Camden Council (202323962)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323962

Camden Council

22 August 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise disturbances.
2. Reports of unauthorised alterations to the property below hers.
3. Request for a new shower head.
4. Reports of a blocked sink.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The resident has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which she says is aggravated by noise disturbances, and nerve pain which she says impacts her mobility.
The resident began contacting the landlord about noise disturbances and unauthorised alterations in the property below hers, flat A, in March 2023. Shortly after this she asked the landlord to fit a new shower head and cited her mobility issues. The resident continued to contact the landlord about these issues regularly over the next few months. She then complained in October 2023 about the landlord’s handling of these concerns.
The landlord advised her on 12 October 2023 that her concerns were not within the scope of its complaint process and closed her complaint. She contacted the Ombudsman soon after. She then complained again to the landlord on the same grounds on 23 October 2023. The landlord did not respond to this, and so on 30 November 2023 we instructed it to do so. It provided its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023 and explained it had spoken with the leaseholder of flat A about the noise. It said it could not fit a new shower head or implement the measures the resident suggested to mitigate the noise as these were classed as improvements. It advised her it had referred her concerns about alterations to its surveyor.
The resident was unhappy with this and escalated her complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 January 2024 and reiterated the points already made at stage 1. However, it explained it had sent a request to Adult Social Care (ASC) to arrange an assessment with the resident to determine whether she qualified for the shower head. It advised that “relevant services” were liaising with the leaseholder of flat A about the reported alterations but that it could not give any more detail on this due to its GDPR obligations. It apologised for not updating the resident about the shower head in its stage 1 response but assured her that someone would be in touch to discuss it.
The resident did not accept this as resolution and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She considers the only way to resolve the noise disturbance is to: replace the carpet in the communal hallway, fit anti-slam measures on the communal door, and prohibit the tenants of flat A from using the communal entrance. She also considers the landlord has failed to address delays with the shower head or her concerns about unauthorised alterations. She would like the Ombudsman to order the landlord to implement the anti-noise measures she has highlighted in communal areas, provide the shower head, and investigate her concerns about alterations to the layout of flat A.
In a telephone call with the Ombudsman, the resident explained that the landlord had failed to attend to a blocked sink since 2020.

Jurisdiction

Under paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident complained the landlord has failed to take suitable steps to address a blocked sink in the property since she began the tenancy in 2020. However, we have not seen any evidence to suggest she has raised this with the landlord as a formal complaint. Therefore, in line with 42.a, we will not consider this as part of this investigation.
Under paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider matters which are more appropriately considered by a different Ombudsman.
The resident has complained that she has waited for an unreasonably long time for an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment to determine whether she qualifies for a shower head. While we recognise the resident’s view that the actions of the OT service have contributed to any delays, the local authority’s provision of these services is primarily related to its functions as a local authority, not its provision of social housing. Therefore, her concerns about the length of time taken to provide this service fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). For this reason, we will not consider this aspect of her complaint.
The Ombudsman will investigate the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of her request for the shower head in its role as a social landlord. Accordingly, our assessment of these concerns will be restricted to whether the landlord acted reasonably in referring her request to OT services, and whether it did so within a reasonable time frame.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of noise

