London Borough of Camden Council (202442744)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442744

Camden Council

25 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 submitted 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s property.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a high-rise block. He has held the lease since 2006 and lives alone. The landlord told us it is not aware of any vulnerabilities.
In May 2024 the resident discovered a leak coming from the flat above. He said he reported this to the landlord. The resident reported the leak again in June and July. Despite multiple attempts by the landlord to rectify the leak, it continued.
On 3 September 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said despite multiple visits it had failed to address the source of the leak. The resident stated his electricity had been turned off and his home was no longer habitable.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 September 2024. It apologised for the delays in locating the source of the leak and provided the resident with a link to make a claim for any damage caused. It said it would arrange for the repairs to be completed as soon as possible.
The resident escalated his complaint on 15 October 2024 and said the leak had not been repaired. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 November 2024. It apologised again for the delay and said it would provide him with a plan of action within 10 working days. The landlord advised the resident to complete an insurance claim form and offered the resident £600 compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has informed us how the issues have impacted his health. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

The landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s property

The resident’s lease sets out the repair responsibilities for the property. The landlord is responsible for the repair to the structure of the block and the communal areas. The resident is responsible for repairs within his property.
The flat above the resident’s property is occupied by a tenant of the landlord and will be referred to as the neighbour within this report. The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy state the landlord is responsible for repairs to the water supply within the neighbour’s property.
The resident told us he first noticed the leak coming through his ceiling in May 2024. He said he spoke to the neighbour who agreed there was a problem, and they would report it to the landlord. He said a few days later the leak was still there, and he reported it to the landlord himself. The landlord does not have a record of this report. However, the landlord’s records show the neighbour reported water was not draining away in their wet room on 21 June 2024. This was followed by a report 4 days later from the resident. This would suggest the leak first became apparent in June 2024.
Following the resident’s report on 25 June 2024, the landlord attended the neighbour’s property the same day and replaced the shower. The job was marked as closed. The landlord’s repairs policy states emergency repairs will be attended on the day they are reported. The landlord’s response time was in line with its policy.
However, the resident contacted the landlord again on 12 July 2024 and asked when the leak would be repaired. At this point the resident had been experiencing the leak for over 2 weeks. There is no evidence the landlord took steps to understand the extent of the leak and the damage being caused to the resident’s property. The landlord attempted to attend the neighbour’s property on 12 and 15 July 2024 but there was answer. The landlord attended the neighbour’s property again on 16 July 2024 and the neighbour informed it that there was no longer an issue. The job was closed down without checking with the resident that the leak had stopped. This was unreasonable.
Later that day the resident contacted the landlord by phone and webchat to report the leak had not stopped and damage was being caused to his property. He told the landlord:
1. He was 63 years old and had disabilities.
2. He had tried to send photos of the damage to the repair team WhatsApp number, but the messages were not being accepted.
3. He did not know how to use the online account that the landlord was directing him to use.
During the webchat the landlord tried to contact the neighbour by phone. The resident said he could hear their phone ringing on the balcony, but the neighbour would not answer it as they were not interested in helping him. The landlord advised it would continue to try and arrange access to repair the leak.
There is no evidence the landlord tried to contact the neighbour following the webchat with the resident or raise a further repair.
On 26 July 2024 the resident reported to the landlord the water was affecting his electrics. The landlord attended his property the same day and turned off his electricity supply. On the same day, the landlord raised a job to repair the leak and gave it an urgent priority rating with a 5-day timescale. This was 10 days after the landlord had been made aware the leak was still ongoing during the webchat. Given the landlord knew the resident had no electricity in his property, the leak had been ongoing for a month, and the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the priority given to the new repair was unreasonable.
The resident told us he moved out of the property when the electricity was turned off as it was not habitable. It is unclear whether the landlord was made aware of this at the time. However, the landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable and had no electricity at his property at this time.
The landlord attended the neighbour’s property on 29 July 2024. The landlord’s notes stated there was a leak to the radiator in the bathroom and a return visit would be required. The notes did not record the extent the radiator was leaking and whether the leak could be responsible for the extensive damage and disruption the resident was experiencing below.
While the landlord raised further jobs in relation to the neighbour’s wet room on 29 July and 7 August 2024, none of these included repairing a leaking radiator in the bathroom. It is not clear when the leaking radiator was resolved.
The landlord attempted to attend the neighbour’s property on 10 occasions between 7 August and 9 September 2024. On 7 of these occasions the landlord was unable to obtain access. It is not clear from the notes why the other 3 appointments did not take place.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that under the conditions of the tenancy agreement it can force entry to a property to carry out an emergency repair. The tenancy agreement places an obligation on the tenant to allow the landlord access to carry out repairs. Despite the number of no access visits the landlord had carried out, there is no evidence that it considered taking enforcement action under the tenancy agreement.
On 3 September 2024 the resident formally complained to the landlord. He said:
1. The leak had not been stopped since he first reported it.
2. His neighbour was “difficult to communicate with” regarding the issue.
3. He had spoken to various landlord departments to try and resolve the matter.
4. Despite the landlord visiting the neighbour’s property several times, the leak had not been resolved.
5. His home became uninhabitable when the electricity was turned off and he had to move into temporary rented accommodation.
6. The bathroom ceiling collapsed on 22 August 2024 as a result of the leak.
7. He wanted the leak to be stopped and for the landlord to compensate him for the damage, inconvenience and expense it had caused him.
The landlord accessed the neighbour’s property on 11 September 2024. The job notes recorded there was a leak to a pipe behind the boxing in and the job needed to be done “ASAP” as it was leaking into the flat below.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 September 2024 and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said repair efforts had been delayed by the neighbour on multiple occasions, and it had repaired a leaking radiator. The landlord said further investigations had been needed and it had identified the source of the leak. It said it would arrange for the repairs to be completed as soon as possible. The landlord signposted the resident to an online link to make a claim for compensation.
