Camden Council (202327297)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327297

Camden Council

20 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s rehousing application.
2. Repairs to the communal heating system.
3. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
4. Reports of rodents in the property.
5. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41 of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application.
Paragraph 41(d) states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints about local authorities in England which relate to their provision or management of social housing. This does not include complaints about applications for rehousing – including assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding, or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference. These matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. He has several physical health vulnerabilities that the landlord was aware of, including breathing difficulties. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a low rise block of flats (‘the block’). It is serviced by a communal heating system that is housed in a plant room next to the property. The resident moved to the property by mutual exchange in 2008.
The records provided show that the resident has reported issues with mice and rats to the landlord since October 2017. Pest control services have been contracted each time. From September 2023 to December 2023 the landlord arranged 4 pest control treatments. Records from November 2023 show that baits and traps were laid in the living room, with no further evidence of rodents seen in December 2023.
The resident reported issues with banging and screaming sounds from the flat above in January 2021. The landlord’s records show the police were called to visit the resident in July 2021. Concerns were raised for the resident’s welfare, but no action was taken regarding noise nuisance.
There was an underground leak in October 2023 which disrupted the heating and hot water supply to the property. The landlord arranged for excavation works and repaired the pipework over 3 days. The works were completed on 3 November 2023. The communal heating system did not work correctly following the repairs.
The resident complained to the landlord on 5 November 2023. He said:
1. The communal heating system had broken down. He was concerned that he would be left without adequate heating.
2. He had reported noise nuisance from the flat above. His flat “shakes all hours of the night” because of the noise.
3. There were rodents in the property. He believed this was made worse by litter and fly tipping in the communal areas.
4. He was concerned that there were structural defects causing the rats to come into the block.
The landlord provided temporary heating on 7 November 2023. The heating issues were resolved on 7 December 2023.
The landlord then determined that the communal heating system required replacement and wrote to the resident on 25 January 2024 informing him of its plans. It said that the works would be resolved in summer 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 March 2024. It provided a chronology of the heating repairs. It said:
1. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
2. It directed the resident to its website to submit a claim for a heating rebate to refund his heating/hot water costs.
3. It reiterated its plans to upgrade the boiler and plant room that serviced its communal heating system.
4. It was sorry that the resident was disturbed by noise from his neighbours. The property had “poor sound insulation, and you can hear much of day to day living noises from surrounding properties”. It noted that this was something that had worried the resident for some time. However, despite its investigation, there was no supporting evidence of noise nuisance.
5. It offered to signpost the resident to support services that may be able to help him due to the impact the situation had on him.
6. It was not aware of any structural issues at the property that would exacerbate rodents entering the building. Some environments may encourage rodent activity, but there were low numbers of reports to suggest a block wide issue. It noted that issues had been raised by officers visiting his home that the hygiene within the property could be improved and his home decluttered. This would be a contributing factor to the rodent activity.
7. Following a visit on 5 December 2023, no further sightings of rodents had been made and no new droppings or take at the bait stations. Therefore, the pests issue was closed.
8. It did not find any service failure. It directed the resident to his housing officer for support.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 23 March 2024. He said that he had unsuccessfully tried to speak to the landlord 7 times. He also reported that the temporary boiler was flooding and shaking throughout the night.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 March 2024. He said that the noise nuisance had continued. He was concerned that mice/rats were coming from a neighbour who left rubbish in the communal areas. He had received no response from his calls to the landlord.
The resident made an online noise report on 27 April 2024. He said that he could hear banging and shouting from his neighbour after 11pm. He highlighted the impact this had on his health.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 April 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. Its contractor had conducted excavation works around the area to repair the pipework to the heating system. It planned to replace the heating system in 2024. A letter was sent to the resident on 25 January 2024 to inform him of the impending works.
2. It was unaware of any structural defects affecting the block which may cause rodents to enter the building. It had not received any other reports regarding this matter from residents.
3. It had no evidence that there was noise nuisance caused by poor sound insulation.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and contacted the Ombudsman in May 2024.
On 18 June 2024 the resident reported hearing rodents in the kitchen. Pest control services inspected and found no signs of pests but baited the area.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out how it will respond to repairs dependent on severity. It considers a lack of heating and hot water as an emergency repair and will arrange repairs for the same day. Complex repairs that will involve other leaseholders or major works will be conducted as programmed repairs. Programmed repairs are conducted within agreed timescales dependent on the works required.
The landlord sets out its approach to reports of ASB on its website. It says that it will take all reports seriously and acknowledge reports within 48 hours. Where there are reports of noise nuisance it will contact residents within 10 working days.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint procedure. It acknowledges all complaints within 2 working days. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 25 working days.

