Central Complaints Unit
London Borough of Camden
Room 316
Town Hall
Judd Street
London WC1H9JE
Tel 02079745644
Fax 020 7974 5589
DX 2106(Euston)
Minicom 020 7974 5570
complaints@camden.gov.uk
www.camden.gov.uk/complaint

I am writing to give my decision on the complaint you have made on appeal to the Chief Executive concerning the Housing and adult social care service (HASC).

Your complaint

You have complained about the lack of hot water at Goldthorpe during 2009, specifically referring to an aggregate total of 20 days (later increased to 22 days). You set out in your email of 8 December 2009 the basis of your appeal against the initial reply sent to you by Charlie Kiss of the HASC.

My investigation

I have carried out the review of your complaint. My investigation took into account your correspondence and the records held by the HASC. I am aware of the enquiries made on your behalf by Councillor Roger Robinson. I have obtained updated information from the mechanical and electrical (M&E) capital delivery team of the HASC about the efforts made to resolve the situation.

The history of your complaint

I hope that it will be helpful if I set out a brief summary of the main communications and events that I think are relevant before I go on to give you my finding on your complaint.

The HASC records show you first reported a lack of hot water on 26 September 2009.

There were similar reports from other residents dated 22 October 2009, 13 November 2009 and 18 November 2009.

I note the content of your initial on line complaint (form 5618813) dated 22 October 2009. Your message was sent-on the third day without a hot water service that week.

I am familiar with the emails you sent to Councillor Roger Robinson and to the Housing Repairs Service on 13 November 2009, 14 November 2009 and 19 November 2009. The audit trail of these communications show that the repair service acted by contacting interested parties and raised works orders to the heating contractor Apollo and to Seaflame to deal with the reported loss of service.

I noted also on record that the mechanical services manager had visited the Curnock estate and spoken with various residents, suggesting overall that the hot and cold water supply was functioning. The manager had also made contact with contractors and the Thames Water Authority to diagnose the intermittent nature of the problem. This suggests to me that the HASC was genuinely trying to resolve the matter with interested parties, and that generally there had been no loss of service for most residents at least for the preceding 22 days.

I have also had access to an exchange of information passing between the repair service and Apollo, including also reference to information from the gas contractor Seaflame, around the middle of November 2009. This gave rise to a diagnosis of the water tank based on Mexborough and an order was placed with the Council's Building Maintenance Division (BMD) on 19 November 2009.

I have read and noted an exchange of communications passing between Councillor Roger Robinson and the HASC at the beginning of December. His representations were on behalf of residents generally and confirmed that there had been a problem with loss of hot water, mainly in the floors above the ground floor.

On 14 December 2009 the Head of Mechanical and electrical Delivery acknowledged that the intermittent problem identified seemed to be due to a loss of flow in a rising water main. The flow was being monitored by flow meter.

I am aware of the exchange of emails on 17 December 2009. The repairs service advised you that day of the order placed with Apollo to check the heating system. On 21 December 2009 you reported that you had only lukewarm water for most of the preceding period. I have taken account of Councillor Robinson's messages on your behalf and the officer replies.

I have noted the update given by Ashford Francis to Councillor Roger Robinson on 22 December 2009. I have also taken account of a number of internal communications passing between officers in the HASC on the same day. The information confirmed that all three boilers on the estate were working at that time.

Your local resolution stage complaint

On 23 October 2009 you wrote to the Housing Complaints Team about the loss of service. The complaint was allocated to the repair service.

I have read and noted the reply sent to you by Charlie Kiss dated 2 December 2009. He set out a brief chronology. He partly upheld your complaint. This reflected the fact that there had been an ongoing problem with occasional loss of hot and cold water service owing to a leak. The leak was traced on 20 November 2009 and was placed within the rising main serving the tank room. Unfortunately it had proved problematic to locate and repair it. He awarded you £25 in compensation, adding the records suggested only an intermittent loss of service. He mentioned also that the problem on 18 November 2009 was attributable to the Enterprise contractors working in Pratt Street for the Thames Water Authority, namely that it was a situation beyond his department's direct control.

