Camden Council (202305095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305095

Camden Council

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to transfer to another property.
2. Request for a surveyor’s report from 2021 for his property.
3. Reports about repairs to the communal stairs, his front door, kitchen cupboards and flooring, as well as the large crack in the living room wall.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a 1-bedroom, first floor flat. The resident is elderly and suffers with a respiratory condition, as well as other illnesses. The landlord is aware of the resident’s conditions and vulnerability.
In 2015 the resident’s general practitioner (GP) provided a letter stating that the resident suffered with respiratory conditions. They said the resident would benefit from being moved to a property in a rural setting for his health.
In October 2021 the resident’s solicitor submitted a legal disrepair claim about the condition of the resident’s property. On 8 December 2021 the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property. The landlord raised a schedule of works which included the following:
1. Repair the large crack in the living room party wall.
2. Renew the kitchen units so that they met the decent homes standard specification.
3. Replace the kitchen vinyl floor tiles and subbase. The new floor was to include a non-slip floor covering.
4. Renew the night latch on the front door of the property.
On 26 October 2022 the resident reported that his front door and the window frames at his property were loose. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property twice between 30 November 2022 and 4 January 2023. The contractor said they had been unable to gain access to the resident’s property to inspect the front door and windows. The landlord then closed this repair.
On 22 February 2023 the resident told the landlord that he had a large crack in the party wall in his living room. He believed this was due to works carried out by his neighbour. The landlord’s contractor attended twice between 15 March 2023 and 12 April 2023. The contractor said they had been unable to gain access to the resident’s property on either occasion. The landlord then closed this repair about the large crack in wall his living room.
In May 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and asked us to assist in raising a complaint about the landlord’s handling of its outstanding repairs at his property. The Ombudsman intervened and advised the landlord to provide the resident with its stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman said the resident’s complaints were about the landlord’s handling of his reports of repairs to the communal stairs, his front door, kitchen, as well as the large crack in the living room wall. The resident also wanted the landlord to provide him with a copy of its surveyor’s report following its previous inspection of his property in 2021.
On 6 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 written complaint response. The landlord said it had no record of the resident reporting disrepair to the communal stone steps outside his property. It said that it had not been given access to inspect the front door frame in October 2022. The landlord accepted it had cancelled a repair raised by the resident in February 2023 without explanation. The landlord apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused by this.
The landlord made 2 appointments for it to carry out an inspection of the resident’s outstanding repairs on 7 July 2023 and 15 August 2023. Its contractors visited the resident’s property on these dates. The contractors reported that they had not been provided with access to the resident’s property, and so had been unable to carry out the inspection.

In September 2023 the resident asked the Ombudsman to assist him in escalating his complaint with the landlord. On 21 September 2023 the Ombudsman intervened and advised the landlord to provide its final written response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 5 October 2023. It said that the resident had not allowed it access to carry out an inspection of the repairs raised.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his complaint. He brought his complaint to the Ombudsman stating that his desired outcome was for the landlord to carry out the repairs that were part of his complaint. He wanted to be provided with a copy of the updated surveyor report, and for his belongings to be placed into storage whilst the landlord carried out the works. The resident also said that he wanted to be placed into temporary accommodation whilst these works were being completed. The resident has said that he also wants the landlord to transfer him to another property permanently due to his ailing health.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

The resident’s request to transfer to another property.

