he was “extremely unsatisfied” and that the works were still incomplete. He had requested a customer satisfaction survey but the landlord had not provided this.
On 11 January 2019 the landlord asked the resident for more details of the report of the staff member having been threatening. It asked him to confirm if the police had been involved. The resident subsequently referred his concerns to his Councillor who contacted the landlord on 21 January 2019. The landlord responded to the Councillor on 6 February 2019 (of copy of this has not been provided to this Service).
There is a gap in the correspondence provided to this Service until 31 July 2019 when the resident emailed the landlord and stated that the incident with the contractor threatening him had not been resolved. He advised that the works were still incomplete. He stated the landlord had not responded to his complaint and that he would be withholding payment for the major works until the matter was resolved.
That same day the landlord advised the resident that it had offered £500 compensation to settle the complaint. It asked him to clarify if he had accepted this offer.
On 2 September 2019 the resident advised that as the matters of complaint were still unresolved he would not be paying the invoice for the major works. He reiterated this again on 4 January 2021.
There is a gap in the correspondence provided to this Service until 26 July 2021 when the resident emailed the landlord and stated as follows:
1. Work at the property was still incomplete. He had not received compensation for the outstanding work.
2. He had not received a satisfactory explanation of how the landlord responded to his reports of the contactor being threatening.
3. The matter of the landlord noting he was satisfied with the work had not been addressed.
On 10 August 2021 the landlord provided the resident with contact details for its team to notify if works were still outstanding. It advised that the resident should have received a response from his Councillor. If signposted him on how to appeal the outcome of the complaint.
On 25 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord as it had sent him a notification that he had failed to comply with the terms of a payment plan. He reiterated that until satisfactory compensation for the incomplete works had been received he would not resume with the payment plan. He chased up a response to this on 28 September and 6 October 2021.
On 14 October 2021 the landlord advised that the 2017/18 major works demand had been put on hold. It advised that a response would be issued as soon as possible and apologised for any inconvenience caused. The landlord advised the resident the following day that his concerns had been recorded as a complaint and it aimed to respond within 10 working days. The resident chased a response on 22 November 2021.
The landlord noted internally on 25 November 2021 that it had arranged to meet with the resident and the Councillor the previous week to find a resolution to the issues. The resident however had had to cancel the appointment and it was waiting for confirmation of another mutually convenient date. This was later arranged for 16 December 2021. On 14 December 2021 the landlord suggested that this meeting be conducted remotely due to Government advice on the COVID-19 pandemic. It asked if the resident would be happy with this suggestion.
The resident provided a summary of events to the landlord the following day which he advised made up his complaint. He questioned why the landlord had not spoken to him, his wife or a neighbour (who he stated witnessed the contractor’s behaviour). He stated that an investigation into the contractor’s behaviour had not been carried out. He advised that he and the landlord had been unable to agree on an appropriate level of compensation. He stated that £80 which had been offered (as part of the total of £500) was not sufficient to cover his days of missed work. He stated that the staff member who had been dealing with the matters had not represented him “competently or safely” and was not “suited for this role”.
The date is not clear, nor is it clear if this email was part of its complaint response, however the landlord responded to the resident in December 2021 as follows:
1. His complaint about the contractors staff member had been investigated by the landlord and the contractor. The results of any internal disciplinary hearing were confidential.
2. It did not believe there had been any intention by its staff member to provide any untrue statements. It confirmed that the contractor complained about was removed from site following the investigation.
3. The reported actions of one operative was not an accurate reflection of the contractor company as a whole. For the resident to suggest that the company was “incompetent and aggressive” was misleading. The resident’s concerns had been taken “very seriously” and an investigation had been carried out.
4. It carried out quality control checks of the work carried out, however it was not always possible to check 100% of the completed works.
5. It confirmed that it did not have a completed satisfaction survey for the resident’s property. It advised this could be provided.
6. It would not have paid the contractor company to re-fit radiators that were not installed correctly. The remedial works which had been carried out would have been at a zero cost to the landlord.
7. It had investigated the resident’s concerns and had apologised. It had offered £500 compensation but this had not been accepted.
On 16 December 2021 the resident advised the landlord that it had not called him as arranged. The landlord advised that it had not fixed a time for a video call and that it had requested the resident’s contact number. The resident advised that the landlord had his phone number and he had expected the call to take place at the time that had originally been arranged for the visit.