The landlord’s policy on responding to noise reports states it will contact residents within 10 working days to advise them on next steps.
Its policy on handling these reports sets out a step-by-step process which it should investigate them according to. In the first instance, it should attempt to discuss the report with the alleged responsible party. When this does not resolve matters, other means of investigating the noise should be considered. These include inviting the reporting party to collate ‘noise diaries’ documenting instances of noise, or to use ‘noise apps’ which monitor the noise via a mobile device. The landlord should also document any action taken in relation to investigating the noise.
The resident reported excessive noise from flat A on 27 March 2023. She explained that the tenants frequently had large numbers of guests round who would be up late into the night partying in their shared kitchen which is beneath her bedroom. She explained the guests would often spill out into the communal hallway and the shared garden which would intensify the noise. She also explained the noise was aggravating her PTSD symptoms. She made similar reports to the landlord on 2 May 2023 and 30 August 2023. The landlord did not respond to any of these reports, and there is no record of any action it took in relation to them. This was not in keeping with any of the obligations set out in its policies, and this likely caused the resident some distress.
The resident made another report on the same grounds on 4 October 2023. The landlord emailed her the next day to ask when she was available for it to visit the property. The resident replied on 6 October 2023 and asked if the landlord could attend on 13 October 2023. On 11 October 2023 she made another noise report, and forwarded an email from her psychologist which advised the noise disturbances were harming the progress of her PTSD treatment. The landlord responded on 12 October 2023 that the issues raised were outside of its complaints process, and that it had been passed to the Neighbourhood Housing Officer. The resident made 2 more noise reports over the following week. We cannot see any evidence that the landlord visited the resident as per its offer on 5 October 2023.
On 19 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise it had spoken to the leaseholder of flat A about noise. However, it failed to document this conversation. It also advised the resident to report any further occurrences and to document the times future disturbances occurred. This appeared to be in response to the 4 October 2023 report, and so the landlord met its obligation in this instance to respond within 10 working days. It also instructed the resident to start documenting the times that disturbances occurred, as is suggested in its policy. While it should have documented the conversation with the leaseholder, the instruction to use “noise diaries” was a positive step towards investigating and addressing the noise.
The resident then made another noise report on 21 October 2023 and included the time of each disturbance. She also made a stage 1 complaint on 23 October 2023 and, as means of mitigating the noise, asked the landlord to fit new carpet in the communal hallway and anti-slam measures on both flat A’s entrance door and the communal door. She also asked for the tenants of flat A to be denied use of the communal entrance. The landlord did not respond to this latest noise report nor her complaint, and so on 30 November 2023 we instructed it to address the complaint. It provided a stage 1 response on 13 December 2023.This was an unreasonable amount of time to take to address the latest report and was not in keeping with its policy. This delay also undermined the previous instruction to use “noise diaries” given the resident’s consequent efforts to do so then went unaddressed for around 2 months. We consider it likely that this contributed to the resident’s distress.
In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that it had spoken with the leaseholder of flat A about the noise. It is unclear whether this refers to the same conversation it said it had in October 2023 because there is no record of any communication with the leaseholder. The landlord also said it asked the leaseholder to consider fitting anti-slam measures on the entrance door to flat A, but they refused to do so. Despite there being no record of the conversation, we accept the landlord’s account of it as there are internal email chains which corroborate it. The landlord cannot compel the leaseholder to make these modifications to their property. Therefore, in suggesting the leaseholder considers this measure, the landlord seems to have gone as far as it reasonably could have in attempting to address the noise resulting from this door. The landlord also explained it could not prohibit the tenants in flat A from using the communal door. While we recognise the resident considers this would mitigate noise, the landlord does not have the power to impose this restriction on these tenants, and so it was reasonable not to consider this.
The landlord went on to explain that the new communal carpets and anti-slam measures on the communal door were classed as improvements, and therefore not within the scope of housing repairs. We have seen photos of the hallway in question, and it is already carpeted. Therefore, we consider the landlord was reasonable to class a full replacement of this carpet as an improvement. The landlord is not obligated to make improvements to communal areas, and so its refusal to implement this was reasonable.
However, we do not consider the landlord’s position on the communal door was reasonable. Beyond stating that it is an improvement, we have not seen any evidence the landlord reasonably considered this suggestion. Anti-slam measures, unlike new carpets, can be fitted at relatively low cost and effort. Given this, and that the resident had consistently reported disturbance from the slamming of this door, we consider the landlord should at least have explored the possibility of anti-slam measures as a means of partially addressing the noise.
The landlord maintained the same position in its stage 2 response of 14 January 2024. The resident’s psychologist wrote to the landlord on 21 February 2024 to reiterate the impact the noise was continuing to have on her PTSD symptoms. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 March 2024 and advised it had discussed her case with the neighbourhood housing team but did not explain what the outcome of this conversation was. There is also no record of this conversation or related actions. The landlord should have considered the report from the psychologist and addressed it within 10 working days, especially given the vulnerabilities the psychologist had highlighted. The landlord failed to do so, and we consider this likely caused the resident distress.
Following this there was no correspondence between the resident and the landlord about noise until the landlord emailed the resident on 10 May 2024. It explained it intended to arrange a visit to investigate the noise, and that it was currently arranging a visit from its repairs manager to assess whether it could fit anti-slam measures to the communal door. It is unclear why the landlord changed its position after ruling this out in December 2023, and its offer to do so at this stage suggests it could have done so sooner.
In any case, the resident has said this visit has yet to take place, and there is no record of any further correspondence or action taken in relation to it. The landlord should have followed up on this. It should have assessed whether it could fit the anti-slam measures, documented this, and communicated this decision to the resident as per its policy. There is no evidence it did so, and the resident says she feels abandoned as a result. We also consider that, by indicating that it would consider implementing these measures, and then failing to follow up on it, the landlord gave the resident false hope about a possible resolution. We consider it likely this caused the resident further distress.
Ultimately, we do not consider the landlord sufficiently considered the options available to it to address the noise reports from March 2023 to present. While it invited the resident to provide noise diaries, it failed to take any further action to consider these in line with its policy once she provided them. It also frequently delayed unreasonably in responding to these reports. While the majority of the impact the resident has reported was likely caused by the noise itself, we consider the landlord’s omissions likely exacerbated her distress. For this reason, we will order the landlord pays her compensation to address this.
The landlord’s policy on compensation for service failure states it will calculate redress sums as follows:
1. £100 – £300 for distress (up to £1,000 if prolonged and severe)
2. £100 – £300 for time and trouble
Therefore, we will order the landlord pays £200 to remedy the distress caused by the landlord’s omissions. We also consider the resident incurred time and trouble in chasing responses via email and phone from March 2023 to December 2023, and so we will order the landlord pays £75 to remedy this.
We will also order the landlord fulfils its agreement to consider fitting anti-slam measures on the communal door, and that it explains its decision on this to the resident.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of unauthorised alterations to the property below hers

