Camden Council (201905616)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201905616

Camden Council

25 August 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
1. repairs to the front door
2. report of the conduct of the operatives repairing the front entrance door
3. report of the conduct of its staff
4. resident’s reports of anti- social behaviour and hygiene issues from Flat A.

Background and summary of events

The resident had a secure tenancy which commenced on 20 July 1998
The property is described as a two-bedroom flat on the fourth floor, which is on the top floor of the block.
The landlord has informed us that she has medical conditions.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in repair and in good working order the structure and exterior of the premises. In addition, it advises that “you or anyone else living with you or visiting your home should not do anything which causes or is likely to cause nuisance or may cause harassment or annoyance to anyone else”.
The landlord’s housing repairs service sets out its repair priorities. It advises that it will attend within two hours for emergency callouts it receives before 8pm; within five working days for an urgent repair and within 20 working days for an routine repair.
The landlord’s Covid 19 repairs and operations protocol sets out that emergency lock down repairs are those that are considered critical and a threat to life and death such as a total loss of heating and hot water during winter periods and no hot water. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is to be used at all times.
The tenants’ guide – information for tenants explains that it will keep confidential reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) that it receives. It can undertake the following actions to resolve complaints of ASB that it receives: verbal or written warnings, mediation or take legal action. In addition, It advises that the front door, frame, front and back door locks are the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy available on its website defines ASB as “behaviour by a person which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment alarm or distress to persons not of the same household as the person”.
The policy says that on receipt of a report, it will acknowledge receipt of the report and it may request further information from the resident, a service, or a partner agency. In addition, it will keep in regular contact about the action taken to resolve the problem
The landlord’s remedies policy and procedure sets out that there are two stages to its complaints process.. At the first stage, it will respond within 10 working days and within 25 working days at its final stage. It sets out the categories of compensation payable for the different types of service failure.
The resident’s complaint partly relates to a neighbour, who is also a tenant of the landlord and the alleged perpetuator of ASB. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy agreement but it would be reasonable to conclude that the same or similar tenancy conditions apply as to the resident.

Scope of investigation

The resident has asserted that the concerns about the repairs to her property have been raised with the landlord for some time. The landlord in its final complaint response reviewed the residents communication going back to 2018 including responses to Members of Parliament and Councillors.
The evidence from the landlord showed that the resident complained to the landlord about the service from its repair staff and contractors and it issued a previous final complaint response on 4 January 2019. There is no evidence that that complaint, or any other formal complaint raised by the resident either exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure or was referred to the Ombudsman at the time.
This complaint was registered in March 2021. This investigation will consider events from March 2020 onwards (this being the year before the formal complaint was made in March 2021). This is on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering the available evidence.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident has made a further complaint to the landlord regarding the ASB from Flat A and that this is being considered by the landlord under a new complaint. Therefore, this investigation will not consider any new events that occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response dated 20 May 2021.

