Camden Council (202218919)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218919

Camden Council

24 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 reports of no gas supply in the property to enable the resident to use her cooker.
    2. Reported damage to the resident’s furniture during the move to her current property.
    3. Reported repairs including damaged kitchen cupboards and worktops and a damaged cloakroom wall.
    4. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 11 May 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She stated that her representative had made several calls on her behalf regarding outstanding repairs in her property. She stated that the kitchen cupboards and worktops were damaged and needed replacing. She also stated that the cloakroom wall was damaged and had split and required plastering. The resident also explained that she had no gas at her property. The gas meter had been installed, but the connection had not been completed.
  3. On 18 May 2022, the resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord. She explained that the removal men damaged her furniture when she moved to the property on 30 March 2022 and stated she would like compensation for her damaged items. The resident stated that the landlord’s removal men damaged two of her wardrobes, her sofa and bed frame. She also explained that there had been a delay in the landlord connecting the gas which resulted in her not being able to cook.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 31 May 2022. It explained that it had spoken with the resident’s daughter, and she confirmed that all repairs had been completed. The landlord also stated that there was an error on its behalf regarding the gas not being connected. It stated that the resident’s tenancy started on 4 April 2022, and it connected the gas on 17 May 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £40 compensation.
  5. On 9 June 2022, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She explained that she was not happy with the landlord’s response and stated that the compensation offered by the landlord was not sufficient to recognise her having no gas for nearly two months.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 1 September 2022. It explained that the landlord’s housing officer and voids operations manager spoke to the resident’s family worker regarding there being no gas supply when she moved into the property. The landlord stated that it told the family worker that the resident would need to contact the utility supplier to request for a gas meter to be fitted to enable a gas cooker to be installed. It stated that the resident’s gas cooker was connected on 17 May 2022.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was to receive an increased amount of compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings.

Reports of no gas supply in the property to enable the resident to use her cooker.

  1. The tenant handbook explains that if a resident is moving into an empty property where the gas is not supplied by the landlord then the gas would be provided by a gas company. It states that once the resident has collected the keys to the property, they would be contacted by the landlord to arrange for their gas supply to be connected.
  2. The landlord’s provided the Ombudsman with a copy of a gas safety record form which stated that there was no gas at the property and also there was a picture showing that the gas meter had been removed. In addition, the resident stated as part of her complaint that when she moved into the property on 30 March 2022 that the gas had not been connected and there was delay by the landlord in arranging the connection. She explained that this resulted in her not being able to use her gas cooker.
  3. The Ombudsman recognises that the gas supplier would have been responsible for installing the gas meter. However, the landlord would have been responsible for connecting the resident’s gas cooker.
  4. The landlord has confirmed that the gas supply was recommissioned by British Gas on 24 March 2022. Shortly after, the gas supply was recommissioned, the landlord’s gas maintenance contractor attended the resident’s property on        5 April 2022, and it was advised that another gas engineer contractor was required to fit a pipe to complete the gas run. On 4 May 2022, the landlord’s contractor raised an incorrect order with the gas engineer contractor to inspect a gas pipe in the kitchen. On the same day, the landlord’s initial gas maintenance contractor visited the resident’s property and stated that a survey was required for the gas to run from the meter to the gas cooker. On 10 May 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to carry out the gas rerun. However, the landlord’s notes state that the resident was unhappy with the location the contractor was planning to put the pipe.
  5. The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 13 May 2022 explaining that the resident still had no gas. The landlord informed the representative that an appointment had been booked for 17 May 2022 to fit the new pipe and connect the cooker, and it was agreed as per the resident’s request that the pipe could be installed at the bottom.
  6. The works to install the pipe and connect the resident’s cooker were completed on 17 May 2022. Overall, the Ombudsman believes the length of time it took the landlord to arrange for its contractor to install the pipe and connect the gas cooker was unreasonable. The resident moved into the property and informed the landlord that she had a gas cooker. Considering this would have been the resident’s main cooking facility to prepare meals, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to arrange for its contractors to complete the necessary work to connect the resident’s gas cooker much quicker than it did. Whilst it is accepted that it would have taken some time to liaise with the gas supplier, The landlord has not provided evidence to show that the bulk of the delay was beyond its control. The landlord could have also been more pro-active in assisting the resident such as providing temporary alternative cooking facilities such as a microwave, on loan whilst the cooker was unusable. The landlord offered the resident £40 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response to recognise the delays.
  7. The landlord’s delay resulted in the resident not having access to cooking facilities for around 7 weeks, which would have been difficult and distressing for the resident. In view of this, the Ombudsman believes £40 compensation is not proportionate to recognise the delay the resident experienced. Therefore, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of no gas supply in the property to enable the resident to use her cooker. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £300 to appropriately recognise the delay and distress and inconvenience the resident would have experienced. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact. In this case, although the delay in connecting the resident’s cooker would have caused distress and inconvenience, there may be no permanent impact on the resident from this as the gas cooker was eventually connected.

