London Borough of Camden Council (202335140)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder who lives at the property. The property is a 2nd and 3rd floor, 3-bedroom flat within a block.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of repairs to the communal flooring.
   2. The resident’s request for permission to replace the communal flooring.
   3. The resident’s associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to the communal flooring.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to replace the communal flooring.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the communal flooring

6. The landlord has provided evidence to show that it completed works to repair the flooring. However, these works took significantly longer than its target timescale.

The resident’s request for permission to replace the communal flooring.

7. The landlord was within its right under its policy to refuse the resident’s request to replace the communal flooring. However, its communication with the resident was poor and this led to the resident experiencing delays in obtaining a response to his request.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord did not follow its own complaint handling policy. It took significantly longer than its target timescale to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint request. It also missed opportunities to provide the resident with reasonable redress for the service failures identified in either of its complaint responses.

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.

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.

What we did not consider

9. The resident has told us that one of his guests suffered personal injury due to the trip hazard posed by the damaged flooring in the communal area of the building. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident’s guest to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay the resident compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. The resident has told us that the issue regarding the damage to the communal flooring in his building is ongoing. However, we have not been provided with any evidence that the resident reported further issues after the landlord completed repairs in August 2023. The landlord was therefore reasonable in thinking that these works had resolved the disrepair to the communal flooring at the time of its stage 2 complaint response.
11. If the resident has concerns about the current condition of the flooring, he should raise these with the landlord as a service request.

12. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will maintain communal areas and the outside of its buildings. It says that it is responsible for a repair “if it is to a fitting or appliance that we installed”. It says that routine works are repairs that it is responsible for that are not considered an emergency or urgent. It says that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
13. Landlords are also required to consider the condition of their properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out minimum standards but is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Falls on level surfaces are potential hazards that fall within the scope of the HHSRS.
14. The evidence we have been provided shows that the resident reported the disrepair to the flooring in the communal area of the building in August 2022. The landlord attended the property on 2 September 2022 and completed the necessary works. This was within its repairs policy’s timescale for routine repairs.
15.  It was reasonable for the landlord to have assumed that the works that it completed in September 2022 had resolved the resident’s initial report of this issue.
16. The landlord did not send operatives to investigate the problem until 30 March 2023. Whilst this was 23 working days after the resident made his report, and therefore not far beyond its agreed 20 working-day response time for routine repairs. This slight delay in itself would not have caused significant detriment to the resident, had the landlord completed the necessary repairs on this attendance. However, in its records the landlord acknowledged that no works had actually been completed on this date.
17. A works order to complete the repairs was not raised until almost a month later, on 28 April 2023. These works were not scheduled until 13 June 2023. This was an unreasonable delay by the landlord and not compliant with its repair policy, as it had a duty to make safe reported disrepair such as this. This is especially important in light of the fact that the resident had reported the issue as a hazard.
18. The job that was due to be completed on 13 June 2023 was later cancelled by the landlord. It is not clear why, particularly considering the resident having reported that one of his guests had tripped over the damaged flooring. The landlord records work as having been ultimately completed on 14 August 2023. As set out above, the landlord was reasonable in assuming that these works had resolved the issue to the communal flooring as we have not been provided with any evidence to show that the resident raised this issue with the landlord again after these works were completed.
19. However, this is still ultimately an unreasonable delay by the landlord in completing works, almost 6 months after the resident re-reported the issue in February 2023. This is particularly concerning because the resident had told it that someone had tripped over the area of damaged flooring. As set out above, we are unable to consider personal injury in our investigation. However, we can consider the fact that the resident telling the landlord about the trip that his guest suffered was him putting the landlord on notice that a hazard existed. This is therefore a failing by the landlord.
20. In its stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged that there had been “no action” taken in relation to the resident’s reports. It said it would be partially upholding the resident’s complaint because it acknowledged that there were some areas that it had not provided him with a good service. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident and said that it would undertake any required repairs. It said that it hoped that the matter would be resolved soon. This was a failing by the landlord because it did not do what it said it would in its complaint response.
21. In its stage 2 complaint response on 26 September 2023, the landlord again acknowledged that there had been a delay in its completion of works. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it can offer compensation for service failures or delays in completing works, for example. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with an offer of compensation in either complaint response. This was a failing by the landlord as it missed an opportunity to provide the resident with reasonable redress for the failings that it had identified.
22. It is also noted that the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout this 6-month period. The evidence that we have been provided with shows that the resident was consistently chasing the landlord for updates on works progress. For example, the resident asked the landlord on 15 March 2023 for the contact details of someone that would be able to provide him with an update on works. The landlord did not respond until almost 2 months later on 12 May 2023. It told the resident that he could contact its repairs team but provided no contact details for the resident to be able to do so. This conduct and lack of communication placed an unfair onus on the resident to chase the landlord and would have significantly contributed to his frustration.
23. It is clear from the evidence provided that the impact on the resident from the above failings was considerable. The resident described in correspondence as feeling “neglected” and “ignored” by the landlord. Given the extent of the failures and the subsequent impact on the resident, we have made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the communal flooring.

