Camden Council (202229706)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229706

Camden Council

18 April 2024

 

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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Request for a window repair.
    2. Reports of damp and mould.
    3. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which is a local authority. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The evidence provided to this investigation states that the resident takes medication for asthma and that her daughter is autistic.
  2. The property is a first floor 2 bedroom flat.
  3. On 16 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the wooden window in her bedroom was rotten and stiff to open. On 21 December 2022 the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey following the resident’s reports of mould in the property. During April 2023 the landlord attended the property to carry out a mould wash. It also noted that the window frames were rotten and needed replacing. The bottom sash window in the bedroom was replaced on 11 July 2023.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord her stage 1 complaint in relation to the bedroom window on 5 December 2022. She said following her repair request of 16 August she was not given an appointment until 5 September. The carpenter took the measurements on that date, and a further appointment was made for 18 November. The landlord contacted the resident on the day of the appointment to say it did not have the window to fit and that measurements would need to be taken again. Despite chasing the landlord it had not provided her with a further appointment.
  5. The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 19 December 2022, in which it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £150 compensation. It said that on 16 August it raised an order for an appointment which was booked for 5 September. It then booked a provisional appointment for 18 November to fit the window. However, its repairs team was unable to provide the measurements. Therefore, when its contractor attended on 18 November it was to take measurements for a second time. At the time of the response the landlord was unable to advise when the window would be available for fitting. It apologised that the resident had to chase for a response.
  6. On 24 February 2023 the resident made a stage 2 complaint about the ongoing delays in fitting the window. She said that despite continuing to chase the landlord she still did not know when the window would be replaced. She was frustrated that despite her complaint being upheld, she was no further forward to a resolution.
  7. On 3 March 2023 the resident reported a new issue with mould growing around all the windows due to poor insulation. She said it was affecting her health and her asthma medication had been increased. She said she had reported this in December 2022 and the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 21 December. This is confirmed by the landlord’s repair logs. She said she never heard anything more, despite chasing and being assured her issue had been reported to the damp and mould team.
  8. On 23 March 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response in relation to damp and mould. It set out the action it had taken, including that it raised an order to carry out a mould inspection on 15 December 2022. An inspection took place on 21 December and a request made to carry out a mould wash and stain block. An order for the works was raised on 7 March 2023 to attend on 28 March. It added that its joinery team still did not have the measurements to fit the new window so it would need to attend a third time to measure up. An appointment had been made for 24 March. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £60 compensation.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2023. It acknowledged that the appointment for the 24 March did not take place and that a new appointment had been made for 18 May. It apologised for an “unacceptable level of service” which was due to “poor administration and inaccurate/incomplete measurements” being taken. It said that “poor” service by its contractors and repairs service had resulted in an avoidable delay of “at least 6 months.” It offered an additional £150 for poor service and time and trouble. It said if the repair was not resolved in May it would revisit the amount of compensation. It confirmed the total amount offered was £360. It said it would attend on 28 March to carry out the mould wash and stain block. It was aware its contractors had spoken to the resident on 24 March to rearrange for 3 April for which it apologised.
  10. In the resident’s email to this Service on 9 June 2023 she said that her complaint was about the mould and failure to replace the bedroom window. However, she said it was also about the windows needing to be repaired because they were “rotten beyond repair.”  She still did not know when the replacement window would be ready.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies & procedures

  1. The landlord’s housing repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs, including repairing frames and sash cords (not including new windows), within 20 working days. It will complete programmed works, including renewal of things needed because they have reached the end of their life-expectancy, within an agreed timescale.
  2. The landlord’s self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says it adopts a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. It also says it uses data, including repair reports, to provide a data driven approach to damp and mould.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. It also says that when it receives a complaint it will tell the resident the name of the officer dealing with the complaint, what will happen next and when the response will be ready.

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her email to this Service on 9 June 2023 the resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s response to a report that all the windows and frames were rotten and needed replacing. During a phone call with us on 16 April 2024 the resident confirmed that this was not raised with the landlord as part of the complaint under consideration by this investigation.  Therefore, it did not form part of the landlord’s complaint response.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42 a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this complaint has not been assessed in this report. This is because the landlord has not had the opportunity to provide a formal response to the complaint. The resident is aware that she can make a further complaint to the landlord about her ongoing dissatisfaction if she wishes.