Repairs to the communal heating system

The landlord’s records show that its response to the issues raised in October and November 2023 was appropriate. It attended the repairs the same day, in accordance with the timescales set out in its policy. It promptly identified the fault and conducted repairs. It was reasonable for it to provide the resident with temporary heating once it identified that the failures extended to the communal heating system.
However, the landlord did not appropriately recognise the impact the issues had on the resident. After he complained on 5 November 2023, there is no evidence that it contacted him until it issued its stage 1 response on 18 March 2024. It therefore failed to treat the resident fairly. The resident reported to the landlord that he had breathing difficulties, was vulnerable and was having difficulty managing his home. Given his vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact or visit the resident to ensure that he was receiving the necessary support. Its poor communication would have contributed to the resident’s overall distress and inconvenience.
It was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to claim a rebate for his additional heating costs in its stage 1 response on 18 March 2024. It was appropriate to inform the resident of its intention to replace the heating system in January 2024. It was reasonable to reiterate its plans to update the boilers and associated plant room in its stage 1 response. The replacement of a communal heating system would be a major repair and it was reasonable to conduct these repairs under its programmed repairs procedure.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns raised on 23 March 2024 about the disturbance caused by the temporary boiler flooding and shaking in its stage 2 response on 29 April 2024. The landlord should have reflected on the resident’s increased vulnerabilities. It did not consider the impact these issues had on the resident. It would have been reasonable to set out how it could reduce the nuisance and annoyance caused, or provide assurance that it had considered this. Its failure to provide a reasonable response to these concerns would have contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord. This is because, while it did some things well such as emergency repairs and providing temporary heaters, it did not communicate effectively with the resident. It did not adequately consider his vulnerabilities. It did not address his concerns about the additional noise nuisance caused by the temporary heating system. It took over 4 months to address the impact the issues had on a vulnerable resident. It should pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Reports of ASB

There were no records available to the Ombudsman regarding investigation into the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from January 2021. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action a landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. The absence of clear records in this case meant that the Ombudsman has been unable to assess the landlord’s earlier response to the resident’s concerns.
In the resident’s complaint on 5 November 2023, he described noise causing the property to shake at all hours of the night. The resident told the landlord that he was distressed by the noise nuisance and that it had contributed to his ill health. On receipt of the report the landlord should have provided a response within 48 hours, in accordance with the timescales set out on its website. However, there is no evidence to show that it contacted the resident to discuss the reports until it issued its stage 1 response on 18 March 2024. It would have been appropriate for it to set out an action plan and be clear with the resident how he could evidence his complaints. It did not do so, and this contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The landlord acknowledged that noise nuisance had concerned the resident for some time in its stage 1 response. In its records it says it spoke to the neighbour about the resident’s reports. However, there is no record of any conversation with the neighbour. It should have set out what investigations had been done, and the outcome. It should have kept adequate records of any contact it had with the resident and other parties about his reports. If it had determined that the noise nuisance was not because of ASB, it should have provided some support to manage the impact. Its failure to provide clear communication to the resident contributed to his distress and inconvenience.
Evidence available to the Ombudsman shows that noise transference was the driving factor in the resident’s reports. They show that the landlord was aware of issues with noise transference in the block from around 2015. In its stage 1 response it said that there was poor sound insulation between the resident’s property and his neighbour’s due to the type of construction. It was reasonable to signpost the resident to support services to help manage the impact on him. However, it should have considered if any adjustments could be made or works conducted to the property that would lessen the impact of noise transference.
The landlord changed its position in its stage 2 response. It said that there was no evidence of any noise nuisance caused by poor sound insulation. It did not reflect on the resident’s reports or set out any action plan to address his concerns, and consequently failed to treat him fairly. It did not use its complaint handling as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issues. It should have considered the lack of communication raised by the resident and set up a contact plan. These failures added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. The landlord was dismissive of the resident’s reports, considering them to be related to structural issues with the block and then changing its position. There were no clear records of any investigation into the reports of ASB. Its failure to keep comprehensive records meant that its decision making was unclear. The landlord failed to follow through with the commitments set out in its complaint responses to provide support and communication. The landlord should pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Reports of rodents in the property