On 20 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. He requested to know the outcome of the investigation into the contractors member of staff. He reiterated that neither himself or “witnesses” had been spoken to as part of this investigation.
2. The offer of £500 was not compensation, it was for work that had not been carried out which the resident had already paid for. It did not include replastering which also needed doing.
The landlord responded the same day and confirmed that it had visited the resident following his report about the contractor. It stated that as the matter had been ongoing for over 3 years, it wanted to find a resolution and asked what the resident felt would be an appropriate level of compensation.
On 20 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. There was an issue with the level of compensation required to finish the works, the damaged carpet, the repair to the shower and the days of work he missed.
2. The other issue was the behaviour of the contractor which he stated the landlord was “ignoring”. He asked again to see the results of the investigation and questioned how an investigation had taken place without speaking to him or other witnesses.
3. He asked the landlord to confirm who had paid for the radiator to be refitted.
The landlord responded on 21 December 2021 and stated as follows:
1. It had reviewed the email exchanges that had taken place over the last 3 and a half years and it was clear that there was a “lot of subjectivity” to the complaint.
2. No further reports had been made against the contractor during that time, indicating that it was an isolated occurrence.
3. It advised that it needed to find a resolution to the complaint and offered £1000 compensation for the following:
  1. Distress caused to resident.
  2. The cost of finishing the works to the property.
  3. The damaged carpet.
  4. The shower repair.
  5. Days of work missed by the resident.
On 24 December 2021 the resident responded and stated as follows:
1. He was disappointed that he had been “ignored” again by the landlord and reiterated his request to see the outcome of the investigation into the contractor.
2. He requested a copy of the associated policy to be able to satisfy himself that the landlord had dealt with the matter correctly.
3. He reiterated his request to know who paid for the radiator to be fitted.
4. He accepted the offer of £1000 compensation.
On 10 January 2022 the landlord responded as follows:
1. It would process the compensation.
2. Internal disciplinary hearings had to remain confidential. It had been informed that a member of staff had visited the resident and carried out a thorough investigation. It acknowledged that the resident disputed this but advised that the issues was at an “impasse” which had not been helped by the passage of time. It advised that, although distressing, a line needed to be drawn under the matter.
3. The radiator had been re-fitted by the contractor company. It advised that there should not have been any leaseholder charges to the resident’s account for the remedial works and advised the resident to let it know if there had been such charges.
On 17 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. He was “extremely disappointed” that the landlord had still failed to address the issues. The landlord had not provided him with any evidence that the contractor’s behaviour had been adequately dealt with. He asked to look at the investigation that took place and to be able to compare it to the landlord’s associated policy.
2. The landlord was “speculating” on who paid for the radiator.
The landlord responded that same day and stated that the matter needed to be brought to a close. It advised that as the resident had accepted the compensation, he should not be looking to continue the complaint.
On 20 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that it had not indicated that the offer of compensation had been linked to his complaint about the contractor. He advised he found it “deeply concerning” that the landlord had suggested that in accepting the compensation he should no longer pursue his complaint about the contractor. He asked the landlord to itemise the compensation offered for each aspect.
On 3 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident as follows:
1. In regard to his complaint submitted in June 2018, this was partially upheld.
2. It apologised that the matter had been on-going without a final resolution since 2018.
3. When the incident was originally investigated, it had offered the resident £500 compensation which he “refused”. Following this offer, it did not receive any further correspondence from the resident for some time. This added to the delay in the matter being resolved.
4. A thorough investigation had taken place at the time and the landlord had visited the resident as part of this investigation. It acknowledged that the resident disputed this, however it stated that it must base its investigation on evidence available.
5. An internal disciplinary hearing was carried out with the operative and relevant action taken. The operative was also removed from site.
6. The landlord had subsequently offered an additional £500 compensation to acknowledge the distress caused and to cover any costs to finish the works and for the damaged carpet.
7. It offered an additional £100 compensation for the 4 missed decorators appointments as per its complaints policy. It advised that it did not compensate for loss of earnings.
8. It signposted the resident on how to escalate his complaint to stage 2 within 20 working days.
On 1 April 2022 the resident submitted a complaint about the staff member who had provided the stage 1 response along with other members of staff involved in the case. He stated that the stage 1 response was “a waste of time”. He stated as follows:
1. He reiterated his request to know who had paid for the radiator to be refitted as it should not have been the landlord.
