The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Camden Council (202222842)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222842

Camden Council

31 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s various repair requests including:
  1. Electric socket for a fridge-freezer.
  2. Communal lighting.
  3. Leak affecting the external wall behind the toilet.
  4. Communal door.
  5. Blocked external drain affecting the kitchen.
  6. Extractor fan in the kitchen.
  7. Toilet overflow.
  8. Fence panel.
  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and associated damage to personal belongings.
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.
  3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a mice infestation.
  4. The landlord’s intention to replace a fire alarm in the property.
  5. The landlord’s complaint handling and compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. From June 2021 until December 2021, the resident raised several repair requests with the landlord, including, repairs to an electrical socket, communal lighting, a leak affecting an external wall, a communal door, a blocked external drain, and an extractor fan. On 5 January 2022, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the repair requests. She also complained about damp and mould from a leak in the property, damage caused to her bookshelf because of a leak, and an overflow in her toilet. The landlord called the resident 2 days later to discuss the complaint and outstanding issues. It raised several repair orders to fix the outstanding issues which it completed on 14 June 2022. During these repairs there was a missed appointment for which the landlord offered compensation of £100.
  3. On 11 July 2022, a councillor representing the resident forwarded an email of the complaint. The resident complained that the toilet overflow problem reported on 5 January 2022 had not been attended to and had worsened. The resident requested her complaint to be escalated as she did not feel the landlord dealt with the repairs appropriately and she did not feel that the compensation paid was sufficient. After this complaint escalation, the resident further complained to her councillor that a fence panel in her rear garden had been removed by the landlord to carry out a repair but had not been replaced.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord upheld several of the complaints including it’s handling of repairs to an electrical socket for the fridge freezer, the communal lighting, toilet overflow, communal door, and replacement of an extractor fan. The landlord apologised for the failings identified in the complaint investigation and offered a further £200 compensation. It did not uphold the complaint about its staff conduct, the leak affecting the wall behind the toilet, the fence panel, or the blocked external drain affecting the kitchen.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and provided an appeal to each element of the landlord’s stage 1 response. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for discourteous behaviour by its staff and advised it would investigate any reports of poor behaviour, and it also accepted it made an error when reviewing the repair timeline for the communal light repair. It apologised for this error.
  6. When the resident brought the complaint to this service, she remained unhappy with each element of the complaint, and was further unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling and compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b.         put things right, and;

c.         learn from outcomes.

  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Jurisdiction

  1. Having considered the evidence, this service cannot investigate the resident’s complaint about reports of a mice infestation or the landlord’s intention to replace a fire alarm in the property. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. These issues were not brought through the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s response to various repairs

  1. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out that a landlord should attend to repairs within a reasonable time. The landlord categorises repairs as emergency repairs, essential repairs, and non-essential repairs. It will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, essential repairs within 35 days and it has no timeframe for attending to non-essential repairs. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that a resident can report routine repairs online or by phone. Emergency repairs should be reported by phone.

Electrical socket for a fridge freezer 

  1. In June 2021, the resident’s fridge freezer broke. She purchased a new fridge freezer but could not install it as the socket had been built into the kitchen unit. The resident reported the issue to the landlord on 21 June 2021, who booked a repair for 12 July 2021, in line with its essential repair timeframe. On the 24 June 2021, the resident emailed a councillor that she was without a working fridge freezer. The councillor forwarded the email to the landlord. The landlord’s internal notes show that after consideration, the repair was an emergency, and it completed the repair on the same day. In its complaint response, the landlord upheld the complaint, apologised, and advised it would train its staff to learn from the incident. This was a reasonable response to the landlord when it learned of its error. This service finds no maladministration with the landlord’s response to this repair request.

Communal lighting

  1. On 2 June 2021, the resident raised a repair order for the landlord to replace communal lighting. She noted that the lights had not been working for a week. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord noted that it first received the report on 11 June 2021, and the repair was given a 2 working day priority. However, after further investigation, in its stage 2 complaint response, it noted that the resident had reported the issue on 2 June 2021, but it raised a repair order with the wrong contractor. This was subsequently re-raised to the correct contractor on 11 June 2021, to complete the repair by 15 June 2021. The repair was complete on 16 June 2021. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage 2 complaint response, upheld the complaint and apologised to the resident for the delay. This was a reasonable response by the landlord when it identified its failings. This service finds no maladministration with the landlord’s response to this repair request.

Leak affecting the external wall behind the toilet.

