Camden Council (202120034)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120034

Camden Council

23 June 2023

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:
1. Response to reports of the lift being out of order.
2. Handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy from 28 January 2019 with the landlord who is a local authority. The property is a flat on the second floor of a block of flats.
The resident is vulnerable, reporting he has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and arthritis. He also has a service dog.
The landlord is responsible for repairs to the communal lift. The landlord’s website says that it aims to repair lift breakdowns as soon as it can, and once a repair has been logged, an engineer will attend within 3 hours, or as soon as possible. Is says it will do its best to get the lift working again straight away, but sometimes if the repair is very complicated, or parts need to be ordered and delivered, that is not always possible.
The landlord says that if the lift is not working for 3 days or more, it will write to residents and tell them the date when it expects to have it fixed. If the repairs are delayed for any reason, it will write to them again to let them know. It adds that the date given for the lift to be put back in service is an estimated date given by the lift contractor and may change due to circumstances outside the landlord’s control. The website asks residents who are vulnerable or who need support whilst the lift is not working to contact the housing officer.
The landlord’s essential repairs transfers procedure provides guidance for when residents have to move out of their homes, either temporarily or permanently, to allow repairs to be carried out in the property. If there are disability issues, the advice of the housing and health occupational therapist can be sought. Any special needs of a resident, affecting their ability to cope with staying at the property while works are carried out, are considered. The landlord will consider whether to decant a resident on either a temporary or permanent basis in discussion with them, and this will also depend on the length of time work is expected to take and the availability of accommodation.
The landlord offers a floating support service for residents who need support and help because they may be at risk of losing their tenancy, or their quality of life is affected. If a resident is referred to the service, a support worker will visit to make an assessment and write out a plan for working with the resident and liaise with the housing officer.
The landlord has a 2 stage corporate complaints policy which says it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a final response within 25 working days. It asks residents to submit the complaint within 12 months after the date of the incident. The landlord will issue a remedy payment if appropriate. The relevant payments are £25 per month for a failure to provide a service; £100 to £300 for distress (severe and prolonged up to £1000); £100 to £300 for time and trouble; £20 per month for delays; up to £500 for risk of harm; £150 to £350 for unsuitable accommodation.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman previously completed an investigation on 3 April 2021 following a complaint from the resident about his landlord. The Ombudsman considered the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB), reports about the lift being out of order, and complaint handling. In its report, the Ombudsman considered events reported to the landlord from June 2019 to November 2020.
The investigation found maladministration in respect of the reports that the lift was not working, finding unreasonable delays to undertake repairs. The landlord failed to consider temporarily relocating the resident having previously offered to do so. This meant the resident experienced distress and inconvenience by having to use the stairs regularly to take his service dog out of the building each day. The report recommended that if there was another lift breakdown, the landlord should contact the resident to establish whether he required any assistance with his service dog and take appropriate action to assist.
In the previous investigation, the Ombudsman found the lift was not repaired until at least November 2020. The information received from the landlord shows it sent a letter to residents on 4 December 2020 with an estimated date of 9 December 2020 for the lift to be back in service. It is not clear from the landlord’s repairs log and letters exactly when the lift was back in service or whether the lift had worked at all during this period.
The information received from the landlord shows that throughout December 2020 and January 2021, there were intermittent faults with the lift, where it was not moving, it did not stop on a particular floor, or the doors would not open. On 4 January 2021, there is a note in the repairs log stating that the tradesperson attending strongly recommended that the company who installed the doors should return as the lift doors were still under warranty.
There continued to be issues reported throughout January 2021 and February 2021. The landlord noted it would attend and was able to leave the lift back in service on most of these occasions.
The landlord sent another letter to residents on 18 February 2021 to advise the lift was out of service; it had an estimated date of 26 February 2021 for it to be back in service. It then wrote to residents on 5 March 2021 to advise the lift was back in service.
The housing officer spoke to the resident’s support worker from Age UK on 31 March 2021 to discuss the resident’s rehousing options following some concerns she had raised earlier in the month with the landlord about ASB the resident said he was experiencing.
A customer service advisor of the landlord contacted the housing team on 16 April 2021. The resident had been in contact about the neighbour. The customer service advisor advised she felt the resident needed some help and support.
During May 2021, there were reports of the lift not moving between floors and the lift doors not closing properly. On each occasion the landlord attended to carry out repairs.
