Camden Council (202220484)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220484

Camden Council

8 November 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 response to:
1. The resident’s water quality concerns at the property.
2. The condition of the property that included reports of damp and mould.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The condition of the property that included reports of damp and mould.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion have been made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
While this Service recognises the distress new complaints can cause, the new complaint matter was brought to this Service after the landlord’s final response letter in September 2022 and before the landlord has had an opportunity to respond. Therefore this investigation will look into its response to the resident’s water quality concerns raised in January 2022. The landlord should be given a fair opportunity to investigate the newer issue and provide a response to the resident in line with its complaint handling procedure.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupied a 1 bedroom flat on the ground floor of a converted house. She held a secure tenancy which began on 20 January 2022. The landlord recorded that the resident suffered from a number of physical and mental health disabilities.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints procedure where it would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 25 working days.
The landlord’s remedies policy states it offers remedies which are proportionate, appropriate, and reasonable and take into consideration the facts and issues raised in complaints about service failures. It uses a guideline compensation table for calculating awards and will consider if an insurance claim is more appropriate on a case by case basis.
The landlord’s tenant’s guide outlines its repair duties. This includes that it will keep in repair and in good working order the services supplying water, gas, electricity, sanitation, and appliances for delivering these services which it has installed.

Summary of events

In July 2021 the property was handed back to the landlord. It completed void repair works which included a new kitchen and decoration. The property was handed back to stock in September 2021 and kept available for the resident. She had been direct matched to the property due to her disabilities and its ground floor position.
The property remained unoccupied until the resident’s tenancy started in January 2022.
Although the precise date is unclear to this Service, the resident informed her neighbourhood officer that her water contained bits and was discoloured. However there appeared to be a delay of approximately one week for this to be communicated to the repair team.
On 27 January 2022 the landlord’s heating contractor attended the property as an emergency as brown water was reported coming from the bathroom mixer tap. The repair records note that the hot water was running clear but recommended a plumber investigate the cold water storage. A new job was raised the next day.
Due to ongoing occasional occurrences of brown water, the landlord arranged for the water company to complete a quality check on 28 January 2022. It advised that the water supply from the road to the property was clear and no issues were identified. The pipe supplied another address which was not experiencing the issues reported by the resident.
On 4 February 2022 the neighbourhood officer requested an urgent appointment for the resident. She had reported brown water from the hot tap and low water pressure. A plumber attended and identified that a ceiling had broken and debris had fallen into the cold water tank. The water was discoloured and the tank needed flushing through. This work was completed and antibacterial treatment added as a precaution. The resident was advised to avoid using the shower or drink the water at this stage as there may be further debris in the pipework.
On the same day the resident made a complaint about the water quality and started to use bottled water from this date.
On 8 February 2022 the resident provided a doctor’s letter to the landlord. It detailed her physical and mental health conditions and referenced a “recent skin condition.” The resident insisted that this had been caused by the “contaminated” water at her property. She maintained her concerns about the impact on her health between February 2022 to at least May 2023. She regularly sent photographs of her water to the landlord to show either discoloration and/or deposits in the water.
Between 9 to 12 February 2022 the landlord’s records show that it provided the resident with a supply of bottled water. It returned to complete the ceiling repair and as a precaution replaced the cold water storage tank. Its contractor had also completed an inspection of the hot water tank. As the water was running clear, it considered that it did not need to replace the hot water cylinder. The landlord noted that the resident was unhappy with this decision but she had said the water supply had greatly improved. It asked her to monitor and reassured her that it would happily reattend and flush the cylinder if required.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord responded to emails from a councillor. The resident had raised concerns that the water was affecting her health. The landlord’s response detailed the steps it had taken to rectify the issue and included photographs of clear running water its voids team had taken in September 2021. It acknowledged that communication between its housing management and repairs teams could have been better and recognised that such situations can cause confusion and distrust with a resident. It assured the councillor that it was working on lessons learned to prevent this happening again.
A plumber returned to the property on 18 February 2022 where checks were completed to an outside tap, the resident’s washing machine, and non-return valves. The landlord had sought to identify any possibility of cross contamination into the cold water supply. The resident reported that the water had been discoloured the week before the visit. No issues were identified and the water remained clear and free of debris.
During March 2022 the resident submitted a further complaint via the landlord’s website summarising what she had experienced. She described that her hot water was orange/pink in colour and she had sent photographs to a member of parliament (MP). She repeated her belief that the water was unclean, affecting her health, and described not being able to wash, cook, or do her laundry properly. On or around the 7 March 2022 the landlord instructed a specialist water hygiene contractor to test the resident’s water. Sampling known as a total viable count (TVC) test identified that low levels of bacteria were present. The landlord’s plumber attempted to contact the resident on the same day, however due to the resident’s availability an appointment was arranged and completed on 9 March 2022. Works were completed to flush out the pipe work.
