London Borough of Camden Council (202425657)

Decision
Case ID	202425657
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Camden Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	2 April 2026

Background

The resident reported a leaking stopcock on 24 June 2024. She told the landlord she was preparing to have bathroom works carried out and that her plumber had found the stopcock in the communal riser was corroded and unable to operate it.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of:
1. the repair to the stopcock
2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the stopcock
2. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the stopcock

The landlord failed to complete the repair within its 20‑working‑day policy timescale. It later acknowledged these failings and awarded compensation. However, this compensation would only have been reasonable if the landlord had followed through on the stopcock replacement it identified as necessary or clearly explained why it was no longer replacing it. Because the landlord did neither, the redress did not fully address the ongoing uncertainty or the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy at both stages.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 05 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £175 made up as follows: £100 previously offered in its stage 2 response £75 additional for the distress and inconveniences caused by its handling of the repair to the stopcock This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord can deduct any amount it has already paid.	No later than 05 May 2026
3	Communication order The landlord must write to the resident to confirm the current status of the stopcock. The letter must clearly state: whether the stopcock has now been replaced if it has not been replaced, whether replacement is still required if replacement is still required, what steps the landlord will take next, including expected timescales, or if timescales cannot yet be confirmed when an update will be provided if the landlord has decided not to replace the stopcock, it must explain the reasons for that decision and what it has done to ensure the previous fault is unlikely to return The landlord must provide us with a copy of this letter.	No later than 05 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 August 2024	The resident contacted the landlord to complain. In summary, she said: she reported the leak on 24 June 2024 after her plumber saw the stopcock was corroded and warned it could cause a flood the landlord booked an appointment for 25 June 2024, but no one came, and she was told to call the contractor between 27 June and 2 July 2024, she kept calling because no one added notes and each team said the other was responsible an appointment took place on 22 July 2024, but the plumber said the stopcocks needed specialist work and the water had to be shut off the landlord sent text messages about appointments on 25 July 2024 and 2 August 2024. She stayed home both times, but no one came and the water was not turned off on 2 August 2024 the landlord said the leak was fixed, but she said it was not and sent videos to show this the delays since 24 June 2024 stopped her bathroom works, caused stress and risked financial loss she wanted the landlord to repair the stopcock properly and within a reasonable time
7 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it aimed to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days
14 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary, it said: it raised a repair in June 2024 and passed it to the contractor, who later said the work should be done by the landlord’s own repairs team it raised further repair orders and set appointments, including 1 on 22 July 2024 that was later moved to 2 August 2024 its records showed a plumber attended on 2 August 2024, assessed the stopcock, and stopped the leak, although they could not replace it because of its location the plumber did not need access to the resident’s home during that visit it reviewed the concerns with a repairs manager and found no evidence that the plumber failed to attend it did not uphold the complaint and apologised for earlier incorrect information
20 August 2024	The resident contacted the landlord to explain that the stopcock was still leaking and that the problem remained unresolved. She said the leak continued, and she sent a video to show this. In summary, she said: the stopcock was still not working properly and could fail in an emergency her plumber would not use it in its current condition, which stopped her from carrying out her home improvements a further appointment had been booked, and she wanted the repair completed correctly she disagreed with the stage 1 outcome because the leak was ongoing she wanted the stopcock to work safely and to isolate the water supply without leaking
20 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation and said it aimed to provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days
11 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary, it said: the plumber’s notes from 2 August 2024 showed he could not replace the stopcock because other pipework was in the way the plumber stopped the leak by repacking the gland, not by replacing the stopcock the repairs team did not explain this clearly and left the resident with the wrong impression the earlier visit on 22 July 2024 showed replacement was needed, but the 2 August 2024 plumber again said he could not do it a later visit on 22 August 2024 noted the stopcock had been eased enough to allow the resident’s plumber to carry out work it apologised for poor service and the extra time and effort the resident had to spend it upheld the complaint and offered a £100 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to us saying the stopcock repair still remained outstanding. In summary, she said: the stopcock only had a temporary fix and still needed proper replacement the landlord told her repairs were done when they were not the landlord had agreed to pay £100 but had not paid it she wanted the landlord to complete the repairs properly and pay the compensation already recommended The resident told us in a recent conversation that the landlord has still not replaced the stopcock and she worries this might be an issue soon.

