Camden Council (201909725)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909725

Camden Council

9 August 2021 (Amended following review on 18 November 2021)


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:

a)     Handling of the resident’s reports about water ingress at the property;

b)     Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has been resident since at least 12 March 2007, when the tenancy changed from a sole to a joint tenancy.
  2. The landlord has an obligation, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the property, this is reflected in the landlord’s Housing Repairs policy. The policy also provides repair timescales, including routine repairs (20 working days) and urgent repairs (5 working days).
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy (May 2019 version) provides for a three stage complaints process. Stage one (10 working day timescale) is managed by the relevant service, with the resident having the right to then escalate to stage two. Stage two (25 working day timescale) is a review/appeal stage, to be dealt with by the complaints team. Stage three effectively relates to the resident’s right to have the case considered by the Ombudsman in the event that they remain dissatisfied.
  4. The complaints policy requires a landlord to communicate effectively throughout the complaints process, including informing the complainant if it considers there to be no grounds to escalate the case. The policy also requires that the complainant submit a request for review within 28 calendar days of a stage one response.

Summary of events

  1. The resident first reported a leak to the sliding doors at the property in December 2017. It is understood that an inspection took place in January 2018 and the landlord states that no defect was identified at this inspection. The resident continued to report water ingress. The resident has provided a considerable amount of correspondence with the landlord regarding this issue, dated between May 2018 and September 2019, prior to his formal complaint.
  2. On 2 May 2018 the landlord apologised that the issue was ongoing and said it would chase its contractors to arrange a further inspection. He was provided with the contact details of the contractor in June 2018 but continued to have difficulty arranging an appointment.
  3. On 26 July 2018, the landlord informed the resident that due to issues with its contractor an external consultant had been employed. The consultant had been provided with details of the problem with the resident’s sliding doors and would be in touch. On 24 September 2018, the consultant provided an email update in which he stated, ‘rest assured this case is being tracked’. On 11 October 2018 the consultant provided a further update stating that it intended to group together a handful of properties over a 3 day period before the end of October.
  4. Following further chasers from the resident the landlord advised on 13 November 2018 that he should hear from the consultant soon. An appointment was arranged for the contractor to visit to inspect the doors on 19 November 2018. Following this visit, the resident emailed the landlord to inform it that, ‘I was told there’s nothing they can do because that’s the way it is’. The landlord advised the resident on 21 November 2018 that, ‘I have asked the consultants to contact you and visit you themselves to see if they agree with what the contractors told you’.
  5. The resident requested an update on 3 December 2018 and the landlord provided the consultant’s contact details. The resident reported on 12 December 2018 that the kitchen sliding door rubber seal was sticking out, attaching photos. The landlord referred this issue to the relevant team. On 7 January 2019 the resident repeated his request for someone to attend to fix the seal.
  6. The landlord’s contractor visited the property on 23 January 2019. On 4 February 2019, the landlord emailed the resident stating that ‘the contractors acknowledge that they have to return to remedy the problems with your sliding door’. On 18 February 2019, following further contact from the resident, the landlord replied stating, ‘you must be fed up with my apologies for the last 9 months … I have copied in my manager’.
  7. On 25 March 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to ask if all issues were resolved following a contractor visit to the property on 21 March 2019. The resident reported that no one had visited or been in touch since the visit on 23 January 2019. The resident then received a phone call from the consultant stating that the contractors would visit the property on 28 March 2019.
  8. Following the visit on 28 March 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to provide an update. He stated that the contractors had re-fixed the seal and carried out testing but were unable to resolve the issue with water ingress. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 28 April 2019, 20 May 2019, 11 June 2019. The landlord responded on 2 occasions stating that it would chase the relevant team and escalate to management.
  9. On 27 June 2019 the resident reported that the seal on the kitchen door was coming loose again. On 5 August 2019 the landlord emailed the resident stating that a member of staff would need to visit the property again. The resident was informed that the contractor would contact him directly.
  10. The resident chased the landlord by email on 2 September 2019 and a water test was carried out at the property on 5 September 2019. The resident reported that ‘although we can see that the tap water can pass through when sliding doors is locked [the surveyor] wasn’t satisfied with the tap water anymore and wanted video evidence of the rainwater instead’. In an email on 9 September 2019 the resident raised concerns about the surveyor’s competency and referred the landlord to the photographs of when the issue first occurred in December 2017.