24. The landlord’s alterations and improvements policy says that any application to make improvements to common parts of the property will generally be refused. This is because it says that it needs to consider the building “as a whole” and the health and safety interests of the other residents in the building.
25. Therefore, the landlord acted within its policy when refusing the resident’s request to replace the communal flooring. Its only obligations are the repair and maintenance of the existing communal flooring, as set out above.
26. However, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request was poor. It failed to properly communicate with the resident who was forced to chase the landlord for a response to his request for almost 6 months. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations from an early stage. This was a failing by the landlord.
27. When the landlord did respond to the resident, instead of providing him with a clear answer, there were a number of miscommunications that led to the resident to believe that the landlord had granted him permission to pay for his own replacement communal flooring. For example, the resident left a telephone conversation with the landlord on 15 March 2023 believing that the landlord had granted him permission to replace the flooring. Whilst the landlord did clarify later that day that it had not given the resident permission to replace the communal flooring, the resident remained under the impression that the landlord was considering his request until it provided its stage 2 response many months later in September 2023. This was a failure by the landlord because it did not properly and clearly communicate with the resident.
28. The resident’s confusion could have been avoided had the landlord provided him with clear correspondence explaining that his request had been denied and why, this would have avoided the resident’s continued and considerable confusion and frustration.
29. It is on this basis that we have made a finding of service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to replace the communal flooring.

30. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It says that it will provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and its stage 2 complaint response within 25 working days. It says that its complaint response times can be extended in “complex cases” but does not define what a complex complaint is.
31. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint, other than it telling the resident that he needed to “talk to the repairs team” in response to his stage 1 complaint on 14 April 2023. This was an inappropriate response to a complaint raised by the resident and was a failing by the landlord because it did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 2 working days as its policy requires.
32. The stage 1 complaint response was provided after 11 working days, rather than the 10 that the landlord’s policy allows. We do not consider its delay of 1 working day to have caused significant detriment to the resident.
33. The resident made his stage 2 escalation request on 3 May 2023. There is no evidence to show that the landlord acknowledged this complaint and it did not provide its response until over 4 months later on 26 September 2023. It incorrectly labelled the resident’s email dated 15 September 2023 as his stage 2 complaint. This is despite the resident consistently chasing the landlord for its stage 2 complaint response following his email dated 3 May 2023. This is a considerable failing by the landlord as it failed to follow its complaint policy. This was also a missed opportunity by the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations. This lack of communication for 4 months significantly contributed to the frustration and distress that the resident was experiencing.
34. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it had incorrectly told the resident that its major repairs team would be handling his request to replace the communal flooring. It apologised to the resident for this oversight. We consider this to be reasonable redress for this mistake in the circumstances.
35. It is on the basis of the above that we have made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord appears to have lost the resident’s stage 2 complaint made on 3 May 2023 as it did not respond until some 4 months later in September 2023 after the resident had repeatedly chased it for its stage 2 complaint response. This demonstrates a training need to make sure that the landlord has robust systems in place for logging complaints and escalations when they are received.

Communication

37. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout its complaint handling. This demonstrates a training need to improve communication between the landlord and its residents.
38. There also appears to be poor communication between the landlord’s teams as it took months for the landlord to identify who could decide on whether it could grant permission for the resident to replace the communal flooring. Avoiding handovers between teams will minimise the risk of cases ‘slipping through the net’, as the resident’s appears to have done regarding his request for permission to replace the communal flooring.