London Borough of Camden Council (202413678)

Decision
Case ID	202413678
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Camden Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	18 June 2026

Background

1. The resident reported to the landlord that none of the lifts in her block of flats were working and that she had no hot water over a long bank holiday weekend. She was unhappy with the time it took the landlord to resolve the issue and because it did not offer her compensation for the impact it had on her.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the lifts in the building were out of service and she had no hot water.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the lifts in the building were out of service and that she had no hot water
   2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the lifts in the building were out of service and she had no hot water.

5. The landlord resolved the loss of hot water within its policy timeframes and restored lift services within a reasonable timeframe. However, it did not communicate with the resident about the loss of services or provide her with updates about its actions at the time.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

6. The landlord did not write to the resident to acknowledge her stage 1 or stage 2 complaints. Nor did it acknowledge its delay in escalating the complaint. The landlord also incorrectly stated in its final response that the resident had not given consent for it to discuss the complaint with her legal representative.

 

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 16 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 made up as follows: £50 for distress and inconvenience for its handling of the resident’s reports that the lifts in the building were out of service and that she had no hot water £50 for time and trouble for its handling of the complaint This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 16 July 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 May 2024	The resident complained that all 3 lifts in the building we out of service and that she had no hot water. She said the issues had been going on for the whole bank holiday weekend and that the landlord had not informed her of what was happening.
21 May 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: a leak in an electric intake room caused the lifts to stop working and affected pumps that send water to the upper floors of the block this caused issues with the drinking, bathroom, and hot water supply plumbers were initially unable to locate the leak but it later located it in a commercial property it isolated the leak and brought in generators to put the lifts back into service and restore hot water it had since restored the electrical system to normal The landlord upheld the complaint due to the delay in locating the leak which delayed restoration of lift and hot water services. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
21 May 2024	The resident’s legal representative told the landlord the resident was seeking compensation for the inconvenience caused by the lifts being out of service and loss of hot water for several days.
Between 23 May 2024 and 5 June 2024	The resident’s legal representative and the landlord communicated about the complaint. The representative reiterated that the resident was unhappy with the stage 1 response and that she wanted the landlord to pay her compensation for distress and inconvenience.
5 June 2024	The resident’s legal representative asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
3 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: it noted communications from the resident’s legal representative but it did not have her written consent to discuss the case with him it apologised that she had been without lift services and hot water from 7 May 2024 to 8 May 2024 it had resolved the issue and both services were restored on 8 May 2024 financial compensation was not necessary and an apology was sufficient remedy
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the case to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she had been without hot water and lift services from 3 May 2024 to 8 May 2024, longer than the landlord acknowledged in its responses. The resident wants the landlord to pay her compensation for the distress and inconvenience she experienced.

 

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 resident’s reports that the lifts in the building were out of service and that she had no hot water.
Finding	Service failure