  11. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 September 2019. He said that he had reported a leak to the sliding doors at the property in December 2017, following which the landlord’s contractor had attended, but not resolved the issue. Since then, further inspections and testing had taken place, but the issue had persisted.
  12. The landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its complaints process on 18 September 2019. It said that it awaited a video recording from him showing water ingress during rainfall as this would enable it to identify a suitable resolution – it later explained that this recording was required as it had been unable to establish an issue with the doors ‘through normal troubleshooting methods’. It said that the complaint was partially upheld on account of the leak continuing after an extended period, though it also said that it was working to resolve the issue. The resident was signposted to the landlord’s central complaints team if he remained dissatisfied. This response explained that the resident had the right to request an appeal of its decision to its complaints team, who would then respond within 25 working days. The stage one response did not, however, include any timescales for how long the resident had to respond.
  13. The resident responded to the landlord on the same date. He said that further evidence and testing was not required as the issue was clear. He requested a visit from the landlord. The landlord responded the following day, saying that testing it had carried out did not identify any issues when the doors were locked; it also said that the resident had confirmed during its visit that no rainwater had got in over the past three months and that the resident had agreed to provide a video recording of rainwater leaking into the property.
  14. In an email of 22 September 2019, the resident said the water ingress related to the rubber seals on the doors, one of which did not work. He said that the landlord had sought to dismiss the issue and asked what the justification was for requiring a video recording of the leak, which he considered to be a delaying tactic. On 3 October, he requested a review of the case, saying that he had received no response to his email of the 22 September. The landlord responded on the same date to say that it understood that he would provide video footage of a leak before next actions could take place. The resident responded, also on 3 October, to say that he found the video footage idea to be ‘ridiculous’.
  15. On 9 October 2019, the landlord responded to the resident. It said that, in its view, the balance of proof was on the resident to demonstrate that there existed an issue with the doors at the property, hence the request that he send video footage. The landlord also said that it was prepared to visit, at short notice, when a leak next occurred, to inspect at first hand.
  16. On 12 October 2019, the resident emailed, he said that the doors were not watertight when locked and outlined issues with the seals that he believed were causing the water penetration. He also dismissed the idea of him being required to provide video footage, which he considered ‘absurd’.
  17. On 24 October 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had inspected the property during heavy rainfall, had examined the sliding doors and identified no signs of water ingress.
  18. The resident emailed the landlord a further time, on 16 November 2019, in relation to the sliding doors. The landlord responded on 18 November, it referred the resident to its 24 October email to him that confirmed that it had inspected during heavy rainfall and identified no water penetration issues.
  19. On 6 January 2020, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord requesting that it respond to the resident in relation to his complaint by 27 January. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 7 January stated that the previous visit (see above) had taken place deliberately during a period of heavy rain – no water ingress had been identified in either the living room or kitchen and this had been confirmed to the resident. No design fault had been identified and the landlord had not experienced similar issues on the same doors installed elsewhere across the estate. It also confirmed that it would respond to the resident by the date detailed by this Service.
  20. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 20 January 2020. The response was sent by a service manager and did not confirm whether the response amounted to a formal stage two response under the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided an overview of events following 2017 works, which included visits from a specialist defects team as well as the door suppliers. The landlord also summarised email correspondence from September 2019 onwards, this included:

a)     6 September 2019 – confirmation from the resident that there had been no rainwater ingress in the previous three months and the resident agreeing to provide video footage of future occurrences;

b)     9 September 2019 – the resident disputed contractor findings that there had been no issues identified during testing. Again, the resident was advised to send in video footage;

c)     18 September 2019 – the landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint (above);

d)     3 October 2019 – the resident requested a review, landlord had responded to say that it awaited video footage, to which the resident had replied that this was not necessary;

e)     9 October 2019 – the landlord responded to say that, on balance, there was no defect at the property, though it was prepared to visit the property on the next occasion of a leak;

f)       24 October 2019 – the landlord confirmed that, following inspection, there were no signs of water ingress;

g)     16 November 2019 – the resident requested that the door manufacturers inspect the doors. The landlord responded to say that this had already happened previously, with no defect identified.