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.k. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about his request for a transfer to another property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42.k. says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall more properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman or other dispute resolution service.
This aspect of the resident’s complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is because the resident’s landlord is a local authority, and the resident’s request for it to assist him in transferring him to another property is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider and it is instead within the LGSCO’s remit. Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s complaint may not be considered by the Housing Ombudsman. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint, then he is advised to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
However, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord contacts the resident directly to assess his current medical needs banding, and to review his request to transfer to another property in line with its allocations policy. The resident’s request for a surveyor’s report from 2021 for his property.
Section 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that he had requested that the landlord provide him with a copy of its inspection report from December 2021. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident when he states that he requested a copy of this surveyor’s report. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of this request. The only information reviewed by the Ombudsman about this aspect of the resident’s complaint is when he contacted the Ombudsman in May 2023. This was 17 months after the survey was carried out. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 6 June 2023,the landlord explained to the resident that it would not consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint because it would only investigate matters raised within 12 months of the matters arising, as per its complaints policy. The Ombudsman considers this to have been a reasonable approach by the landlord with regards to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Therefore in line with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s request for a surveyor’s report from December 2021 for his property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident’s solicitor submitted a disrepair claim to the landlord about a number of repairs within the resident’s property in October 2021. These are the same repairs referred to in the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has said it would only consider the resident’s complaint about the disrepair in his property for the 12 months prior to his complaint, which he made in May 2023. The Ombudsman has taken the landlord’s decision into consideration.
We have also taken into consideration section 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as referred to above. However, in respect of this aspect of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has taken the view that the landlord was aware of the significant crack in the resident’s living room wall, and that the resident’s kitchen was not in line with the decent home standard in December 2021. This was because the landlord’s surveyor had completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 8 December 2021, after the resident had submitted his disrepair claim. The resident lives alone, he is elderly, and he suffers with a number of medical conditions. Therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the impact of the disrepair from December 2021 through to its final response of its complaints process on 5 October 2023. This was an opportunity for the landlord to identify if there were any failings during this earlier period which may have impacted the resident during that time.
Therefore, in line with the Scheme the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to the communal stairs, his front door, kitchen cupboards and flooring, as well as the large crack in the living room wall between 8 December 2021 to its final response provided on 5 October 2023.
As part of his complaint, the resident has said that his health has been affected by him not having been transferred to another property. The resident has said that he currently resides in a property within a busy urban area with significant air pollution and fumes. The Ombudsman acknowledges what the resident has said. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health condition of the resident. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine.
This is in line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health between 8 December 2021 to its final complaint response provided on 5 October 2023.