  1. On 14 September 2021, the resident reported a leak affecting the rear external wall of her property to her councillor. On 15 September 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property as part of a pre-arranged appointment and repaired a leak behind her washing machine. On this visit, the landlord inspected the external wall and noted a leak coming from a soil stack on the second floor. The landlords repair notes show that it required scaffolding to complete the work. The resident emailed her councillor on 3 October 2021, to advise that the landlord had estimated 1 month for the scaffolding to be erected and she was unhappy with the delay and concerned that the structure of the wall would be compromised in freezing temperatures. The landlord completed the repair on 14 October 2021. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. This service finds no maladministration with the landlord’s response to this repair request. After inspecting the property, and sourcing the leak, it repaired the issue within its timeframe of 35 days.

Communal door

  1. On 8 October 2021, the resident reported online that the communal door was catching. It appeared that the only option available to report the repair online was to select the option “communal door not locking”. This generated an emergency repair order with a turnaround time of 2 hours. On review of the job details the landlord did not consider that the request was an emergency as the door was only catching and could be locked by pushing or pulling the door shut. It raised a repair order on 11 October 2021 and completed the repair on 14 October 2021. This service notes that the resident was stressed because she waited 5 days for the repair which she expected to be complete within 2 hours, however, the landlord advised that the resident was able to lock her own front door for security purposes. In response to the complaint, the landlord advised it aimed to turn around this type of repair order within 1-2 days and apologised for the delay. It further advised that it would review its online repair request options for the communal door and thanked the resident for placing a note beside the door to make other resident’s aware of the issue. This service finds that the landlord responded reasonably to this repair request and finds no maladministration.

Blocked external drain affecting the kitchen.

  1. There is evidence that the resident emailed her councillor about this issue on 3 October 2021, and again on 22 November 2021, however, it is not clear ifthe landlord received the repair request. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised that it raised an emergency repair order in response to a report directly from the resident. On 1 December 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s propertyin response to a report of a leak behind her washing machine and dishwasher. The landlord’s repair notes show that it unblocked the pipes, tested both pipes, and found no leak. Based on the evidence, the landlord responded appropriately when it received this repair request.
  2. On 23 December 2021, the resident reported to her councillor that the leak re-occurred. The resident advised she missed a call on this day from the landlord and did not receive a further call. On 5 January 2022, as part of a complaint about several issues, the resident complained that the leak had not been fixed. The landlord raised a repair order on 7 January 2022, and attended on 20 January 2022. It could not complete the repair on this date and returned on 26 January 2022 and completed the repair. This was a reasonable response by the landlord and in line with its timeframe of 35 days for an essential repair. This service finds no maladministration with the landlord’s response to this repair request.

Extractor fan in the kitchen

  1. On 5 January 2022, the resident complained that the extractor fan had stopped working over 5 years ago. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not arranged a repair appointment, which she felt was recommended in a damp survey on 1 December 2021. On review of the damp survey, no recommendation was made to repair the extractor fan. Based on the evidence, this is the first time the landlord was made aware that the extractor fan was broken. The landlord attended to repair the extractor fan on 20 January 2022, but was refused entry as the operative was not wearing a facemask. It returned to attend to the repair on 28 January 2022. This was a reasonable timeframe for the landlord to attend to this repair and within its repair policy of 35 days.
  2. After inspection, the landlord recommended replacement of the extractor instead of repair. A glazer measured the glass in the kitchen on 1 February 2022, and an appointment for a joint attendance with the electrician was arranged for 19 April 2022. Extractor fan replacement is defined as a non-essential repair by the landlord, and it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an appointment so far in advance. It is also noted that the landlord’s contractors had to schedule their appointments to attend the repair on the same date. This appointment date was appropriate in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord missed the appointment and failed to provide any notice to the resident that it would miss the appointment. This caused stress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord rescheduled and completed the repair on 25 April 2022. The landlord offered compensation of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with its remedy guidance, which the resident accepted. In its complaint response, the landlord upheld this element of the complaint and apologised to the resident for the missed appointment. This service finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress for the missed appointment.

Toilet overflow

  1. The resident reported a toilet overflow problem on 5 January 2022. This issue was overlooked by the landlord and not addressed. On 9 July 2022, the resident complained to her councillor that the issue had worsened. The landlord received the complaint on 11 July 2022, and repaired the issue on 8 August 2022. The ball valve in the toilet was directing the water overflow back into the toilet pan instead of externally. The plumber adjusted the ball valve. In its complaint response, the landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for overlooking the repair issue. The landlord was responsive when it became aware that it had overlooked the issue, and an apology was an appropriate response in these circumstances, and this service finds reasonable redress.

