London Borough of Camden Council (202442504)

Background

1. The property is a 2 bedroom maisonette. The resident lives with her husband. She has been assisted through the complaints process by a third party support worker, who has represented her with this service. For the purposes of the report, we will refer to both the resident and the representative as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of reports of no heating and hot water
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of no heating and hot water.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of reports of no heating and hot water

4. The landlord raised repairs and contractors attended promptly on most occasions. There were some occasions where the landlord failed to attend within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The landlord communicated poorly with the resident and did not manage her expectations about when a new heating system would be installed.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not comply with the response timescales set out in its complaints policy. It failed to address all points raised by the resident in its responses and there was confusion within the landlord about the handling of this complaint. This led to a confusing and frustrating experience for the resident.

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.

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.

6. The landlord’s repairs policy says emergency (out of hours) repairs should be attended within 2 hours and emergency (daytime) repairs should be attended before 8pm the same day. Emergency repairs are those where the issue poses a danger to people or property. The landlord’s policy indicates it treats a total or partial loss of space or water heating (no heating, no hot water, or both) between 1 November and 30 April as an emergency repair. Under Right To Repair legislation, the response time required for loss of heat or hot water in the winter months is 1 working day. The policy says that any non-emergency repairs raised under Right To Repair are urgent and should be completed within 3 working days.
7. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 (“Homes Act 2018”) places an obligation on landlords to ensure properties are fit for human habitation, and a duty to repair faults within a reasonable time. This includes ensuring there is a suitable supply of hot and cold water and that there is not excess cold or excess heat.
8. While the resident has referred to problems with the heating system occurring over several years this investigation will only consider events that occurred 12 months prior to the formal complaint of 27 November 2024. This is in line with our Scheme which expects residents to make a complaint within 12 months of the matter arising. This also reflects the repairs records provided by the landlord which shows repairs being raised from 8 January 2024 onwards.
9. Repair records show that there were 6 repairs raised for communal heating between January 2024 and January 2025. 3 of these repairs were raised as standard repairs and contractors attended within 1 day. On each of these occasions the contractors flushed the system and left the heating working. It is evident the landlord responded to these repairs promptly and took appropriate action to restore heating. 
10. Emergency repairs were raised on 2 occasions. It is unclear from the available records why these repairs were classed as emergencies and the others were not, as they all related to a loss of heating. An emergency repair was raised on 12 January 2024 and a contractor attended the same day and restored heat and hot water to the property. On 22 January 2024 an emergency repair was raised for the communal heating. A contractor attended on 23 January 2024. The contractor reported that no one had been home but they had accessed the roof, adjusted the balancing valve on the riser, flushed the system, and left it operational. Although the contractor attended promptly, it did not attend within the timescales for an emergency repair.
11. Another repair for the communal heating was raised on 10 January 2025. This was raised as a standard repair, however the booking notes show that the contractor was asked to attend as an emergency. The contractor attended on 13 January 2025, which was the next working day. This was within the timeframes for a standard repair, but was not within the timeframe for an emergency repair.
12. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the resident’s concern that the previous repairs were a stop gap and that the same problems might reoccur, requiring the system to be flushed periodically. However, it did not offer a clear explanation as to what the cause of the issue was. It did tell the resident that planning permission had been granted for a new heating and hot water system with modern controls. This shows that the landlord recognised that the existing system was not functioning as it should and needed to be replaced. However, it did not provide the resident with any more information about when this new system would be installed. This information would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
13. The landlord also said in its stage 2 response that there had been a major leak during the time the resident experienced issues but that all the issues were now resolved. It did not provide any explanation as to how this leak was relevant to the resident’s heating issues or how it had been fixed.
14. The landlord was generally responsive to the resident’s reports of loss of heating and hot water. It attended repairs raised as standard repairs within 1 working day and attended an emergency repair the same day.
15. However, it failed to attend another emergency repair within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It also raised another repair as a standard repair but asked that it be treated as an emergency repair. This creates uncertainty around what the expected response time should have been. The landlord was also unclear in its communication with the resident. It did not provide enough information to manage the resident’s expectations and provided some information without explaining why it was relevant. We consider these failures to be service failure.
16. The landlord has previously offered the resident a heating rebate for the periods that her heating was not working. In recognition of the service failures identified in this investigation, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £75. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for service failure.

17. The landlord’s complaints policy says stage 1 responses should be provided within 10 working days and stage 2 responses should be provided within 20 working days.
18. The resident submitted her complaint in an email on 27 November 2024. This was acknowledged by the landlord who advised the email would be passed to the Head of Repairs who would provide a response. The resident did not receive a response. She sent a further email to the landlord on 17 December 2024 asking to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she had not received a response.
19. The resident then received 2 emails on 18 December 2024 from the landlord acknowledging submission of an online complaint form. A further email provided a reference number and said a response was due by 6 January 2025. A final email said there had been an IT glitch resulting in duplication of complaints and one had been closed and one was still open for investigation.
20. In an email to the landlord on 1 January 2025, the resident said she did not submit an online form. She also said that she first submitted a complaint on 22 November 2024 but had not received any response, we have not been provided with evidence of this complaint.
21. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 January 2025. This was 27 working days after the resident’s email of 27 November 2024. This was outside the timeframe of 10 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
22. In its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident that her complaint was upheld because of the intermittent loss service but that there was no evidence of service failure. It failed to recognise its complaint handling failures and the delay in providing a response.
23. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 January 2025. She received an email on the same day confirming receipt. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 21 March 2025. This was 48 working days after the resident request a stage 2 escalation. This was significantly outside the timeframe of 20 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy which was not appropriate.
24. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident at any stage throughout the complaints process to tell her the complaint responses would be delayed or explaining why.
25. In its responses, the landlord failed to acknowledge all points raised by the resident. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns that the issue had been ongoing for several years. In her initial complaint, the resident listed a large number of properties which she claimed to be writing on behalf of. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this or provided its position on group complaints.
26. In emails to the landlord, the resident said she found the complaints process confusing and unclear and that she had been provided with conflicting information, including different reference numbers and responses relating to the same complaint. The evidence and available records provided to us also shows that there was confusion within the landlord around when the resident first submitted her complaint, what stage it was at, and who was responsible for dealing with it. This shows that the complaint was handled poorly.
27. The landlord’s complaint handling failures caused the resident distress, frustration, and inconvenience. The confusion around the resident’s complaint and the delays in providing responses caused the complaints process to be drawn out and caused the resident time and trouble.
28. In recognition of these failures, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £100. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration.

Learning

29. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out 3 stages. Referral to the Ombudsman is set out as Stage 3 of the complaints process. This is not accurate and may cause confusion as we are not a stage in the landlord’s complaints process. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is clear that internal complaints processes should have 2 stages.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord demonstrated poor record keeping in this case, especially in its complaint handling. It may be beneficial for the landlord to consider how it can improve its record keeping to ensure complaints are logged and tracked appropriately and responses provided in line with its policy.
31. The landlord must ensure its records are accurate and detailed. This would enable it to demonstrate what action it has taken to resolve the issues and inform its communication with residents.

Communication

32. There were failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident. The landlord failed to update the resident on the delayed complaint response or tell her when she would receive a response.
33. The landlord is encouraged to consider how it may proactively communicate with residents, both during the complaints process and where there is an issue which may impact their property.