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	The landlord’s handling of the repair to the stopcock
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s repairs policy said it was responsible for the structure of the building. It set clear targets: attend emergency repairs the same day, complete urgent repairs within 3–5 working days, and complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
The resident reported a leaking stopcock on 24 June 2024. The landlord arranged an appointment for 25 June 2024 and sent a heating contractor, who said the job needed a plumber. Sending the wrong contractor meant the repair could not progress and caused a wasted visit.
The contractor told the landlord the same day that a plumber was needed. The landlord raised a new repair on 2 July 2024 and attended on 22 July 2024, which was within its 20‑day routine repair target and in line with its policy. During this visit, it found the stopcock was leaking, hard to control and needed replacing.
On 25 July 2024 the landlord told the resident that plumbing works would take place on 2 August 2024 and that it would need to turn off the water to the block. This communication was clear.
The landlord attended on 2 August 2024. It explained the plumber could not replace the stopcock because its position and the surrounding pipework made the work unsafe. The plumber repacked the gland to reduce the leak and said further work was needed. However, the landlord had already inspected the stopcock on 22 July 2024. It is unclear why the earlier visit did not identify the same issue with the pipework.
The landlord attended again on 22 August 2024 to repair the stopcock, which left it working. Given the landlord already knew a replacement was needed, and had already attended to repair it, it is not clear why this extra visit was required. The full repair took 43 working days from 24 June 2024 to 22 August 2024, which was outside the landlord’s 20‑day timescale for routine repairs and therefore not in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response showed it had carried out a thorough review of the repair issues. It explained what had happened, identified where the repairs had gone wrong, apologised for the poor service, and recognised the time and trouble the resident experienced. It also offered £100, which was reasonable and in line with our remedy guidance and its own compensation policy.
However, the repair notes of 22 August 2024, as referenced in the landlord’s final response, said a contractor was needed to replace the stopcock or to get the stopcocks by the tanks working. It was not clear whether this referred to the same stopcock or a different one. The landlord first identified on 22 July 2024 that the stopcock required replacement, and 20 months later, in March 2026, the resident said it had still not been replaced.
Landlords are required under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep installations in repair and in good working condition. The landlord is expected to repair items where a repair is possible and effective. However, where a part is beyond economical repair or cannot be restored to a reliable working condition, the landlord can recommend or carry out a replacement. Earlier notes in this case suggested a replacement, however it repaired and left the stopcock in a working condition.
The landlord should have clarified in its final response whether the stopcock still required replacement or whether the works on 22 August 2024 had fully resolved the issue. If replacement was still needed, it should have set out the next steps or committed to providing a timeline. The stage 2 response did not do this, which left the resident without clarity about the outstanding repair and meant she had to keep chasing the landlord for updates, causing avoidable time and inconvenience.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case was the 2024 edition. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s policy was compliant with the Code.
At both stages of the complaint, it says the landlord would acknowledge within 5 working days, provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint 3 working days later (2 August 2024 to 7 August 2024) and provided its stage 1 response on 14 August 2024, 5 working days from its acknowledgement. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
It acknowledged the resident’s escalation the same day on 20 August 2024 and provided its stage 2 response 16 working days after the acknowledgement (20 August 2024 to 11 September 2024). This was in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should improve its record‑keeping on repairs so it has the information they need when residents call. In this case, gaps in the repair records meant the resident was asked to contact the contractor directly. This placed the burden on the resident and led to avoidable time and trouble to the resident.

Communication

The landlord should review how it manages appointment text messages. In this case, the resident received texts saying access was needed even for communal works. This caused confusion and unnecessary time at home. The landlord could consider making its messages clear if access is required.