London Borough of Camden Council (202337006)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bed second floor flat. The resident lives there with her children.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Loss of heating.
   2. Pest infestation.
   3. Reimbursement for oven installation costs.
   4. A bathroom plug repair.
   5. A wardrobe repair.
   6. Ventilation system repairs.
   7. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to ventilation repairs.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the loss of heating.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
   1. Pest infestation.
   2. Reimbursement for oven installation costs.
   3. A bathroom plug repair.
   4. A wardrobe repair.
   5. The complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. In relation to the loss of heating we found that the landlord attended to reports of loss of heating in a timely manner. However, we have identified a failed appointment, which the landlord did not address in its stage 2 response.
7. The landlord responded appropriately to the pest infestation by arranging appointments with pest control. We recognise that the resident has said there are ongoing issues, however, at the time of the stage 2 response the landlord’s pest control confirmed there was no ongoing infestation.
8. The landlord addressed the resident’s request for oven installation fees to be reimbursed inline with its gifted items policy.
9. The landlord resolved the bathroom plug repair, and although there were delays, we do not consider these to be excessive.
10. The landlord has noted that the wardrobe doors are the resident’s responsibility, and we found this to be reasonable in line with the landlord’s guidance for repairs residents have responsibility for.  
11. The landlord identified an issue with the ventilation system in December 2023 and we have not seen evidence it has completed this repair. The resident has advised the matter is not resolved to date.
12. The landlord followed its complaints policy and responded to each complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

13. The stage 1 response addressed reports of heating loss in December 2022. It said it tried to attend the same day but there was no access. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord has demonstrated it followed its policy.
14. When the resident reported heating loss on 19 December 2022 the landlord attended the within 24 hours to restore the heating. She reported further heating loss on 21 December 2022, and the landlord attended the same day. The landlord followed the timescales in its repairs policy and restored the heating in a reasonable time.
15. The resident’s complaint referenced further issues with her heating in 2023. We note the stage 1 complaint response referenced a date of 21 December 2023 however, this appears to be an error as the events and date match to the 2022 loss of heating. It is important for the landlord to provide accurate information in its complaint responses. The landlord does not appear to have responded to the residents 2023 heating concerns in its stage 1 complaint response.
16. On 18 April 2023 the resident raised that there was no underfloor heating in her bathroom. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this. The next time we can see the resident raised a heating concern was during a web chat on 7 November 2023 when the resident said there was no heating in the living room. The landlord raised a repairs appointment for 8 November 2023 however, the resident said the landlord did not attend. The resident contacted the landlord who arranged a new appointment for 9 December 2023. The resident was unhappy that the new appointment was between 9am – 1pm as she had already waited in for a failed appointment. We consider that the missed appointment was a failing from the landlord, however, we do not consider that providing a 4-hour window for the new appointment was unreasonable.
17. The stage 2 response noted that the landlord completed the repair in December 2023. It did not specify a date, and it has not provided a repairs record for this appointment. We note the resident said in her complaint dated 28 December 2023, that following two visits from the same engineer the heating in the living room was better. However, she raised that there was no underfloor heating in the bathroom. We understand the property has underfloor heating throughout. It is unclear whether this extends to the bathroom, or whether there is an alternative heating source in this room.
18. As the resident raised on more than one occasion that there is no underfloor heating in the bathroom, we would expect the landlord to address the issue. We have not seen it did this. We would recommend that the landlord contact the resident to address any ongoing heating concerns. 
19. The landlord said it repaired the heating within the timescales of its repairs policy. At the time of the repair the timescales for non-emergency repairs were 125 days. We note that this timescale is excessive, however we have seen an updated repairs policy in which the landlord has changed this to 20 working days. We note the landlord carried out the repair significantly under the timescales in place at the time of the repair. We also note that there was not a total loss of heating. As such the response was reasonable.
20. The landlord responded appropriately when the resident raised heating concerns.  However, due to the missed appointment on 8 December 2023, and the landlord not acknowledging this in its complaints response, we consider there to be service failure in the landlord’s response to loss of heating. We consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy. This is because there was not a total loss of heating, and the landlord rescheduled the appointment within 24 hours.

