London Borough of Camden Council (202339530)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339530

London Borough of Camden Council

31 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of leaks in the property and associated repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and has lived in the 1-bedroomed first floor flat since 2022. The landlord has confirmed the resident’s vulnerabilities which include a heart condition, cancer, respiratory and mobility issues.
The resident’s solicitor brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf as his representative. For ease of reference, the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout the report.
The resident told the landlord a radiator (in an unspecified location) was not working on 16 December 2022. The landlord attended on 13 January 2023.
The resident said he reported a leak from the flat above in January 2023. The landlord’s repairs evidence does not have a record of this being reported, or the action taken other than a mould wash that was arranged for 18 April 2023. On 17 April 2023 the resident reported damage to his bedroom walls caused by the leak. While he also reported damage to his flooring, due to conflicting communication between the landlord and resident, it is not clear what flooring was affected i.e. bedroom, hallway, or bathroom.
The landlord assessed the flooring on 12 May 2023 and replaced the damaged plywood flooring and vinyl flooring on 17 July 2023. Again, it is not clear what room the landlord repaired the flooring in, or what floor covering was replaced. A plasterer attended to the walls on 18 May 2023, but the resident declined the work to allow additional drying time for the flooring. The landlord returned on 18 July 2023, but the resident declined the work, and it was rearranged to 7 November 2023.
The resident reported a leak from his balcony on 13 June 2023, and the landlord attended on 22 June 2023. It confirmed the leak was from inside the flat and asked for the flooring to be removed to allow a further investigation. It arranged to return on 26 June 2023, but the resident asked the landlord to attend on 27 June 2023. The landlord suspected the leak was from under the flooring in the bedroom and it arranged for a pressure test on the heating system on 29 June 2023. Although there was no leak on the heating system, it found 2 leaks under the bath. The repairs were completed during the visit and the leaks were stopped.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 2 October 2023. He said he was unhappy with:
1. the landlord’s lack of response, and the delays in the repairs following the 2 leaks (radiator repairs, flooring repairs, damp, and mould in the bedroom, plastering, and damage to the bathroom tiles)
2. the damage caused to his furniture during the property inspection to assess the property following the leaks
3. the condition of the property and the impact on his health and wellbeing as he recovered from cancer treatment
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023. In summary the landlord:
1. said it arranged the earliest available appointment for the flooring, and while it tried to expedite the appointment, it was not possible due to high demand
2. confirmed it offered the resident appointment options and on 17 and 18 July 2023, it replaced the damaged plywood flooring and vinyl floor covering (the landlord did not specify what rooms this related to)
3. confirmed the plastering work had been arranged for 18 May 2023, but the resident declined the work as the flooring needed more drying time
4. said when it returned on 18 July 2023 to do the plastering work, the resident asked for the appointment to be rescheduled, and it was changed to 7 November 2023
5. advised it did not uphold the complaint as it was unable to identify any service failure relating to the tiling, flooring, and delays in repairs
6. confirmed the resident reported a leak from his balcony on 13 June 2023, it attended on 22 June 2023 and requested a further investigation, and on 29 June 2023, the leaks under the bath were found and rectified
7. confirmed it could only replace tiles if they were damaged by the leak and the tiles would be consistent with those used in its other properties
8. said it regretted the extended duration of the repairs, but confirmed there were instances where access had been restricted, or work paused at the resident’s request
9. advised the resident to submit a public liability form for the damage to his belongings and confirmed it could not offer compensation for distress and inconvenience
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 6 November 2023. He remained dissatisfied with:
1. the time taken to complete the repairs which he said affected his recovery from his surgeries for cancer
2. the quality of the repairs and that the bedroom flooring remained uncovered which left the room cold and impacted his recovery
3. the quality of the work in the bathroom. He said the tiling and regrouting needed to be replaced and the tiles did not match the Italian ones he had originally
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 23 November 2023. The landlord reiterated its stage 1 complaint response but in addition said:
1. it was sorry for the delays in the repairs following the 2 leaks
2. it had received the resident’s evidence that showed the damage to the flooring, damp and mould in the bedroom and the warping of the bedroom wall. It apologised for the time taken to progress remedial action to resolve these issues
3. it would arrange an inspection of the flooring in the hallway and the silicone in the bathroom and said it hoped this would resolve the outstanding issues
4. it partially upheld the complaint, and in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, the risk of harm to the resident, and the service not meeting its usually standard, it offered £350 compensation
The resident referred his complaint to us on 5 February 2024. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports of repairs. As a resolution to his complaint the resident said he wanted:
1. compensation for the distress and inconvenience
2. compensation to cover the costs of damage
3. all the necessary repairs to be carried out immediately

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on his health, along with damage to personal belongings. We can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health or belongings. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters, he should seek legal advice or follow the advice given by the landlord to make a claim through its insurance process.

