Camden Council (202219378)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219378

Camden Council

21 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a leaking roof causing water damage to the property.
2. Complaints handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a 3-bedroom flat. The landlord is a council. The complaint relates to the resident’s bathroom which is a flat roofed extension to the property.
The resident has told the landlord and this Service that she is elderly and has multiple health conditions, although the landlord has said it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
Under the lease the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the building which includes the roofs and external walls. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its repairs policy and tenant handbook, however, these do not apply to leaseholders.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “when someone lets us know that they are unhappy with our service and they want us to take action to resolve it”. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process, with referral to the Ombudsman listed as a third stage. The policy says the landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and contact the resident to ensure it understands the complaint. It will respond within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord will acknowledge the escalation and provide its response within 25 working days. The policy says if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can approach this Service.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Paragraph 1.2 states that a complaint should be defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. The landlord should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13). It should address all elements of the resident’s complaint within its response (paragraph 5.16).
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases, and to make adherence to this part of the service level agreement with third parties, for example contractors.

Summary of events

On 20 September 2019 the resident reported to the landlord a leak into her bathroom from the flat roof above. She also reported cracking to her walls. The landlord’s contractor cleared the guttering and repaired the roof on 23 September 2019. On 7 October 2019 a structural engineer for the landlord recommended monitoring works for suspected subsidence.
The resident called the landlord on 20 July 2020 and reported that the roof was leaking into her bathroom, and the landlord booked an appointment for 22 July 2020. On that date its contractor completed a temporary repair and recommended a new asphalt roof as “the boarding has gone”. The landlord raised a further repair for the roof and for internal decoration of the bathroom ceiling on 12 August 2020, which it marked as completed on 23 March 2021. However, the landlord has not provided to this Service any evidence of the works which took place.
On 22 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the leak and issues with subsidence were still present. She said it had repaired the cracks but there was still a leak, which had caused her ceiling to be water stained, the plaster damaged, and dirty black water to drip from the ceiling.
On 23 October 2021 the resident made a complaint. The landlord has not provided to the Ombudsman a copy of the complaint or its response of 25 November 2021. As a result of the complaint the landlord raised a repair to check the roof. Its contractor inspected the roof on 13 December 2021 and completed works to repair it on 10 January 2022.
The resident reported to the landlord that the roof was leaking again on 16 March 2022. The landlord’s contractor attended on 28 March 2022. Its records state that no leak was found but ‘salts’ were coming through the ceiling and the resident asked for the ceiling to be redecorated.
On 16 March 2022 the resident also made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about:
1. Her ceiling being water damaged. She said the landlord had repaired the roof and redecorated the ceiling 3 times, but it was still damaged. She wanted the landlord to consider re-doing the repairs.
2. Having tried to email the landlord about her repairs and received an email saying she had to use webchat, but had not been able to, and had to call the landlord instead.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 6 April 2022 it:
1. Partially upheld the complaint.
2. Confirmed it had responded to her previous complaint on this issue and checked the roof. It had repaired the roof in December 2021 and January 2022. When it inspected in March 2022 it found that the ceiling damage was caused by the previous leak.
3. Recommended that she make an insurance claim, or a liability claim against the landlord, for the cost of the redecoration works.
4. Said it was looking to improve how residents could contact it and this involved removing email. However, it should have dealt with the resident’s query sent by email and apologised for this. It said the resident had not told it what made her vulnerable but if she wanted to it would try to improve the service it offered.
5. Gave details on how to escalate the complaint within 20 working days.
On 24 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and asked to escalate her complaint. She apologised for missing the deadline and said this was due to having been unwell. She said when the contractor came to inspect the roof, he did not have a ladder and did not inspect the roof but looked out from a communal set of stairs. She also said it should not be for her to make an insurance claim for her ceiling as the cause of the damage was the leaking roof, which the landlord was responsible for. She also said she did not want to pay the £250 excess.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 18 June 2022 to chase a response to her escalation request. She said there was damp in her bathroom, the damage to her ceiling was getting worse, the wall had bowed and some of her tiles had cracked, and there was still evidence of subsidence. She reiterated that she had health issues and was vulnerable and she had been waiting over 3 weeks for a response to her email of 24 May 2022.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 31 August 2021 it:
1. Set out the history of the complaint, its stage 1 response, and the contents of the resident’s subsequent emails.
2. Quoted from its repairs records of the repairs carried out to the roof.
3. Suggested again that the resident make an insurance claim or claim against it.
4. Did not uphold the complaint. It said its stage 1 response had “investigated [her] concerns and interrogated repairs records effectively.” It had inspected the roof in March 2022 and found no further leak.
5. Apologised for the delay in its response, which it said was due to “the original investigator having to take unplanned leave”.
6. Gave details on how to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident emailed the landlord’s insurance department and spoke to the insurers on 8 November 2022, which said it would appoint a loss adjuster. On the same day the resident reported to the landlord that water was leaking into the external wall, and this was damaging her tiles. A repair was booked and then rescheduled for 23 December 2022, when the resident said the contractor recommended a roofer attend.
The landlord raised a repair for the roof on 14 March 2023, which it rescheduled at the resident’s request for 20 April 2023. The resident emailed the landlord on that date and said the contractor had recommended the roof be completely renewed. The loss adjuster appointed by the insurer for the resident emailed the landlord on 20 June 2023 to ask for an update on the roof repair. The landlord replied and said the resident should contact it by webchat or text message. The loss adjuster replied to the landlord that it would be more appropriate for it to find out and provide the information than for the elderly resident to have to chase for it. On 5 July 2023 the landlord’s insurers emailed the landlord in response to concerns from the loss adjuster that the landlord was taking too long to repair the roof.
The landlord inspected the property for mould on 14 August 2023 and said there was no mould apart from on some pipes in the kitchen.
In an internal email on 21 August 2023 the landlord chased to find out what had happened regarding the suspected subsidence and monitoring of the property. The landlord told the Ombudsman on 18 October 2023 that its insurers had investigated and concluded there was no subsidence. It said it “believed there may be a problem with the roof which requires urgent attention”.
On 8 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and this Service saying that the contractor had attended but would not tell her what repairs were completed. She was not confident in the work and was concerned about making her insurance claim in case the leak had not been resolved, because she could not claim twice for the same issue.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leaking roof causing water damage to the property

