London Borough of Camden Council (202401024)

Background

1. The property is a first-floor 4-bedroom flat in a 3-storey purpose-built block. The resident has been a leaseholder since 2023. The resident has complained about the flat above, which is also a leasehold and a ‘house in multiple occupation’ (HMO). In this report the owner of the above flat is referred to as ‘the leaseholder’.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Report of noise from the above flat.
   2. Report of leaks from the above flat.
   3. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of noise.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of leaks.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not promptly follow through on agreed actions in response to the noise reports, or offer alternative noise monitoring measures when the issues persisted. It identified some failings and offered redress, but this was not proportionate to the identified failures.
7. The landlord provided appropriate advice and explanations to the resident in relation to his reports of leaks.
8. The landlord did not meet policy timescales when responding to the complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

9. The resident has told us about ongoing issues with the landlord. We can only consider issues which have first been raised with the landlord and addressed through its internal complaint process. We do not generally investigate live issues, or apply the benefit of hindsight to our investigations. Therefore, new concerns, even about ongoing issues, must first be raised as a new complaint with the landlord. Once any new complaint has completed the landlord’s complaint process, it can be referred to us. This investigation broadly considers events up to the landlord’s stage 2 response of 3 November 2023.
10. The resident said the leaseholder was in breach of his lease and he was unhappy that the carpet was not installed more quickly. However, it is beyond our remit to establish a breach of lease, as that is more appropriately decided by a court. The resident may wish to seek independent advice in that regard. Instead, we have considered how the landlord responded to his request.
11. The resident tried to reach a resolution with the leaseholder directly before reporting it to the landlord in late December 2022. He was unhappy it then took until April 2023 for the leaseholder to install carpets. He said no explanation was given for the delay. However, the landlord updated him in February 2023 and said the leaseholder had denied the allegation of noise but agreed to install carpets in April 2023. It felt this was a good response and reminded the resident of its neutral role in resolving the matter. It offered to mediate between them. It later explained that the delay was because the leaseholder was abroad and unable to arrange the carpet sooner. It explained it had asked if the matter could be expedited but it could not due to the leaseholder’s absence.
12. There is a necessary period of investigation, including discussions with the other party, when a report is made. The report was also made during the Christmas period where operations and working hours are reduced. We expect the landlord to take a proportionate and informal approach in the first instance. It appropriately discussed the noise report with the leaseholder and explained its expected course of action, allowing time for compliance. We understand the resident’s upset and desire for a quicker fix but there was little the landlord could have usefully done at that stage to achieve a more prompt result.
13. We do not expect formal action by the landlord where informal tools are available and there is a reasonable explanation for a delay. The resident argued that, as the leaseholder was an HMO landlord, he should use a management company. However, this is not for us to stipulate, nor something we reasonably expect from the landlord as a first response. The resident asked what would happen if the leaseholder extended his trip. We expect the landlord to review developments as they arise and respond appropriately then. In this case, the leaseholder did not extend his trip, and he installed the carpet within the advised timeframe.
14. We understand the resident has raised concerns about the relationship breakdown between him and the leaseholder, suggesting that a management company would be a solution. However, that is not the subject of this complaint and so is not addressed further. The resident should make a separate complaint about this if he remains unhappy.
15. The resident said that, following the installation of carpet, the noise levels reduced, but he could still hear ‘low-level’ noise. He felt this was due to the quality of the carpet and wanted to know the details of the new flooring. However, the lease does not specify the thickness or quality of the carpet. It only says the floors should be ‘substantially covered with carpets’. It would not, therefore, have been reasonable for the landlord to require a potentially more expensive carpet to be installed without first carrying out further investigations.
16. The landlord accepted it should have visited the above flat to carry out a noise test and said it would arrange a visit now. While the landlord’s stage 2 response is the cut-off point for our investigation, we have seen that it visited the above flat in May 2024 to carry out basic checks. The resident is unhappy about the way the landlord tested for noise during the visit. As stated above, these events occurred after November 2023, so this will first need to be raised with the landlord as a new complaint before we can get involved.
17. The landlord’s noise nuisance policy says it offers noise diaries or noise apps to residents after initial contact or at any point afterwards. This allows evidence to be collected which can later be used to assess the need for other action. We have not seen that the landlord offered these to the resident. It rightly advised him to continue reporting all new incidents of noise, but it would have been appropriate to offer these to him as well. As the landlord acted on the report as it should, this failure did not cause a material or adverse effect. However, this would have been helpful in managing the resident’s expectations and for future assessment of the ongoing issue.
18. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise. It told him it would visit the above flat but did not do so until the complaint was raised. It also did not offer noise dairies/app to the resident. Once the carpet was laid down and he continued to raise concerns about the noise, it should have offered these. This would have allowed it to assess the level of noise, including the frequency, being reported and deal with it appropriately moving forward.
19. The landlord accepted some of its failures and apologised but did not offer compensation. Given the upset and inconvenience caused to the resident, who had to chase for a visit to be arranged and a response to his emails, we have ordered £150 compensation. This figure is in line with our remedies guidance for service failure.