  1. The landlord concluded that, in its view, no defect existed at the property and said that it was satisfied that it had taken reasonable steps to identify any issues. It also said that it was prepared to arrange for the door manufacturers to attend a further time to inspect the issue.
  2. Following the January response, the resident continued to make contact with this Service as the testing agreed by the landlord in this response had yet to take place. The landlord’s contractor (confirmed as the door manufacturer) visited the property on 18 March 2020. The resident confirmed in a subsequent email that the contractor had seen the footage of water penetration, presumably during the inspection.
  3. On 3 April 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the case had been closed on the basis that it had not identified any defects to the sliding doors at the property. Internal landlord correspondence from the same date confirmed the verbal feedback provided to the landlord from its contractor following the visit dated 18 March 2020. This confirmed that there were no latent defects to the sliding doors, that seals had been checked and were ‘working fine’ and that water penetration testing had taken place, with no visible leaks. The contractor also confirmed that the doors were sealed against water penetration when in a ‘shot’ position and that no other doors across the estate had reported water penetration issues.
  4. The resident again asked the landlord to review his complaint on 13 May 2020. On 18 May 2020, the landlord responded, sending a copy of its 20 January response and stating that no further reviews of the complaint would take place.
  5. During a telephone discussion between this Service and the landlord on 24 July 2020, the landlord said that it was unsure what additional action it could take to resolve the issue given its previous repair actions. It also confirmed that the resident was entitled to escalate the complaint to stage two of its process.
  6. The resident, following the Ombudsman’s advice, contacted the landlord on 26 July 2020 requesting escalation of his complaint. There is no evidence of the landlord having responded to this request.
  7. On 16 September 2020, the Ombudsman requested that the landlord provide the resident with an update on his complaint within 20 working days.
  8. On 4 October 2020, the resident again requested escalation of his complaint. He also emailed the following day to say that he had footage available of the water ingress at the property, which he had previously shown to the landlord’s repairs team. He said that he would make this footage available to the landlord on request. There is no evidence of the landlord’s repairs team having received this footage previous to this email, nor any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s offer to provide the recording.
  9. The landlord issued its final response on 8 October 2020, confirming that it had declined the opportunity to investigate the case further on the basis that it considered further inspections or testing would not result in a different outcome to those it had previously carried out.
  10. In a separate email to the Ombudsman on the same date, the landlord said that it had rejected the request for escalation following the complaint in September 2019 as it was ‘still prepared to undertake further tests at that time’. It had then issued a further response on 20 January 2020 and further inspections/testing took place on 18 March 2020. The landlord said that it was ‘unclear what became of the May 2020 request for review’ but that this would have been out of time in regard its complaints procedure in any case. Having discussed the complaint with the relevant service, its view was that the doors had been tested ‘repeatedly’ since 2018, with no fault identified and that further investigation was unlikely to result in different findings. As such, the landlord decided it would not reinvestigate the issue. The landlord referred to inspections/testing having taken place in, January 2018, September 2019 and March 2020, as well as an undated inspection that had been carried out by an ‘external consultant’ as evidence of the thoroughness of its previous investigations of the issue.
  11. On 6 March 2021, the resident confirmed to this Service that he desired his complaint to be investigated. He requested repairs to his doors as a resolution.
  12. The resident provided a video recording of the leak to the property on 21 May 2021, however, this did not load on to this Service’s system. On 28 July, the resident was asked to send this again, together with confirmation that this was provided to the landlord during the complaints process. The resident re-sent the footage to this Service, however, again, it did not save to the casefile. The resident confirmed however, that he had not sent the footage to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Water ingress