The resident complained to the landlord on 23 October 2023 that the leaseholder of flat A had changed the layout of the property and relocated the kitchen underneath her bedroom. She said as a result her bedroom routinely smells like cooked food, which she finds unpleasant. The resident also explained she considered these alterations were unauthorised and asked the landlord to investigate. She considers the landlord has failed to suitably investigate these concerns.
Internal email exchanges on 12 December 2023 indicate the landlord had contacted a surveyor to investigate these concerns, and it advised the resident of this on 13 December 2023. It then explained on 11 January 2024 that her concerns were with the relevant team, but that it could not provide further detail of its investigation due to GDPR obligations. There is no related communication following this until 10 May 2024, when the landlord advised the resident, it was “liaising” with the leaseholder of flat A regarding the alleged layout changes. We have seen no further communication with the resident about this.
When we accepted this case for investigation, we asked the landlord to provide any evidence related to how it investigated these concerns. It explained to us that its legal team were currently investigating. The question of whether the leaseholder of flat A has completed unauthorised alterations to the property’s layout is ultimately a legal and contractual question, and so it seems correct that this issue is with the landlord’s legal team. However, we cannot see any further information or evidence in the records related to this investigation. For this reason, we offered the landlord a further opportunity to evidence this. At the time of issuing this report it has been unable to do so.
The landlord should have kept records of its investigation and documented any actions taken in relation to it. Its failure to provide any evidence or insight into how it considered the resident’s concerns persuades us that, on balance, it failed to suitably investigate them. It does not seem reasonable to attribute much impact to the resident as a result of these omissions, so we will not order the landlord pays compensation to remedy this. However, we will order it to investigate her concerns and provide her with an up-to-date position on the alleged alterations. We recognise that in doing so the landlord would have to omit any information which may contradict its GDPR obligations.