21. The landlord offered £140 compensation for her previous complaint about mice on 19 June 2023. On 30 June 2023 the resident disputed the landlord’s statement that she had said there was no issue with mice. She said she would buy her own materials to fill potential entry holes. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss what outstanding concerns she had regarding mice, and how it could support her. However, we note that the resident did not make any further reports of mice until she raised her complaint. As we have not seen evidence that there was an active mice infestation at this time, we have not considered this to be a failing.
22. In her complaint, dated 28 December 2023 the resident re-raised the mice concern and said she felt they had never gone away. She also said she had seen a cockroach. On 17 January 2024 the landlord offered a pest control appointment. The resident refused the appointment due to the ongoing complaint. We consider it is the resident’s responsibility to provide access for appointments, regardless of outstanding complaints.
23. In an email interaction between the resident and the landlord dated 26 January 2024 the landlord offered an appointment for 29 January 2024. The resident declined this appointment as felt pest control would not take action. We consider that the landlord was making reasonable attempts to address the pest control issues.
24. On 6 February 2024, following further concerns of cockroaches raised by the resident, the landlord said it was imperative they gained access to control the pest issue. An appointment was subsequently agreed for 12 February 2023, which was reasonable.
25. The landlord attended the appointment with pest control and a member of its repairs team. It reported that the resident told it there were no mice in the property, and the landlord found no fresh evidence of mice. However, the landlord found older evidence of mice and asked to test to make sure there was no active infestation.
26. The landlord demonstrated that it was taking a thorough approach to investigating whether there were mice. The resident advised there were mice on her balcony and at the shed. The repairs team agreed it would wire off a drainpipe and seal a gap by the shed. This was reasonable to prevent further infestation.
27. The landlord baited for cockroaches during this appointment. It followed this up on 10 March 2024 and said there was no cockroaches and there had been no further sightings by the resident. It has demonstrated that it took action when the resident advised she had seen a cockroach and followed this up appropriately.
28. The stage 2 response noted that there was no failing in the landlord’s handling of pest control, as appointments were delayed due to the resident refusing access. We recognise that the resident feels the landlord should do more, including a block treatment for mice. However, we consider it reasonable that the landlord’s response to pest infestation is proportionate to the evidence regarding an active infestation. The landlord noted its repairs team had filled some holes near her balcony at the resident’s request.
29. We have not seen evidence that there was an active ongoing pest infestation at the time of the stage 2 complaint. We consider the landlord has responded appropriately to the pest infestation. 

30. The resident has said that she should not be liable for oven installation costs as she would not have incurred these if the oven were not a fitted appliance. The landlord has said it will not pay these fees due to the item being gifted at the start of the tenancy. We have seen a document signed by the resident on 23 March 2018 which confirms that the oven was gifted. It says that the tenant is responsible for future upkeep, repair, maintenance and replacement. As such the landlord’s response to reimbursement of oven installation costs was reasonable.

31. On 1 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord via webchat to chase a plumbing appointment. She said she had been told on 26 October 2023 that a tiler was needed to complete the plug replacement, as it needed access to underneath the bath. The landlord said it had followed this up with the repairs team and the resident could expect them to call with an appointment. This was a reasonable action to progress the repair.
32. The repairs records state that the plumber attended on 30 November 2023 and found that it needed parts. It ordered these and completed the repair on 15 December 2023.
33. While we recognise there were delays to the plug repair, and that this was frustrating for the resident, we do not consider the delays to be unreasonable. This is because the repair was not straightforward and required additional parts. The landlord completed the repair in 50 days, which is within the landlord’s timescales of 125 days for non-urgent repairs.

34. The resident raised that she should not be responsible for replacing the fitted wardrobe doors, which she said had been faulty since she moved in. The landlord said in its complaints response that as per the resident’s tenancy agreement she was responsible for completing these repairs. We have reviewed the tenancy conditions and note there is no specific reference to wardrobe doors in the agreement. However, we have reviewed the “tenant responsibility for repairs” document, which the landlord included in its stage 1 response, and it says that tenants are responsible for internal door repairs. As such we consider the landlord’s response is reasonable.

35. On 14 December 2023 during a routine appointment for the ventilation system, the landlord identified that a part was faulty, and it needed replacing. We note that the resident tried to raise repairs for the ventilation system on 11 January 2023, 17 January 2023, 26 January 2023, 31 January 2023 and 13 February 2023. She said she had difficulty in getting through to the right people to log this repair.
36. The landlord’s stage 2 response identified that the resident was communicating with a specific member of staff regarding the repairs. It said that this was not the right process, and it was possible this led to a delay in getting responses to her repair request. This is because the member of staff she was contacting was not responsible for managing repairs. We recognise that it is likely to have been frustrating for the resident to need to chase the repair. We consider it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident of the correct process to raise a repair. However, we also consider that as the landlord had identified the repair during a routine visit, it had a responsibility to manage the repair and keep the resident updated. We have not seen it did this. 
37. The resident made the landlord aware that she was asthmatic. She said that her property does not have windows, only floor to ceiling doors. She said her ventilation system was essential when she could not open the doors. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s health condition, and whether the landlord needed to take any steps to expedite the repair. We have not seen that it considered the condition or responded to the resident regarding this.
38. The stage 2 response has acknowledged that the contractor for the vent repair had been slow in completing the repair, however it said the repair was still within the 125 days timescale for non-urgent repairs. The landlord has not provided us with evidence that the ventilation system was repaired, and the resident has said the repair is still outstanding.

39. We are aware that the landlord has issued at least two other stage 1 responses which address some of the same matters as the complaint we have investigated. We would encourage the landlord to ensure it manages its complaint responses so it does not issue multiple complaints response for the same issue, as this can lead to confusion.
40. The landlord’s complaints response said it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of it acknowledging the complaint. We have not seen the stage 1 acknowledgment letter, however the stage 1 response was issued within 13 working days. We consider this to be reasonable and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. 
41. On 13 February 2024 the resident copied the landlord into a communication with a member of staff in which she expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord was placing responsibility on her to raise a repair. The complaints team responded to ask what the resident remained unhappy with. The resident did not provide a reason and directed the landlord to all previous communications. The landlord logged this as an escalation request. We consider this to be good practice from the landlord, as it has recognised dissatisfaction and escalated the matter.
42. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued in 19 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. As such it responded within the timescales in the complaints policy.
43. The complaint involved multiple issues, and we note the landlord formatted its responses to ensure each point received a response. We consider this to be good practice as it ensures all matters are addressed, and that the response is easy to read.