On 24 March 2022 the landlord responded to an enquiry from the resident’s MP. It detailed the investigations its contractor had undertaken and explained how clear water had been observed by its contractors and the water company from the cold tap. A secondary water system had been cleaned and disinfected and traces of bacteria had been rectified. There was nothing from the water company to indicate that the water was unsafe for consumption.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 April 2022. It said that:
1. It acknowledged there had been an issue with the cold water storage tank and thanked the resident for bringing it to its attention. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused and apologised for its delayed complaint response. The delay was due to the need to investigate before making any decisions.
2. It apologised that its neighbourhood officer had failed to progress her concerns to repairs when first notified.
3. It advised that there had been no signs of water discoloration during its void works and considered that the ceiling collapse occurred sometime following completion in September 2021.
4. In response to her ongoing concerns about water quality the water company had taken samples for testing. The results found no evidence of serious risks to health and the water was safe to use.
5. It advised that as she remained concerned its contractor would contact her to arrange to drain, flush, and replace, if necessary, the hot water cylinder.
6. Its contractors had visited to check for any leaks, cracks, or possibility of cross contamination of debris into the supply. No repair concerns were identified.
7. It noted that recent water sampling had identified traces of bacteria which could be harboured in flexi hoses, scale, or on taps (which would be the resident’s responsibility to disinfect). Its plumber attended as a result of these samples on 9 March 2022. As the kitchen had been replaced during void works, flexi hoses were new and did not need replacing.
8. It acknowledged that the resident considered the water to be the source of her recent skin irritation. While it was sorry to hear this, it had no medical evidence to suggest that her health had been affected and it had completed checks to ensure the water was safe for use.
9. It had not recommended an essential repairs transfer as a result of her reported concerns. However on 7 March 2022 it had provided her with information regarding her housing options should she wish to consider a move.
10. It offered £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused.
On 14 April 2022 the landlord’s contractor reattended to complete further checks to the hot water cylinder. Works to clean it and test the water were marked as complete.
Between April to August 2022 the resident maintained that her water was contaminated, unsafe to drink, and making her ill. She disputed the landlord’s claim that the ceiling may have collapsed at the end of 2021. She was convinced it had been in the system for years. She provided photographs to the landlord regularly stating that she was still witnessing debris in her water. In this time, the following events took place:
1. The landlord’s water hygiene contractor visited on three occasions in May 2022. It recorded that water was running clear and free from debris. It cleaned and disinfected the hot and cold secondary water systems on 12 May 2022 and no bacteria remained following sampling.
2. On 20 May 2022 the water company inspected the completed works. It confirmed that there was no evidence of the previously identified bacteria.
3. On 21 July 2022 the resident informed the landlord by email that she continued to buy bottled water (since February 2022) and asked the landlord to move her.
4. In August 2022 the resident emailed the police. She believed that the water had caused the death of former residents and felt the landlord should be reported for corporate manslaughter. The police requested the landlord ensure she was being supported.
On 11 August 2022 the resident escalated her complaint via the landlord’s website. She said that she had been without clean water since January 2022 and she had been living off bottled water. She considered that her health had been affected and reiterated that she believed former residents had died due to the water at the property. She continued to report the presence of bits in her water.
Further to ongoing communication the landlord had discussed the resident’s case with its in house psychologically informed consultation and training team (PICT). As she did not meet the threshold for statutory support services, it agreed to visit her to discuss the water test results and reassure her it was safe. It would offer her support from both its neighbourhood management and PICT teams to help her to live comfortably in her current accommodation.
On 23 August 2022 internal communication summarised its visit to the resident. It explained that:
1. Despite the water test results, she remained convinced that the water was contaminated and causing her physical health issues.
2. She believed that there might be asbestos in the water which would have contributed to the death of former residents. It had assured her that the deaths of the former residents were due to their individual health circumstances and not the water.
3. It had asked her how it could resolve the issues for her and she requested a new hot water tank.
4. She consented to provide the landlord with the details of her doctor, private therapists, and other medical professionals. It had asked her if she was getting any support from the community mental health team. She advised that her doctor was aware that her preference was to see a private therapist.
5. She was currently happy with the support she was receiving from her neighbourhood officer.
6. There may be value in replacing the hot water tank as it was at a loss as to how it could convince her that the water was safe to drink and bathe in.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 September 2022. It had investigated her concerns that she had not been able to drink the water at the property, bathe or do washing for over 7 months. It said:
1. It had attended within 24 hours of her hot water concerns in January 2022. During its visit it identified that her cold water was discoloured.
2. It summarised the steps that its plumber, contractors, and water company had taken to resolve the issues and to reassure her that the water was safe.
3. It said that the water company’s report of 19 April 2022 stated “analysis of samples collected at the property on 01 April 2022 showed the water to be of good quality, complying with the current regulatory standards. At the time of sampling, no unusual observations were made to the drinking water.”
4. It acknowledged that the collapse of materials into the storage tank in January 2022 had contaminated the water. It reminded the resident that it had advised her not to drink the water until the repairs were attended to. Once the repairs were completed the tests showed the supply was clean and safe.
5. It understood that the problem in January/February 2022 made her cautious about using the water but assured her it was safe. It reiterated that the water had been tested by its contractors and the water company since the repairs were completed. No issues were found.
6. It apologised for the incident but considered that it had dealt with the matter quickly.
7. It informed the resident that she could contact this Service after 8 weeks if she remained dissatisfied.