Fence Panel 

  1. On 6 August 2022, the resident emailed her councillor that a fence panel had been removed in the rear of her property. The resident did not know when the fence panel had been removed because she rarely uses that part of her garden. The resident felt that the landlord may have removed the fence panel to repair her rear wall. In its stage 1 complaint response, on 26 August 2022, the landlord advised that it did not remove the fence panel and had no repair order to repair the rear wall. As a resolution to the complaint, it raised a repair order to replace the fence panel. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
  2. The landlord visited the property on 12 September 2022, and noted that it could not access the rear of the fence due to overgrowth that needed to be cleared. The landlord returned on 16 November 2022, but could not repair the fence due to the weather. A further appointment was arranged, and the fence was repaired on 7 February 2022. The rear of the resident’s property could only be accessed by other tenants of the block, and the resident also has a rear back door that locked. Based on the landlord’s response, this appears to have been treated as a non-essential repair. While it is unfortunate that the fence repair took 6 months, the landlord did attempt to repair it on 2 occasions but was hampered by overgrowth and poor weather. This service finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to this service request.
  3. This service finds there was reasonable redress [SW1]with the landlord’s response to various repair requests. This is because it adhered to its repairs policy and was responsive to the resident’s repair requests within its timeframes. It missed one repair appointment and offered reasonable redress. When it became aware that it had overlooked a repair request,it responded appropriately and repaired the issue, and apologised to the resident.In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered a further £200, for the time and trouble caused to the resident, in raising the repair issues as some of the issues took longer than expected.The landlord appropriately acknowledged its service failures and put them right.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould and associated damage to personal belongings.

  1. The landlord’s website sets out that it will visit the resident’s home within 10 working days of receiving a report of damp and mould in the property. It will assess the damp and mould and agree the next steps with the resident. Damp and mould can be reported by webchat, WhatsApp, text, or phone. The website provides information to residents on prevention of mould.
  2. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she feels her health has been affected by its actions or inactions. However, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. On 22 November 2021, the resident reported damp in her bedroom to her councillor. The damp had caused water damage to a bookshelf in her bedroom, and she enquired if she could claim for a new bookshelf. The landlord attended the resident’s property and carried out a damp survey on 1 December 2021. This was a good initial response by the landlord in line with its policy.
  4. The damp survey noted that the shelving in her bedroom had been water stained by a leak. The resident had solved the issue with several damp traps and the shelves were dry. There was no evidence of damp in the walls. The survey noted that there was light white mould behind and under the bed and recommended a clean and redecorating with fungicidal paint. On 5 January 2022, the resident complained that she felt that the mould was affecting her health. There is no evidence that the landlord made an offer to clean the mould until it reviewed the complaint in August 2022. This represents maladministration because it was an unreasonable delay of several months which caused distress to the resident, and the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s concern for her health.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord refers to a recent conversation in which it offered to carry out the mould clean, but the resident refused. The landlord advised that the offer remained open. In response, the resident disputed that she refused any work from the landlord to address the mould because she had already cleaned the mould herself months beforehand. This service cannot determine what was said on this phone call, however, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident and make the offer of a mould clean as recommended in the survey.
  6. The resident advised this service that she felt that the landlord blamed her lifestyle for the condensation and mould. In its stage 1 complaint response, it accepted that the leak in the property may have been a contributing factor, it confirmed that it had installed extractor fans to assist control condensation and provided advice on how to manage condensation in the property. It is important that landlord’s do not blame damp and mould solely on the lifestyle of the resident, however, it is also reasonable for landlords to provide advice to residents to help reduce damp and mould. It is unfortunate that the resident felt that this information was blaming her, however, having reviewed the landlord’s response, this service finds that the landlord’s language and advice was reasonable and appropriate.
  7. The resident advised this service that she did not make a claim for the damaged bookshelf because she felt the claim would fail as the landlord did not accept fault. In its stage 1 response, the landlord noted that the damp survey specified that the bookshelf was water stained because of a leak from the washing machine. The landlord provided details on how to submit an insurance claim for the bookshelf. This service cannot make a determination on what the likely outcome of an insurance claim might be, however, the landlord responded appropriately by providing the resident with the information to submit the claim.
  8. This service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould and associated damage to personal belongings. This is because although it responded initially to the report of damp and mould within its timeframes, it did not follow up appropriately on the surveyor’s recommendation, and it should have. This caused distress to the resident and this service orders the landlord to pay compensation of £250 for this failure.

Inappropriate staff conduct.  

