Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Camden Council (202228423)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228423

Camden Council

8 January 2025

 

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 handling of the resident’s water charges.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. From at least 2006 to March 2019, the landlord charged the resident for water usage on behalf of Thames Water. In April 2019, at Thames Water’s request, the resident started paying his water charges direct to them.
  2. On 22 August 2022, the resident made an enquiry with the landlord about the historic water charges. He said that between April 2003 and March 2019, it had overcharged residents and he believed the overcharged amount should be repaid. The landlord had told him that it had no legal obligation to do so but refused to tell him why. He asked for an explanation as to why it had not refunded residents for the overcharged amounts.
  3. The landlord replied on 3 October 2022, saying that it had sought legal advice and acted in accordance with this but it could not disclose the details of the advice due to legal privilege. It said the legal advice took in to account all relevant court judgements.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 20 January 2023 when he asked why it had no legal obligation to repay the water charges. Following intervention by this Service, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 May 2023 in the same terms as its response from October 2022.
  5. In the resident’s escalation request of 7 May 2023 he said he was dissatisfied because at least one other local authority had refunded overcharged amounts to its residents. He said the landlord owed its residents an explanation as to why it had no legal obligation to provide a refund.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2023, which said the complaint was not upheld. It reiterated that the legal advice received was legally privileged and it did not have to breach that privilege. It was unable to comment on the actions of other local authorities. As the resident remained dissatisfied with the explanations received, it would ask its legal services team to respond to him within 10 working days to allow him to better understand its position.
  7. In June and July 2023, the resident contacted this Service and asked for his complaint to be investigated. He said that the landlord’s legal team had not contacted him and he wanted it to explain why it had no legal obligation to pay the overcharged amounts. He also wanted the landlord to compensate him for the overpaid amounts between 2003 and 2019.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In 2016 a court case decided that Southwark Council had mistakenly overcharged tenants for water and sewerage services on behalf of Thames Water. As a result of this the Council agreed to refund affected tenants a set percentage of their previously paid water charges.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident believes that the landlord has overcharged him in the same way in respect of his water charges between 2003 and 2019. However, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate or determine whether overcharges did, in fact, occur as this would need to be considered via a legal claim. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which says that this Service may not consider matters where it is considered quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective for the resident to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  4. As the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether overcharges occurred, we are also unable to order refunds or compensation in respect of any such overcharges. The resident may wish to seek legal advice in respect of this matter if he wishes to pursue it further.
  5. Similarly, the resident is dissatisfied that the landlord has declined to share its reasons for not agreeing to repay water charges. As this is a matter of legal privilege, this is not an issue which the Ombudsman can determine or intervene in, as this is also more appropriately addressed via the courts in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme.
  6. Prior to the resident’s enquiry about this issue, submitted in August 2022, he made earlier enquiries with the landlord, via at least 2 Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. The landlord responded to these requests and declined to explain the reason why it had no legal obligation to repay water charges to residents. It said this was because its position was based on confidential legal advice which was exempt from release under the FOI Act.
  7. Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. As the governing body for FOI requests is the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), any concerns relating to these enquiries and subsequent responses, would need to be raised directly with the ICO and cannot be assessed or determined by the Ombudsman.
  8. Considering the above, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s water charges is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is not considered further in this report.

Assessment and findings

Complaint handling

  1. When the resident made his stage 1 and 2 complaints in January and May 2023 respectively, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged either of these. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy at the time, which said it would acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days. This amounts to maladministration.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 70 working days, significantly over the committed response time of 10 working days set out in its complaints policy at the time. The resident had to incur time and trouble in chasing the response on at least 2 occasions, via this Service, in February and April 2023. This left him feeling that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously. This also amounts to maladministration.
  3. The landlord provided the stage 2 response in 25 working days, in accordance with its complaints policy at the time, which said it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
  4. However, the response committed that the landlord’s legal service team would be in contact with the resident within 10 working days to better explain its position regarding this issue, and there is no evidence that this happened. This left the resident feeling that the landlord was not being honest with him and had something to hide. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord’s legal services team to provide a written explanation to the resident as previously committed.
  5. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. While it apologised for the delay in providing the stage 1 response, there is no evidence that it considered any other form of redress for the resident. Therefore, in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order is also made for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 42.f and 42.j of the Scheme, the complaint relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s water charges, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for its legal services team to write to the resident to better explain its position regarding the historic water charges in response to his concerns that he has been overcharged.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation for its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.