Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Camden Council (202423527)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423527

Camden Council

16 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
    1. Leaks, damp and mould, and sink back surges.
    2. Anti social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat.
  2. The landlord completed repairs to leaks into the resident’s property on 3 occasions between November 2020 and October 2022. From 2021 onwards, the resident had made multiple reports about noise and rubbish thrown onto his balcony from a neighbour above. The landlord completed repairs to back surges from the kitchen sink in July and October 2022.
  3. In December 2023, the resident reported mould due to the previous leaks. The landlord inspected this on 21 December 2023. It found no mould or signs of a current water leak. It identified a damp problem in the hallway above the front door. The resident reported further leaks into his property on 30 May 2024 and 22 July 2024. He also reported a new back surge from the sink on 9 July 2024.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 July 2024 about leaks, damp and mould, back surges, and ASB. The resident said he had cleaned the mould himself. He said he wanted to move out of the property.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 31 July 2024. It said the recent leaks were due to unforeseen events and it had completed repairs. There was a leak in the flat above underneath the bath, and a basin had overflowed. The landlord said it visited the resident following his reports about ASB. It discussed the issues with the neighbour and provided the resident with a noise diary. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection for 2 August 2024. However, it explained the issues did not qualify the resident for a direct move. It provided information about his general rehousing options.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 1 August 2024. He said he had been experiencing issues since 2020. He said he had bought products to clean the mould because he had mushrooms and mould mites on his walls.
  7. The landlord issued a final response on 28 August 2024. It said it could not consider complaints about matters arising 12 months before the resident’s complaint in July 2024. It was satisfied it followed its policy in responding to his ASB reports. The landlord confirmed the resident could make a claim for reimbursement of any costs incurred following water leaks. It provided a link to the claim form.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In his complaint to the Ombudsman he said that the issues, which had been ongoing since 2020, had affected his mental health. He said the water damage was not fixed and a further leak had happened. The resident explained that the neighbour causing the ASB had now moved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident complained about events from 2020 onwards. The Ombudsman will usually not investigate complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising). This investigation will consider the period of reports from July 2023 on this basis, given that a formal complaint was raised on 22 July 2024 and there is no evidence of any earlier formal complaints. Reference is made to earlier events only to provide context.
  2. Some of the issues raised to us by the resident happened following the end of the complaints process. This includes a further leak and damage, and the continuation of ASB. The scope of this investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint, to which the landlord sent its final response on 28 August 2024. Any issues or requests after that time should be raised as new complaints with the landlord before they can potentially be investigated by the Ombudsman.
  3. The resident has referred to the situation impacting his health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.

Leaks, damp and mould, and sink back surges

  1. The landlord’s tenancy conditions booklet says it will keep in repair and in good working order the structure and exterior of the property. It says its buildings insurance does not cover a resident’s possessions. It recommends that residents take out household insurance.
  2. The landlord’s housing repairs service guide says residents are responsible for decoration and surface cracks to wall and ceiling plaster. It says the landlord will attend to an emergency repair on the same day. It will complete urgent repairs within 5 working days, routine repairs within 20 working days, and programmed repairs which are complex within an agreed timescale.
  3. The landlord’s remedies policy and procedure says it will not consider remedies that could be settled by insurance claims.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy says residents must submit a complaint within 12 months after the date of an incident.
  5. The resident explained in his complaint he was frustrated with experiencing multiple leaks from the property above. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain the leaks were unforeseen events. The landlord’s records showed the 2 leaks reported in the 12 months leading up to the complaint were not a recurrence of a particular issue. The landlord attended and repaired the leaks in line with its timescales for repairs.
  6. The landlord also appropriately attended the resident’s report of a back surge in the kitchen sink on the same day it was reported by the resident. The landlord’s records showed this was the only report about this issue in the previous 12 months. Accordingly, its handling of the leaks and back surge reports was reasonable.
  7. However, there were delays and poor handling in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The evidence shows the landlord completed an inspection of the property on 21 December 2023. This inspection identified a damp problem in the hallway above the front door from a leak.
  8. The landlord’s online chat records show that it discussed the report about damp and mould with the resident on 4 January 2024. The landlord told the resident it needed to rectify a leak in order to complete a mould wash. The resident confirmed this had already stopped, but there is no evidence of the landlord arranging the wash or giving him an update. This was despite the resident emailing the landlord in February 2024 to confirm he was still experiencing mould.
  9. When raising his complaint in an email on 22 July 2024, the resident told the landlord he had received a call from the damp and mould team a few weeks previously. He said he told them he had now resolved the mould himself but the walls were still damp and stained. Only after his complaint did the landlord arrange another damp and mould inspection.
  10. The further inspection on 2 August 2024 confirmed the resident had removed the mould but noted stains and damaged paint work on the walls in 3 rooms from previous leaks. The landlord did not identify any of this delay and inaction in its final complaint response, meaning it went unaddressed and the complaint about the issue unresolved.
  11. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to its insurance claim process in its final response. The resident said he purchased products to remove the mould himself and had experienced damage to his walls and decor. Given that he felt the landlord’s delayed responses to previous leaks had caused the damage, this was the correct process for the resident to make a claim.
  12. Overall, while the landlord attended to the leaks and sink back surge appropriately, it failed to reasonably resolve the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It inspected the damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe after the resident’s initial report. But it then failed to update him about the outcome of this inspection or follow up on its discussion about a mould wash. This resulted in the resident taking the time and trouble to remove the mould himself. The landlord did not fully remedy this issue in its complaint responses.