The landlord wrote to residents on 11 June 2021. It apologised that the lift had been unreliable over the last year and advised that new doors were finally fitted at the end of 2020 after a long delay (partly due to the Covid 19 pandemic) in receiving them from abroad. It added that there continued to be some intermittent faults and therefore additional parts were ordered but there were also some delays receiving these. These additional parts had been fitted in May 2021.
On 23 June 2021, the resident’s GP wrote a letter stating he supported an application for the resident to move to ground floor accommodation. The GP said the resident had a diagnosis of COPD and his respiratory symptoms were exacerbated by having to climb the stairs at the property because of the broken lift.
The landlord’s repair log shows that someone reported on 9 August 2021 that the lift was stuck and someone was trapped inside. The landlord wrote to residents on 12 August 2021, advising it had hoped to have restored the lift services by then but, due to further complications with the repair, the estimated date for the lift to be back in service was 18 August 2021. It wrote to residents on 25 August 2021 to advise the lift was back in service.
On 6 October 2021, someone reported to the landlord that the lift was stuck. On 15 October 2021, the landlord advised residents the estimated date for the lift to be back in service was 19 October 2021. The landlord advised residents on 12 November 2021 that the lift was back in service.
On 9 October 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord as he was dissatisfied that there was no record of a meeting on 12 March 2020. From the information provided to this Service, the meeting was about a previous closed ASB case where the perpetrator had been evicted. The second part of the formal complaint was about the lift that kept breaking down. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 11 October 2021.
On 19 October 2021, the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord. She raised a concern about the lift and requested a managed move for the resident. She advised that the resident was finding it too difficult to live at the property without a lift so instead he was temporarily living in a wooden shack with no hot water or heating.
On 22 October 2021, the landlord provided its stage one response. It advised that the complaint was not upheld. The landlord said that an officer met up with the resident and confirmed in the meeting the details of an email the resident had sent earlier in the week, which provided enough information for the landlord to follow up. It advised that the issues of the lift had been passed to the relevant team who would reply separately.
The resident escalated his complaint on 24 October 2021. He expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not acted on the issues raised at the meeting on 12 March 2020. The resident said he was a high risk registered disabled person. He said he was not able to stay at the flat while the lift was not working as using 94 steps 4 times a day was ‘killing him’. He said he was at that present time living in a ‘glorified’ beach hut approximately 70 miles away as a result.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 November 2021. He provided further information about the conditions he was living in as the lift had not been working for 2 months. He said he could not afford £15 each day for a dog walker and found it too difficult to keep walking up and down the stairs 4 times a day. He advised that where he was staying had no electric or running water so he was using a plastic toilet he had to empty each day. He said the only heating was from a wooden stove, and the wood was expensive. He said he had been occasionally returning to the property to check whether the lift was working. The resident advised he could only read and send emails when he had an internet connection.
On 5 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident by email. It apologised for the delay in its response and asked whether it would be convenient to contact the resident to discuss the complaint by phone.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 November 2021 and advised it would look into his request for a managed move as part of the stage 2 complaint. It said it would respond to the complaint by 30 November 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 November 2021. He said he had previously been told the landlord would support a move, and that his GP and support worker had both raised it with the landlord. The resident said he had worked out he had been living at the property for 1051 days and the lift had been broken for 686 days. The resident said climbing over 90 steps 4 times a day was giving him horrific migraines and bad breathing attacks. As a result, the resident again said he was living in a wooden shack with no electricity or running water as that was a better option than living at the property.
There were several more emails during 11-12 November 2021. The landlord said it would see if a managed move was possible. The resident’s support worker from Age UK had been copied into emails and expressed gratitude that the officer would look into a managed move. The local authority confirmed that the resident had not made an application for rehousing. It provided the landlord with information about this so the resident could apply through the website.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 November 2021. He advised it that he was preparing to go back to the wooden shack as the lift was making strange noises and he feared it was near breaking point. He said he could not risk using it with his service dog and was getting migraines from using the stairs. He said he had experienced 4 migraines and 3 bad breathing episodes in the last 8 days he had been living back at the property. The resident said he was concerned about keeping warm as the shack/chalet was made of wood. The resident said it had a wood burning stove and wood was costing him £7 a day.
There were some internal emails the landlord sent dated 16 November 2021 where the complaint handler asked whether the resident could be considered for a managed move. The response was that the resident would need a medical assessment or evidence for a move to a ground floor flat. The resident had previously lived in a basement flat and it said another basement flat would not be suitable for the resident due to the number of steps down to the property, and the height of the ceilings. It also said managed moves were only offered to those residents whose bidding or points were not successful and/or the request fell outside of the local authority allocation policy.