Summary of events

The resident complained about the landlord’s delay in undertaking repairs to her flat, the conduct of its staff and its operative not wearing personal protective equipment. She has also complained that the landlord has not taken action to resolve the hygiene issues regarding Flat A.
The landlord records note that on 13 May 2020, the resident reported that she was aware of the pandemic; however, Flat A’s property was smelling of eggs, flies were gathering on the kitchen window, the flat was cramped and possibly a fire risk; She advised that this had been reported before and it was not acceptable as it was a health hazard.
The landlord responded on the same day that it would contact Flat A and provide an update to the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 May 2020 to advise that caretaker spraying air fresher was not resolving the smell from Flat A and that the occupant of Flat A required rehousing.
The landlord’s records show that in June 2020 it communicated with the resident on at least seven separate occasions regarding Flat A. The resident advised of the difficulties she experienced living next door to Flat A – the smell emanating from the property, the flies outside Flat A and the inability to open her windows as the smell intruded into her property. In addition, the resident informed the landlord that she wished to be transferred to another property and that she had received different treatment from the landlord as Flat B had complained about the smell and flies from Flat A and had been visited. However, she had not and questioned whether this was an example of gender discrimination.
In response, the landlord advised that the Housing Officer was overseeing the ASB action and apologised if she felt the action was discriminatory but that was not its intention. The landlord also advised that it had contacted its contractors to prepare for a clear up of Flat A, which would help with the smell and build- up of flies. In addition, it was working with Flat A and would inform the resident once the contractors were due to attend.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 5 August 2020, the resident reported that she could not unlock the front door and that she could not leave the property as the door had jammed. The resident sent an email later that day saying that in November 2019 and December 2019 she had experienced the same problem, that she had spent £90 on locks and requested to know when the door would be replaced.
On 10 August 2020, the landlord’s repair notes note that they attended to renew the cylinder to the lock to the front door.
The landlord’s notes show that on 19 August 2020 the resident advised that she was initially informed that the front door to the property would be replaced in October 2020 and now she had been informed that the replacement of the front door would take place at a later date. She further advised that the front door was not locking and she had hospital appointments to attend.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 August 2020 to advise that in order to open the front door, she had to kick the door in.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 September 2020 to complain about the smell from Flat A. She advised that she could not open her windows had applied tape to the windows and put bags at the bottom of the doors to reduce the likelihood of the smell entering her property. She advised that the property was unhabitable due to the smell from Flat A and requested rehousing.
In response, the landlord responded on 20 September 2020 that it was working to address the issue and it would provide an update.
The landlord’s records show that on 22 September 2020 that its action plan noted:
1. Flat A had been visited – there were smell and flies due to the hoarding of the occupant of Flat A
2. The clear up of Flat A had occurred on 30 June 2020
3. The resident continued to complain about the rubbish and the smell
4. Social Services would be contacted regarding a care package for Flat A. The occupant of Flat A had not accepted that their actions were considered to be hoarding.
5. The next inspection to Flat A would occur on 23 September 2020
6. If Flat A did not consent to having a cleaner, a move to sheltered accommodation or residential care should be considered.
The landlord’s records show that it emailed the resident on 22 September 2020 to advise that it had arranged for a team to attend Flat A three months ago, it had been informed that the smell had gone and the rubbish removed. It intended to visit on 23 September 2020 and would update the resident.
In response on the same day 22 September 2020, the resident requested a transfer to another property. The landlord provided the link to the Housing Register team, to enable her to apply for a transfer.
The resident informed the landlord on 23 September 2020 that the lock to the front entrance door was not working. In addition, the cylinder look to the door was not catching and there was an attempted break into the property. In addition, she was still affected by the smell from Flat A.
The landlord responded to a Councillor enquiry on 24 September 2020. It advised that the carpenter attended on 5 August 2020 to resolve the jammed front door by adjusting the door and renewing the lock cylinder.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 October 2020 to advise that the smell and cloud of flies had returned outside the property. In addition, she had to dispose of her soft furnishings due to the smell and she could not open her windows.
On 27 October 2020, the landlord repair records show that the resident had reported that the front entrance door was not locking/unlocking. It showed that an appointment had been arranged for the next Thursday to carry out the repair.
The landlord records show on 28 October 2020 and 29 October 2020 that:
1. several access letters had been sent to the resident regarding the installation of the replacement front door by the contractor. By the time, the front door was ordered, the contract to replace the front doors had ended. A new programme was being compiled for those orders where the contractor had been unable to access the property to replace the door
2. The resident reported that the operative who attended to inspect the front entrance door was not wearing PPE, the overshoes or a mask.
The resident reported on 2 November 2020 that she was locked out of the property. On 3 November 2020, she informed the landlord that the frame to the front entrance door was broken and it could not close properly.
The landlord’s repair records show that the supervisor visited the resident’s property on 11 November 2020 to inspect the door and that it would between take four to six weeks to order a new door.
It is noted that on 18 November 2020, the resident reported that she could not lock the front door.
On 1 December 2020, the resident reported that she was still affected by the smell from the neighbour – that she could not open her windows and she could not lock her front door..
The landlord responded to the Councillor on 9 December 2020. The key points were:
1. It was expecting delivery of the front door that day. However, the company had been affected by an outbreak of Covid 19 and it was waiting to be informed of an installation date.
2. It was supporting Flat A and had arranged for Flat A’s property to be cleared
