Camden Council (202301824)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301824

Camden Council

31 May 2024

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. handling of the resident’s reported leak, damp and mould.
2. complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom, top–floor flat. The lease commenced in April 2022.
On 11 January 2023 the resident reported a leak coming into his flat from above. The landlord told the resident that it would attend on 18 January 2023. Around the same time, the resident’s neighbour also reported a similar leak. On the day of the scheduled appointment, the landlord attended the resident’s neighbour’s property, but not his.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 February 2023 as the landlord had yet to attend to the leak. The landlord subsequently raised an appointment. The records show that the landlord and its contractor attended the property 4 times that month, but were unable to find the cause of the leak. At the beginning of March 2023, the landlord set out that it had identified several issues contributing to the leak. It advised:
1. the cold water tank (situated in the loft area) overflow was back filling.
2. the pipe on the tank was too short and needed to be extended.
3. there was a hole in the roof.
In March 2023 the landlord noted that it needed rope access to repair the roof. It also needed access to 3 flats within the resident’s building to trace the overflow issue with the cold water tank.
On 21 March 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint. He said:
1. the landlord failed to attend the appointment on 18 January and had to chase it for another one at the beginning of February. It also failed to attend a further two appointments on 28 February and 16 March. He said, as a result, that he had “needlessly” taken two full days off work in total.
2. the landlord’s “infighting” with its contractor over repair responsibility meant that he had been living with damp and mould for approximately two and a half months and the leak was still unresolved. As he had asthma, the landlord’s “neglect” of its duties was “dangerous.”
3. as the leak continued, it was causing more damage to his flat. The plaster was falling off the ceiling where he slept and there was mould growing. His [bed]room was “unliveable” and [his home office] next to it was also now affected.
4. he had explained his experience and provided photographic evidence to his housing officer, but had not received a response.
5. he wanted the leak resolved as a priority, repairs to the affected rooms completed and compensation for:
  1. missed appointments.
  2. the prolonged exposure to the mould and damp, especially because he was asthmatic.
  3. loss of amenity for partial use of the room throughout the 2-3 month period, which included his home office.
  4. distress, discomfort and inconvenience.
On 14 April 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update on his complaint. He explained that the landlord had failed to attend another appointment that day. He said that the damage caused by the leak had become worse; mushrooms were growing out of the ceiling and flies were laying eggs in it.
On 23 April 2023 the landlord issued it stage 1 response. It said:
1. the resident had received a poor level of service and communication. The delays were caused by it and its contractor’s failure to take ownership of the repair and the job was passed back and forth between the parties.
2. it failed to identify the correct cause of the leak which meant the issue should have been passed to a specialist, which did not happen.
3. it told the resident that the leak would be dealt with on 18 January because it considered the resident’s and his neighbour’s reported leaks to be connected. Although it carried out a roof repair at that time, the leak remained unresolved.
4. its records showed the 16 March appointment was cancelled but it did not know why.
5. It would carry out further inspections and repairs to the cold water tank on 27 April and 5 May 2023.
6. feedback about this case had been given to repair teams for learning and service improvement purposes.