Your review stage complaint

You sent your appeal to the complaint mailbox on 8 December 2009. I received, registered and acknowledged it the following day. In your email you corrected the summary given within the reply from Charlie Kiss. You said that you had been without hot water for about 20 days in 2009. You said that the loss of service was not just for a few hours, but on occasion for some days (you specified 20 October to 24 October and 30 June to 6 July). You advised that you calculated you were due to £55 for loss of service. I wrote to you again on 24 December 2009 to confirm that I was dealing with the review of your complaint.

My decision

I am aware that as at 22 December 2009 the mechanical service manager had attended Goldthorpe and the boiler was reset. The temperature was reset to 50 degrees centigrade. The site inspection confirmed that some parts were in need of replacement. This work is being undertaken early this month. During the recent Christmas and New Year period the manager and contractor staff from Seaflame and Apollo were on call to maintain the service, should there have been any difficulty.
I am pleased therefore that the service was fully restored to you and other residents prior to the Christmas break.

Looking to the future, the heating system at Goldthorpe is included within the 2010-2011 mechanical capital programme, during which time a comprehensive assessment will be undertaken to establish if the boilers need to be renewed or subject to major repair.

I believe it was right for Charlie Kiss to conclude that your complaint should be part upheld. In this case there is some conflict of information as to the extent of loss of service (namely whether it was intermittent or continuous) on the 20 days you identified, and also in part at least problems were beyond the Council's control and attributable to other parties (namely the water supplier).

There is also good evidence on record that the HASC was making every effort to resolve the situation, the effect of the loss of service was far from uniform across the estate. Nonetheless I feel that your flat did seem to be adversely affected at times. I find myself agreeing therefore with your overall assessment of £55 compensation as being justified in your case. As a gesture of goodwill therefore and taking account of your time and trouble in raising the matter and that Charlie Kiss originally paid you £25, I have authorised the repair service to make a further payment to you of £30 to bring the sum up to the £55 level. You should receive this additional payment within 25 working days.

Taking account of the overall sequence of events and my decision to moderately increase the compensation payable, my decision on your complaint will be to record it as part upheld.

I hope that you will not have cause to be dissatisfied with the level of service provided to you from now on by the repair service and its contractors.

Finally I have picked up a passing reference in one of your communications (22 October 2009) as to whether you could disconnect from the communal system. I am not clear this point was answered by the HASC. As you are a leaseholder and if you wished to pursue that aspect, please be advised that you should make any such request direct to the Home Ownership Service of the HASC, as they would be the appropriate office to advise you further.

I hope that the detailed consideration given to your complaint will reassure you about the council's willingness to review its actions independently. If you are dissatisfied, the Local Government Ombudsman may be able to consider your complaints. His address is:

Local Government Ombudsman
PO Box 4771
Coventry
CV40EH
Phone: 0845 602 1983

I take note also that in your capacity as a leaseholder you have referred to the level of the charge you have to pay specifically the charge for heating and hot water maintenance and supply. You will appreciate therefore that your complaint relates to the standard of the Council's works to your home under the terms of your lease. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by Sections 83 and 86 of the Housing Act 1996, provides that you may apply to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal about any dispute about the reasonableness of the costs incurred or the standard of the service or work charged for, or the charge itself. You also have the option of instituting proceedings in a court of law against the Council if you consider that it is in breach of its repairing obligations in your lease. In my view as such remedies exist it would not be unreasonable to expect you to use that remedy.

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as amended by s83 and s86 of the Housing Act 1996 the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal can make decisions on all aspects of liability to pay service charges. The contact details:

Residential Property Tribunal Service
10 Alfred Place
London WC1E7LR
Tel: 0207 446 7700
Fax: 0207 637 1250

Yours sincerely,

Peter Swingler
Head of the Central Complaints Unit