London Borough of Camden Council (202412416)

Background

1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat on the third floor of a low-rise block. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 15 November 2010. The tenant has not reported any additional needs.
2. In May 2023, the resident reported that the garden wall trellis had fallen and requested repairs. When the landlord did not act, she raised a complaint on 2 May 2024, citing safety concerns and a lack of response. The landlord initially stated it would only make the fence safe, as only essential works were approved under its policy. However, in its Stage 1 response on 16 May 2024 the landlord informed the resident that the policy had changed and arranged an appointment for 23 May 2024 to repair the garden trellis.
3. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint process because its attempted repair was incomplete. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 June 2024, it committed to rescheduling the work and keeping the resident informed. The resident contacted this service because the landlord had not repaired the garden wall trellis. The landlord completed the works on 21 October 2024.

What the complaint is about

4. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to repair the garden wall trellis.
5. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

6. We have found that:
   1. there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to repair the garden wall trellis.
   2. there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s request for it to repair the garden wall trellis.

7. There were avoidable delays in the repair after the resident reported the issue. The landlord repeatedly failed to keep its commitment to repair the trellis. As a result of the delays the resident invested avoidable time and effort into contacting the landlord.

The complaint handling.

8. The landlord acknowledged its failings in handling the repair at stage 2 and made commitments to put things right. However, it failed to have adequate oversight of its commitment through to resolution, and the delays and effects continued.

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.

9. It is not disputed that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s request for it to repair the garden wall trellis. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress.
10. By the time the landlord issued its final response on 24 June 2024, nearly 13 months had passed since the resident first reported the fallen garden wall trellis in May 2023. The landlord had still not completed the repair. During this time, the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord. Its initial response was that the works were on hold as they were considered non-essential.
11. In its stage 1 response on 16 May 2024, the landlord stated that its repair policy had changed, though we have not seen evidence of this change. The landlord agreed to attend on 23 May 2024 to repair the garden wall trellis but failed to complete the works. In its stage 2 response on 24 June 2024, the landlord apologised for the delay and committed to rescheduling the repair and keeping the resident informed. Based on its published routine repair commitments, the resident could reasonably have expected such works to be completed within 20 working days of the landlord being put on notice.
12. The landlord failed to resolve the issue until 21 October 2024. Between its stage 2 response on 24 June 2024 and the completion of works, it did not act within a reasonable timeframe or provide updates, despite committing to do so. Instead, it placed the burden on the resident to chase progress, such as by email on 15 July 2024 and through its online chat platform on 27 August 2024. The landlord did not follow through on the actions it agreed to in its stage 2 response, which was a failing.

13. Between 2 May and 24 June 2024, during the internal complaints process, the resident contacted the landlord by email on five separate days and used its online chat function on three occasions. Despite issuing its stage 2 response on 24 June 2024, the landlord did not complete the repairs until 21 October 2024 – 86 working days later. The landlord provided no explanation for this delay and failed to meet the timeframe for routine works set out in its repairs policy. During this period, the resident had to chase updates, including by email on 15 July 2024 and via its online chat on 18 July and 27 August 2024.
14. Providing clear communication and regular updates during repair issues demonstrates good customer service and helps keep residents informed and reassured throughout the process. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively communicated with the resident to provide updates after 24 June 2024, despite committing to take this action. The lack of communication was a failing.
15. In this case, it is clear that the resident was forced to invest avoidable time and effort into contacting the landlord over a period of 16 months between when the issue was first reported in May 2023 and when the repair was completed in October 2024.
16. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 to compensate the resident for the inconvenience and the time and effort they spent dealing with the garden wall trellis repair issue.

17. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 2 May 2024.
18. The landlord responded at stage 1 after 10 working days (2 May 2024 to 16 May 2024) – which was in line with its complaints process (and the Code). The landlord responded at stage 2 after 21 working days (24 May 2024 to 24 June 2024) – which was not in line with the Code. The delay was, however, minor and had minimal adverse impact.
19. At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged delays in completing the works but failed to offer compensation or address the impact on the resident. This demonstrated poor oversight of the commitment made to fulfil its promised remedy and actively communicate with the resident.
20. In its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to rescheduling the work and keeping the resident informed of the new appointment. However, it failed to follow through on this pledge, missing an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns sooner. As a result, the resident waited longer for a resolution and had to invest additional time and effort chasing updates, including by email and through the landlord’s online chat function. Although it apologised for the inconvenience, it did not take the actions it agreed to in its Stage 2 response. Cumulatively, the failings surfaced constitute service failure. To reflect this failure, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 in compensation, in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Communication

21. The landlord did not keep the resident regularly updated throughout the repairs process, relying instead on the resident to chase it for updates. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while investigations and repairs are ongoing. Additionally, its complaint handling staff should monitor commitment through to effective resolution.