London Borough of Camden Council (202430232)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430232

Camden Council

23 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the progress of major works in the communal hallway
2. Reports of damp and mould
3. Transfer application
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She lives in a 3-bedroom flat with her 2 children. She has a disability due to an autoimmune condition, and her son is under paediatric care.
To provide contextual background for one aspect of the complaint, when the resident moved into her property, the building was undergoing major communal repairs to the hallways. These repairs included upgrades, improved ventilation systems, and decorative work. The renovations started before March 2023, when the resident began her tenancy.
On 27 September 2023, the resident reported issues with damp and mould in her property. The landlord inspected the property on 11 October 2023 and noted that the bathroom lacked ventilation, recommending the installation of an extractor fan.
On 14 November 2023, the landlord offered the resident a mould wash, but she declined, saying she had already cleaned the affected areas. During the call, she raised concerns about the missing extractor fan that had been promised. On 22 January 2024, a damp and mould survey revealed minor mould under the laminate flooring in bedroom 2. It recommended installing a bathroom extractor fan, investigating under the floor of bedroom 2, and repointing the external brickwork.
In March 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about the delays in communal repairs, which she stated had been ongoing since before her tenancy began in March 2023. She expressed frustration over exposed ceilings, temporary lighting, and a lack of communication about when the works would be completed.
On 23 March 2024, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response, acknowledging the delays and attributing them to a redesign of the ventilation system. The landlord said that work would begin by the end of April 2024.
On 3 April 2024, the landlord arranged a visit to the resident to check the damp levels in bedroom 2. In response, the resident requested an update on her request to move, expressing concerns about mould exposure and the impact on her and her children’s health.
On 1 May 2024, the landlord outlined planned works to the property, including repairs to the external wall, addressing the ventilation issue, and lifting the flooring in bedroom 2 to investigate the damp.
On 10 October 2024, the resident escalated her complaint, saying that the landlord had not carried out the agreed work to the property and the communal work remained outstanding. She expressed feeling ignored and stated that the situation had negatively impacted her health.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 16 November 2024. It said:
1. the stage 1 response focused on the communal hallway. A work order was raised on 13 September 2024, but there was no record of actions taken or remaining work. The landlord said that it would arrange for the resident to be contacted for clarification
2. a damp inspection was scheduled for the beginning of November 2024 but cancelled by the resident
3. further investigations under the flooring were still needed if repointing to the external brickwork did not remedy the damp issue
4. the landlord confirmed that the resident’s transfer application had been closed in June 2024 as she had not returned a health and disability questionnaire
In June 2025, the resident reported that the work in the communal hallway remains unfinished. She confirmed the installation of a new bathroom fan this year. However, she said the landlord has not addressed her concerns about potential mould exposure, which has delayed the investigation into the damp issue in her bedroom. She expressed her desire to be considered for a transfer and asked us to investigate her complaint due to her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. The landlord has informed us that all work has been completed.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s transfer application is outside of our jurisdiction. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that we will not investigate complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
We can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. Based on the evidence we have seen, the resident’s transfer request fell within Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, because it was related to a need to move for medical reasons.
Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 includes transfer requests by local authority residents. It also sets out the circumstances which applications to whom reasonable preference must be given when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants who are occupying overcrowded housing and those who require a move due to medical or welfare grounds.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6 of the relevant legislation. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications. Matters relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request would usually be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Therefore, the resident may wish to refer her concerns about this to the LGSCO.

Concerns about the progress of major works in the communal hallway

Policies and procedures

Under its Repairs Policy, the landlord must keep communal areas in a reasonable state of repair, ensuring they are safe and fit for use. Although specific timeframes for major works may not be established, the landlord is expected to inform residents about when work will start and to keep them updated on any delays or changes to plans.
The landlord’s planned maintenance and capital work standard requires ongoing communication with affected residents during long-term projects. It confirms that it will keep residents informed of progress and provide updates where timescales change.