7. the resident should contact his home insurance regarding the internal damage to his home. It said as the damage was not caused by the resident, he could make a public liability claim, to claim back any excess paid. It said that he could also pursue a clam via its insurance team if he felt that it was negligent in its handling of the repair.
It offered the resident £330 compensation, which comprised of:
1. £80 for the delay in resolving the repair.
2. £100 for the time, trouble and distress caused.
3. £150 for the impact the leak had on the resident’s living conditions.
The landlord’s repair records show that it partially completed work to the cold water tank on 5 May 2023.
On 23 May 2023 the resident escalated his complaint, he said:
1. the landlord took over a month to respond to his complaint. During that time the issues worsened.
2. the landlord only visited on 5 May to take pictures, which had been done before. The landlord visited again on 9 May and distributed letters asking for residents to allow access in June. The issues remained unresolved and the conditions had worsened since the weather had warmed up.
3. the Mould and Damp team told him on 29 March that the leak needed to be repaired before it could deal with the damp and mould. It had not taken into account that he was asthmatic.
4. although he no longer used his [bed]room, his clothes and the rest of his flat was “contaminated” with spores and had sought medical attention for his asthma and skin health. The landlord’s lack of support meant that he had to remove the mushrooms and mould himself, which he said he should not have had to do.
5. the offer of compensation was low because it had not factored in:
  1. the damage to his health.
  2. the loss of amenity of “the room” at a rentable value of £1300 per month.
  3. that the issues were ongoing.
  4. the amount of emails and calls he had made to the landlord. Nor the loss of sleep and psychological effects sleeping beneath a leaking ceiling had on him.
6. he wanted the investigation into the matter to be extended and the level of compensation reviewed.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 June 2023. It said:
1. its stage 1 complaint response was delayed due to heavy workloads. It apologised and said that it was addressing the issue.
2. the Damp and Mould team were “generally” correct as some of the remedial work that they would carry out would have had to wait until the leak was resolved. The team had considered from the photographs that the resident submitted that there was no active mould. They considered that once the leak was resolved, the wetness would dry out. It said that the team had referred the resident to the repair services at that time.
3. the more recent photographs from the resident showed that the issue had worsened. It said it would ask the Damp and Mould team to contact the resident again and reconsider any steps required to address the mould and mushrooms in his home.
4. the cause of the leak had been resolved. The last entry on the works order was 14 June 2023. It said the work order remained open so it could monitor the matter and ensure that the leak had been fully resolved.
5. it could not compensate the resident for the potential rental value of the room/property affected by the damp. It said if the resident was letting out his room/property, it would expect him to have landlord’s insurance to protect him from any loss of rental income.
6. the resident should contact his contents insurance to for any damages to his “goods”.
7. because the issue had not been fully closed, it had increased the compensation to £400, which comprised of an additional:
  1. £20 for the delay to resolve the leak.
  2. £50 for the impact the leak had on the resident’s living conditions (which now included distress/risk of harm due to the resident’s reported health and psychological concerns)
The resident told this Service that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling, in particular, the delayed responses.
2. comments that he should make claims on his own insurance and that it could not compensate him for loss of amenity.
3. level of compensation it offered for its handling of his repairs over a 6 month period.
4. failure to remove the mould caused by the leak, which was still present. He said that the exposure to the mould had worsened his respiratory condition.