There was an email from social services sent to the landlord on 22 November 2021. It said the resident had anxiety and an adjustment disorder. It said that contact with them was mainly via the crisis team and in the context of distress caused by issues the resident was experiencing in the neighbourhood and by building works. They said the resident was not under the care of the mental health team at that time.
On 21 and 25 November 2021, it was reported to the landlord that the lift was not working and someone was trapped inside. On 30 November 2021, the landlord advised residents that the lift would be out of service until 30 December 2021.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord provided its final complaint response. Within the response the landlord:
1. Offered the resident £200 compensation due to the frequency of the lift breakdowns, and the inconvenience this caused to the resident.
2. Said the lift was installed in 2006 and was not yet due for replacement. It said it would be writing to all residents asking them to be diligent and report issues with vandalism to it and explore improving the CCTV.
3. Said it would be purchasing additional spare parts for the lift to help prevent delays when a part was needed, as these come direct from the manufacturer in Italy.
4. Said management transfers were only considered for those on the transfer list whose bidding or points were not being successful or their request fell outside the remit of the local authority allocations policy.
5. Gave the resident the weblink for the rehousing application page, and explained he needed to provide information about his medical condition. It also gave him a number to ring where someone may be able to help him with this if his support worker was not able to complete these with him.
6. Expressed concern that the resident was living in a wooden shack and advised him to return to the property. The landlord said it did not believe staying somewhere with no running water, electric or central heating during the winter, with his health conditions, was the best thing for him. The landlord gave him the details of social services so he could contact them to see what support they could offer him on his return to the property.
7. Said it was looking at how it could improve communications in the future.

Post final complaint response

On 7 January 2022, the landlord wrote to residents. It said it was aware that the lift service had at times been unreliable over the last year or so and it was pro-actively looking at options to improve the reliability of the lift going forward.
In March 2022, there were some emails between the landlord and local elected councillors discussing the options the landlord was considering in relation to the lifts due to their unreliability. The emails indicate the goods lift was out of service. The landlord said:
1. It had not had a repair request raised for the passenger lift in the last 3 months. It said, although that was not proof that all was ok with the lift, it did provide some reassurance that the service reliability may now have returned to the expected normal level.
2. The lift contractor would carry out more dedicated servicing tasks until a review of performance deemed the issue to be resolved.
3. It would take every opportunity when in the area to visit this lift. The contractor would also conduct their own health checks by supervisors and managers.
4. It would look at replacing the landing doors and door equipment but that this would take some time to select the best product available.
The resident’s GP provided information about the resident’s health condition on 17 March 2022. The GP advised the resident had COPD and experienced breathlessness, headaches and ear pain. He said these symptoms were exacerbated by his living conditions due to climbing up steps. He advised the chronology demonstrated an association between the resident’s current living conditions and the impact on his physical and mental health. He added that the resident’s symptoms improved when he stayed elsewhere and asked for the information provided to be taken into account.
The resident’s support worker from Age UK contacted the landlord again on 23 March 2022. She said she had been supporting the resident for 2 years. She said she thought the resident should be placed in another flat on the ground floor due to his health being affected. She said the physical and mental health of the resident had declined a lot in the time she had known him.
The resident contacted this Service on 19 June 2023. He said that the lift had been out of service 11 times this year, the last time being May 2023. He advised that after 3 or 4 days of the lift being out of order, he could not cope with the stairs anymore due to the terrible migraines and breathlessness. He is therefore travelling by train to stay elsewhere when this happens.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This report will consider the landlord’s actions from November 2020 as events prior to this were considered in the Ombudsman’s investigation dated 30 April 2021. The resident has referred to historical and current antisocial behaviour (ASB) in some of his correspondence with the landlord and this Service, but did not raise this in his formal complaint to the landlord. Any reference to ASB issues within this report provides contextual background only in relation to the current complaint.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme paragraph 42c states that this Service expects complaints to be made within a reasonable period of time which would normally be within 6 months. The meeting the landlord had with the resident on 12 March 2020 took place approximately 19 months before the resident made his complaint on 9 October 2021. The period including 12 March 2020 was covered by this Service in the previous investigation report dated 30 April 2021. Although the landlord covered this aspect of the complaint in its responses on 22 October 2021 and 30 November 2021, the resident had an opportunity to raise this at an earlier point with the landlord and this Service as part of the previous complaint. Therefore, this investigation will not consider the part of the complaint about the meeting. It will focus on the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of the lift being out of order and the handling of the associated complaint.