  1. During the 20 months in which the resident was reporting issues with the sliding doors prior to the formal complaint, the landlord attended the property 4 times in January 2018, November 2018, January 2019 and March 2019. Completing inspections and arranging for contractors and consultants to visit was an appropriate response, although on each occasion the resident reported that the issue was not resolved.
  2. There were periods of unreasonable delay in arranging promised inspections, where the resident was forced to chase the landlord and its contractors numerous times before an appointment was arranged. Some works were completed to refix a seal on the doors at the appointment on 28 March 2019, however, the resident later reported that the seals had come loose again on 27 June 2019, and there is no evidence that the landlord followed this up with an inspection within the 20 day time period required under its Repairs Policy.
  3. Between May 2018 and December 2018, the resident chased the landlord for an update on progress on 9 occasions. Whilst the landlord did make some efforts to follow-up with the consultant and its contractor, it could have been more proactive in pursuing the investigations and providing a response to the resident. The landlord should have set out its findings, detailing whether any works would be undertaken, or explaining the reasons why it believed no further action was required.
  4. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous reports of the inspections that took place prior to the formal complaint and the email correspondence does not evidence that the landlord’s findings were clearly explained to the resident at the time. This raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. The landlord failed to provide clear and informative responses, and failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the action it was prepared to take on the basis of the reports of its contractor and consultant. In particular, the landlord’s responses in February 2019 created an expectation that it was actively working to resolve the issue, despite its subsequent complaint responses suggesting that no defects had been found at previous inspections. It was therefore understandable that following the formal complaint of 16 September 2019, the resident became frustrated with the landlord’s insistence that he must provide video footage of the leak, given the length of time that had passed since he first reported it and the landlord’s previous communication.
  6. There was service failure by the landlord due to the unreasonable delay in providing the resident with a conclusive response to his report of defective doors and a failure to manage his expectations about the action the landlord would take. Had the landlord been clear about the outcome of its inspections and better managed the resident’s expectations, a formal complaint may have been avoided.
  7. The landlord did respond promptly to the resident’s formal complaint. It confirmed that it had inspected the doors, identified no fault and had therefore left it with the resident to provide further evidence of the issues he was experiencing in the form of video footage. It nonetheless partially upheld the complaint on the basis that the resident’s reports of water ingress had continued. Upon the resident registering that he remained dissatisfied, the landlord then clarified that during its previous inspection, he had agreed that there had been no issues for some time and had agreed to provide the video footage.
  8. At this stage, the landlord’s actions present as reasonable. It did not dispute that it had a repair/maintenance responsibility for the doors and identified that it had previously inspected, with no fault identified. Its further attempts to work with the resident to ensure that no other issues remained with the doors demonstrated a commitment to identifying a resolution.
  9. The resident, however, was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and requested that his complaint be escalated, on the basis that there was an issue with the seals of the doors and because the idea of his being required to provide video footage was ‘absurd’. In response, the landlord clarified that, in its view, the burden of proof was on the resident to demonstrate that there remained an issue as it had enacted reasonable steps to identify an issue and having identified no fault, was unable to take any remedial action. It also agreed to conduct a further inspection, at short notice and during heavy rainfall. Its email to the resident of 24 October 2019 confirmed that this further inspection had taken place, with no fault identified once more.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied and approached the Ombudsman for support in progressing his case through the landlord’s complaints process. Following Ombudsman contact, the landlord issued a further response (20 January 2020), which summarised its understanding of the complaint up until that point, confirmed that no fault had been identified and offered to arrange a further inspection from the door manufacturers.
  11. The landlord’s response to the substantive issue following the formal complaint was appropriate, as it had taken reasonable steps to identify any issues with the door and, having identified no such faults, concluded that no further action was required. Its offer to arrange a further inspection was reasonable as this meant that a third party would be able to offer a view. This inspection proceeded on 18 March 2020, following which, the supplier confirmed that no defects or issues with the seals had been identified and that water penetration testing had not identified any water ingress.
  12. The landlord then closed the case (3 April 2020), which was appropriate in the circumstances. The complaint continued, as described in the summary of events above, and issues in relation to how the landlord has handled the formal complaint have been outlined below.
  13. The resident has confirmed to this Service that video footage of water penetration through the sliding doors was not provided to the landlord during the complaints process. Therefore, no weight has been given to any such footage in the findings made here. In any case, it is relevant to note that an Ombudsman investigation does not typically place much emphasis on video/photographic evidence as this Service does not have expertise in this area and cannot normally rely on such evidence as depicting what is said to depict.