The landlord raised a job to inspect the underfloor piping at the neighbour’s property the same day. However, this was 6 days after the source of the leak was discovered. This was an unreasonable delay given the urgency of the situation.
The landlord attempted to gain access to the neighbour’s property 5 times between 19 September and 14 October 2024. On 4 of those occasions access was denied by the neighbour not answering or refusing to allow the works to take place. During this time the landlord’s records show the resident contacted it on multiple occasions to chase the repair and reiterate he was unable to live in his home. There is no evidence the landlord gave the resident any meaningful update following these calls.
On 15 October 2024 the resident escalated his complaint with the landlord. He said the lack of response, the delays and the poor management of the repair, had caused extensive damage to his property.
The landlord attempted to gain access to the neighbour’s property again on 25 October 2024. The landlord’s records state the resident was home but did not want the work doing so the appointment did not go ahead.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 November 2024 and said it upheld the resident’s complaint. It committed to providing the resident with a plan of action within 10 working days, including timescales and attached a claim form for the resident to complete. The landlord also offered the resident £600 compensation, made up of:
1. £200 for distress.
2. £400 for “risk of harm”.
The evidence shows despite the commitment made by the landlord in its response to provide the resident with a plan of action, it failed to do so. The resident repeatedly called the landlord for updates throughout November and December 2024. Recordings of the calls were provided to us. The recordings clearly articulate the resident’s desperation for the issue to be resolved. On more than one occasion he said the effect of the situation made him feel taking his own life was the only answer. It is appreciated handling such calls would be difficult for the landlord’s call handling staff. However, the resident was not given any meaningful update as to when the repair would take place during or following the call. This lack of meaningful response demonstrated a lack of empathy on the part of the landlord.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 27 November 2024 to remind them of their obligations under the tenancy agreement and its ability to force entry to the property if they did not cooperate. It is not clear what happened next. The resident told us the repair was eventually completed around April 2025. The landlord states the repair was completed in February 2025. However, the resident’s property remains uninhabitable and he is still in temporary accommodation at the date of this report.
The evidence shows there were significant delays in identifying the source of the leak to the resident’s property and effecting the repair. While some of the delays were due to access being the denied by the neighbour, the landlord failed to demonstrate it had an effective plan to escalate the issue when the neighbour’s co-operation started to be withdrawn.
The lack of an effective plan to take action to prevent the leak damaging the resident’s property led to the situation deteriorating. It initially caused damage to the property and led to the electrical supply being cut. The situation then reached a point where the property became unsafe when the ceiling collapsed. This led to the property becoming uninhabitable and the resident being forced to move out.
The landlord failed to recognise the urgency of the situation when its initial repairs failed to stop the leak. The landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable and by July 2024, his property was uninhabitable. The landlord failed to demonstrate empathy for his situation and failed to provide him with any updates as to when the situation would be resolved. This caused great distress and inconvenience to the resident which was evident in his communication with the landlord.
It was appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to make a claim through its insurers in these circumstances. While the landlord was responsible for fixing the leak, it is not usually responsible for repairs within a leaseholder’s property. However, the prolonged delays to completing the repair impacted the extent to which the resident’s property was damaged.
The evidence shows an incremental amount of damage was caused to the resident’s property the longer the period of time it took the landlord to conduct a repair to the leak. This culminated in the property becoming uninhabitable, which can be traced back to the failure to stop water ingress into the resident’s property.
The damage would not have been as severe had the landlord effected the required repairs in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord should have reasonably foreseen the potential for damage due to the ongoing leak through the ceiling of the property.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The evidence shows the landlord did not fully accept its failings within the complaint responses. It’s offer of compensation was lower than our remedies guidance for cases where there had been a severe long-term impact on the resident and was significantly below what we consider to be appropriate to remedy the distress and inconvenience cause by what was a significant failure by the landlord.
The combination of failings detailed above, together with the delays to affect a resolution, lead to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s property. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £2,000 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that have a severe long-term impact on the resident and the landlord has failed to put things right and learn from outcomes.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from its Chief Executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £2,000 compensation for its failings in handling a leak to the resident’s property.
3. Attend the resident’s property to assess the extent of the damage caused to the property by its failings. With the resident’s agreement it must consider what internal remedial works it is willing to complete, or fund, to put right the damage caused. It should write to the resident to confirm its decision, giving a full explanation. If it decides not to complete any internal works, it should provide every assistance to him with making a claim via the landlord’s liability insurers, should the resident wish to do so. The landlord should provide us with a copy of the notes or report made from the visit to evidence this.
4. Provide the resident with every assistance with making a claim via the landlord’s liability insurers for the expenses he has incurred during this period and the damage to his personal belongings, should the resident wish to do so. The landlord should provide us with copies of any emails, notes, or letters to evidence this.
Due to the failures in communication experienced during the complaints process, the landlord should provide the resident a single point of contact as part of the compliance with orders and as a point of liaison for any subsequent works.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance of the orders in the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord consider a refund of the appropriate service charges and ground fees under the terms of paragraph 5.2 of the lease. The landlord should consider the period the property was uninhabitable (from 26 July 2024 until the date the property is made habitable).
It is recommended the landlord refer the resident to the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) in order to obtain independent advice while he remains unable to occupy his property.