Window

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 August 2022 to request the repair to her bedroom window. An appointment was raised for 5 September which was 14 working days later. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy which has a 20 working day target for routine repairs.
  2. The landlord took measurements on 5 September 2022 and a provisional appointment to fit the new window was made for 18 November. However, when the contractor attended they said they did not have a window to fit. This caused disappointment and inconvenience to the resident. This was because she had to be available for the appointment and plan for her autistic daughter to be away from the property.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 21 November 2022 to chase a new appointment and was told she would be contacted “soon.” She called again on 28 November and was told again that she would be contacted. In her stage 1 complaint of 5 December she said the ongoing delays and lack of communication were becoming “overwhelming” particularly as she did not know when the repair would be completed. She was also concerned that her repair was not being taken seriously, undermining the landlord/resident relationship.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 19 December 2022 confirmed that the measurements taken by the contractor on 5 September were not recorded. Therefore, it had not been possible to order the window to fit on 18 November. There was no explanation or acknowledgement that the landlord should have notified the resident prior to the appointment to explain the situation and manage her expectations. That it did not do so was a communication failure.
  5. It said that measurements taken for a second time on 18 November 2022 would be used to order the window but at that time it could not give any timescales. Given that this was a resolution to the resident’s complaint it would have been appropriate for the landlord to do all it could to a) expedite the works to be carried out as soon as possible and b) provide a timeline, even a broad one, to demonstrate its commitment to resolving the substantive issue. It apologised for the delays and ineffective communication for which it offered £150 compensation.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 23 March 2023 in relation to the complaint about mould the landlord also updated that it still did not have measurements for the window. It confirmed that a third appointment to take measurements had been made for 24 March. It did not explain why the second set of measurements had not resulted in the window being ordered which was inappropriate. Furthermore, a third appointment 6 months after the first set of measurements was taken was unreasonable. This was because it caused further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident.
  7. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 24 February 2023 because over 2 months after the stage 1 complaint response she was no closer to reaching a resolution. She had continued to chase the landlord, including on 22 March, but still had no timeframe as to when the window would be replaced which was inappropriate.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response of 28 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged that the appointment booked for 24 March had failed for which it apologised. It said a new appointment had been arranged for 18 May. Given the significant delays already experienced by the resident it was unreasonable, being over 8 months since the first appointment, that she should have to wait a further 2 months for a fourth appointment. The frustration and disappointment caused to the resident was compounded by the fact that the landlord did not give an explanation as to why it would take so long. The landlord apologised for an “unacceptable level of service.” It awarded an additional £150 compensation to the £150 offered at stage 1, a total of £300.
  9. It took the landlord 4 appointments over 8 months to take the necessary measurements for the window. The window was replaced during July 2023, almost 1 year after the original repair request. This caused the resident inconvenience because she had to be available, and arrange for her daughter to be absent, for failed appointments. Furthermore, the landlord failed to consider its duties to the resident’s daughter under the Equality Act 2010. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident who was caused further inconvenience, distress, time and trouble by chasing the landlord for a resolution.
  10. The landlord knew that the resident suffered from asthma and that her daughter was autistic however, this was not recorded on their system which was a record keeping failure.
  11. The failures amount to maladministration. The amount of compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress because the landlord did not restore the resident to the position she would be in were it not for its failure. Not only had it not replaced the window, it could not give an indication as to when the work would be done which was unreasonable. It also failed to provide an explanation for what happened or what it would do differently in future. Furthermore, its stage 2 complaint response of 28 March 2023 said it would review the amount of compensation if the window was not replaced during May. Although it was not replaced until July there is no evidence that the compensation was reviewed at that time as promised which was a failure.
  12. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay £500 compensation which is line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £300 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Mould