Assessment

The landlord provided limited records about the major works in the building’s communal area, which created uncertainty about the start date of the work on the resident’s floor. However, the resident asserts that when she moved into the property in March 2023, she found the ceilings exposed and temporary lighting installed. The landlord did not dispute her account.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a precise start date or scope of work before or after her move-in date. Additionally, it did not offer regular updates between March 2023 and March 2024, even though it knew the works were delayed and the resident had reported exposed ceilings, hanging wires, and temporary lighting in the communal hallway.
In March 2024, the stage 1 complaint response formally indicated a timeline, saying that work would begin by the end of April 2024. It confirmed that delays were due to a redesign of the ventilation system. Although the landlord provided contact details for the Project Manager, this was not proactive communication. The prolonged delay meant the landlord missed opportunities to clarify the status of the work, placing an undue burden on the resident to chase updates and causing unnecessary frustration and uncertainty.
The landlord did not begin the works originally scheduled for the end of April 2024 as planned, and it has not communicated anything about this delay or any revised timeline. Also, the landlord has not confirmed the completion of a health and safety inspection, which raises concerns. Given the reported conditions in the communal hallway, such as exposed ceilings and hanging wires, it is reasonable to expect that the landlord would verify the safety of the area. However, the absence of any assurance provided to the resident is clear.
In her escalation request in October 2024, the resident expressed concerns about ongoing disrepair, including hanging wires, the absence of a ceiling, and reliance on temporary lighting, which pose potential health and safety risks. The landlord must assess and address risks in shared spaces under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Given the prolonged disrepair and the resident’s worries, the landlord’s failure to confirm whether it conducted a risk assessment or provided regular safety assurance is a significant oversight.
The landlord’s policies require clear communication with residents throughout major work. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (2022) emphasises the importance of prompt and effective communication. It says that landlords must clearly own repair cases and ensure that they do not leave residents chasing for updates or coordinating work themselves. However, the landlord did not engage meaningfully with the resident and failed to establish clear milestones, which fell short of its policy standards and the recommendations outlined in our Spotlight Report. By adhering to its policy, the landlord could have avoided a failure, which would also have been avoided by following the recommendations in our Spotlight Report
As of June 2025, more than 2 years after the resident moved in, the communal work remains outstanding, indicating the landlord’s prolonged failure to manage and progress the project effectively. There is no indication that the landlord has taken ownership of the issue or attempted to re-engage with the resident after the stage 2 response. The ongoing lack of progress, combined with poor communication, has led to a finding of maladministration.
The landlord did not provide a clear schedule of works or regular updates over an extended period. It inadequately responded to the resident’s reports of potentially unsafe conditions and missed opportunities to inspect and assess any risks. Furthermore, it did not tailor its communication or service to accommodate the resident’s known vulnerabilities, placing an unreasonable burden on her to chase progress. The cumulative impact of these failures caused distress, uncertainty, and a loss of trust in the landlord’s ability to manage the situation effectively.
We have considered the above failures in line with our Remedies Guidance and have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Policies

The landlord’s Damp and Mould policy addresses all reports of damp and mould, recognising the serious health implications of untreated issues, especially for vulnerable groups who face more severe health risks. These risks include respiratory problems, conditions affecting the immune system, and affects on residents’ mental health.
The Repairs Policy categorises urgent repairs as those requiring attention within 5 working days and routine repairs within 20 working days.

Assessment

On 27 September 2023, the resident reported damp and mould. The landlord arranged an inspection on 11 October 2023, which was a reasonable response time. Internal notes showed that the lack of ventilation in the bathroom contributed to the reported conditions and the landlord committed to installing new extractor fans in the property.
However, the landlord did not provide a copy of the inspection report. Although a mould wash was raised in November 2023, the landlord did not outline the next steps. It did not communicate times for further work, such as the installation of the extractor fan. This action did not align with the landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy, which requires the landlord to set out timeframes for work and communicate them with residents. The resident had to pursue updates in November 2023.
In December 2023 and January 2024, the landlord conducted more assessments. However, the landlord did not document the results of the December 2023 inspection, only noting that a comprehensive damp survey was necessary. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy emphasises the importance of promptly identifying and addressing damp issues. By neglecting to record the findings from the inspection, the landlord did not act in line with its policy and compromised its accountability.
The January 2024 inspection found damp under the laminate floor in bedroom 2 and recommended that the landlord lift the laminate floor for further investigation, install an extractor fan and repoint an exterior wall. These recommendations were appropriate. However, the landlord did not act on them promptly. This failure to progress, despite known remedial actions, left the resident without reassurance.
The landlord did not progress the identified remedial work. The landlord also did not reassure the resident or manage her expectations. The Damp and Mould policy confirms that it must clearly explain the work to be carried out, provide regular updates, and work with residents to avoid escalation. The landlord did not meet these commitments.
In March 2024, the resident raised concerns that lifting the laminate floor could disturb mould spores, posing a health risk to her and her child due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord did not conduct a risk assessment, and if one had been conducted, it was neither recorded nor communicated. The policy does not require a risk assessment. However, the landlord has completed a self-assessment based on our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould and provided it as evidence linked to this case. This report states that issues are prioritised by their urgency, health risks, and severity. It states that it employs a method that considers groups more susceptible to severe health effects.
Despite this, there is no evidence to show the resident’s case was prioritised given her vulnerabilities. It missed the opportunity to explore mitigation options, such as sealing the affected room or considering a temporary move, which would have been reasonable given her health vulnerabilities and her expressed concerns.
The landlord proposed conducting an air quality test and a damp test without lifting the floor. While these offers seemed reasonable in principle, no evidence shows that either test was completed. It is still unclear how the landlord planned to address the recommendation for further investigation under the flooring from the January 2024 inspection, given that it suggested conducting tests without lifting the floor.
In its stage 2 complaint response in November 2024, the landlord said that the resident had declined an inspection earlier that month. However, this claim misrepresented the situation. The resident had engaged in multiple inspections previously and declined this one due to concerns about the landlord’s repeated inaction and the health risks associated with the possibility of disturbing mould. The landlord did not acknowledge these concerns or how its past delays caused a breakdown in trust. A reasonable and fair approach would have involved recognising the context, discussing alternative investigation methods, and addressing the reasons for the resident’s hesitancy. Instead, the landlord shifted the responsibility onto the resident and overlooked its own delays.
The stage 2 complaint response said that it hoped repointing an external wall would resolve the damp under the floor, a recommendation first made in January 2024. However, it did not confirm whether the repointing had been completed or if it intended to follow up with an inspection. Later, the resident confirmed that the work had not been completed. The landlord proposed that the resident allow further investigation if the damp persisted, which placed the burden back on the resident without a clear plan or timeline for action.
In June 2025, the landlord confirmed to us that all outstanding work related to the complaint was complete. However the resident informed us the same month that she remains concerned that the suspected damp beneath the flooring in bedroom 2 has not been adequately investigated. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to confirm its position around this.
The landlord did not recognise any service failures in its response and did not offer any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The delays experienced, the uncertainty faced, and the time and effort the resident spent seeking updates compounded the issues. The combined effects of the delays, lack of updates, insufficient attention to vulnerabilities, and failure to resolve issues or offer compensation amount to maladministration.
We have considered the failures in line with our Remedies Guidance and have ordered the landlord to pay £500 in compensation. This is broken down as follows:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the failures found
2. £200 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the landlord for updates and time spent pursuing a resolution