  1. This Service is not in a position to make a determination on the conduct or behaviours of the landlord’s staff when there is no conclusive evidence to support either parties’ version of events. The role of this Service is to determine if the landlord properly investigated the issue and took appropriate action based on its findings.
  2. When a resident makes a complaint about staff conduct, the landlord should investigate objectively, and provide the resident with a timely response that clearly sets out the outcome of its investigation. If the resident’s concerns are justified, the landlord should acknowledge the mistakes and take appropriate action to put things right.
  3. On 3 March 2022, the resident raised issues to her councillor that none of the landlord staff operatives that visited her property in 2022, properly wore PPE masks. She advised that she was not comfortable requesting an operative to wear a mask properly. This was because she alleged that an operative shouted at her cat after she made a polite request for him to cover his nose in August 2021. These issues were not raised with the landlord until 5 months later, on 4 August 2022, when a councillor for the resident forwarded her complaint correspondence. In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for the incident whereby an operative shouted at her cat and confirmed that it would act upon any reports made about discourteous behaviour. It placed a note on the resident’s records so that its operatives would be aware that appropriate PPE is worn in future visits to her home.
  4. This service can only assess how the landlord responded to reports of inappropriate staff conduct. It did not receive the report of its staff shouting at a cat until almost 1 year later. It would not be reasonable to expect a landlord to investigate this issue given the time passed. The landlord’s apology was an appropriate response. It received reports of its staff not wearing PPE mask appropriately 5 months after the resident raised the issue with her councillor. While there were no specific dates of the incidents, the resident advised that every tradesperson who entered the property in 2022 failed to wear a PPE mask properly. The landlord’s decision to place a note on the resident’s records to ensure its operatives are aware of the requirement to wear a PPE mask, was a fair and proportionate response in this case.
  5. This service finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of inappropriate staff conduct. This is because there was a delay in receiving the reports of poor staff conduct and its response was fair and proportionate in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling and compensation offered.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy aims to resolve complaints for its residents as quickly and simply as possible and initially this is done informally. If a complaint has not been dealt with satisfactorily, then the formal procedure is started. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints within all stages in 2 working days. At stage 1, the landlord will investigate and respond to the resident within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint can be escalated to stage 2. A manager who was not involved in the stage 1 complaint will review the complaint and contact the resident within 2 working days. After this they will provide a formal written response within 25 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to the relevant Ombudsman.
  2. In July 2020, this Service published the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which set out the standards for handling of complaints. The Code (2020) states that landlords must:

a. Confirm their understanding of the complaint; progress unresolved complaints under the timescales set out in the Code.

b. Provide timely complaint responses:

i.  at stage 1 of the procedure within 10 working days of the complaint being raised.

ii.  at stage 2 of the procedure within 20 working days of the escalation request.

c. Address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasoning.

d. Adhere to arrangements of frequency and method of communication, and keep residents regularly updated even where there is no news to provide.

e. Acknowledge and apologise for any failure identified, explain, and, where possible, inform the resident of the changes made or actions taken to prevent the issue from happening again.

  1. On 5 January 2022, the resident emailed her MP with a complaint about issues she had with several of the landlord’s repairs since June 2021. The landlord called the resident on 7 January 2022, and took steps to address the outstanding repair issues. It did not register a complaint and there is no evidence that it addressed the complaints about the previous repairs. This was inappropriate and unfair to the resident.
  2. On 11 July 2022, the landlord received a copy of numerous complaints from the resident’s MP dating back to her initial complaint of 5 January 2022. It acknowledged the complaint on 28 July 2022, and advised that it would reply within 10 working days. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 August 2022. This response was outside of its policy to acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and outside its policy to respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. This was unreasonable as it further delayed the resident in progressing her complaint.
  3. The resident responded to each issue addressed in the stage 1 complaint response with 10 separate emails between 28 August 2022 and 23 September 2022. The landlord replied with its stage 2 complaint response, 3 months later, on 21 December 2022 but only addressed the resident’s first email. This was inappropriate, unfair to the resident and the landlord failed to adhere to its complaint policy and its delay caused the resident further distress and time and trouble.
  4. This service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it did not appropriately identify and register a complaint initially. When it did address the complaint as part of its formal process, it failed to acknowledge and respond to the complaint within its timescales at stage 1 or stage 2, and it failed to address all the points raised by the resident in its stage 2 response. This delay caused distress, inconvenience, and delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to this service.
  5. This service orders the landlord to apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failings identified in this report and pay compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to various repair requests.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of damp, mould, and associated damage to personal belongings.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of inappropriate staff conduct.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling and compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders 

53.It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £450 for distress, and inconvenience, compromising:

a. £250 for the failure in its handling of damp and mould.

b. £200 for its complaint handling failures.

54.It is ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

56.The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

56. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the redress of £200 offered in its complaint response for the time and trouble caused by delays in repairs.