The resident’s reports about repairs to the communal stairs, his front door, kitchen cupboards and flooring, as well as the large crack in the living room wall.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that its repairs fall into the following categories:
Emergency – The landlord states this is a repair where there is a danger to people or property. The landlord will request its contractor attend to this type of repair within 2 hours and carry out a make safe repair.
Urgent – These are non-emergency repairs but if not completed quickly would cause a nuisance. The landlord will complete these types of repairs within 5 working days.
Routine – These are repairs for which the landlord is responsible that it does not consider to be an emergency, or urgent repair. The landlord will aim to complete these types of repairs within 20 working days.
Programmed – The landlord states these are complex repairs which require specialist works. It states it will agree a timescale with a resident when it will complete these types of repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord and its contractors have a right to enter a resident’s home within reasonable hours to carry out repairs to the property. The landlord will make an appointment for urgent and routine repairs. If a resident does not provide access the landlord states it will try to telephone a resident, leave a calling card, and record this on its database. The landlord states it will then cancel the raised repair. It states it is then the resident’s responsibility to raise the repair again.
On 8 December 2021 the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property. The landlord then raised a schedule of works as referred to above. This included that there was a crack in the party wall in the resident’s living room. The kitchen also required to be renewed for it to be in line with the decent home standard. The decent home standard sets out a minimum standard for a resident’s property. This standard includes a property should have a reasonably modern kitchen that is less than 20 years old.
Between December 2021 and October 2022 the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord carried out any of the repairs to the resident’s property, as per its schedule of works. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have communicated with the resident, setting out a timescale for completing these works. The works within its schedule should have been completed as a routine repair within 20 working days, as per the landlord’s repairs policy as set out above. If any of these works required a further specialist investigation, the landlord should have communicated this with the resident and set a reasonable timescale for the works to be completed. The landlord should have kept the resident updated during this period. This is evidence of poor handling of its repairs processes.
In October 2022 the resident told the landlord that his front door and window frames were loose. The landlord raised a repair, and its contractors attended the resident’s property 26 working days later, on 30 November 2022. The landlord should have responded to this report as a routine repair. Therefore it should have arranged to complete this repair within 20 working day, as per its repairs policy, as set out above.
On 30 November 2022 the landlord’s contractors reported they had been unable to gain access to the resident’s property. They left a calling card, and the landlord raised a new appointment for 4 January 2023. The contractors reported they had been unable to access the resident’s property on this occasion also. This resulted in the landlord closing this repair. It was reasonable for the contractors to have attended twice, and that they left a calling card. The landlord’s decision to close down the repair was also in line with its repairs policy. However, the Ombudsman does not consider this to have been a reasonable response. The resident is elderly, with health conditions that the landlord was aware of. There were also already a significant number of outstanding repairs at the resident’s property as referred to above. The Ombudsman has considered that the landlord should have made further proactive attempts to contact the resident by telephone, letter, or by asking its housing officer to visit him. This was an opportunity to identify any reason its contractors had been prevented access to the resident’s property. This would then have identified any further support the resident may have needed for these repairs to have been completed. This is evidence of poor communication.
On 22 February 2023 the resident reported the crack in his party wall again to the landlord. The landlord’s contractors visited twice between 15 March 2023 and 12 April 2023. The contractors said they had not been given access by the resident and so the landlord closed the repair. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that its contractors left any calling card on this occasion, which was a failing. It is recommended that the landlord ensure its contractors take photos and leave calling cards on each occasion to demonstrate when they are not able to gain access to a resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence or information that the resident raised a complaint directly to the landlord. We have also not seen any evidence that the landlord had received a complaint directly from the resident, prior to him contacting the Ombudsman. Therefore, it was reasonable when the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 June 2023. This was because it was provided 6 working days after the Ombudsman requested the landlord provide its stage 1 complaint response.
This was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling), which expects the landlord to provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it made an appointment for its contractor to carry out an inspection of the resident’s kitchen, and front door on 7 July 2023. This was 24 days later. The landlord said that it had not previously received a repair for the communal stone steps and would request its contractor take a photo and inspect this. It was reasonable when the landlord explained it had not previously received a repair about the communal stone steps and that it agreed to carry out an inspection. However, all of these repairs in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response should have been treated as a routine repair. Therefore it should have made its appointment to complete its inspection of these repairs within 20 working days. The Ombudsman accepts that this was not a significant delay overall.
The landlord’s contractor reported that they attempted to access the resident’s property twice between 7 July 2023 and 15 August 2023. They left a calling card, and the landlord closed the outstanding repair as per its repairs policy. The landlord explained this to the resident in its final response to his complaints raised on 5 October 2023. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that its contractors inspected the disrepair to the communal stone steps outside of the resident’s property. The contractors would not have needed to access the resident’s property to carry out this inspection, and any follow-on works to this area. The landlord should have carried out its inspection within 20 working days regardless of whether the resident was available at the time. The landlord should then have communicated its findings, and any works carried out in relation to the communal steps in its final response to his complaint.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to the communal stairs, his front door, kitchen cupboards and flooring, as well as the large crack in the living room wall.
The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord carried out a further inspection of the resident’s property on 11 April 2024. The resident has said that the works have not yet been completed. The Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord communicates with the resident and arranges for these works to be completed within a reasonable timescale, and in line with industry best practice. The resident has advised that he will be in hospital for a period of time over the coming months. Therefore, the landlord should consider this when communicating with the resident who does not have access to a mobile phone, or email.
The landlord should consider writing to the resident and asking him to confirm when he is expected to be in hospital, so it can plan around this. The landlord should also assess the resident’s needs in carrying out these repairs. This includes the following:
1. Assess whether the resident is able to remain within the property whilst the works are being carried out. The landlord should then communicate its decision on whether the resident is to remain or be transferred to another property temporarily whilst it completes the repairs.
2. Assist the resident where there is any requirement for furniture to be moved within the property for the repairs to take place. This is because the resident is elderly with ill health, and he may struggle with heavy furniture. The resident has said that he has no one who could assist him with this.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. This reflects that the resident has suffered distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s errors. The level of compensation has taken into consideration that the landlord did make attempts to complete these repairs but was not given access when it made these attempts. However as referred to above, the landlord should have taken into consideration the individual needs of the resident and should have gone further to communicate and seek to work with him to complete these repairs.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it currently does not have a vulnerable person policy and that this is currently being drafted. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord introduces vulnerable person policy, in line with industry best practice.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.k. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer to another property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a surveyor’s report from 2021 for his property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to his windows, doors, external steps, the living room wall, as well as the cupboards and flooring in the kitchen.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration and expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to his windows, doors, external steps, the living room wall, as well as the cupboards and flooring in the kitchen.
The landlord is to pay the resident £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to his windows, doors, external steps, the living room wall, as well as the cupboards and flooring in the kitchen.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with all of the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report.
The landlord is to set out its schedule of works it is responsible for to the resident’s property and communal area, including estimated timescales, which it is to share with the resident and the Ombudsman in writing. The landlord is also to complete the following:
1. Assess whether the resident is able to remain within the property whilst the works are being carried out. The landlord should then communicate its decision on whether the resident is to remain or be transferred to another property temporarily whilst it completes the repairs.
2. Assist the resident where there is any requirement for furniture to be moved within the property for the repairs to take place.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident directly to assess his current medical needs banding, and to assist him in line with its allocations policy in reviewing his request to transfer to another property.
The landlord should consider asking its contractors take photos and leave calling cards on each occasion to demonstrate when they are not able to gain access to a resident’s property.
The landlord should introduce a vulnerable person policy to its organisation. This policy should be in line with industry best practice. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has said it is drafting such a policy.