20. The resident said he incurred uninsured damage to the property due to leaks from the above flat. We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse residents for damage to belongings as it is not within our remit to establish when or how the belongings were damaged. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are more appropriately claimed via its insurance. Therefore, this is not addressed further in this report. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s reports. He may wish to consider seeking advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.
21. As the freeholder, the landlord has limited obligations for a property where the lease has been sold. It is responsible for repairs and maintenance of communal areas and the external structure. It is not responsible for the internal decorations or areas that form part of the leasehold property. Further, it can only respond to reports that are made to it. These reports would form the basis of any investigations or action it takes.
22. The resident said he had not reported the leaks to the landlord as the leaseholder was carrying out repairs and confirmed they originated from his flat. The resident questioned the need to report the leaks to the landlord when the leaseholder was addressing them. He was of the view that the leaseholder’s bathroom needed to be replaced. However, it is not reasonable for the landlord to ask its leaseholders to replace bathrooms without evidence to support the need for this. The landlord has an obligation to both the resident and the leaseholder; it must be able to justify any investigations it undertakes, as it should not cause undue inconvenience.
23. In the absence of reports from the resident, the landlord had no evidence of repeated issues with the bathroom. It explained that he should report future leaks to it. We understand the resident may feel some reluctance, but we encourage him to do so for the reasons set out above. This will provide the landlord a clearer picture of the situation and enable it to decide what, if any, action it should take. We have, therefore, found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of leaks.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy applicable at the time set out timeframes; 10 working days for a full response at stage 1 (with an extension of an extra 10 working days if needed), and 25 working days at stage 2 (with an extension of an extra 40 working days if needed). Where an extension was needed the resident should be told, with revised timeframes agreed.
25. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 42 working days after the complaint was logged. It did not provide an explanation for the delay or agree an updated timeframe. This was not in line with its policy. Its stage 2 response was provided 12 working days after escalation, within the policy timeframe.
26. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the resident’s full complaint. It only responded to his complaint about the noise, but not the leaks. It did not address this aspect of the complaint until stage 2, after the resident reiterated his concerns. Further, it did not acknowledge its failure to address this point earlier or apologise for its oversight. Its responses also did not acknowledge the delay at stage 1 or provide an explanation.
27. Given the above, we have identified maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint. It is ordered to write to the resident with an apology and to pay £150 compensation for the upset and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with our remedies guidance.
28. On 8 February 2024 we issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in policy and practice. The Code applied from 1 April 2024 and we have a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.
29. However, an order is made for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint in this case, alongside the provisions of the Code in order to: understand how the failings occurred; identify areas for improvement; and note where current practices may be at odds with the requirements of the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord provided us with sufficient information to investigate the complaint and reach a decision. However, its evidence submission unnecessarily duplicated information multiple times, such as emails. This added some avoidable delay to our investigation.

Communication

31. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failure to reply to the resident’s emails due to staff absence. It is not known whether this was because the emails went to an individual address or if the inbox was inaccessible. The landlord is encouraged to consider how it manages communication with residents so that staff absences do not lead to a reoccurrence of this.