  1. The landlord’s records show that that the resident reported issues with mould around the window on 15 December 2022 and that it carried out a damp and mould survey on 21 December. Its response was timely and in line with the approach outlined in its self-assessment.
  2. However, an internal email dated 6 March 2024 confirmed that the landlord could not locate a copy of the survey report from 21 December. This means it was unable to submit it as evidence for this investigation which was a record keeping failure. Without clear record keeping the landlord cannot fulfil its commitment to use data to drive its response to damp and mould. Furthermore, the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management recommends that a landlord “knows its products, services and residents well, and that it uses this data to inform business and financial planning.”
  3. The resident said that she then spoke to the landlord on 20 January 2023 and was told there was a backlog but that the damp and mould team would contact her in a “few weeks.” She chased again on 6 February when she sent photographs and a video but again, she did not receive a response. She requested that the mould be treated and the property insulated. The lack of communication from the landlord was inappropriate, causing the resident distress and frustration. Furthermore, it caused inconvenience, time and trouble because she had to keep chasing a response from the landlord.
  4. On 7 March 2023 a works order was raised and an appointment booked for 28 March. It is unclear why the landlord waited over 2 months to raise the order. The delay was unreasonable and did not demonstrate the landlord’s zero tolerance approach, particularly given the resident had raised concerns about the impact on her asthma.
  5. The appointment of 28 March 2023 was over 3 months from the date the resident first reported issues with damp and mould. The resident’s frustration and distress was further compounded when the contractor rearranged the appointment for 3 April. While it is noted that the contractor called the resident on 24 March to notify her, the additional delay added to her cumulative distress.
  6. There was a record keeping failure because the landlord failed to provide a copy of the December survey report, the delay in carrying out the mould wash was unreasonable and the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident causing her to chase. The failures amount to maladministration because there were a number of failures which had an adverse effect on the resident.
  7. In its stage 1 complaint response of 23 March 2023 the landlord offered the resident £60 compensation. The offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Therefore, landlord has been ordered to pay £250 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £60 it offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint Handling

  1. On 3 March 2023 the resident raised a new stage 1 complaint about damp and mould around all the windows which she felt was due to a lack of insulation. The landlord appropriately opened a new complaint to deal with this specific issue. However, it did not provide a response until 23 March, which was 14 working days later and 4 working days outside of its response time. The landlord appropriately apologised and considered the delay in its offer of compensation. The length of the delay was minimal and the detriment caused to the resident was low. Therefore the financial redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s Code (the Code) says that landlords must address all the points raised in the complaint (…). In her complaint of 3 March 2023 the resident said that she felt the mould was caused by the property being poorly insulated. The landlord failed to provide a response on this point which was inappropriate.
  3. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints at any stage. It did not tell the resident who would deal with her complaint, what would happen and when the response would be ready and therefore, it did not comply with its complaints policy which was inappropriate.
  4. The Code requires landlords to use the complaints process to resolve an issue before it gets worse. Not only did it generally fail to do so but it failed to monitor specific actions to ensure they were carried out in order to resolve the complaint. For example, the appointment for 24 March 2023 promised in the stage 1 complaint of 23 March did not take place. This compounded the disappointment and frustration caused to the resident and was reflected in her stage 2 complaint of 24 February.
  5. The Ombudsman’s complaint resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord did not demonstrate that it used the complaints process to identify what had gone wrong and what it would do differently to prevent it happening again. Given the number of repeated mistakes this was a critical part of the complaint handling in this case, not doing so was a failure.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy is not compliant with the Code which requires stage 2 complaint responses to be issued within 20 working days.
  7. The landlord failed to:
    1. Use the complaints process to resolve the substantive issue.
    2. Issue the second stage 1 complaint in time.
    3. Address all the points in the resident’s second stage 1 complaint.
    4. Follow its complaints policy and learn from the complaint.
  8. The failures amount to maladministration because the landlord has failed to acknowledge all its failings and has therefore not fully put things right. The failures caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay £150 for the complaint handlings failures which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there is no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a window repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £900 compensation, as follows:
      1. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a window repair. The landlord may deduct the £300 it has offered if this has already been paid.
      2. £250 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
      3. £150 for the frustration and distress caused by the complaint handling failures.
    2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the case.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Survey the property to assess its thermal performance and ensure it is insulated appropriately. Write to the resident to inform her of the outcome and set out any actions arising from the survey. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
    2. Carry out a case review to identify what went wrong and what it will do differently in the future. A copy of the outcome of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
    3. Carry out a self-assessment of its complaints policy against the new Complaint Handling Code 2024. A copy of the assessment should be provided to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.

Recommendation

  1. Asses the record keeping failures identified in this report against the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.