Response to the resident’s reports of leaks in the property and associated repairs

For ease of reading, we have broken down each repair into its own section within the assessment
The landlord did not provide a Repair Policy. It provided a Repairs Booklet (undated) which states it will attend repairs in the following timescales:
1. emergencies – a contractor will be asked to attend before 8pm the same day (in cases of immediate danger, within 2 hours)
2. urgent repairs will be completed within 5-working days
3. routine repairs will be completed within 20-working days
The landlord’s Tenant’s Guide states the resident is responsible for floor coverings such as carpet.
The landlord’s Remedies Policy states it will acknowledge when things go wrong and will take responsibility for putting things right. This may include an apology, improvement to procedures or financial remedy. The landlord will not consider remedies that could be settled by an insurance claim, but will consider:
1. the amount of time spent by the resident trying to resolve the issue and the difficulty experienced in doing so (£100 to £300)
2. the distress to the resident (£100 to £300, or severe or prolonged up to £1000)
3. the risk of harm to the resident (Up to £500)

Repairs to radiator

On 16 December 2022, the resident told the landlord the radiator was not working. The landlord’s records state the repair was “completed” on 13 January 2023. This was not appropriate as it was not within the response time for an emergency or urgent repair. The resident confirmed the landlord offered him an electric heater, but the evidence does not confirm when this happened. It is therefore not known if it was offered at the time of the report, or if it was later, following the delay in the repair. While the resident said he could not use it as it exacerbated his COPD symptoms, there is no evidence he told the landlord this until his complaint in October 2023. The landlord’s offer was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident raised his dissatisfaction with the time taken to repair the radiator in his initial complaint and his escalation. He said he was left without heating during a period of snow and when temperatures were below freezing. There is no evidence the landlord investigated the issue, or that it explained the reasons for the delay. It did not show an understanding of how the delay impacted the resident during the cold period or highlight any action taken to mitigate the impact, particularly when being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord’s lack of investigation meant it did not identify any service failure or any learning to prevent a recurrence. This was unreasonable and a failure by the landlord.