Events following the internal complaints process

Although the precise date was unclear to this Service, the resident completed an incident form sometime after the landlord’s stage 2 response. This appeared to be the start of an insurance claim against the landlord’s liability insurance due to “dirty water in her home.” She described multiple health conditions that she attributed to the water supply and said she had spent over £1,600 on bottled water since the start of the issue. She considered that the problem started to improve after the removal of the hot water tank on 23 September 2022 and the removal of a redundant feed and expansion tank on 31 October 2022.
In November 2022 the resident emailed her MP and the landlord. She continued to raise concerns that her water was unsafe and debris was seen coming from her bathroom tap. On 14 November 2022 the landlord responded and explained that it had previously sent responses and considered the matter closed. It encouraged her to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied. She contacted this Service and continued to maintain that debris was occasionally present in her water and she had no confidence to use it.
On 17 May 2023 the landlord recorded removing pipework from the loft, under the bath, and towards the kitchen. It cut and capped off redundant pipes and installed new pipework. It supplied and installed a new cold water supply for the toilet cistern, bath, and replaced the bath mixer tap. It noted that the resident was happy with the works. The resident has confirmed that this resolved the problem.
During September 2023 there is evidence that the landlord’s insurance officer communicated with the resident. The email states that the resident’s claim was made due to contaminated water from 19 January 2022. An offer of £685.07 was made based on the information and receipts she had supplied between April 2022 to May 2023. This offer was made on a without prejudice basis and offered as full and final settlement of her claim.
On 9 September 2023 the resident emailed the insurance officer. She said that she had been without clean water between January 2022 to 16 May 2023 and considered the offer too low.
During October 2023 the resident informed this Service that she had mutually exchanged on 7 October 2023 and was no longer a resident of the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident considered that the water quality at her property had made her unwell. This would understandably have caused her distress. She disputed the landlord’s claim that the ceiling may have collapsed after it had completed void works in September 2021. The resident believed it had happened years before her tenancy and considered the “contaminated water” had contributed to her health conditions and the death of two former residents.
This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and how this related to the complaint reported. This Service is unable to determine whether the landlord was responsible for any deterioration of health to any resident of the property. Such decisions would require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. Therefore the resident did the right thing to raise her concerns with the appropriate authorities.