The resident has said he considers that the lift issues have impacted his health and has provided medical evidence from the GP to support this. It is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the lift issues and the resident’s health. However, general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health have been considered.

The landlord’s response to reports of the lift being out of order

This Service understands that there is only 1 lift in the block and the lift being out of order would be an inconvenience to all residents. However, the detriment to the resident was increased due to his ill health (a known respiratory condition that makes exercise and physical exertion difficult) and because he needed to use the stairs several times a day to take his service dog out of the building.
The landlord has demonstrated in the information available that it did respond to reports of the lift breaking down within a reasonable timeframe and carried out repairs to get the lift back in service promptly when it was able to. From the records provided, the landlord was inspecting or servicing the lift once a month. The stage 2 response, and the information provided to councillors in March 2022, showed the landlord was looking at options to improve the functioning and management of the lift which was reasonable.
However, that does not detract from the landlord’s repair obligations. The resident has not experienced a reliable lift service in the 3 years he has lived there. The lift was out of service for days and sometimes weeks at a time on several occasions, which had a significant detrimental impact on the resident.
The lift was still failing and temperamental following the doors being replaced at the end of 2020, and the follow up work in May 2021. Since the last investigation by this Service, the information the landlord has provided shows the lift was out of service or was not reliable during the following periods.
1. Out of service for several weeks during November and December 2020.
2. Intermittent faults on several occasions in December 2020, January 2021 and February 2021.
3. Out of service for 2 or 3 weeks between February and March 2021.
4. Intermittent faults in May 2021.
5. Out of service for 2 or 3 weeks in August 2021.
6. Out of service for 4 or 5 weeks in October and November 2021.
7. Out of service for 4 to 5 weeks in November and December 2021.
In all the letters the landlord sent to residents to advise the lift was out of service, it said a vulnerable resident who requires support could contact the housing officer. It also states this on its website. However, the landlord knew the resident was vulnerable following its previous dealings with him and following the previous investigation by this Service.
The landlord has not followed the recommendation from the Ombudsman in the previous investigation that it should contact the resident to see what support he might require for his support dog when the lift breaks down. It was unreasonable that the landlord was not proactive in discussing support options with the resident. Even when the resident did ask the landlord for support, it did not provide any options of what support it could offer. This was unreasonable and will have left the resident uncertain as to how seriously the landlord had taken his circumstances.
The landlord spoke to the resident’s support worker on 31 March 2021 about rehousing options. The resident’s GP wrote a letter in June 2021 to support a move for the resident on medical grounds. The local authority then told it on 11 November 2021 that the resident had not made a rehousing application. Considering the direct requests for a move from the resident and his support worker, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide more direct support through its inhouse support scheme. The landlord then could have ensured the resident completed the application form correctly and provided any further medical evidence for a permanent move to more suitable ground floor accommodation (or a flat with a reliable lift service).
In its final stage complaint response, the landlord advised the resident to return to the property and provided him with the contact details of social services so he could find out what support they could offer him. Again, the onus was on the resident to source his own support. The landlord did not take sufficient account of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not consider pro-actively providing its own support to assist the resident when it was aware that the lift was out of service, which was unreasonable and a major failing in the handling of this case.
In any case, a transfer through the local authority’s housing register was likely to have taken some time and it is clear from the evidence provided that a more immediate solution was required in view of the resident’s health concerns and the arrangements he had made to locate alternative housing that was inadequate.
The landlord said it would not consider a management move for the resident as it would only do this if he had not been successful bidding through the local authority which he was not able to do, as he had not applied for rehousing. The other qualifying criteria the landlord stated was that the request for a management move fell outside of the local authority’s allocation policy. The landlord does not make clear what circumstances fall outside the scope of the allocations policy. The support worker requested a management move for the resident and the GP has said there was an association between the times the resident reported symptoms to the surgery and the lift being out of order. The GP also said that the resident’s symptoms improved when he was not staying at the property. It is unreasonable that the landlord has not demonstrated that it considered the resident’s unique circumstances to explore whether his requirement for a management move fell outside of the local authority’s allocations policy.
While the resident’s property did not in itself require major repairs, safe access to and from the property had a major health and safety implication for the resident due to his health condition. The resident had no option but to use the stairs several times a day as he said he did not always have someone available to help with the dog and did not have the funds to employ a dog walker. Not only was this a major inconvenience to the resident the reported impact on his health was so severe he felt he had no other option than to source his own unsuitable temporary accommodation.