When the resident reported to the landlord that the roof was leaking in September 2019 the landlord accepted responsibility and repaired it within 3 days. It complied with its obligations under the lease promptly. When the resident reported the leak again in July 2020 the landlord again carried out a repair within 3 days. Its records said this was temporary and a new roof was needed. The repair record states the repair was completed on 23 March 2021. The Ombudsman does not know what works, if any, were completed. The landlord had provided repairs records but there is no record of these works which it would have been helpful to have had.
Prompted by a complaint from the resident, the landlord carried out further roof works in January 2022. When the resident raised the issue again in March 2022 the landlord says it inspected and found no leak. The resident said the ‘inspection’ was from height by looking out of a window and the contractor did not go onto the roof but said the roof had been newly repaired. The landlord has not provided any reports, job sheets or photographs of the inspection which would have been helpful. Its approach in March 2022 did not resolve the resident’s concerns.
In her complaint the resident said the roof had been repaired, and her ceiling redecorated, 3 times. However, in its stage 1 response the landlord said the resident would need to make an insurance claim for her ceiling. As the water damage had been caused by the leak, the landlord would be responsible for the redecoration of the ceiling and so its approach was not fair in this instance. The landlord should have carried out the redecoration works and not doing so was a failing. Further, it could have made a claim against its own insurance if it so wished.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s complaint and reason for escalation. It did not consider her account of the inspection in March 2022 or whether this was adequate. Instead, it simply said its previous review of the records was adequate. This meant it did not take any further steps to ensure that the leak had been resolved which it should have done. Following further reports and contractors attending, the landlord accepted in October 2023 that there may be a leak and sent a contractor in November 2023, 8 months after the resident raised the issue. This was an unreasonable delay in repairing a part of the structure for which the landlord was liable under the lease. This was also demonstrated by the loss adjuster and the landlord’s insurers chasing the landlord to carry out the repair.
The landlord has also failed to take into account the resident’s age and vulnerabilities. Although the resident was not always clear in what her vulnerabilities were, she did tell the landlord from her request to escalate onwards about them. The landlord’s communications with her, bearing this in mind, were poor and she was not kept updated on the progress of the repair. The landlord’s reply on 20 June 2023 to the loss adjuster was particularly inappropriate in relation to this in advising she could only use webchat or text for updates. Landlords should offer accessible methods for their residents to be able to communicate with them. In the context of an ongoing complaint, it would also have been helpful if a named member of the landlord’s staff had acted as a sole point of contact for the resident and for proactive updates to have been given.
While the landlord had initially completed repairs promptly, from March 2022 it failed to appropriately investigate the leak, communicate with the resident, or carry out the repair in a reasonable amount of time. This was maladministration which caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident, which was increased due to her vulnerabilities. After considering the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, an order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £500 to reflect the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling

There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 16 March 2022 within 2 working days, or at all, as per its policy. It provided its response within 15 working days, in breach of its policy and the Code, which was a failing.
While the resident was late in requesting escalation, the landlord acted fairly in accepting her request and escalating her complaint. However, it failed to do this within its policy timeframe of 2 working days and there is no evidence it acknowledged the escalation. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 70 working days after the resident’s request to escalate. This was outside of its 25 working day timeframe, and the 20 working day timeframe under the Code, and this constitutes an unacceptable delay. While the landlord did apologise for the delay its reason was poor. It failed to offer any compensation or say how it had learnt from the complaint and would prevent similar delays in future.
Within its response the landlord failed to fully address the resident’s complaint, which is a breach of paragraph 5.16 of the Code. The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s claims about the inspection in March 2022. Instead, it simply recounted its stage 1 response and records. It was not in dispute that a contractor was sent to inspect the roof in March 2022, but the quality and thoroughness of the inspection was disputed, and the landlord failed to address this. It also repeated that the resident should make an insurance claim without giving a reason why.
Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord delayed in providing its stage 2 response and did not fully address the resident’s complaint. It did not demonstrate the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The delay and uncertainty caused further distress, time and trouble for the resident who simply wanted her roof and ceiling repaired. After considering the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 in compensation to reflect the impact on the resident. Due to the current work being undertaken on the Code, no orders have been made regarding the landlord’s policy’s current non-compliance. However, the landlord should ensure it complies with the new Code once it is published.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by a lack of evidence or the provision of poor-quality records by the landlord. In addition to the Ombudsman’s initial request for evidence, this Service also asked for specific evidence which has not been provided. The landlord has not provided evidence of:
1. The resident’s complaint made in October 2021 or its reply in November 2021.
2. The repairs it carried out which led to it marking as completed its repair job on 23 March 2021.
3. Repairs reports, job sheets or photographs of any of its inspections or repairs.
Overall, there was service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a leaking roof causing water damage to the property.
2. Complaints handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak as it failed to fully investigate the leak from March 2022 and delayed in repairing it. Its communication with the resident was poor and it did not take into account her vulnerabilities.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling as it failed to follow its policy in not acknowledging the complaint and replying outside of its timeframes and those set out in the Code. It also failed to fully address the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
There was service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management as information and evidence which would have assisted the Ombudsman’s investigation was not provided.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £800 made up of:
  1. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its failures in handling the leak.
  2. £300 for the distress, time and trouble caused by its complaints handling failures.
3. Provide information on the repairs completed to the roof in November 2023 and any further repairs to the resident and this Service. This information should be provided as a job sheet or report and should be accompanied by photographs (if available). If any further repairs are required, this information is to be included with dates for this work to take place.
4. Fully redecorate the bathroom ceiling and completely retile the bathroom using tiles of the resident’s choice. Alternatively, if this work is paid for by insurers, the landlord is to pay for (or claim from its own insurer) the resident’s excess costs if any. If the resident has already paid for the works or the excess, she is to be reimbursed. For the avoidance of doubt the resident is not to be left in any financial detriment for the cost of the remedial works to the bathroom.
5. Explain how it quality checks repairs and inspections carried out by its contractors. If it has a policy in place, it is to provide a copy of this and if it does not it is to consider creating one.
6. Record the resident’s vulnerabilities on its records.
7. Carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations within the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and provide the results of this assessment to this Service.
8. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.