2. He would accept the offer of £1,100 to finish the outstanding work, damage to the property and the missed appointments but would not be “forced into dropping” the complaint about members of staff.
3. He reiterated that an investigation had not taken place into the contractor’s behaviour in 2018.
On 11 July 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. It agreed with the stage 1 response.
2. It apologised for the late stage 1 response and that the compensation award had been in ‘full and final settlement’. It stated this had been an error.
3. Its complaints procedure allowed for investigation of complaints made within 12 months of the original incident. Due to the length of time since 2018, it was unfeasible to investigate matters, including the subsequent investigations by the landlord and the contractor.
4. It offered a further £100 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
On 6 October 2022 the resident referred his complaint to this Service.

Correspondence following the involvement of this Service

On 15 January 2023 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. The landlord had failed to answer his questions or provide any evidence that the contractor’s behaviour had been investigated. He asked to know why the landlord had not interviewed witnesses.
2. He requested that the landlord provide a copy of its investigation so that he could compare it to its policy.
3. He requested that the landlord assess its policy for dealing with such matters.
4. He requested to know why the landlord had advised him that he would have to drop the complaint about the contractor if he accepted the compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This Service has noted that there is disagreement between the resident and the landlord as to whether the landlord met with the resident following his report about the contractor. It is not for this Service to determine whether this meeting took place or whether the landlord followed disciplinary process with regards to the contractor. Nor is it the role of this service to answer outstanding queries the resident has following his complaint from 2018. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and whether the landlords actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
This Service is generally limited to investigating matters which occurred 12 months prior to a complaint being responded to as part of the internal complaints procedure having been made. This is to ensure that the necessary evidence is available for consideration as it is acknowledged that with the passage of time, evidence can be archived, deleted or misplaced. In this case, as the original complaint was made in 2018, this investigation has considered the landlord’s actions since 2018.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of and works outstanding by contractors

The landlord responded appropriately when the resident raised his concerns about the contractor’s behaviour. It spoke to the contractor within one day of receiving the allegation and responded to the resident the day after he raised the issue to advise him of the action it had taken. The landlord subsequently confirmed that it had taken disciplinary action and the contractor was removed from working at the resident’s property. Although the code of conduct for staff provided to this Service does not set out the steps that the landlord will take following such an allegation, the steps it took were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
It is noted that the resident did not feel that a thorough investigation had been carried out as the landlord had not spoken to witnesses. The landlord confirmed that it had taken appropriate action to investigate and advised that details of the disciplinary action could not be disclosed. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to speak to the contractor and use its discretion as to whether it needed to speak to witnesses or take further investigative action. The landlord was not under any obligation to discuss the investigation or the outcome of such with the resident. This Service cannot determine matters involving staff discipline, however the landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s report seriously and took appropriate and timely action to resolve the issue, including removing the contractor from site.
Alongside addressing the reported behaviour of the contractor, the landlord also appropriately addressed the issues with the outstanding works. It offered to pay for the damaged carpet, to repair the shower and to have the radiator re-installed. It is noted that the resident declined the landlord’s offer of redress of £500 following his initial complaint in 2018. Following the residents ongoing dissatisfaction of the resolution it was appropriate for the landlord to reconsider its offer in 2021, when it increased the compensation to £1000. It is noted that this was further increased at stage 2 to £1100 comprising of:
1. £500 for the distress caused by the incident with the contractor.
2. £500 to acknowledge the distress caused and to cover any costs to finish the works and for the damaged carpet.
3. £100 compensation for the 4 missed contractor appointments.
4. £100 for the complaint delay (addressed and considered below).
Throughout the time period this matter was ongoing, there was a lack of clarity in the landlord’s record keeping. It did not have a record as to whether the compensation had been paid or accepted for the outstanding works and had to rely on asking the resident whether this had been offered and accepted. There was miscommunication, albeit this was acknowledged by the landlord, as to whether the resident’s acceptance of the compensation prohibited him from pursuing his complaint about the contractor. In addition there was miscommunication by the landlord as to the loss of earnings. It stated this was included within the offer at stage 1 but at stage 2 it advised that it did not compensate for loss of earnings. This miscommunication and lack of record keeping led to confusion for the resident.