Reported damaged to the resident’s furniture during the move to her current property.

  1. The resident raised as part of her complaint that the landlord’s removal company damaged some of her furniture when they were moving it to her new property. The resident stated that 2 of her wardrobes, her sofa and bed frame were damaged.
  2. The landlord failed to address this aspect of the complaint in its complaint responses. Instead, the landlord stated in an acknowledgment email dated 18 May 2022 that the resident should contact the removal company’s insurance company but failed to provide the resident with any contact details for the removal company or its insurer, which was unreasonable.
  3. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to signpost and provide the resident with details of how the resident could pursue an insurance claim with its contractor. As the landlord hired the contractor to move the resident’s belongings, it would have been the landlord’s responsibility to provide the resident with further details on how she could make a claim which would have included the contractors’ details and insurance details.
  4. Although the landlord failed to provide the resident with the insurer’s details, its approach in telling the resident that her damaged belongings would need to be considered as an insurance claim was correct. Normally, damage to a resident’s belongings would be considered as part of an insurance claim under a landlord’s or contractor’s liability insurance policy (if it has one). Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing such claims. A landlord’s or contractor’s insurer is usually a separate organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. Therefore, the service cannot comment on the outcome of a claim on the landlord’s liability insurance if a claim is made. It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with details of how to contact the contractor’s insurer so she can make a claim for her damaged belongings if she wishes to do so.
  5. As the landlord failed to provide the resident with contact details for its contractor and their insurer, there has been a service failure by the landlord. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedy’s guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100 where there has been a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.

Reported repairs including damaged kitchen cupboards and worktops and a damaged cloakroom wall.

