Camden Council (201910624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910624

Camden Council

29 January 2021

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 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 the renewal of the boundary wall;
response to the erection of a CCTV camera on the boundary wall by a third party;
response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the render at the property; and
complaint handling and record keeping.

Jurisdiction

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder at the property, a two-bedroom split level flat. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord would acknowledge within two working days and formally respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision and this would be acknowledged within two working days and a response provided within 25 working days.
The lease agreement states under Clause 3 Section 2(a) that subject to the payment of the rent and service charge the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the external walls at the property. The landlord’s housing repairs service guide outlines that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the outside of the home.
The landlord’s housing repairs service guide states that repairs need to be performed within a specific period of time. Routine repairs need to be completed by the landlord within 20 working days from when they are reported. Larger and more complex programmed repairs that are subject to leaseholder consultation or involve specialist works must be completed within an agreed timescale.

Summary of events

There have been ongoing issues regarding the resident’s boundary wall at the property since 2017. The boundary wall is on the western side of the property and neighbours a laneway/entrance road. It has been decided by the landlord and resident that the wall needs to be replaced and there has been a large volume of communications between the resident and the landlord on different issues including the cost and specific design and technical questions. This investigation will only focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint regarding the boundary wall and issues that have completed the landlord’s complaint procedure.
The resident initially contacted this service in November 2019 as part of a lease holder group that were having individual repairs issues with the landlord. This was also submitted to the Property Ombudsman. This service informed the resident that we could only look at her individual complaint. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 2 December 2019, and it became apparent that the issues had not formally been raised with the landlord or completed its complaints procedure.
On 17 April 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord and outlined issues with the boundary wall at the property and the landlord’s handling of the issues. She highlighted that the process had been ongoing for over two years and the landlord had ‘learnt nothing’ from another wall that previously had to be replaced. The resident stated that there were reoccurring issues with the rendering at the property, contractors had been out multiple times to fix bubbling that had emerged. She highlighted that the neighbour had installed a CCTV camera on the boundary wall without the landlord providing permission
On 22 April 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a statutory notice of intention to carry out works on the retaining wall. The works detailed demolition of the wall, excavating topsoil, forming new foundations, raising a new boundary wall, liquid waterproofing, brick capping to match existing wall, landscaping and repairs and redecoration. The resident was asked to inspect the proposal, make observations and nominate a contractor if she wished.
On 26 April 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and provided comments about to the statutory intention to carry out works. The resident raised several technical and practical questions for the landlord to answer including cost, design and timeframe. The landlord provided a detailed response to the resident on the 16 June 2020. The landlord stated that the cost of the wall would be split between the resident and the landlord and that works would hopefully start in July 2020.
The landlord advised the resident that it would attempt to provide its formal stage one response within 10 days but due to the current COVID situation it may take 20 working days.
On 15 May 2020, the landlord provided the resident with its formal stage one complaint response. The landlord addressed the following issues:
1. Boundary wall – the landlord acknowledged that the process in getting the repair to tender had been a long one and during this period it has consulted with the resident regarding options for the wall and its impact. The landlord highlight steps that it had taken since the start of the repair:
  1. External consultants received instruction from the landlord in March 2017 requesting inspection and a report. A structural engineer inspected the wall in April 2017, a measured survey was undertaken and the engineer attended the site on numerous occasions.
  2. In April 2017, the resident was given the option to repair or rebuild the wall but the resident raised issues about losing space, the landlord assured the resident that there would be minimal loss under the scheme.
  3. In March 2018, the landlord attended the property and had a tree removed to prevent further cracking in the wall.
  4. The resident inquired about buying the freehold and the landlord investigated this idea.
  5. The resident was sent options/drawings for the repair/rebuild and consideration was given to the repair option.
  6. In October 2018, engineering tests were carried out to determine if repairing was an option however rebuilding became the most reliable option.
  7. In January 2019, two options were sent to the resident but concerns were raised. The resident requested their own engineer which the landlord agreed to.
  8. In March 2019, the resident requested that further investigation be carried out to whether the neighbour was partly responsible for the damage to the wall. Tests discovered that the neighbours were not responsible and the resident was not able to encroach further on neighbouring land as the new boundary wall needed to follow the line of ownership.
  9. Images of the investigation were sent to the resident as well as a summary of the options for comment. In early 2020, formal consultation commenced.
2. CCTV – it advised that the wall is owned by the landlord and is not in shared ownership with the neighbour and it had no right to fix its camera to it. It stated that it would contact the neighbour and ask for the CCTV and road sign to be removed considering the wall is going to be replaced. It apologised for the delay and agreed to update the resident on the progress.
3. Render –it stated that the contract manager had already been to look at the issues and identified a couple areas which it had agreed to fix. It highlighted that the problem areas were different to the ones previously fixed as part of the rendering issues.
On 18 May 2020, the resident raised that she was not happy with the landlord’s response and would like to escalate the complaint. She stated that she only ever received apologies for its delays which does not compensate for the distress and inconvenience. The resident raised the issue with the boundary wall and why the foundation cannot be put on the neighboring side and why it cannot contribute to the cost. The resident claimed that vehicles passing caused vibrations that damaged the wall. The resident also raised issues regarding the height of the wall.
On 28 May 2020, the landlord issued it final stage two response to the resident. It stated that its stage one response ‘explained the council’s position, regarding your on-going concerns’ and that escalation to the review stage would not provide any additional information or the outcome desired by the resident. The landlord apologised for previous delays and assured that it would liaise with the resident during the consultation period for the boundary wall.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 June 2020 and inquired about when she would be receiving a response to her complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 June 2020 and stated that work on the boundary would not go ahead in July 2020 and progress would depend on restrictions on work as a result of the pandemic and contractor resourcing. The landlord clarified that the neighbour had no responsibility to contribute to these works as the wall is wholly owned by the landlord. The landlord assured the resident that the height of the wall would not be increased. It acknowledged that the works had taken an extended period to get to this stage however, it had been in discussion with the resident at numerous site visits with regards to options regarding the wall. It did not accept that there has been mismanagement of the process.
On 24 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and asked her to remove the CCTV camera from the property. The resident responded on 2 July 2020 and expressed that it was her that made the landlord aware of the CCTV camera and road sign that was installed on the resident’s wall and it was put there by a neighbour without the resident’s permission. The resident suggested that as the landlord was already in discussions with the neighbour regarding the boundary wall it should ask the neighbours to remove it.
On the 11 August 2020, the resident requested an update from the landlord in relation to the CCTV issue. The resident contacted the landlord again on 29 September 2020 with no response.
On 17 August 2020, this service sent the landlord an information request including details of the rendering at the property. This service asked for a diagram showing where the previous render repair was, and where the new repair is now required. This service also requested that the landlord address if it had appropriately addressed these repairs issues individually in line with its repair’s guidelines. This information was to be provided by 7 September 2020 however the landlord asked for an extension until the 11 September 2020.
On 21 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and raised technical issues with the boundary wall including cost, hight, design and location. The resident raised that nothing has been done to remove the CCTV and sign from the wall.
On the 11 September 2020, this service contacted the landlord as it had failed to provide the information requested on 17 August 2020. The Ombudsman asked that the landlord provide the documents by 25 September 2020 but they were not provided.
This service contacted the resident in January 2021 regarding issues with the rendering. The resident stated that there had been ongoing issues with the landlord attending 6 times since 2015. The resident was unable to provide a date in which the works were completed but acknowledged that the works had been performed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the renewal of the boundary wall.

