Key Points
- Camden Council failed to fix a persistent leak from an upstairs flat for over 10 attempts, leading to a ceiling collapse in the downstairs flat.
- The Housing Ombudsman, Richard Blakeway, criticised Camden Council for delays, lack of enforcement action, and marking repairs complete without confirming resolution.
- The affected man remained in temporary accommodation even after the leak was fixed, citing his home as unsafe.
- Camden Council issued an apology, accepted the delays, and outlined new procedures for managing complex repairs and temporary accommodation.
- The Ombudsman also criticised several other London borough councils and housing associations for similar failures in handling complex leaks.
- Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association faced a case of over three years delay to fix a leaseholder’s leak, including issues with communication and inadequate repair offers.
- ISHA has since improved its resources, processes, and repair tracking to prevent future issues.
What happened with Camden Council’s leak repair efforts that led to a ceiling collapse?
As reported by the Housing Ombudsman Richard Blakeway, Camden Council failed repeatedly to fix a persistent leak originating from an upstairs flat it owned in North London. Despite over 10 attempts and multiple warnings, the leak was not properly addressed, resulting in the downstairs resident’s ceiling collapsing. The council made seven unsuccessful attempts to enter the upstairs flat to resolve the issue and twice marked the repair job as complete without verifying that the leak was fixed, according to Blakeway’s report. This negligence ultimately caused significant damage to the man’s home and forced him into temporary accommodation, where he remained even after the leak was finally repaired.
How did the resident try to communicate the issue, and how did the council respond?
The resident living below the leaking flat attempted to keep the council informed by sending photos of the water damage through the council’s WhatsApp service account, but this communication channel “was not working.” Attempts by the council’s repair teams to access the upstairs property were consistently thwarted by the tenant there, who did not answer calls or facilitate access. The council failed to take enforcement action to address these barriers despite six months of delays and numerous warnings. These oversight failures led to prolonged water leakage and worsening damage, culminating in the ceiling collapse.
What was Camden Council’s response following the Ombudsman’s findings?
Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), a Camden Council spokesperson apologised for the distress and disruption caused. The council admitted that it should have acted more swiftly and acknowledged that the resident’s prolonged stay in temporary accommodation was “unacceptable.” To prevent similar situations, the council has changed how it manages and monitors “complex” repairs, including bringing in specialist contractors earlier if in-house teams cannot quickly identify the root cause of issues. New follow-up procedures have also been introduced to monitor occupants’ stays in temporary accommodation and ensure timely returns to their homes.
What other London boroughs and housing associations were criticised by the Housing Ombudsman?
Beyond Camden, the Housing Ombudsman’s report criticised several other London authorities for slow and inadequate responses to leak repairs. These include Ealing, Harrow, Lambeth, and Tower Hamlets borough councils as well as multiple housing associations. Notably, Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association (ISHA) was singled out for a case in which a leaseholder’s leak remained unresolved for over three years. There was an eight-month gap between the initial complaint and the start of repair works while the property suffered significant damage from rotting woodwork.
How did ISHA handle the prolonged repair issue, and what changes have they made since?
In the ISHA case, the housing association initially promised to replace the damaged window and door but later withdrew this offer, advising the resident to claim on their contents insurance instead. The association faced criticism for ignoring the tenant and failing to provide explanations or timelines during the prolonged delay. An ISHA spokesperson acknowledged these failures, apologising and describing the experience as “absolutely not the standard or experience we want for our residents.” Since then, ISHA has invested additional resources in its repairs and surveys team, introduced new organisational processes, and is implementing a new housing management system to improve repair tracking and resident communication.