Leak from the flat above and repairs to flooring

The resident states he reported a leak from the flat above in January 2023. The landlord’s repair evidence does not have a record of the leak, when it attended, the action it took, or if it inspected the resident’s flat to confirm if any remedial action was needed. A lack of records means we are unable to assess if the landlord responded in line with its repair responsibilities.
There is no evidence of any communication with the resident to confirm the cause of the leak, or any action to be taken in his flat. As a result, on 5 April 2023 the resident had to invest time and effort in contacting the landlord for an update. It was at this time the landlord confirmed it had arranged a mould wash for 18 April 2023. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its repair timescales.
On 17 April 2023 the resident reported damage caused by the leak to his flooring. The landlord made an appointment to assess the “flooring” on 12 May 2023 but said it would try to bring it forward. While this was reasonable, due to the landlord experiencing “high demand,” the appointment remained unchanged. This meant the landlord did not respond in line with its repair timescales. This was not appropriate.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord confirmed the damaged plywood flooring needed to be replaced, however there is no record of what room this related to. A lack of clear records means we are unable to assess if there was more than one room affected and if the landlord assessed all the affected flooring and provided a customer focussed resolution. Further there is no record of the severity of the damage. This would have been helpful as it would have demonstrated the landlord had considered the damage and the impact this had on the resident with a view to prioritising the repairs.
While it was reasonable to collaborate with the resident around appointment options, the landlord’s records confirm it did not replace the damaged plywood flooring and the vinyl covering until 17 and 18 July 2023, 3 months after it was reported. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its repair timescales for a routine repair.
On 2 October 2023 the resident complained about the flooring being warped because of the leak from the flat above. He said it left the room cold and impacted his recovery from cancer surgeries. In its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023, the landlord stated the damaged plywood flooring and vinyl floor covering had been replaced. It did not however confirm what room this was and there are no records to support its response. This is a record keeping failure. While there are no records to support its response, it also said it had completed repairs to the flooring in the hallway but if further work was required, the resident should complete a public liability form and contact the insurance team for assistance. It is worth noting the landlord’s Tenant Guide confirms the resident is responsible for floor coverings in a property, therefore any replacement was completed at the landlord’s discretion.
On 6 November 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said bedroom flooring remained uncovered. He said it left the room cold, meant he struggled to keep warm when he slept and said the cold was detrimental to his recovery from cancer. He confirmed the landlord had completed repairs to the flooring in the hallway, but said it was still warped and needed to be replaced. The lack of clear records and detail in the landlord’s repairs and complaint responses has made it difficult to confirm if the landlord completed all the repairs raised by the resident.
In its final complaint response on 23 November 2023, the landlord said it would arrange an inspection of the hallway flooring and that it hoped this would resolve the issue. In terms of the bedroom floor covering, the landlord failed to address the resident’s comments that it had not been covered. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of understanding of the concerns raised.
Due to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction and challenge around the repairs completed, it would have been helpful if the landlord had agreed to investigate this further to verify what flooring repairs had been completed. This would have provided it with the opportunity to address the resident’s concerns regarding the flooring in the bedroom and hallway, discuss its responsibilities in terms of floor coverings, and to discuss a resolution with the resident. There is no evidence it did this. This was unreasonable as the landlord did not demonstrate a commitment to provide a customer focussed resolution. An order has been made for the landlord to confirm its position on this matter.

Plastering repairs

On 17 April 2023 the resident reported damage caused by the leak to his bedroom walls. A plasterer attended on 18 May 2023 as arranged. The resident declined the work as the flooring required more drying out time. The landlord changed the appointment to 18 July 2023. The landlord’s records state the operative attended on 18 July 2023 as agreed. The resident was not at home on arrival and so the operative waited for an hour for him to return. When the resident returned home, he chose for the plasterer not to proceed with the work, and he asked the landlord to reschedule the appointment. The landlord changed the appointment to 7 and 9 November 2023.
The evidence shows the landlord responded to the resident’s report in a timely manner and in line with policy. It is noted further time was needed to allow for the drying of the floors and so the landlord rearranged the appointment. This was reasonable. The landlord returned on the date agreed with the resident, however the resident declined the work and asked the landlord to amend the appointment dates for a further time.
The landlord’s repair management was appropriate, and it demonstrated it collaborated with the resident around the repairs, but in moving the date to 7 November 2023, it meant the repair was outstanding for 7 months. As the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability, it would have been reasonable to prioritise the repair to complete it sooner. There is no evidence it did. As such the time taken was not appropriate and was significantly outside of the landlord’s response timescales.

Leak into property

The resident reported a leak in his flat on 13 June 2023. He said he thought it was from the balcony and said it was affecting his bedroom flooring. The landlord attended on 22 June 2023. It said the leak was coming from inside the flat and asked for the flooring to be lifted to allow further investigation; an appointment was made at the time for that to happen on 26 June 2025. This was reasonable and demonstrated a commitment to locating the leak. The resident later asked the landlord to change the appointment from 26 June 2023 to 27 June 2023. On investigation, the landlord believed the leak was coming from the heating pipes under the bedroom flooring. It asked for a pressure test to be done to check the heating system. This was reasonable.
The landlord returned on 29 June 2023. Although there was no leak on the heating system, 2 leaks were found under the bath. The landlord completed the repairs and stopped the leaks 12 working days from when they were first reported. This was appropriate as it was in line with its repair timescales.

