London Borough of Camden Council (202429434)

Background

1. The resident’s complaint was in relation to the costs of using oil radiators and a dehumidifier following flooding in her property and having no radiators. The resident wanted the landlord to reimburse the additional electricity costs to her during that time.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request to reimburse her electricity costs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the electricity costs.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request to reimburse her electricity costs

4. The landlord failed to appropriately respond and consider the resident’s concerns about the outstanding electricity costs she had incurred. Its conflicting responses and lack of specific guidance on the matter, likely caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience in chasing a resolution.

The complaint

5. The landlord’s stage 2 response was slightly delayed. However, we do not consider this a failure which would amount to maladministration.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

6. The resident had a separate case with us under the reference 202342718 which was determined in July 2025. This was in relation to issues with the resident’s communal heating and leaks which resulted in flooding in her property. We found maladministration and made orders which included supporting the resident with an insurance claim and heating loss rebate. While this complaint is related to the issues which arose in the previous investigation, the scope of this investigation will primarily focus on the subsequent issue of the electricity costs. This is because we are unable to investigate matters that we have already considered. Any reference to the other complaints will be for contextual purposes only.
7. The landlord’s remedies policy says it will not consider remedies that could be settled by insurance claims. It says where there has been a supply failure of landlord-controlled heating, hot water or bulk gas supply it will consider a refund. The policy does not provide an agreed position for reimbursing residents when there is a requirement to run dehumidifiers or alternative heating in their homes. We have recommended the landlord consider implementing this into its remedies policy, this would help with clarity and consistency in relation to such requests.
8. The resident said she raised her concerns about the costs of running the dehumidifiers when the landlord provided them in February 2024 and was told she would be reimbursed for the costs. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, we have not seen evidence of this communication between the resident and the landlord. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident when installing the dehumidifier and oil radiators of the potential costs and if it would consider reimbursing her for any increases in her utility bills.
9. From the evidence provided, we can see the resident raised concerns on more than one occasion regarding the additional electricity costs. On 24 May 2024, the landlord informed the resident it had passed on her enquiry to a staff member to see if they could deal with the electricity reimbursement request. It said if additional expenses were incurred as a result of having no heating in the property over the past 5 weeks, the resident would need to provide utility bills which show the difference in costs, for the housing team to consider.
10. On 21 June 2024 the landlord’s insurance team asked the resident to provide an itemised list of the damaged items she was claiming for. The resident provided the list and the insurance team made an offer the same day. It said the offer was on a without prejudice basis and was in full and final settlement of the matter. The resident accepted the offer. She signed a formconfirming she would not contact any other department to make a claim regarding the same incident.
11. On 24 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord regarding her gas rebate. The landlord responded to say she would not be able to receive such rebate until it had fully restored the service, this is because it would need to know the period over which it should be calculated. It said an insurance claim was the correct way to address damage in her property and any further damages or outstanding forms of redress would happen once it had completed the works in her property.
12. Contrary to the landlord’s complaint responses and upon review of the communication at the time, it was reasonable for the resident to believe the landlord would address any reimbursement for her utility costs, including electricity, once the works were completed. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had compensated the resident for all her claims, but the compensation and settlement was awarded in June 2024. The resident was still using oil radiators until September 2024. It did not consider its own correspondence which said any outstanding forms of redress would happen once it had completed the works.
13. In its stage 2 response dated 11 November 2024 the landlord suggested the resident consider the compensation already awarded for distress and inconvenience as part of her settlement of her case. This was not appropriate, the insurance claim was separate, and the landlord should be mindful of using legal phrases in its complaint responses such as “settlement”. This could be misleading and cause the resident to believe there was no further recourse regarding her complaints outside of the insurance claim.
14. The landlord also stated that in assessing compensation it was seeking to return her to a position of equity. If this was the case, then as per its email on 24 May 2024,it would have been reasonable forthelandlord to have reviewed the additional electricity costs which the resident said she had incurred as a result of its identified failings.
15. In an email to the resident the day after the stage 2 response the landlord said it had been “minded to consider such sums” for the electricity, but the wording of the insurance settlement made it feel it could not. We can appreciate the landlord’s interpretation of the wording of the settlement offer. However, it did not acknowledge the resident’s email to it on 5 November 2024 in which she said she sought clarification from the insurance officer. She said the officer confirmed the offer did not include her gas and electric costs as those would be dealt with separately and once the landlord had reinstated the radiators in her property. We have not seen evidence of this, but we can see the settlement and claim was only related to damaged items in the property.
16. We found the landlord’s communication to the resident did not manage her expectations and its responses were confusing. The landlord had the opportunity to clarify with the insurance team if it had changed its position on reimbursing the resident and we cannot see that it sufficiently did so. This led to delays in reaching a resolution and the resident bringing her complaint to us.
17. In ordering £150 compensation, we have considered the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays and conflicting information provided. This is in line with our remedies guidance.
18. Taking into account what would be fair and reasonable, we have also ordered the landlord to reimburse the resident’s additional electricity costs.

19. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
20. We have not seen whether the landlord acknowledged either of the resident’s complaints, however it provided its stage 1 response within 8 working days, which was appropriate. It provided its stage 2 response within 22 working days, which was slightly outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and our Code. As the delay was not significant and had no impact on the outcome of the complaint, we have not considered this a failing which would amount to maladministration. The landlord should reflect on how acknowledging the complaint would have helped to manage expectations and if there were delays, it should ensure it communicates them to the resident as soon as possible.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping. Although it does appear the landlord missed some key information when investigating the complaint, such as its own emails to the resident regarding the electricity costs. The landlord should reflect on the reasons for that and ensure its records are easily accessible to all relevant staff members.

Communication

22. In her formal complaint the resident said she had sent emails in July, August and September 2024 to the officer she was told would be dealing with the issues and did not receive a response. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and said the officer did not work in finance so would not have been able to provide a response to her. The landlord could have considered the learning it could take from the communication failure and what it could have done differently. As highlighted above, it could also have considered the previous correspondence to the resident where she was informed the officer in question would be dealing with her request.