The landlord’s policies and procedures and legislation

The landlord’s responsive repair policy in place at the time of the events complained of stated:
1. it was responsible for repairing water storage tanks that were situated in roof spaces and the structure of its resident’s building, including roof repairs.
2. it would complete urgent repairs within 5 working days, routine repairs within 20 working days. Works that were complex and involved specialist works would be completed within an agreed timescale.
Its remedies guidance stated that it would, if appropriate, pay up to £500 for risk of harm, which is said followed the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) guidelines.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
Damp and mould are health threats due to dust mites, mould or fungal growth. Health effects include allergies, asthma, breathing difficulties, fungal infection, rhinitis, depression and anxiety.
The lease stated that the landlord would maintain and repair the structure of the building, including the roof.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has explained that the damp and mould in his property has had a negative impact of his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of any failings by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported leak, damp and mould

The leak

The evidence provided does not include a contemporaneous record of when the resident reported the leak in January 2023. However, the evidence does demonstrate that the landlord told the resident that it would attend to the leak on 18 January. However, it failed to attend. The resident stated that he had received appointment reminders for the repair. As such, it is understandable that the resident considered that the landlord would inspect his flat on that day.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that as it already had an appointment booked for a similar issue by another resident, it assumed that the two were connected. Therefore, it only attended the neighbour’s flat. The landlord’s comments are noted. However, it was not reasonable for it to make such an assumption. Furthermore, it had agreed to attend the resident’s property in response to his report and it was therefore inappropriate that it failed to do so. The landlord should have investigated the resident’s individual reported leak so it could satisfy itself that it had taken appropriate steps to resolve his repair. This would have also demonstrated to the resident that it had taken his report seriously and was committed to resolving the issue. That it did not is a failing.
In addition, the landlord caused the resident time and trouble as he had taken time off work for the appointment which it failed to attend. Subsequently, the leak was not resolved and the resident had to chase the landlord in early February 2023. This may have been reasonably avoided if the landlord had inspected the resident’s flat, as it had agreed to do so, on 18 January 2023.
In February 2023 the landlord and its contractor investigated the leak approximately 4 times without identifying the cause of the problem. The Ombudsman recognises that leaks can be complex and that in some cases finding the source of the problem may take some time. However, in this case, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the source was particularly difficult to locate, or that the repair itself was complex. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it failed to take ownership of the matter and correctly identify the cause of the leak at this time, which was appropriate. However it failed to acknowledge that the lack of ownership and the back and forth between the parties caused the resident time and trouble. Such as, he had taken an afternoon off work for a pre-booked appointment on 28 February, where neither it nor its contractor attended. Therefore an order has been made in relation to this matter.
The resident complained that the landlord failed to attend another appointment on 16 March 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it was unable establish the reason for the cancellation. This is indicative of a record keeping issue, as the landlord should reasonably have been able to identify why the appointment did not go ahead. Our May 2023 ‘Knowledge and Information’ spotlight report highlighted that poor record keeping can contribute to inadequate communication. This is demonstrated in this case, as the evidence available shows that the landlord failed to inform the resident that the appointment had been cancelled. This caused him further time and trouble. In addition, it would have also exacerbated his distress as the leak still remained unresolved.
The Ombudsman has recently made orders in relation to other investigations which require the landlord to carry out a review of its record keeping arrangements. For this reason, we have not made a separate order in this case, but the landlord should ensure that any further learning or insight from this individual investigation is taken into consideration in its review and ongoing service development.
The landlord carried out further inspections on 29 March 2023. Its records show that it needed access to individual flats within the resident’s building and was only able to gain access to 3 on that day. It is unclear whether it had informed the residents of the appointment. Nonetheless, its records show that it requested a new appointment to inspect individual flats that day. However, it was not until 27 April; a month later that it booked and informed the residents of the required access on 5 May 2023. While the delay is unknown, there is no evidence to suggest that it was unavoidable, therefore it was a further failing.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it would carry out further repairs to the cold water tank on 27 April. However, while its records show that it had informed the residents of the upcoming appointment on 5 May; its repair logs do not indicate that any repairs were carried out at that time.
The logs show that it had “partially” completed some works to the cold tank work on 5 May. In the absence of contemporaneous records of the outcome of that visit, coupled with the resident’s comment that the landlord required further access in June; it is reasonable to say that the work was still outstanding at that point. The evidence suggests that the landlord may not have been able to access all flats on the day which may have been outside of its control. While it is unclear, it appears that the repairs to the cold water tank were completed around mid-June 2023. It is also unclear when the landlord completed the roof repairs, however it is noted that the resident nor the landlord raised any further issues around any leaks after mid-June 2023.
The landlord offered the resident £100 for the delay in resolving the leak. Given that it had taken the landlord approximately 5 months to resolve the matter, the compensation was not proportionate for its failing. Therefore an order has been made in recognition of this.
The resident said that the landlord should repair the internal damage to his flat caused by the leak. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said he should pursue a claim on his own insurance, or if he “felt” that it had been negligent he could pursue a claim via its own insurance team. Given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have directly referred the resident to its insurance team only and not suggest that he made a claim on his own insurance. The landlord’s response was therefore inappropriate and an order has been in relation to this matter.

