London Borough of Camden Council (202424434)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424434

Camden Council

19 June 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 given 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the bathroom and the associated repairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 12 May 2003. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The resident has asthma.
  2. On 24 July 2023, the resident reported a leak in the bathroom of her property. An emergency plumber attended and considered the leak not dangerous. On this date the resident requested the major repairs team inspect the wall as the leak had occurred previously.
  3. The landlord completed the inspection of the property on 18 October 2023 which highlighted crumbling plaster and peeling paint in the bathroom from a damp wall. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 December 2023 to chase the repairs. A further inspection took place on 21 March 2024 which highlighted the plasterboard on the bathroom wall needed removing and replaced. The landlord scheduled this work for May 2024.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 July 2024 about the length of time taken to repair the leak in the bathroom.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 August 2024. The key points were as follows:
    1. It gave a history of the works undertaken since 24 July 2023 and confirmed it had scheduled an appointment for 8 August 2024 to attend and make safe the tiles and apply cortex to the walls.
    2. A plasterer had attended on 30 May 2024 to remove the radiator, but the resident had declined the works until it addressed the leak. It had also raised works to remove the radiator prior to the plastering but the repair log noted that the resident had declined the works as the plasterer was not due to attend for another 2 weeks.
    3. It confirmed there were no live leaks in the property, but it had raised a works order on 1 August 2024 to rectify the back wall which it would attend to on 8 August 2024.
    4. It did not uphold the complaint but offered £100 compensation for the time and trouble.
  6. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 2 August 2024 saying that the landlord had not attended in May and the external wall needed fixing first.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 September 2024. It gave a history of the stage 1 response. The key points were as follows:
    1. Its note from the plaster appointment on 30 May 2024 said that the resident would not let any internal works take place until it had fixed the exterior wall leak as it reoccurred every 2 or 3 years. The landlord was unable to say if the plasterer attended on that date, but it was satisfied it had contacted her.
    2. It had attended on 8 August 2024 to remove the tiles. It had cancelled the follow-on works due to the on-going outside works, but the major repairs would be in contact as previously advised on 23 August 2024.
    3. It upheld the complaint, apologised for the delayed response and for the delay in rectifying the leak which she had first reported on 24 July 2023.
    4. It offered further a £250 compensation.
  8. In referring her complaint to us, the resident said she wanted the repairs completed as soon as possible.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In referring her complaint to us, the resident also raised other issues in the property including damp and mould throughout other areas of her house and a sink hole in the garden. The landlord addressed the sink hole at stage 1 of the complaint made in this case but not pursued to stage 2. We can only consider complaints which have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure; therefore, this investigation has not considered these further issues.
  2. Throughout the complaint, the resident also reported the impact the leak had on her mental and physical health. While we do not dispute this, we are unable to find a causal link between the leak and the impact on health. The resident has the choice to pursue this via a legal route if she wishes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property and the associated repairs.