Landlords are obliged to make sure that their properties are fit for human habitation, which includes eliminating household pests. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 imposes a duty on landlords to deal with disrepair. Legislation requires landlords to take action to deal with infestations and disrepair problems that are causing infestations. The records show that the resident reported issues with rodents in the property between October 2017 and June 2024. Therefore, the landlord had a responsibility to conduct inspections and investigate any issues that would allow rodents to enter the property.
The landlord has rightly responded to each report made by the resident. It arranged for specialist pest control services to treat the issues present. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice provided by its specialist contractors. There have been no recommendations seen in the evidence available to the Ombudsman that there were any underlying concerns present in or around the property.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 18 March 2024 said that it was not aware of any structural issues that would allow rodents to enter the building. However, there was no evidence that it had conducted any additional inspection of the property or surrounding structure. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to satisfy itself that there were no structural defects, or other contributing factors allowing rodents to return. It could have surveyed the block to determine if there were other pest issues or conducted a desktop audit of the building based on a review of its records.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also failed to set out how it had conducted investigations into wider issues around the block. The resident had said that he was concerned about the condition of his neighbours’ homes and the communal areas. The landlord would have been limited in the info it could share about neighbours’ properties due to its data protection obligations. However, it would have been appropriate for it to explain what investigations had been done. This would have alleviated some of the resident’s concerns that there were structural defects allowing the frequent return of rodents to the property.
The landlord’s records show that concerns had been raised by other agencies about the condition of the resident’s property. The landlord should have used its tenancy conditions and referrals to additional support services to ensure that the resident was able to sustain his tenancy. He frequently stated that he could not manage in his property. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer support through its housing officers. However, it should have maintained the commitments set out in its complaint responses to maintain communication and support. The records show that the resident made many unsuccessful attempts to call the landlord in March and April 2024.
The landlord said that it believed the condition of the property and actions of the resident contributed to the presence of rodents. It should have provided support to the resident to sustain his tenancy. It could have made referrals to its Environmental Health service as set out in its multi-agency and safeguarding procedures. There are no records available to show that it made this referral. It therefore did not appropriately safeguard the resident from a risk of self-neglect or from the harms present in the property.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of rodents in the property. The landlord provided pest control services following each report and said it has found no evidence of structural issues present. However, its records do not show that any inspection of the block or neighbouring properties has been conducted. It did not appropriately safeguard the resident or follow through with the commitments set out in its complaint responses. It did not maintain regular contact, or provided reasonable support to ensure that the resident was able to sustain his tenancy. The landlord should arrange for structural inspection of the block and ensure that there are no means of entry to rodents in the resident’s property. It should pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The associated complaint

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its response at stage 1 was issued around 92 working days after the complaint was made. This was around 82 working days above those timeframes. There were no records to show that any update or acknowledgement was issued in the interim period, which was unsatisfactory.
The landlord then failed to acknowledge the delay in either of its responses. It should use its complaint handling to assess its overall response to the resident. It should have taken the opportunity to review its complaint handling at stage 2. It did not, and it failed to treat the resident fairly as a result.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord did not address the delay of around 4 months to issue its stage 1 response. Its compensation policy states that it will provide compensation of £20 per month for delays. In accordance with its own policy, it should pay the resident £80 for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application is outside of this service’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal heating system.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of rodents in the property.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is required to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Arrange for a suitably qualified contractor to inspect the property regarding noise transference. It must provide a copy of the inspection report to the Ombudsman and conduct any necessary repairs within 8 weeks of the inspection.
3. Conduct a survey of the property (within the 4 weeks) and the remaining block (within 12 weeks) to assess if there are any defects that would allow rodents to enter the property. If any remedial actions are identified, it must conduct any necessary repairs within 4 weeks of the survey. It must share the result of this survey with the Ombudsman.
4. Pay the resident compensation of £680. This is comprised of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of repairs to the communal heating system.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of reports of ASB.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of reports of rodents in the property.
  4. £80 for its complaint handling failures.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm that he was able to claim a rebate for his additional heating costs in March 2024. It should offer to assist him with a claim if he has not.