7. On 6 May 2024 the landlord attended due to a leak affecting the building’s electrics. It is unclear who reported the issue. It was unable to locate the source of the leak at that time.
8. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 May 2024 and reported the lifts in the building were out of service and she had no hot water. She said the issue had been ongoing for the whole bank holiday weekend and that she had been without hot water since 3 May 2025. She said this had made life difficult for her.
9. The landlord told the resident its engineers were on site investigating the issue and that it would ask them to contact her. We have not seen evidence that operatives discussed the issue with her.
10. Given the impact of the loss of such services, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to communicate what was happening and its plan for resolving the issue. As it told the resident it would ask its operatives to contact her, it should have ensured they did so. We acknowledge that operatives may have spoken to the resident but did not record this. However, without evidence of this, we cannot confirm its communications were reasonable.
11. On 8 May 2024 the landlord located the source of the leak in a commercial property. It stopped the leak and brought in a generator so it could reinstate the lifts and hot water supply. It restored the main electricity supply on 9 May 2024.
12. The landlord has acknowledged that there was a delay in locating the source of the leak and that this delayed restoration of the lift and hot water services. It apologised for the inconvenience this caused. This was appropriate. However, it did not acknowledge that it had not communicated with the resident during the loss of service or provided her with updates.
13. It its complaint responses the landlord said the resident was without lift and hot water services from 7 May 2024 to 8 May 2025. The resident said in her complaint that she had been without lift services and hot water from 3 May 2024. However, we have not seen evidence that she contacted the landlord to report the issue before 7 May 2025. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord was aware of the issue prior to 6 May 2025.
14. As the landlord’s records demonstrated there was a loss of services from 6 May 2024, it should have provided this date in its complaint responses. It should also have clearly explained how it arrived at the dates used in its assessment. Its failure to do so caused the resident avoidable confusion and frustration.
15. The landlord’s repairs policy defines a loss of water heating between 1 May and 31 October as an urgent repair. In accordance with the right to repair scheme it says it will complete such repairs within 3-working days. The repair policy defines lift breakdowns as an emergency repair and says it will complete these on the same day unless a major repair is needed.
16. It took the landlord 2-working days to resolve the leak and restore the lift and hot water services. It restored the hot water issue within the timeframes in its policy. While the landlord did not put the lift back into service on the same day, it needed to complete other repairs to the leak and electrical supply first and it put the lifts back in service within a reasonable timeframe.
17. The landlord’s remedies policy states it will pay compensation to residents when they are without heating or hot water for longer than 5 days. Therefore, its decision not to offer compensation was in line with its own policy. Our compensation guidance states we may order compensation where the landlord failed to restore lost services within relevant and reasonable timeframes. In this case, the landlord resolved the loss of hot water within the timeframes outlined in its policy and restored lift services within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, in line with our guidance we have not awarded compensation for loss of services.
18. However, the landlord did not communicate with the resident about the loss of services or provide her with updates about its actions at the time. It has not acknowledged this failing. Nor did it fully explain the timeframe referred to in its complaint responses.
19. Where there was a failure by the landlord in the service provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or put it right, our compensation guidance suggests that compensation of up to £100 is appropriate. We consider £50 to be proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s lack of communication in this case.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

20. The definition of a complaint and timeframes within the landlord’s complaints policy adhere to the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
21. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require it to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. We have not seen evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint. However, it responded to the stage 1 complaint within 10-working days as required by its policy and the Code.
22. The resident’s legal representative contacted the landlord on 21 May 2024 and said the resident wanted compensation for the inconvenience and distress she had experienced. The representative expressed the resident’s dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response several times between 21 May 2024 and 30 May 2024. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint at this time. As the representative clearly expressed the resident’s dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response, it would have been appropriate for it to consider this a stage 2 escalation request.
23. There was some confusion during the communications between the landlord and the resident’s representative. The landlord told the representative on 3 June 2024 that it could escalate the complaint if the representative outlined why the resident was dissatisfied and what outcome she was seeking. The representative replied that the landlord’s “internal complaints process…[was] irrelevant to this matter”. The landlord understood this to mean that the representative did not want to escalate the complaint so it provided him with the details for its insurance department to make a claim. Given the representative’s wording, the landlord’s interpretation was reasonable.
24. On 5 June 2024 the resident’s representative said he was formally requesting that the landlord escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process. The landlord did not log the stage 2 complaint until 11 June 2026. The reason for this delay is unclear and we have not seen evidence that it acknowledged the stage 2 complaint in line with its policy and the Code.
25. The landlord provided its stage 2 response within 20-working days of the representative’s request. This was within the timeframes in its policy and the Code.
26. In its final complaint response the landlord said the resident had not provided her consent for it to discuss the case with her representative. This was incorrect. The resident said on 7 May 2024 that she gave her legal representative permission to act on her behalf and provided his contact details.
27. The landlord has not acknowledged within its complaint responses that it failed to acknowledge the complaints and delayed in escalating the complaint to stage 2. It therefore did not provide redress.
28. Our compensation guidance suggests that an apology and/or compensation of up to £50 is appropriate where there has been a failure by the landlord in its response to the complaint and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and or put it right. We consider £50 compensation to be proportionate to the time and trouble experienced by the resident in this case.

Learning

29. This case highlights the importance of maintaining clear communication with residents throughout the repair process, even where services are delivered within expected timeframes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. Where there are discrepancies between a landlord’s account and a resident’s, it is essential that landlords explain how their version of events has been established and supported. Landlords should also have clear systems in place to record consent from residents for representatives to act on their behalf, ensuring this information is accessible and acted upon consistently to avoid unnecessary barriers to communication.

Communication

31. Timely completion of works does not remove the need to keep residents informed about the nature of issues, their potential impact, and the steps being taken to resolve them.