The resident’s water quality concerns at the property

The resident continually complained about the quality of the water supply at the property from January 2022. These concerns continued beyond the landlord’s final response letter in September 2022 and appear to have finally been resolved on 16 May 2023.
It is clear that the resident complied with her tenancy obligation by informing the landlord of a repair need in January 2022. However this initial report was not acted on by the landlord.
There is evidence that the repair was delayed due to a neighbourhood officer failing to inform its repair team of the resident’s concerns at the start of her tenancy. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised to her and recognised its failure by offering her £100 compensation under its remedies guidance due to distress caused.
At the end of January 2022 there is evidence that the landlord’s contractor visited within 24 hours to attended to a new report of dirty water. This was appropriate and in line with its repair policy. It recorded that the hot water supply was running clear but recommended that the cold water tank was checked by the landlord. A new job was raised the next day. This demonstrated that the landlord considered additional steps necessary to rule out any repeat issues and was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
Following this visit there is evidence that the water company was asked to complete a check of the external water supply. The results proved that the supply was clear from the road to the property. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take as it helped to narrow down the likely cause and/or location of discolouration and debris.
Continuing its checks inside the property in early February 2022, the landlord’s plumber identified that debris had fallen into the cold water tank following a collapse of a small section of a ceiling. It confirmed that the water had been contaminated and was discoloured. As a precaution the landlord supplied the resident with bottled water and advised her not to shower or drink the water until it had completed further repairs. The landlord’s decision was reasonable and demonstrated its efforts to minimise the resident’s exposure to dirty water while it completed repairs.
The landlord sent a specialist water hygiene contractor to sample the resident’s water. Having identified low TVC bacteria readings (caused by yeast, mould and/or scale), the landlord arranged for the system to be flushed through, disinfected, and agreed to replace the cold water tank. Furthermore, it revisited to check flexi hoses in the kitchen, an external tap, and non-return values as these were considered common sources of bacteria build up. These were reasonable steps to ensure action was taken to prevent reoccurrence and demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to resolve the issue.
Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water. This includes water pipes, boilers and water tanks. Furthermore the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its properties.
There is evidence that shows the landlord’s actions between January 2022 to 14 April 2022 met these obligations. It remained active in its efforts to identify and fix the issue and attempted to reassure the resident that the water was safe by undertaking water sampling tests.
There is evidence that it communicated with the police, checked the death certificates of former tenancy holders, visited the resident to reassure her that they died of known health conditions, and sought specialist assistance to ensure that the resident was receiving the appropriate support. These actions further demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to work with her and its attempts to address her concerns.
The landlord supplied photographs of clear running water from the resident’s property. It also sent these images in its responses to the MP and councillor in April 2022. It says that it is routine for it to capture images of running water as part of its void works. It advised that no discoloration or debris was observed during its void works which the photographs appear to confirm in September 2021. Although this Service recognises the resident’s distress, it is not possible to determine the actual point in time that the ceiling collapsed into the tank and can only assess the actions of the landlord once it had been informed of the issue.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are; be fair, put things right and learn from the outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether the landlord responded appropriately and whether any redress offered by the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.
Generally, the landlord demonstrated efforts to identify and resolve the source of the water debris and discoloration. It attended the property in line with its repair policy timescales, sought expert advice to sample the water on at least two occasions, flushed the water system, replaced the cold water tank, and offered £100 compensation to recognise the initial delay to address the repair. As the hot water tank showed no signs of a problem upon testing, it did not initially consider the need to replace it. It had tested the water and no bacteria remained. Therefore this Service considers that it took reasonable steps to ensure that it was fulfilling its obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
However, the resident continued to supply photographs and report concerns that debris remained in her water supply. As such, she had no confidence to use it and continued to purchase bottled water. Although the landlord’s stance was to offer reassurance that the water was safe to use, her reports continued beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response in September 2022.
It is understandable that the presence of any debris within the water supply would have caused the resident some distress and reduced confidence. The resident states that improvements were seen, although not completely, following the replacement of the hot water tank on 23 September 2022. A redundant feed and expansion tank were also removed on 31 October 2022 that had been identified as having live feeds into her water supply. It is the resident’s belief that this was also intermittently releasing dirty water and debris. She considered that this issue should have been identified before and had caused her ill health.
There is evidence that the landlord undertook further pipe replacement works on 16 May 2023 and the resident maintains that the debris was seen in her water until these works were completed. Although throughout the landlord’s internal complaint procedure it demonstrated efforts to rectify the residents water concerns and produced evidence that the water was clear and safe, perhaps these additional work could have come sooner.