How the landlord handled the resident’s request for a shower head

The resident complains that the landlord should have provided the shower head she requested, and that it was unreasonable to refer her to OT services to determine her eligibility for this. She also complains the landlord delayed unreasonably in progressing this for her.
Government guidance on adaptations sets out that local housing authorities have a statutory duty under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to provide adaptations for eligible people with a disability. Local authorities deliver these adaptations through Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs). In cases where the disabled person needs access to a bath and a shower, they would need to demonstrate a medical need for both. The resident currently has a bath only. The housing authority must be satisfied that the relevant works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. In the case of district councils, like the landlord, this must include consulting the social services authority. Therefore, we consider the landlord acted in accordance with this guidance when it referred the resident to OT services.
However, we can see the resident began chasing the landlord for this adaptation on 26 July 2023. After it did not respond she emailed again on 11 August 2023. It failed to respond again, so on 19 September 2023 she asked it if it could clarify whether she should be pursuing this with ASC instead. The landlord did not respond to this or a further email on 19 October 2023. During this period there are also no records related to any action taken in relation to this request. The landlord should have considered her request in July 2023 or soon after, promptly forwarded it onto the relevant service, and updated the resident to explain what was happening. It failed to do so, and we consider this likely caused her some distress.
The first evidence we can see of action taken in relation to the shower head is an internal email chain from 12 December 2023 in which the landlord says the request will have to be referred to ASC to arrange an OT assessment. This is the first instance we can see of the landlord considering her request. Given she raised this in July 2023, this was an unreasonable amount of time to take to decide it needed to refer this to ASC. In its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023 the landlord then advised the resident that it would make this referral. Its stage 2 response of 11 January 2024 then advised the resident that it had passed her request onto ASC, but that ASC had advised in October 2023 that she was not on a waiting list for an OT assessment. It apologised for not updating her on this in its stage 1 response.
It is unclear what the landlord meant by its comment that OT had advised she was not on a waiting list in October 2023, since it appears to only have first acknowledged that a referral to ASC was necessary in December 2023. Considering this, and the absence of any correspondence evidence with ASC, the Ombudsman is not persuaded that the landlord made suitable attempts to refer her request to the relevant service between July 2023 and December 2023.
Following the stage 2 response there was no communication about the shower head until the landlord emailed the resident on 12 March 2024 to advise it had discussed her request with ASC, who had completed an OT referral. We can see ASC then assessed the resident on 21 March 2024, and following this she was placed onto an OT waiting list. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 May 2024 to advise her of this, and explained the waiting time for assessment was approximately 5 months.
In the absence of any correspondence evidence, we cannot determine whether the landlord referred the request to ASC in January 2024 as per its stage 2 response, or whether it did so in March 2024. This means we are unable to reach an evidence-based view on whether the landlord delayed unreasonably in referring the case to ASC between January 2024 and March 2024. However, we are of the view that the landlord delayed unreasonably in considering and acting on the request from July 2023 until December 2023, and that this has likely unnecessarily delayed the assessment which is to determine her eligibility for the shower head. We also consider it failed to suitably communicate with the resident during this period, and that this likely caused her distress. Therefore, we will order the landlord pays compensation to address this.
We have calculated compensation using the landlord’s compensation policy. We consider it appropriate that the landlord pays £200 to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused by its omissions. The resident also incurred time and trouble in chasing responses, and so we will order the landlord pays £75 to remedy this.
The resident has advised she has severe mobility issues and is very distressed at the prospect of waiting another 5 months without the adaptation. With the identified omissions in mind, we will recommend the landlord considers what other measures it could take to mitigate the resident’s situation while she waits for the OT assessment, including fitting the shower head before this takes place.

Record keeping

While the Ombudsman was able to determine the majority of this case based on the evidence provided, there were gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping and information management was inadequate, which made the Ombudsman’s investigation more difficult. For this reason, we will make a recommendation related to this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise disturbances.
1. Reports of unauthorised alterations to the property below hers.
2. Request for a new shower head.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a blocked sink in the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £550, inclusive of:
1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to suitably address her noise reports from March 2023 to present.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to suitably handle her request for a shower head from July 2023 to March 2024.
3. £150 for the time and trouble she incurred in chasing responses from the landlord regarding these issues.
The landlord is to investigate her concerns about unauthorised alterations in the property below hers and provide her with an up-to-date position on this.
The landlord to consider fitting anti-slam measures on the communal door and explain its decision on this to the resident.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider what other measures it could take to mitigate the resident’s situation while she waits for the OT assessment, including fitting the shower head before this takes place.
The landlord should self-assess against our Spotlight Report on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This will give it the opportunity to consider how it can improve its record keeping to avoid repeating the omissions we identified in this report.