London Borough of Camden Council (202503109)

Decision
Case ID	202503109
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Camden Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	25 February 2026

Background

1. The resident reported to the landlord that his shower was not draining properly and had tripped the electrics, on 26 February 2025. He was moved to temporary accommodation (TA) during the associated repairs. He complained about the landlord’s response, saying he had suffered an electric shock from the shower. He was unhappy with the loss of water to the property and the TA arrangements.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of shower repairs.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the shower repairs.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s repair reports.
6. There was a delay in the landlord providing the stage 2 complaint response.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident directly £50 for the inconvenience caused by its late stage 2 response.	No later than 24 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If not already paid, the landlord should pay the resident directly £100 as offered at stage 2.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 February 2025	The resident complained that he had received an electric shock from his shower and the floor had been damaged by the leaking shower.
11 March 2025	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said it had arranged repairs appropriately within required timescales, and had not identified any service failure.
18 March 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. He gave further details of his dissatisfaction, including the loss of water and unsuitable TA.
21 May 2025	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It took no responsibility for the resident’s electric shock as it was unaware of the fault until he reported it. The landlord explained its decision making regarding repairs and TA. It offered £100 as a gesture of goodwill for any distress and inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

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.

Complaint	Handling of shower repairs
Finding	No maladministration

7. The resident has sought legal advice regarding the landlord’s liability for him suffering an electric shock. It is not within our jurisdiction to comment on this or determine any personal injury claim. As a result, we do not comment on this further in the report.
8. When the resident first reported the shower fault, he said water was not draining properly and leaking onto the floor. He also said the electrics tripped when using the shower. There is no record of the resident reporting an electric shock at that point.
9. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, this report met the criteria for an urgent repair, with a target timescale for attendance of 5 working days. A contractor appropriately attended the following day. Had the landlord been aware of the electric shock, it would have been classed as an emergency repair with a target timescale for attendance of 2 hours. As there is no evidence the resident gave that information until making the formal complaint, the landlord’s initial response was appropriate.
10. The contractor disconnected the shower and made the area safe. A new shower unit was required and the floor needed to be repaired. The works were scheduled for 6 March 2025. The landlord explained that, due to previous incidents, staff and contractors should not attend the property alone. This had a practical impact on the timescales of repairs. While the situation was not ideal without a working shower, there appeared to be running water elsewhere in the property. We are not aware of the details of previous incidents but it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the welfare of its staff alongside its repair obligations.
11. For health and safety reasons the resident had to move out of the property during the works. Records suggest this decision was made on 5 March 2025, which did not allow much time for arrangements to be made. The resident was offered TA in a hostel. This was unsuitable due to his medical needs and he declined it. The landlord then arranged hotel accommodation.
12. The resident was unhappy the landlord had offered him a hostel. The landlord acknowledged it should have realised this would not be an appropriate placement. Once this was brought to its attention, it took reasonable steps to promptly make alternative arrangements, which were ultimately suitable.
13. Internal communication showed landlord staff trying to get repairs completed as soon as possible so the resident could return to his property. There was appropriate liaison between the housing officer and the repairs team. Records do not give the exact dates of completed repairs or when the resident was able to move back into the property.
14. There was no evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of shower repairs. The resident was understandably distressed at the disruption caused by repairs but the landlord acted fairly under the circumstances. The £100 it offered at stage 2 was appropriate to recognise the disruption and inconvenience the repairs caused the resident. We are not finding reasonable redress as there are no failings identified but it is recommended the landlord pay the £100 in good faith.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

15. The landlord gave its stage 1 response 8 working days after receiving the complaint, within policy timescales. It also spoke to the resident on 2 occasions about the complaint. This was positive and helpful to fully understand his concerns.
16. The stage 2 response was given 44 working days after escalation. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy, which says it should respond within 20 working days. There is no record of the resident being told about an extension. The timeliness of the stage 2 response is a low-level service failure of short duration, which did not impact the substantive issue. However, it may have added to the resident’s inconvenience and frustration at the situation.
17. The landlord asked for some clarification from the resident about his desired outcome. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek further details to allow for a meaningful response. However, this was asked when the stage 2 target date had already passed and so was not a reason for the delay.
18. While both complaint responses were thorough and accurate, the landlord did not take the opportunity to acknowledge or remedy the stage 2 delay within its response. We therefore find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and order it to pay £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. Except for below, there were sufficient records to allow for the investigation.

Communication

20. There were not many records of communication between the landlord and resident provided to us. The resident did say he had attempted to contact his housing officer several times. Communication records such as call logs or emails between parties would have been helpful to assess whether the landlord’s communication about repairs was reasonable.