The landlord was made aware on several occasions that the resident was staying in a wooden building which had no electric, running water, or adequate heating and hot water. The landlord was also aware and acknowledged that this was during the winter period and expressed concerns it was unsuitable. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not use its discretion to consider whether the essential repairs transfers procedure should be applied in this case.
The Ombudsman’s previous investigation found the landlord failed to consider temporary accommodation for the resident after initially promising to do so. In this investigation, the landlord refused the management move and failed to demonstrate that it considered temporarily relocating the resident at all. This amounts to a significant failing and demonstrates that the landlord has not learned from the outcome of the previous complaint. The landlord had an opportunity to mitigate the impact on the resident with temporary accommodation, or consider a managed move, but did not do so which was unreasonable.
The resident was regularly returning to the property, whilst staying elsewhere, to check whether the lift was working again. The final stage response said the landlord was looking at how it could better communicate with residents. The landlord sent letters to its residents to provide them with updates about the lift. In this case, the landlord was aware that the resident was not staying at the property for periods of time yet it did not explore whether it should provide lift repair updates to the resident in another way. The landlord had successfully contacted the resident by telephone and email in its other communications with the resident. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not adjust its communication approach to provide the resident with updates about the lift to prevent him from being further inconvenienced by returning to the flat to see if the lift was back in service.
As a local authority, the landlord would be required to comply with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. Under the Act the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
Given the known vulnerability of the resident the landlord would be expected under the Equality Act 2010 to consider whether the circumstances of the resident placed him at a disadvantage when the lift was out of order, and whether any reasonable adjustments in relation to his accommodation, support needs or communication were required as a result. It was inappropriate that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it understood its duties under the Act to assess the needs of the resident and consider whether any reasonable adjustments could be made.
The landlord awarded £200 compensation to the resident in its final complaint response due to the inconvenience of the lift being out of order. This compensation amount did not represent proportionate redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, given his vulnerabilities and the unsuitable accommodation he was staying in that he sourced and funded himself. The landlord also did not consider its compensation awards in the complaint policy when offering this, which was inappropriate. The orders made below reflect both the landlord’s guidance on compensation remedies in its complaints policy and this Service’s remedies guidance for the period between November 2020 and December 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord used its discretion during the stage 1 complaint investigation to review a complaint raised by the resident more than 12 months after the incident and it responded to this part of the complaint (about a meeting).
However, the landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that the lift issue had been passed to the relevant team for its response, and that the complaint was not upheld. Although the response was provided within the timescales of its complaint policy, it was unreasonable that the landlord has not provided evidence to show it addressed or responded to the part of the complaint about the lift issues. This was a missed opportunity on the part of the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 2 response took 27 working days. Although this was slightly outside the timescales within the complaints policy, the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delay in responding and updated him on when he would be provided with a response, which was appropriate. The landlord also discussed the resident’s concerns by email and phone during the period. The landlord provided a comprehensive letter addressing all aspects of the complaint and providing information on what would happen going forward, which was reasonable, albeit it did not acknowledge that its stage 1 response had failed to address the complaint about the lift.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of the lift being out of order.
2. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not make sufficient efforts to assist or support the resident in securing a permanent transfer or explore whether a managed move or temporary decant were appropriate.
It was unreasonable that the landlord the landlord did not take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities and offer appropriate support despite the Ombudsman’s previous investigation and the long-standing nature of the lack of reliability of the lift.
Given the impact on the resident, the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate.
The landlord’s complaint responses were issued within a reasonable period but it failed to address the issues with the lift in its stage 1 response.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Contact the resident to complete a risk assessment to identify how it can mitigate the risk to the resident when living at the property and provide timescales for any required actions.
3. Contact the resident to discuss the options for ‘in house’ support, or referrals to other supporting organisations, including assistance to complete the local authority rehousing forms.
4. Contact the resident to discuss his communication preferences.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1000 compensation (in addition to the £200 already offered through its complaint responses), made up of:
1. £900 in recognition of the distress or inconvenience caused to him by the failures in its response to reports of the lift being out of order.
2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him by the failures in its handling of the related complaint.
The landlord to complete a report of the lift breakdowns since December 2021 to the date of this report and identify what additional compensation should be awarded to the resident in line with its compensation guidance.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.
The landlord should produce a lift condition survey within eight weeks of the date of this report that confirms the reasons for its current unreliability, actions that it may take to reduce the frequency of breakdowns and confirmation of which of these actions it will complete and when. It should provide a copy of this survey to the residents of the block and this Service.