Conclusion

In summary, we find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks in the property and associated repairs. It is acknowledged there were occasions when the appointments were rescheduled at the request of the resident, however the initial response times were not always in line with its repairs timescales and the time taken to complete the repairs was at times, significantly outside of these. The landlord did not provide evidence to confirm it considered the resident’s health and vulnerabilities and how it could have reduced the repair timescales. The landlord did not identify any failure in the service provided therefore it did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence.
The landlord offered a total of £350 compensation. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused, £100 for the time and effort spent pursuing the repairs, and £150 for the risk to the resident. Considering the time taken to complete some of the repairs, the lack of communication, the lack of consideration regarding the resident’s health, the compensation was not proportionate or in line with its Compensation Policy.
To recognise the time taken and the distress and inconvenience caused, an order has been made to pay the resident a total of £600 compensation. This is for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its findings, failed to address the detriment on the resident and the offer made was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.
We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the property to identify any related outstanding repairs and to confirm a timescale for completion.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaint Policy states it will acknowledge complaints at either stage within 5 working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement date, and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days of the acknowledgement date. If at any stage, more time is required, the landlord will communicate this to the resident.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
The resident raised his complaint on 2 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged it the same day and said it would provide a response within 10-working days. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. The resident said he was unhappy with the delay in the repairs and that at the time of the complaint, the landlord had not started any repairs. He said the damp and mould continued to impact his health and wellbeing, and claimed the contractor had broken his bathroom tiles.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023, 14-working days from receipt. While the delay is unlikely to have had a detrimental impact on the resident or the overall outcome of the complaint, there is no evidence the landlord communicated the delay in its response to the resident. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
The landlord confirmed the attempted visits and the repairs it had completed to date, however it did not address all the issues raised by the resident. For example, it did not investigate the allegation that the contractor broke the tiles or advise what action it, or the resident should take to resolve this. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding the damp and mould or confirm what it would do to resolve this, and it failed to mention the delay in completing the repairs to the radiator in December 2022. This was a failing by the landlord, particularly when the resident confirmed the impact to his health.
The landlord said it was unable to identify any service failures relating to the tiling, flooring, and delays in repairs. It apologised for the extended duration of the repairs and referred to appointments being rescheduled at the request of the resident or restricted access. It did not highlight what it could have done to complete the work sooner, recognise or understand how the overall time taken to complete the repairs had impacted the resident, or how it could learn from this case to prevent a recurrence. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate a thorough investigation.
The resident escalated his complaint on 6 November 2023. He said he was vulnerable, the repairs took too long, the quality of work was poor, the flooring remained warped and uncovered, and the bathroom tiles still needed replacing and re-grouting. The landlord acknowledged receipt on 6 November 2023 and provided its final complaint response on 23 November 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
The landlord repeated its findings from its stage 1 complaint response and re-iterated there was no service failure. It said its records confirmed it provided services in a timely manner. The landlord missed a further opportunity to highlight the overall time taken and what it could have done to reduce this and mitigate the impact on the resident. This was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to address all the concerns raised by the resident. For example, it did not respond to his comments relating to the lack of floor covering in the bedroom, the allegation of damage by the contractor and what it would do to provide a resolution. While it agreed to inspect the poor workmanship in the bathroom and the hallway flooring, it would have been helpful to advise the resident when the inspection would take place. This would have set his expectations and provide him with reassurance the landlord would do what it said it would. There is no evidence it did this. This was unreasonable.
Considering the above, we find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to respond in line with its policy timescale and did not communicate the delay to the resident. It failed to address all the issues raised by the resident or provide a customer focussed resolution. The landlord did not identify its failings therefore did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence.
The landlord did not demonstrate it had followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident, an order has been made to pay the resident £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failures and made no attempt to put things right.

Record keeping

We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The evidence shows the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records such as repair visits and outcomes, which has impacted our ability to conduct a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the residents reports of leaks in the property and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has:
1. written a letter of apology to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report
2. paid the resident a total of £700, broken down as follows:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the property and associated repairs
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures
  3. this is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint
  4. the payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide us with confirmation of the payment
3. contacted the resident to:
  1. arrange a property inspection to establish if any repairs remain outstanding, including any repairs to the flooring damaged by the leak, and confirmed a timescale for any necessary repairs
  2. confirm if it will be replacing the floor covering in the bedroom (if not already done so)
  3. advise what action it took to investigate the allegations of poor workmanship and damage to the bathroom tiles (if not already done so)
  4. reissue the advice and any supporting information regarding claiming for damaged items through the insurance process
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has:
1. reviewed its handling of the repairs in this case
2. highlighted any learning to prevent a recurrence of the failures identified to ensure it meets its repair responsibilities