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Policy outlines a 2–stage complaints process. It allows 10 working days to respond at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The policy states that residents must request a review within 28 calendar days of the stage 1 response and that it will not accept late escalations unless exceptional reasons are provided.
The policy does not explain how landlords should handle new issues that arise after a stage 1 response. According to the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must consider new issues that residents raise during the life of a complaint. If these issues are related and raised before the stage 2 response is issued, landlords must include them in the stage 2 response. Otherwise, landlords should treat these new issues as separate complaints to avoid unreasonable delays.
The resident raised her initial complaint about the condition of the communal hallways on 14 March 2024. The landlord issued a prompt response at stage 1 on 28 March 2024.
On 10 October 2024, the resident escalated her complaint, introducing new concerns about damp and mould, and a move from the property over 6 months after the original complaint. Although this escalation fell well outside the 28-day timeframe, the landlord chose to advance the complaint to stage 2 and responded by 6 November 2024, meeting the required deadline of 20 working days.
Although treating the escalation as a stage 2 instead of a new stage 1 did not affect the resident, as it allowed for quicker progression through the complaints process, the stage 2 response did not adequately investigate the complaints. It acknowledged her issues but lacked detail and did not outline any clear plans to resolve the outstanding concerns. This response did not show that the landlord fully engaged with or understood the resident’s complaint. It also did not align with the landlord’s complaint policy of acting fairly and proportionately and learning from complaints.
The vague and conditional stage 2 response did not demonstrate ownership of the issue or provide a clear resolution plan. It fell short of the Code’s requirements for a fair, evidence-based, and outcome-focused response.
The landlord did not identify or acknowledge any failings in its handling of the issues, despite evidence of significant delays in completing the work. This contradicts the Code, which says that landlords must recognise when things go wrong, acknowledge failures, and take steps to correct them.
By neglecting this responsibility, the landlord missed an opportunity to rebuild trust, provide effective redress, and show learning. If the landlord had followed the recommendations in the Code, it could have avoided service failure. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures we have found.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the progress of major works in the communal hallway
2. Reports of damp and mould
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s transfer application was outside of our jurisdiction to consider.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. apologised in writing to the resident for the failures found in this report
2. paid the resident £900 compensation, made up of:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the major works in the communal hallway
  2. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the damp and mould
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint
  4. paid the money directly to the resident and not offset against any money owed
3. contacted the resident to confirm whether there is still damp in bedroom 2 and to confirm the outcome of its related investigations.
4. If damp is still present, the landlord must provide a clear timeline for the repairs, and explain the measures that will be taken to reduce exposure to mould spores if necessary
5. updated the resident with a clear plan on the status of the communal work, and provided a realistic timescale for commencement and completion of the work
6. evidenced that it has reminded staff handling complaints to follow the complaints policy and the Code, including when to:
  1. accept late complaints
  2. how to recognise and acknowledge service failures
  3. the need to give clear and fair responses