We are currently experiencing technical difficulties with our online complaints form. Please contact us by phone during this time.

London Borough of Camden Council (202406073)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406073

London Borough of Camden Council

28 July 2025

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of blockages in the soil pipe, affecting both the downstairs toilet and upstairs bathroom, and the resident’s reports of discoloured water in the bathroom.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident was a leaseholder of the landlord until he passed away in December 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom maisonette. A Grant of Probate was issued in May 2024 naming the resident’s daughter as the sole executor of the estate (referred to in this report as the representative).
  2. The representative reported a blockage in the soil pipe to the landlord on 16 November 2023. The blockage affected both the downstairs toilet and upstairs bathroom facilities. The landlord’s contractors attended on 17 November 2023 and removed the blockage to the downstairs toilet. They could not remove the upstairs blockage and so recommended the landlord carry out a CCTV survey.
  3. The representative raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 25 February 2024. She said the landlord had not arranged a CCTV survey following her reports of a blockage in November 2023. She said, because of the outstanding repairs, she had been unable to use the upstairs bathroom. She said, on 21 February 2024, the water in the upstairs toilet overflowed into the bathroom. She said she contacted the landlord’s emergency repairs team but its contractors did not attend. She also reported that the water in the bathroom was discoloured and she was concerned about the water quality and safety.
  4. The landlord sent the representative a stage 1 complaint response on 20 March 2023. It said it had responded in line with its repairs policy when the representative reported the blockage in November 2023. However, it accepted that it still needed to progress the CCTV survey and it apologised for the delay. The landlord also accepted that there had been communication failings around access arrangements, which meant its contractors had not attended the most recent repair. It said it had raised a repair to address the discoloured water and it had arranged to carry out the CCTV survey on 22 March 2024. It offered the representative £80 compensation.
  5. Following escalation of the complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the representative a stage 2 response on 26 April 2024. It confirmed the failings acknowledged at stage 1. It accepted that there were a further 4 missed appointments between February 2024 and March 2024 and it offered additional compensation of £100 (£180 in total). It said it had responded to the reports of discoloured water by raising a repair and it provided the representative with a link to claim for her damaged property.
  6. The landlord resolved the blockage in May 2024.
  7. The representative was unhappy with the landlord’s response, and so she escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident wanted a review of the compensation offered and a full investigation into the water discolouration and water pressure. However, the water pressure was not part of this complaint.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 25(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that the Ombudsman can consider a complaint from a person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member landlord. It says, if the complaint is made by an ex-occupier, they must have had a legal relationship with the member at the time that the matter complained of arose.
  2. Paragraph 25(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman can consider a complaint from a person with authority to make a complaint on behalf of any person detailed at paragraph 25(a) who is deceased.
  3. It is accepted that the representative has the authority to make a complaint on behalf of the deceased resident, by way of the Grant of Probate. However, the complaint is about blockages in the soil pipe that first occurred in November 2023. The representative brought the complaint to the landlord more than 12 months after the resident had passed away. As the resident was not alive at the time the blockages occurred, the requirements of paragraph 25(a) are not met.
  4. Instead, the complaint is the representative’s own, rather than being made on behalf of the resident. The issues negatively affected her, in terms of the delays, communication issues and inconvenience, rather than affecting the resident. As a result, the representative does not meet the complainant requirements set out in the Scheme and is not able to bring a complaint to this Service. Therefore, the matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be considered further.