This service is not in a position to resolve the dispute around the cost, design or location of the boundary wall. These issues are something that only a court or tribunal have sufficient powers to decide on. This service will investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the boundary wall and if it handled the dispute in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The evidence demonstrates that when the landlord first became aware of the issue in March 2017, it arranged for external consultants to inspect the wall and make sure that it was safe. A structural engineer then inspected the wall in April 2017 and a measured survey and report was conducted. The landlord took reasonable steps to ensure that there was no immediate threat to the resident or their home complying with its obligation under the lease agreement.
One of the resident’s main complaints is that it has taken the landlord over two years to get to the tendering stage of the wall construction. The evidence shows that the landlord and resident have been in ongoing discussions regarding the reconstruction of the boundary wall as highlighted in paragraph 12 above. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, programmed works do not have a set timeline due to the varying complexity of repairs and the landlord’s responsibility to consult with the resident regarding the works. The evidence shows that the resident has made multiple comments and suggestions and asked the landlord to investigate several different avenues in regards to the reconstruction of the wall. Overall, the landlord has taken approprate steps to engage with the resident about the required works and there is no evidence of service failure for the length of time it has taken.
The landlord has taken proactive steps including the investigation of repair over reconstruction, responsibility of payment, tests determining fault, tree removal and location, design and planning. It is accepted that each stage these issues have caused delay to the completion of the works however, the landlord has communicated with the resident at each stage of the process and sought input in line with its policies and procedures. There were further delays to construction due to the Covid-19 pandemic with government regulations and policies affecting the works. The landlord effectively communicated this delay to the resident and apologised for the continuing delays.