3. It had a limited supply of properties available for letting which was impacting the resident’s ability to transfer to another property. However, the Housing Officer was working with her to facilitate this.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 January 2021, regarding the installation of the front door that was completed on 22 January 2021. It recognised that damage had occurred to the front entrance door leaf during installation. The contractor had apologised for the accident that had occurred. It advised that the contractor had attended on two separate occasions to repair the door leaf, however the resident had refused access. It asked the resident to advise why she had refused access as it could only ask the contractor to attend on one more occasion.
In response, the resident advised on 27 January 2021 that the contractors had refused to leave her property when she had to attend medical appointments, the landlord had incorrect information and that she had been left with a damaged door.
The landlord’s ASB case note on 23 February 2021 record that following reports of the smell and insect infestation from the resident, it had tried to help Flat A improve the condition of the property. The resident continued to make reports about the smell after it had completed the clean up to Flat A. It noted that if no further reports of ASB were received, it would close the ASB complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2021 to advise that the problem with Flat A was continuing. She advised that the smell from Flat A’s property was present in her home, that she could not open her windows and her request for rehousing had been ignored.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 March 2021 following contact from this Service regarding her complaints about the front door and the smell from Flat A. The resident responded the same day to advise that:
1. The front door that was replaced had dents, no spyhole and had to be painted on site
2. The workmen refused to put down dust sheets when they came to replace the door – they did not wear PPE.
3. She did not have full use of the property as one of the rooms could not be used because of the odour from Flat A and she had to live with windows and doors taped up.
The landlord contacted the resident on 31 March 2020 to discuss the complaint. The key issues discussed were:
1. The resident advised that she had to leave the property for three weeks because of the smell from Flat A
2. Requested compensation for the inability to use the room
3. The resident advised that she did not have a functioning door for two years
4. The workmen called her “stupid” when she requested that they wear PPE
5. The front entrance door was damaged on arrival and it had to be repaired.
The landlord responded on 6 April 2021 at the first stage of the complaint procedure. It advised that the resident had raised during their conversation, issues regarding the conduct of its employees going back the previous two years and that it would not consider issues regarding the conduct of its employees as part of the complaint response. The key findings were:
1. There were two works orders raised regarding the repair to the front door in August 2020 and October 2020
2. It had not received evidence to substantiate that the door had not been working for the previous two years
3. It had raised an emergency works order on 5 August 2020 to repair the front door. An operative attended on 6 August 2020 to repair the door.
4. It raised a works order on 27 October 2020 following a report that the resident was experiencing difficulty locking and unlocking the door. An appointment was arranged for 29 October 2020.
5. It agreed that a new front door was required on 11 November 2020 and the front entrance door was installed on 22 January 2021.
6. It contacted the resident on 27 January 2021 to ascertain the reasons why she had refused access to its contractors to repair the door. The resident had advised that she had refused access to the contractors as they would make the repair worse.
7. Since the installation of the new front door, it had not received any further complaints about the functioning of the door neither had it received any evidence to support the resident’s assertion that she had paid to undertake repairs to the door
8. It accepted the resident’s experience of events regarding Flat A
9. It advised that the situation regarding Flat A is complicated and that the resident would receive updates from the Housing officer.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response to the complaint as the landlord had not considered the impact of the ASB on her and had not reviewed the emails that she had sent.
On 10 April 2021 and 17 April 2020, the resident made further reports to the landlord regarding the condition of Flat A – the smells coming from the property.
In response, the landlord informed the resident on 13 April 2021 and 15 April 2021 that it was going to obtain advice from its Environmental Health Team (EHT) and that it was going to undertake a visit to the building and keep her informed.
The landlord emailed its contractor on 21 April 2021 regarding the resident’s feedback that the operatives who had attended her address did not wear PPE. It advised that it expected operatives to wear full PPE including masks when attending resident’s property and to ensure that this was adhered to.
On 22 April 2021, the landlord copied the resident into an internal email where the resident was described as difficult and challenging. On 23 April 2021, the landlord apologised for the inappropriate comment that was made in the email describing her behaviour.
The resident responded on the same day (23 April 2021) advising that the content of the email showed that the landlord could not be impartial as its emails contained personal insults about its residents.
The resident chased the complaint response on 27 April 2021.
The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaint procedure on 21 May 2021 advising that it had reviewed the previous complaints made by the resident and its responses to member enquiries and councillor enquiries it had received going back to March 2018. In addition, it had reviewed the two files of information she had provided on 2 May 2021.
In addition, it advised that it considered that its initial complaint investigation had focused primarily on the repair issues that had been raised. The key findings were:
1. The concerns regarding the conduct of operatives working at her home had been passed to the management team of the contractor to address. It apologised if the resident had not been informed that this was the course of action it was taking.
2. The contractor had advised that it would speak to their staff about the proper use of PPE and apologised if the resident was expecting further confirmation of this.
3. It could not share details of the action taken regarding the ASB and hygiene issues raised regarding Flat A. However, it could advise that support and enforcement teams were trying to resolve the ASB
4. It considered that the personal comments made by its member of staff were inappropriate and had been bought to the attention of the Complaints Service Manager. It apologised for any offence caused.
5. It recognized that the door repair took a long time. However, since 17 May 2021, its repairs service has started doing non-emergency repairs
6. It offered a compensation award of £100 – broken down as £50 for the delays with repairs and £50 for the inappropriate comment.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service. She advised that the landlord had ignored her complaints, that the property was in disrepair, her belongings had been affected by the smell from Flat A. In addition, she had been unable to stay in the property on at least eight separate occasions over the past two years due to the smell from Flat A and the landlord had not agreed to transfer her to another property She expressed that her preferred outcomes were for the repairs to be carried out to a high standard and for increased compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced.

