London Borough of Camden Council (202335284)

Background

1. The resident is vulnerable due to her age and was represented by her daughter. The complaint concerns water ingress into the resident’s kitchen. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on two occasions but did not identify the source of a wastewater leak. The resident therefore arranged for a private contractor to identify and rectify the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

a)     Report of a wastewater leak into the kitchen.

b)     Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:

a)     Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the report of a wastewater leak into the kitchen.

b)     No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Report of a wastewater leak into the kitchen.

4. The landlord attended the resident’s reports of water ingress within its repair timescales, but its contractor missed two opportunities to identify and investigate a wastewater leak despite clear reports of an escalation. This led to an avoidable delay, distress and inconvenience for the resident who continued to experience a wastewater leak despite repeat visits. The landlord apologised and acknowledged it missed an opportunity to fix the leak, but it did not take sufficient steps to put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling.

5. The landlord responded to the complaints at each stage in line with its policy timescales.

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.

6. The key areas considered within this assessment is whether the landlord acted reasonably to put things right for the resident following their repair request and subsequent complaint and whether it has learnt lessons.
7. The landlord was responsible under its repairs policy for maintaining internal pipework, including waste and water pipes. Where there is a risk to people or the property, its policy requires it to attend emergency repairs out of hours within 2 hours to make the situation safe. It will attend urgent repairs within 5 working days.
8. The resident reported water ingress into the kitchen on 11 November 2023. The landlord’s records show its out of hours contractor attended on 11 and 12 November 2023, which was within its policy timescales. During both visits, the contractor recorded it had identified a slow leak from the washing machine hose and had isolated it to make safe.
9. The landlord’s contractor missed an opportunity to diagnose the source of the problem on two occasions. After the contractor visited on 11 November 2023, the landlord raised a further work order after the resident reported the situation had worsened and involved foul wastewater entering the kitchen. Despite this, there is no record that the contractor identified or meaningfully investigated a potential wastewater leak during its second visit on 12 November. This was unreasonable particularly given the risks associated with wastewater and the resident’s description of the escalation of the leak.
10. The resident reported the leak again on 13 November 2023 and stated the flooding continued and had spread through the hallway to other rooms. The resident instructed a private contractor on 13 November 2023, who identified a blocked waste pipe from the upstairs bathroom as the cause of the leak. The landlord’s contactor also attended on the same date. It recorded the resident said a private contractor had already resolved the issue.
11. The landlord completed follow-on works on 15 and 22 November 2023 to clear water, check the pipework and prevent a recurrence which was appropriate. However, these actions only occurred after the resident instructed a private contractor to identify the source of the leak.
12. On balance, while we appreciate misdiagnosis can occur, the resident’s decision to progress to a private contractor was understandable given her frustration that the issue persisted after two landlord appointments missed a correct diagnosis of the wastewater leak, which resulted in avoidable delay and prolonged disrepair.
13. There are conflicting accounts regarding the contractor’s conduct during the visit on 12 November 2023. The contractor reported the resident was aggressive, while the resident disputed the allegation and said the contractor was dismissive and did not take her concerns seriously causing frustration. The resident has told us that she received inadequate help from the landlord during and after the flood and that the landlord falsely claimed that the resident refused to allow its plumber access.
14. The records show the contractor had not refused to attend but said they would only attend with another person present. The records show the resident had requested a different contractor, but the landlord advised it only had one person to cover its out of hours service which meant the same contractor was likely to attend. Due to the absence of complete records, it has not been possible to conclusively reconcile the conflicting accounts. The landlord has provided incomplete records of its earlier call records, therefore, it is not possible to determine precisely what occurred or how the landlord assessed these concerns at the time. The lack of records is a failing and it limits the landlord’s ability to demonstrate that it responded fairly and objectively to the concerns raised. However, recordings available from 14 November 2023 are consistent with the resident’s account of ongoing distress and frustration.
15. The evidence indicates that the resident experienced continued water ingress involving wastewater over several days, despite reporting the issue repeatedly. The failure to diagnose the problem promptly led to multiple visits, escalation of the leak and their loss of confidence in the landlord’s repair service. This was avoidable and caused the resident distress and inconvenience, particularly given the nature of the disrepair.
16. The landlord’s final complaint responses signposted the resident to make a claim through their own insurance policy or to make a claim through its public liability insurance. The landlord has provided no further information to us that would indicate if it has since considered an insurance claim. We cannot comment on matters relating to insurance that concerns legal liability or negligence matters that are more suitable for the landlord’s insurer or the court to consider.
17. The landlord’s remedies policy states that if it finds its contractors are responsible or are at fault it will offer a range of remedies that may include a recognition of its failings, an apology, improved procedures or a financial remedy. It says it will consider how a fault affected a resident and decide suitable remedies based on the amount of time and difficulty a person experienced in trying to resolve the issue, the distress, risk and actual harm caused.
18. While it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to its insurer, it did not go far enough to demonstrate how it had taken reasonable steps to diagnose and resolve the repair issue promptly, or to demonstrate how it could put things right for the resident as a result of its service failing. It failed to provide a suitable remedy that appropriately acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused that sufficiently reflected the increased impact to a vulnerable resident experiencing a wastewater leak into the kitchen. It did not fully apply our dispute resolution principles to resolving the resident’s complaint by acting fairly, to put things right and to learn from outcomes to improve its service.
19. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation to the resident that adequately reflects the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused for a vulnerable resident in chasing a repair. Also, to reflect the resident’s loss of confidence in the service provided by the landlord. We consider this to be fair and reasonable to put things right in line with our compensation guidance. This is consistent with the impact on a resident because of the landlord’s failure where there has been no permanent impact.

20. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has a published its complaint policy dated 1 August 2024 which aligns with the Code in terms of complaint timescales.
21. The complaint was dealt with under the landlord’s former complaint policy which allowed 2 working days acknowledgment at both stages and a response to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days, and at stage 2 in 25 working days.
22. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 29 November 2023 which was within 10 working days of complaint acknowledgment. However, we have not received evidence of its acknowledgment which is a record keeping issue.  The resident escalated the complaint on the same date, and the landlord provided its stage 2 response 17 working days later.
23. At stage 2, the landlord contacted the resident to obtain additional evidence and allowed 8 working days before it issued its final complaint response. Therefore, it gave the resident a fair chance to set out their position before it issued its final complaint response. It provided its complaint responses within its policy timescales at each stage.

Learning

General learning

24. This case highlights the importance of contractors carrying out a thorough investigation when attending emergency call outs of water ingress, particularly involving complains of wastewater. A prompt and early diagnosis can prevent avoidable repeat visits, the impact of the disrepair and reduce distress caused to a resident. The landlord should refer to our Centre for Learning which sets out what’s expected when handling reports of repairs.
25. The landlord should ensure its contractors be reminded of its expected standards of behaviour and to consider the impact of disrepair, particularly for a vulnerable resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The case demonstrates the need for clear and complete record keeping including its repair record about the job description, call notes and descriptive attendance outcomes, particularly where there is a dispute about resident or contractor conduct. Comprehensive records are essential to enable the landlord to demonstrate how it addresses concerns objectively, how decisions it has reached decisions and how it has responded to escalating issues. The landlord should refer to our guide on its expectations as set out in our Centre for Learning.

Communication

27. While the overall communication was responsive, the evidence shows it could have communicated more consistently with the resident and showed it had listened to the resident’s concerns about an escalation leak and adapt its response accordingly.