  1. When the resident reported the leak to the landlord on 24 July 2023, it attended on the same date to inspect the property. This was in line with its policy which says it would attend emergency repairs before 8pm on the same date to complete make safe works.
  2. On that date the resident requested the landlord complete an inspection of the wall due to the reoccurrence of the leak every couple of years. While the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it raised that request, it did attend to complete a mould inspection of the property on 18 October 2023. It would have appropriate of the landlord to either raise the request to inspect the wall or explain to the resident why it would not undertake an inspection. Its lack of response to the request was inappropriate.
  3. The mould inspection highlighted that the plaster was crumbling and paint peeling in the bathroom due to a damp wall. However, the landlord did not raise any follow on works after this inspection. This is not appropriate and meant the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on 4 December 2023, almost 6 months after the leak had originally occurred. The landlord needs to ensure it has effective and robust systems in place to track repairs to ensure it completes repairs within the published timescales set out in its repairs policy.
  4. Following the resident’s contact with the landlord on 4 December 2023, it raised an appointment originally for the 2 February 2024. This was 41 working days after it had raised the repair and therefore 21 days outside of its published timescales. This delay is not appropriate and showed a lack of empathy towards to the resident’s situation.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord had to rearrange the appointment due to the operative being on annual leave. It rearranged it for 19 March 2024. While we understand that landlords do need to change appointments, given that at this point it was 8 months since the leak had occurred and 6 months since it had identified the repair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered if it could complete the works at the earliest opportunity. Its lack of urgency again highlighted a lack of empathy towards the resident who was living with a crumbling, damp bathroom wall.
  6. At the appointment on 19 March 2024, the operative found that it would need to remove the plasterboard and radiator. The landlord arranged this for 30 May 2024. This was 49 days after the repair was identified and not in line with its routine repair timescales of 20 working days. The landlord’s lack of urgency to complete the repairs in this case is of concern and it should consider what learning it can take from this case.
  7. However, when the plasterer attended on 30 May 2024 the resident refused the works as she wanted the source of the leak resolved. Given that the earlier survey had identified no active leak in the property, it would have been useful for the landlord to have discussed the concerns with the resident to establish the reasoning behind her refusal, yet the landlord has provided no evidence that it did discuss this with the resident. This was a further missed opportunity for it to explain its position in relation to the external wall.
  8. The evidence provided shows that the landlord took no further action in relation to the repair until the resident raised a formal complaint about the lack of communication from the landlord. This highlights a lack of an effective system to track and monitor outstanding repairs. Landlords need to ensure they are not reliant on residents to chase repairs but instead are proactive in their response.
  9. Following the complaint the landlord raised an appointment for both the internal bathroom wall repairs but also to inspect the external wall. Given the resident’s concerns that the leak would reoccur, it was reasonable of the landlord to inspect the external wall while also repairing the internal bathroom wall.
  10. The landlord attended on 8 August 2024 to complete the works to the bathroom with a follow-up appointment arranged for 16 August 2024 to complete the tiling. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  11. It also found, on the same date, that the external wall required further investigation to prevent the issue reoccurring. On the same date the landlord also found many other repairs needed in the property, not pertinent to this investigation, but which meant the resident would need a decant before the landlord could complete them. While this would cause a delay in the landlord completing the repairs, major repairs require planning and therefore the delay at this stage was reasonable.
  12. Throughout the duration of the repair, the resident consistently raised that the bathroom was damp from the leak and crumbling plaster. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it acted upon those concerns, assessed the amount of damp, or considered if it could implement any temporary solutions while it repaired the issue. This is not appropriate, and it left the resident living with a damp bathroom for a significant period. Landlord’s need to ensure that where there are delays in completing repairs, it considers temporary measures to help alleviate the situation for its residents.
  13. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it accepted that it had delayed in rectifying and investigating the source of the leak. In apologising for its failings, it offered the resident a total of £350 for the overall delays and the time and trouble taken. It was appropriate of the landlord to acknowledge the failings and extensive delays. However, the amount offered does not reflect the impact of the landlord’s lack of communication and failings in this case, which spanned a period of over 12 months, during which time the resident was living with a crumbling wall and damp bathroom.
  14. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property and the associated repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 July 2024, which the landlord acknowledged, in line with its policy on the same date.
  2. It provided its stage 1 response on 2 August 2024, this was 16 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint and therefore, outside of its published timescale of 10 working days. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out that where a landlord cannot provide a response within the published timescales, it communicates this to a resident. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it did that in this case. This is not appropriate and ultimately delayed the resident pursing her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
  3. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 2 August 2024 which the landlord acknowledged, in line with its policy, on the same date.
  4. It provided its stage 2 response on 9 September 2024, 26 days after it had acknowledged the request and therefore 6 working days outside of its published timescale of 20 working days. Again, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the delay to the resident in line with the Code.
  5. While the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for the delay in its stage 2 response, this apology is not enough to avoid an adverse finding in this case.
  6. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £750, made up of the following:
    1. £350 previously offered by the landlord if it has not already paid this.
    2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    3. £100 for the lack of communication throughout.
    4. £25 for the delayed stage 1 response.
    5. £25 for the delayed stage 2 response.
  3. We understand that the works to the bathroom and back wall remain outstanding. Therefore, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must provide the resident and this service with a timebound action plan setting out how and when it will address the outstanding repairs.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.