Assessment and findings

It is clear from the resident’s submissions that she has been distressed by the landlord’s response to her reports regarding Flat A. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged. The report will not be addressing each and every specific incident, rather the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and as explained earlier under the scope of investigation, this report will focus on events until the final response in May 2021.

repairs to the front door

The landlord has a responsibility to maintain the front entrance door and its repair policy states that it will respond within five working days to attend to an urgent repair. Looking at the available information, the resident reported on 5 August 2020 difficulty with the door locks and the landlord attended on 10 August 2020 to change the cylinder to their lock. This was appropriate action to reduce the security risk to the resident and in accordance with their published time frame.
However, the resident made further reports on 19 August 2020, 25 August 2020, and 23 September 2020 regarding the front door jamming and that she was experiencing problems with the locking mechanism to the cylinder lock. The available information does not show that the landlord responded to these reports. This is inappropriate as the resident did not have a proper functioning door.
The resident advised that as she had experienced difficulties with the door jamming, she had to pay for a locksmith to repair the locks to the door. In response the landlord in its final complaint response advised that it had not received evidence of the costs incurred by the resident and requested that the resident provide receipts for its consideration. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for the costs associated with any repairs completed by the resident’s contractor.
Following a further report on 27 October 2020 regarding the condition of the front door, the landlord assessed on 2 November 2020 that the resident required a new front door. The front entrance door was installed on 22 January 2021. The landlord had assessed that this would take between four to six weeks. It actually took around 11 weeks for the door to be installed. The landlord has accepted that the resident experienced an unacceptable delay noting that its contractor was impacted by the Covid 19 pandemic. Whilst this may have been outside the landlord’s control, its offer of compensation of £50 does not address the inconvenienced experienced by the resident in its delay in replacing the front door as the available information does not show that it responded to the all the reports it received from the resident in August 2020, September 2020, October 2020 and November 2020 that the locks to the front door was causing the door to jam until it visited in early November to inspect the door.
During the installation of the front entrance door on 22 January 2021 it was damaged by the contractor. The contractor tried on two separate occasions to reattend the resident’s property to repair the damage to the door leaf which it has described as minor and has advised that it is willing to attend to carry out the necessary repairs. These were appropriate actions to ensure that the damage to the door was rectified.

report of the conduct of the operatives repairing the front entrance door

The landlord adapted its policies to respond to the Covid 19 pandemic. It specifies that operatives should wear PPE when attending resident’s properties. These measures were introduced as national guidelines as part of the Covid 19 response to the pandemic.
The resident complained that the operatives who attended the property in October 2020 to repair the front door refused to wear PPE such as overshoes and the mask.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns regarding compliance with the Covid 19 guidelines in its final complaint response. It advised that her feedback regarding the operatives refusal to wear PPE when attending her address had been passed to the contractors management team to address and apologised that the resident had not been informed that this was the course of action it had taken. It added a further apology in recognizing that the resident may have been expecting the landlord to provide further feedback to her following her report of the lack of adherence to the national guidelines., The landlord recognised that it had not properly communicated to the resident the action that it had taken and its apology was appropriate redress for this.