The landlord’s response to the erection of a CCTV camera on the boundary wall by a third party.

The resident informed the landlord on 17 April 2020 that the neighbour had installed a CCTV camera on the boundary wall without the landlord’s permission. In the landlord’s stage one response it acknowledged that it had not given the third-party permission and that it would ask them to remove the CCTV camera and street sign. The landlord failed to have the camera and sign removed and the resident had to ask for a progress update three times between May and August 2020 and received no response from the landlord. It is unclear if this issue has been resolved however the landlord failed in its obligation to keep the boundary wall free from obstruction as agreed and to address the issue in line with its policies and procedures.

The resident’s reports of repairs to the render at the property.

The evidence suggests that there have been ongoing issues with the bubbling of rendering at the property. The landlord has an obligation under the lease agreement for the repair and maintenance of the external walls at the property. The resident informed the landlord of the new patches that needed rendering on 17 April 2020, the landlord sent out a contractor to assess the issues on 15 May 2020 and agreed to fix the issue. It is unclear from the documentation provided if the repairs were complete within the 20-days timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The resident acknowledged that the repair had been completed but could not say if it complied with the repair’s timelines. As the landlord has not provided the requested evidence that it completed the works within its prescribed timelines, this represents a service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

It should be noted that there was significant confusion in regards to this matter as the resident made a complaint directly to this service before completing the landlord’s complaints process. Communication was then sent to this service rather than directly to either party which caused initial delay in the complaint being addressed through the landlord’s complaint procedure.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, if the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord should formally respond within 10 working days. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident was made on 17 April 2020 and the landlord supplying a formal response on 15 May 2020. This represents a 14-working day delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage one response. The landlord failed to provide any explanation other than an apology for the delay and the resident had to chase up the response. The length of time that passed was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s policies and evidently caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The resident asked for a review of the decision on the 18 May 2020. The landlord progressed the complaint and provided its stage two final response on 28 May 2020 in line with its complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of:
1. The complaint about the landlord’s response to the erection of a CCTV camera on the boundary wall by a third party;
2. The complaint about the resident’s reports of repairs to the render at the property; and
3. The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the renewal of the boundary wall.

Reasons

When the landlord first became aware of the boundary wall issue it took reasonable steps to ensure that there was no immediate threat to the resident or their home. It is accepted that the repair has taken a long period of time to complete however this was partly due to the landlord fulfilling its obligations to consult with the resident. The landlord engaged with the resident at every step of the process and investigated multiple options for consideration. The landlord effectively communicated about the delays and apologised for the length of time it has taken.

It is evident that the landlord had an obligation to have the CCTV camera removed from the boundary wall. The landlord was made aware of the issue and failed to have it properly rectified within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s failure to have it removed caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.

It is not disputed that the landlord had an obligation under the lease agreement to repair the rendering at the property. The landlord completed the repair at the property however failed to evidence that it had completed works within its prescribed timelines.

The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies because it failed to complete stage one of the complaint’s procedure within the correct 10-day time frame and failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the delay.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 comprising:

£50 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the complaint about the landlord’s response to the erection of a CCTV camera on the boundary wall.
£50 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the render at the property.
£50 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the highlighted complaint handling delay.

The landlord facilitate the removal of the CCTV and sign.

The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has been made and removal completed.

Recommendations

Provide the resident with copies of the landlord’s complaints and repairs policy.
The landlord to take steps to ensure that its repair staff and contractors are maintaining detailed records of the results of its repairs appointments.
The landlord to establish a system of record keeping that ensures that all contact from a resident (and any representatives) is recorded and retained.
The landlord should review its complaints policy – earlier this year, the Ombudsman published a Complaint Handling Code which provides a framework for high-quality complaint handling and greater consistency across landlord’s complaint procedures. This applies to all members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It will enable landlord’s to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. It sets out good practice for the sector that will allow landlord’s to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code will help residents in knowing what to expect from their landlord when they make a complaint and how to progress their complaint. Non-compliance with the Code could result in the Ombudsman issuing complaint handling failure orders. The Code can be found here: https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/ComplaintHandling-Code.pdf