This investigation has also identified that the landlord’s insurance officer contacted the resident in September 2023. Her insurance claim due to living with dirty water was accepted and it was prepared to deal with her claim on a without prejudice basis. The resident was asked to provide receipts between April 2022 to May 2023 and an offer of £665.07 was made.
As the resident has expressed concerns about her health and her expenditure on bottled water, it is appropriate for the landlord to consider such a claim via its insurers. The offer made to the resident through the landlord’s insurance is not something that this Service can determine and she is encouraged to complete this process with the landlord.
This Service can consider when residents describe how they have been affected by the situation that has led to their complaint, such as the impact on their wellbeing. This may be expressed as giving rise to or exacerbating existing health conditions. The Ombudsman’s remedies can recognise the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a landlord. Distress can include worry, uncertainty, and inconvenience. There may also be aggravating factors that could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. Such aggravating factors include mental health, dependants, disability, and previous history of mishandling by the landlord of the resident’s tenancy.
It is clear that the resident was distressed by the intermittent presence of debris in her water between January 2022 to October 2022 where she reported an improvement following further repairs. However she remained convinced that the issues continued until her pipes were replaced in May 2023. As the landlord has since accepted an insurance claim, it appears that the issues were not fully resolved and she continued to experience the intermittent presence of debris for 28 weeks between 31 October 2022 to 16 May 2023.
Taking all of the above into account, the landlord’s offer of £100 was not proportionate redress for the detriment she experienced. This Service therefore finds maladministration due to the duration of the problem and an order of an additional £280 compensation has been made to recognise the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. The level of compensation has been calculated based on £10 per week. Consideration has been given to the landlord’s failures, its efforts to provide a solution, and its acceptance of an insurance claim. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to this Service to recognise where redress is required to put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord publishes a complaints procedure which sets out the expectations for handling complaints at stage 1 and stage 2. The policy states complaints should be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded within 10 working days at stage 1 and 25 working days at stage 2.
This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord issued acknowledgments to her within 2 days of receipt of her stage 1 and stage 2 complaint. This was expected in order to comply with its own policy. This resulted in inconvenience to the resident who was uncertain when she could expect the landlord’s response to the matters raised.
The resident’s original complaint was made on 4 February 2022. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response until 8 April 2022. This was 35 working days beyond its 10 working day response timescale. It therefore failed to meet its own expectations as set out in its complaint policy. This caused distress to the resident who felt it necessary to repeat her complaint in March 2022 having received no formal response.
Although the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that there had been a delay issuing its response there is no evidence that this delay was discussed with the resident beforehand. Therefore the landlord failed to demonstrate that it was following the steps outlined in its compliant policy to contact and communicate with the resident. There was no evidence of any consultation with her to agree when the response would be ready and no examples of keeping her informed of any potential delays.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will consider if an insurance claim is more appropriate on a case by case basis. However there is no clear guidance within the complaints policy to state when it will inform a resident of its insurance details. As the resident continually reported health issues that she attributed to the water and referred to the expense of using bottled water, it would have been appropriate for it to have referred her to its insurers.
Given that its repair efforts had failed to remedy the resident’s concerns and the resident reported that debris continued to be occasionally present in the water supply, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reconsidered its offer of £100 compensation at stage 2.
It is noted that the landlord’s responses attempted to address all matters raised by the resident. It thoroughly responded to enquiries from a councillor and MP and communicated with the police. Between its complaint responses it attempted to visit the resident to reassure her about all matters raised and sought to ensure that the appropriate support was in place. This was reasonable.
Due to the delay providing a stage 1 response, missed communication that prolonged her complaint, failure to resolve the matter within its internal complaints procedure, and the need for the resident to repeat her concerns; this Service finds maladministration. An order to recognise the time and trouble between January 2022 to May 2023 has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s water quality concerns at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s reports of the condition of the property that included reports of damp and mould have been made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.

Reasons

The landlord failed to satisfactorily identify and resolve all potential causes of the discoloration and debris in the resident’s water. She continually raised concerns that the issue remained ongoing.
The landlord failed to communicate with the resident as per its complaint handling policy and failed to provide a stage 1 response within its policy timescales.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
Write to the resident to apologise for the shortcomings identified in this report.
Pay the resident compensation totalling £580. This comprises:
1. £100 compensation offered at stage 1 if not already paid.
2. A further £280 for any distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s water quality concerns at the property.
3. A further £200 for the time and trouble the resident incurred as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord is encouraged to communicate with the resident to ensure that her insurance claim regarding health and expenditure is settled.