report of the conduct of its staff

The resident was inadvertently copied into an internal email that made personal comments about her. The member of staff on recognizing the error, apologised for the comments made about the resident. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take as its communication with residents, both verbal and written should be professional and should not contain negative comments about residents.
The landlord in its complaint response, accepted that the content of the email was inappropriate, apologised to the resident and offered an award of compensation of £50. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take as it acknowledged the comments were derogatory and unprofessional.

reports of anti- social behaviour and hygiene issue from Flat A

The resident has complained about the smell coming from Flat A and advised that as a consequence of the smell and flies from outside the property, she has had to leave the property.
Having considered the available information, the Ombudsman recognised that this has been a challenging case for the landlord to manage due to the needs of the occupant of Flat A. The landlord is required to balance its obligations towards the resident under her tenancy agreement and its ASB policy with its obligations to support the neighbour under her tenancy.
The landlord is also obliged to respect the confidentiality of the neighbour’s personal data and as such, this can impact on the extent of information it can disclose to the resident about the case. This in turn can cause problems when considering enforcement actions and explaining why a particular course of action may not be appropriate.
Following the resident’s reports of the smell from Flat A, it arranged for its caretaking team to clean the area in May 2020 and accepted that this did not provide a sufficient resolution. The landlord contacted Adult Social Care in June 2020 regarding the occupant of Flat A, who agreed to assist with the clear up and clearing of Flat A to address the smell and the flies reported by the resident. The landlord hoped that this would help Flat A in maintaining her home to a sufficient standard.
The landlord is expected to take into account any factors that may affect the ASB perpetuator in terms of any vulnerability or mental health concerns. The landlord acted appropriately by establishing that assistance would be required from other services to try and address the behaviour. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately liaised with Adult Social Care and Environmental Health to find a solution to the behaviour of Flat A.
The resident asserted that the landlord had exhibited discriminatory behaviour by not visiting her property following her reports of ASB. She explained that the landlord had visited Flat B, who had made the same complaints of ASB from Flat A. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not visit the resident’s property and apologised for this. This is appropriate as the landlord should have visited the resident in relation to the reports, she made regarding ASB from Flat A to allow her the opportunity to discuss her concerns and the impact on her. Furthermore, the resident has informed the landlord on several occasions that she has had to leave her property as a consequence from the smell from Flat A, that she has been unable to use one of her rooms. In addition, she had advised that her property has been affected by the smell from Flat A entering her property. The landlord did not address these concerns in its complaint responses.
The landlord’s records show that it investigated and monitored the reports the reports of the ASB that it received. The landlord assessed on 23 February 2021 that despite taking action to clean and clear Flat A that the resident continued to make reports regarding ASB from Flat A. However, there is limited evidence that the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy to keep the resident informed or updated about the steps it was taking to resolve the reported ASB. Neither, is there sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the landlord took the appropriate steps to manage the resident’s expectations about the action it was taking. Whilst the landlord in its final complaint response accepted that it did not communicate effectively with the resident, given the nature of the reports it received, it did not offer an award of compensation for this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the front door.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling report of the conduct of the operatives repairing the front entrance door
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the report of the conduct of its staff
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of anti- social behaviour and hygiene issues from Flat A.

Reasons

The landlord accepted that it delayed in replacing the front door to the resident’s property.
The landlord spoke to the contractor regarding the conduct of its staff regarding the wearing of PPE and reaffirmed that it expected its staff to do so and apologised to the resident for not keeping her informed of the action it had taken
The landlord apologised to the resident for the inappropriate comment made by its staff and offered an award of compensation for this.
The landlord has accepted that it did not communicate effectively with the resident and that she had been impacted by the behaviour of the occupant of Flat A.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident an additional £300 compensation (on top of its original offer of £100) . This is broken down as:
1. The landlord to pay £100 for its delay in installing the front door to the resident’s property
2. The landlord to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of the identified service failures
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £100 compensation awarded in its final complaint response.
The landlord to contact the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns regarding Flat A and advise of the action that it proposes to take.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report