London Borough of Camden Council (202501426)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202501426

London Borough of Camden Council

5 September 2025

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 reports of a leak from her sink.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident lives in the property with her 2 young children.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 September 2024 to report a leak from her sink. A plumber attended on 19 September 2024. He found that the leak was coming from holes in the sink. He told the resident he could not repair or replace the sink as he believed the resident had caused the damage.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 3 October 2024. She said the landlord had refused to repair or replace her sink as it said she had caused the damage. The resident told the landlord that she had not damaged the sink. She also said the ongoing leak was causing damage to the cupboard below.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 16 October 2024. It said it was satisfied that the leak had been caused by misuse. It said the resident could arrange for her own contractor to complete the repair or pay £150 for the landlord to complete the work.
Following escalation of the complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 25 March 2025. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint and referred her to its stage 1 response.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident said she wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs to the sink and cupboard underneath. She also said she wanted the landlord to apologise for blaming her for the damage.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her and her children’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from her sink

The resident contacted the landlord on 12 September 2024 to report a leak to her sink. She told the landlord it was only leaking when the tap was running. She said she thought the water was going into the cupboard instead of the pipe. The landlord said it would send a plumber out.
The plumber attended the resident’s property on 19 September 2024. He found that the leak was coming from the sink, rather than the service pipes. The repair records show that the plumber found multiple holes in the sink which were allowing water to penetrate the base unit. The landlord told the resident she would have to pay £150 for a replacement sink.
It should be noted that the resident has told us that the holes were not visible to her until the plumber shone a light through the sink. The resident said the holes would be better described as hairline cracks. The resident also confirmed that the sink is made from stainless steel.
The resident contacted the landlord by telephone on 20 September 2024. She told the landlord she did not know why she had to pay £150 for a new sink. The landlord told the resident she would have to pay for the sink because it had found knife holes in it. The resident told the landlord she did not use knives in the sink. She said it would not be comfortable to chop things in the sink, so the landlord’s explanation of the damage did not make sense to her. However, the landlord insisted she would have to pay. The resident said she could not afford to pay £150. She asked to speak to someone else, such as a manager, but the landlord said she would have to make a formal complaint.
The landlord’s repairs policy says,“residents are responsible for repairing damage to plumbed items such as toilets, sinks, or showers if it’s as a result of misuse or accidents.” The landlord repeats thisinformation within the tenants’ duties and responsibilities and rechargeable repairs information. However, as the resident was disputing the cause of the damage, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to seek a second opinion from a supervisor before enforcing the recharge policy in this case. This is because the recharge had been based on the opinion of 1 plumber and the suggested cause of the damage was uncommon. Although a landlord is entitled to rely on the expertise of its qualified staff, it would have been in a stronger position to enforce a recharge with a second opinion from a more senior member of staff.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 3 October 2024. She said the plumber had found holes in her sink following her reports of a leak. She said the plumber told her that someone must have been chopping things in the sink to cause the damage. The resident said the repairs team had told her she was responsible for replacing the sink due to the damage. She said she had reported the condition of the sink to the landlord when she first moved in, which showed the sink was not new or in good condition at the start of her tenancy. The resident said, as the landlord had taken no action, the ongoing leak had damaged the cupboard underneath. The resident asked the landlord to repair the sink and the further damage caused by the leak.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 16 October 2024. It said it was unable to uphold the complaint as it was the resident’s responsibility to replace the sink. It said the operative had taken photographs of the sink and, upon review, he had determined the sink had been punctured. The landlord said it recognised the puncture may not have been intentional, but the holes had been caused by misuse. It said the resident could pay for her own contractor or it would carry out the work for £150.
The landlord has not provided us with the photographs of the sink. However, there is no evidence to show that it considered any other possible causes for the damage,for example, that it sought the advice of the supplier or manufacturer as to whether it was possible that a knife could puncture a sink. Or whether a manufacturing fault could have been a reasonable explanation for the damage. This was unreasonable in the circumstances given that the resident was adamant she had not caused the damage and the suggested cause was unfounded at this point.
There is also no evidence to show the landlord considered the ongoing leak and the damage it was causing to the cupboard underneath. This was unreasonable. The resident has told us that the damage has already progressed from the cupboard to the kitchen floor. In these circumstances, if left indefinitely, it is likely that the ongoing damage to the resident’s property would become severe.
The landlord’s rechargeable repairs policy does allow the landlord to complete a repair “that it has no duty to do in exceptional circumstances.” It gives an example where “not doing the repair would endanger a resident or other residents or would severely damage the home or other properties.” It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord did not consider completing the repair on this basis given the circumstances. Particularly as damage was being caused to its own asset.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 22 January 2025. She said she had been held responsible for something that was not her fault. She also said she did not think the landlord had conducted a thorough investigation and she should not have to pay for the damage.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 25 March 2025. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as the response at stage 1 was comprehensive. It said the resident had said she had reported issues with the sink when she first moved in, and there was a suggestion the previous tenant may have caused the damage. However, after reviewing the repair history, it had found no record of a leaking sink prior to 12 September 2024. It also said the resident had lived in the property for 5 years, so it seemed unlikely the previous tenant could have caused the damage. It said, if the resident wanted to use the rechargeable service, she should contact the repairs team.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we find that there has been maladministration by the landlord.The landlord did check the repairs history and formed reasonable conclusions in relation to the possibility the damage had been caused prior to the resident’s tenancy. However, there is no evidence to show it considered any further investigation into the possible cause of the damage before concluding it had been caused by the resident’s misuse of the sink.
There is also no evidence to show it considered the resident’s circumstances, that she was living in the property with 2 young children without a proper functioning kitchen sink, or the ongoing damage to the cupboard underneath. It did not consider the potential progression of the damage over the 7 months since the resident reported the leak or the possibility of issues with damp and mould forming within the resident’s property because of the excess moisture. It also did not consider whether the resident had the ability to pay the £150 recharge upfront.
We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £175 compensation to be appropriate in the circumstances. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord has made no attempt to put things right. We have also made additional orders below.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 22 January 2025. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 25 March 2025. This was over 2 months from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord apologised for the delay within the stage 2 response.
However, the landlord’s apology was not sufficient to put things right. The delays caused the resident avoidable time and trouble and delayed her from escalating her complaint to us. As such, we find that the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to service failure.
To put things right, the landlord should pay the resident £50 for the failings in its complaint handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided which it did not fully put right. An order to this effect has been made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from her sink.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology on behalf of the landlord.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £225 made up of:
  1. £175 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from her sink.
  2. £50 in recognition of the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
4. Instruct a suitably qualified person to re-assess the damage to the sink based on an investigation into possible causes. The landlord should provide both the resident and this Service with an outcome of its investigation in writing.
5. Complete the work to replace the sink and repair the associated damage to the cupboard underneath.
6. Following the completion of the work, consider whether it is appropriate to recharge the resident based on the outcome of the assessment and investigation and in line with its recharge policy.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.