  1. The tenant handbook explains that the landlord would be responsible for replacing plasterwork that has not been damaged through misuse. The tenant handbook also states that normally the resident would be responsible for replacing kitchen units including cupboard doors, shelves, handles, drawers, and worktops. However, in this instance, as the resident had recently just moved into the property, the repairs should have been considered as void works, which would normally be completed whilst the property was empty or a short time after the new tenant moved in. Therefore, in this case, the landlord was responsible for repairing or replacing the kitchen cupboards and worktops. The tenant handbook or landlord’s website does not include any information about repair timescales for emergency or routine repairs.
  2. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident reported in May 2022 that her kitchen cupboards and worktops were damaged and required replacing. The resident stated in her complaint that her representative had made calls regarding the repairs prior to this. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any records to evidence this.
  3. The landlord repair records state the resident first reported an issue with the cloakroom wall on 27 June 2022. However, the resident’s initial complaint dated 11 May 2022 did reference the outstanding repair to the wall which was prior to the date included in the repair records.
  4. As the landlord’s tenant handbook or website does not reference any repair timescales. The Ombudsman has considered what would be considered as good practice, which would be that emergency repairs should be attended to and made safe within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs should be attended to within 28 days. It is recognised that some repairs may take longer than 28 days due to the need to order parts etc. However, where this is the case, the landlord should provide residents with timescales and keep them updated.
  5. The landlord completed repairs to the resident’s kitchen cupboards and worktops on 28 June 2022. Therefore, the Ombudsman believes that the landlord responded with a reasonable timeframe.
  6. In relation to the cloakroom wall, as the resident’s initial complaint dated 11 May 2022 referenced the outstanding cloakroom wall repair. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to arrange an appointment within around 28 days of when the resident first mentioned the repair issue in her complaint. However, the landlord failed to do this and did not book an initial appointment to inspect and repair the wall until 17 August 2022. Therefore, the initial delay was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 17 August 2022 for the booked appointment. Initially, the contractor was unable to gain access to the property. However, they revisited the resident’s property later on the same day and was able to access the property and complete part of the work. A follow up appointment was booked with the resident for 2 September 2022 to complete the rest of the work. However, the contractor was unable to gain access to the property. Due to the failed access, an appointment was rebooked with the resident for 20 September 2022. The appointment was cancelled because the landlord’s contractor was unwell, and the tenant was also unavailable for the appointment. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord’s contractor being unable to access the resident’s property and also the contractor falling unwell would have been outside of the landlord’s control.
  8. The landlord rebooked a new appointment for 27 September 2022. However, its contractor had to cancel the appointment because they needed to attend to an emergency repair. Due to this, an appointment was rebooked for 15 November 2022. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on this date, but no one answered the door, so they were unable to access the property. A final appointment was rebooked for 20 December 2022 and the contractor was able to access the property and complete the repairs to the wall.
  9. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord attempted on several occasions to access the resident’s property to complete the repairs to the wall and recognises that delays relating to this were outside the landlord’s control. However, the Ombudsman believes the landlord’s initial delay in booking the first appointment was unreasonable. Therefore, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of reported repairs, including damaged kitchen cupboards and worktops and a damaged cloakroom wall. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the initial delay. This amount is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above and also compliant with the landlord’s compensation policy.

The associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint and a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescale as the Code for stage one responses. However, it references a 25-working days timescale for providing stage 2 complaint responses which is not compliant with the Code. However, a recent check of the landlord’s website shows that the landlord has updated its stage 2 response timescales in line with the Code.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as when a customer lets it know that they are unhappy with the landlord’s service and wants the landlord to take action to resolve it.
  4. The Code states that a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
  5. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 11 May 2022. As part of the complaint, she stated that her kitchen cupboards and worktops were damaged and required replacing. In addition, she explained that her cloakroom wall was damaged and required replastering and stated that the gas had not been connected at her property. On 18 May 2022, the resident submitted an additional complaint, and, in the complaint, she stated that she was unhappy that the landlord’s removal men damaged her belongings and also that there had been a delay with the landlord connecting the gas.  Following this, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 31 May 2022. The response was only slightly late by a few days. Overall, there would not have been a significant impact from this delay.
  6. On 9 June 2022, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. Following this, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 1 September 2022. It took the landlord nearly 3 months to issue its stage 2 complaint response. The response was considerably late and would have delayed the resident in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
  1. In addition to the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response late. It also failed to address part of the resident’s complaint. The resident raised as part of her complaint that the landlord’s removal men damaged her furniture and requested compensation for her damaged items. This aspect of the complaint was not addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 or stage 2 complaint response. The landlord‘s failure to address all of the resident’s complaint points was unreasonable and not compliant with the Code.
  2. Considering the landlord’s multiple complaint handling errors. There has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above and also compliant with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of no gas supply in the property to enable the resident to use her cooker.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reported damage to the resident’s furniture during the move to her current property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reported repairs including damaged kitchen cupboards and worktops and a damaged cloakroom wall.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for errors in its handling of reports of no gas supply in the property to enable the resident to use her cooker.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for errors in its handling of reported damage to the resident’s furniture during the move to her current property.
  3. The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for errors in its handling of reported repairs including damaged kitchen cupboards and worktops and a damaged cloakroom wall.
  4. The landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling errors.
  5. The landlord should comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to create a separate repairs policy with repairs timescales if it does not already have one in place in order to manage residents’ expectations and help to ensure it is responding to repairs in a reasonable timeframe.