In considering whether the redress offered by the landlord was reasonable, this Service has considered the length of time the matters were outstanding, the distress caused to the resident and the landlord’s attempts to try to put things right. It is clear that the landlord acknowledged its failings in how it had responded to the resident’s concerns. It is noted that the compensation offered at stage 1 and 2 was in excess of the maximum amount detailed within its policy. This demonstrates a customer-focused approach to the resolution and that the landlord had considered the matter outside of its standard procedure. It is clear that the landlord had tried to resolve the resident’s concerns and had taken action to complete the outstanding works but given the length of time that had passed it was limited in what it could offer other than compensation. In the circumstances, the total offer of compensation was reasonable to acknowledge the landlord’s failings and the impact these had on the resident over the timeframe. As such there was reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

It is noted that the complaints policy provided to this Service by the landlord is from 2019. It is not clear if a similar policy was in place in 2018 at the time the resident submitted his complaint.
When the resident first submitted his complaint in 2018 the landlord responded via email the following day but did not make it clear if it was responding at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure. As part of appropriate complaint handling the landlord should have made clear whether it was responding at stage 1 response and if so, how the resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2. Although the landlord’s response was not clear, the resident was clear (in December 2018) in his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. At that stage the landlord should have been proactive and escalated the complaint to stage 2. In not doing so, the landlord delayed the completing of its internal complaints procedure and delayed the resident of his chance to bring the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman at an earlier stage.
When the resident declined the initial offer of £500 compensation and involved his Councillor in January 2019, the landlord responded within 12 working days (21 January to 6 February 2019), which was just outside of its stage 1 response timeframe. It is noted that, following this, there was no further correspondence form the resident until July 2019 when he repeated his complaint. At this stage the landlord should have advised him on how to escalate his complaint to stage 2 but it failed to do so.
The resident subsequently raised his complaint again a year later (in July 2021). It is appreciated that the landlord raised this under its complaints process however it did not respond until December 2021, 6 months later. This delay was not reasonable and no explanation was provided. Within its response from December 2021, the landlord increased its offer of compensation however it was not clear if it was responding at stage 1 or 2 of its complaints procedure.
It was not until March 2022 that the landlord provided a stage 1 response which was labelled as such. Given the complaint was made in 2018, this had taken 4 years. Within this response it increased its offer of compensation to try to put things right for the resident and appropriately signposted the resident on how to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The resident outlined his dissatisfaction with the complaint response in April 2022. Despite doing so, the landlord did not respond at stage 2 until July 2022, 3 months later. This delay was not appropriate nor was an explanation given. Within this stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding at stage 1 and offered a further £100 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint. It is not clear if this was the delay at stage 1, stage 2 or both stages.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy provides 25 working days for the landlord to respond at stage 2. This is not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) and as such an order had made for this to be reviewed below.
The landlord’s failures to appropriately respond to the resident’s complaints and to follow its complaints procedure amount to maladministration. It is noted that the redress offered by the landlord for its complaint handling failure was an apology and £100 compensation. It is unclear which delay this £100 was offered in respect of. It is the opinion of this Service however that this offer was not commensurate with the significant failings by the landlord in handling the resident’s complaints or the delay in the completion of the internal complaints procedure.
It is evidenced that the resident spent time and effort pursuing his complaint over a period spanning 4 years and that this caused him distress. It is however acknowledged that, following the involvement of the Councillor, the resident did not chase the landlord for a response for some months which led to the delay in completing the internal complaints process. To acknowledge the impact of the complaint handling failures on the resident, compensation of £500 has been ordered by this Service. This is inclusive of the £100 previously offered by the landlord for its complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of and works outstanding by contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in responding to the resident’s allegation about the contractor. It took timely and reasonable action following this and appropriately advised the resident that internal disciplinary actions could not be shared with him. The landlord acknowledged the issue with the outstanding works and offered compensation to put things right for the resident. The landlord took account of the amount of time the matters had been ongoing for and exceeded its compensation policy in the offer of compensation made. The amount of compensation offered, alongside the actions taken by the landlord to put things right, were reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not clear and caused confusion to the resident. The landlord did not provide clear formal responses, or advice on the escalation process or information about the position of the complaint in its complaints process. This led to the complaint becoming protracted over the course of 4 years and caused frustration to the resident. The landlord’s offer of redress of £100 was not commensurate to the significant compliant handling failures, the delay or the impact these had on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay a further £400 compensation to the resident to acknowledge the impact the complaint handling failures had on him.
3. Review its complaints policy (in particular the stage 2 response timeframe) alongside the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord provide staff training on appropriate complaint handling and responding to complaints.