Complaints handling

  1. There are some concerns with how the landlord managed the formal complaint on this case. The stage one response was sent promptly, however, it lacked clarity. The response confirmed that it had inspected and identified no issues, yet it also partially upheld the complaint on the basis of the continued reports. Though this was of concern, the landlord’s subsequent emails provided further clarity, confirming the discussions held with the resident during its inspection and why it required his further evidence of the water ingress.
  2. The stage 1 response failed to acknowledge the history of the issue and the substantial amount of email correspondence prior to the formal complaint. The landlord missed an opportunity to acknowledge that there had been unreasonable delays in progressing inspections, that its communication could have been clearer, and that it had created an expectation that action would be taken to address the resident’s concerns.
  3. The resident specifically requested that his complaint be reviewed on 3 October 2019. Instead of escalating the complaint, the landlord continued to respond to the issues that he raised. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman encourages a landlord to continue to work with a resident to achieve a resolution, however, it also requires a landlord to progress a complaint appropriately. Having requested the review, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide its final response, or to explain why it was unable to escalate.
  4. Whilst this presents as a service failure, the Ombudsman is mindful that the landlord did continue to work with the resident following his request for escalation and that this resulted in a response to the various issues that he raised, including a further inspection. Had the landlord also provided its final complaint response during this time, however, it would have been in a position to close the complaint at a much earlier stage. Instead, the Ombudsman became involved in the facilitation of the complaint and a drawn out process ensued during which all parties expended time and resources in their attempts to progress the case.
  5. Having identified the need for a further formal complaint response, the Ombudsman requested that the landlord provide this by 27 January 2020. The landlord complied with this requirement, however, its response did not present as a formal stage two response, as required under its complaint process. For example, this response did not confirm that it had been sent as part of a formal complaints process and did not include the resident’s options in the event that he remained dissatisfied. As such, it was understandable that the resident remained confused as to the status of his complaint and continued to push for further escalation.
  6. Upon receiving a further request for escalation in May 2020, the landlord responded appropriately (18 May) by sending its 20 January response and confirming that no further review of the case would take place. This was appropriate as the 20 January response provided the further review of the case required under the complaints process and its confirmation on 18 May that this was its final position and that no further review would take place, effectively brought the complaints process to an end.
  7. However, the landlord’s records subsequently missed the fact that it had provided this response to the resident’s May request and said that he continued to have a right to have his complaint progressed. This resulted in further time and resources being wasted as further consideration about the resident’s options were discussed. Ultimately, the landlord confirmed that it was not prepared to investigate any further as it had tested and inspected on multiple occasions and that the resident had not requested escalation through the complaints process in a timely manner. The landlord sent this response on 8 October 2020, meaning that all parties, including the resident himself spent time and energy in pursuing a complaint that had effectively been closed for some time.
  8. The landlord’s overall response to the complaint amounts to service failure as its responses lacked clarity, there were concerns with its record keeping and the resident was encouraged to pursue his complaint for an extended period, with an expectation that there would be further review of the issues at hand, only to be informed that no such further investigation would take place.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about water ingress at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord inspected the doors at the property in response to the complaint and having identified no faults, concluded that no further action was required. This was a reasonable and appropriate response and the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord’s position is that there are no defects with the doors and no further action is required. However, prior to the formal complaint, the landlord had corresponded with the resident about this issue for 20 months, during which time there were unreasonable delays in progressing promised investigations and in providing a substantive response to the resident, setting out the landlord’s findings and managing his expectations about the action (if any) that it was prepared to take.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked clarity, resulting in confusion as to the status of the complaint. This contributed to an overall delay in progressing the complaint. In addition, the landlord correctly refused any further review of the complaint in May 2020 but failed to identify that it had taken this action when further requests for escalation were received, leading to a further protracted period before a final decision was taken to take no further action.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £150 compensation for the delay in progressing investigations and managing the resident’s expectations about the action it would take to address his concerns.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in compensation for any distress/inconvenience experienced as a result of the service failures identified with its complaints handling.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to review the complaints handling issues identified and report to its senior management team on any learning identified following this review.
  2. The landlord to review its record keeping processes to ensure that notes from repairs visits are accurately recorded on its systems.