ASB

  1. The landlord did not have an ASB policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. It now has one. The landlord’s noise and nuisance guidelines states noise diaries can form basis of evidence for further action. It says these may not suit everyone and alternative means of recording e.g. Noise apps can be considered. It says informal measures include mediation, conversations, and letters.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident had reported noise and rubbish thrown onto his balcony in 2021, 2022, and January 2023. The resident reported the issues again on 27 December 2023, before complaining about the landlord’s handling of the issue in July 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to limit its investigation to the 12 months prior to his complaint. This was in line with its complaint policy.
  3. The evidence shows the landlord visited the resident on 8 January 2024 in response to his reports of ASB on 27 December 2023. The landlord provided a noise diary. This was in line with its noise and nuisance guidelines. There is no evidence of the resident completing or returning the noise diary to the landlord. Although, he sent the landlord further details in an email on 6 February 2024.
  4. The landlord’s complaint response states it had visited the resident several times about his reports. There are no records of these visits apart from on 8 January 2024 and 31 May 2024. It is not clear if it updated the resident after his email on 6 February 2024.
  5. A housing officer visited the resident again on 31 May 2024. Emails from the time of the complaint show the landlord discussed the noise and rubbish with the neighbour on the same day and told the resident the outcome of the visit. This informal measure was in line with its noise policy. Nothing indicates that the landlord could have taken formal action with the resident’s reports at that point.
  6. The landlord also gave the resident another noise diary. This was appropriate in order for the landlord to make an evidence-based decision on any further action it could take. However, given that he had not returned the previous diaries, the landlord could have considered an alternative such as the use of a noise app as stated in its noise guidelines. There is no evidence that it did so.
  7. It was not clear if the landlord discussed the ASB with the neighbour prior to 31 May 2024. An internal email from 31 January 2024 stated it had been unable to get in touch with the neighbour at that point. Discussing the resident’s reports with the neighbour was in line with measures in the landlord’s noise policy. However, there is no evidence of the landlord considering other informal measures in its policy such as letters when it was unable to contact the neighbour. As such, the resident waited 5 months for the outcome of the landlord’s investigation into his reports.
  8. Overall, the landlord initially responded to the resident’s report of ASB in December 2023 appropriately by visiting the resident and providing a noise diary. However there no evidence it then took action in response to the further details provided by the resident in February 2024 until 31 May 2024. It also failed to show it updated the resident or followed up on the noise diary it had provided during this time.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about leaks, damp and mould, and sink back surges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB from a neighbour.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £400 This is comprised of:
    1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing found in its response to the resident’s reports about leaks, damp and mould.
    2. £200 for its handling of the resident’s reports about (ASB) from a neighbour.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with this order within the deadline above.