The damp and mould

In March 2023 the resident reported approximately 3 times that he was concerned about the damp and mould that had formed because he was asthmatic. The evidence available demonstrates that his housing officer failed to respond, and the landlord failed to respond to him in a timely manner. This was inappropriate. In the circumstances, and given the resident’s concern about the impact on his health, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make further enquiries and to see whether any interim measures could be undertaken to ensure that the resident was adequately supported. We do not have a contemporaneous record of the Mould and Damp team’s response. However, it is not disputed that it had told the resident that the remedial work to resolve the leak needed to be completed before it could carry out any work to treat the damp and mould. The landlord’s response was not entirely appropriate. It is acknowledged that the damp and mould would have persisted while the leak remained unremedied. However, that the leak was ongoing should not have precluded the landlord from considering carrying out an interim mould wash in the circumstances. That no action was taken was inappropriate.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the information its Damp and Mould team had told the resident was “generally” correct. It said that the resident’s photos that he provided showed that there was no active mould present at that time. While the photos may have provided the landlord with some indication of the issue, it would have been reasonable for it to have carried out its own inspection at that time. Damp and mould inspections allow landlords to gather vital information that may not be available by photo, such as damp readings. Additionally, given that the resident told the landlord that he was asthmatic and that mushrooms were growing out of the ceiling, it was even more so important for such an inspection. This would have allowed the landlord to satisfy itself that it had taken reasonable steps to investigate the matter. Furthermore this would have demonstrated to the resident that it was taking his concerns about his health seriously.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on or around 26 June 2023 which showed that there was damp and “mild” mould in two rooms. It carried out some repairs to both rooms at the end of July 2023. However, the landlord’s records show that there were follow up works. It is unclear whether these were completed. The resident has told the Service that the damp and mould works remain outstanding. An order has therefore been made in relation to this.
The resident explained that the damp and mould had “contaminated” his clothes and the rest of his flat. In response, the landlord said that he should contact his insurance for any damage to his “goods”. This response was not entirely appropriate. While the resident could have claimed on his own insurance, given that he had expressed concern that the damage had been caused as a result of the conditions within the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have referred the resident to its insurance team so a decision in relation to liability could be made. That it did not is a failing.
The resident asked the landlord to consider compensation in the form of loss of amenity given that he was unable to have full use of his bedroom while the repairs were outstanding. In its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident that it could not compensate him for the potential rental value of the room. It expected him to have landlord’s insurance if he had loss of rental income due to the damp and mould. The basis for the landlord’s response is unclear and appears to have been based on an assumption that the resident was sub-letting the property. From the evidence that is available, it is unclear how or why the landlord reached this conclusion. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to directly address the resident’s comments and say whether or not it felt some payment for loss of amenity was warranted in the circumstances together with the reasons why.
Based on the evidence that is available, we consider that payment for loss of amenity would be appropriate in this case. The resident was clear and consistent in explaining how his use of the property had been affected. It took the landlord 22 weeks to resolve the leak and 19 weeks to undertake the initial damp and mould works within the bedroom. It is noted that further works may be required, and a separate order has been made in relation to this. However, we consider that the loss of amenity was for a duration of 28 weeks. We consider that it is reasonable for the landlord to pay £3,360 (£120 per week) compensation for loss of use and enjoyment of the property during this time. It is acknowledged that the resident was hoping for a significantly larger figure, and that he will be disappointed as a result. However, the figure of £120 per week has been calculated using the equivalent social rent for a property of the same size in the same area (based on data from the regulator of Social Housing). We also acknowledge that this is not a precise calculation, but we consider it to be fair and reasonable taking all the circumstances into account.
The landlord offered the resident £200 for the impact the living conditions had on his health and psychological concerns. Given that such considerations fall outside of our remit, we cannot say whether this was a fair offer. These are matters for the court or the landlord’s insurers to determine. As such, if the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer for these matters he may wish to seek further compensation via a personal injury claim.
The landlord offered the resident £100 for the time, trouble and distress caused. It was reasonable for the landlord to make an offer in recognition of this. However, the evidence demonstrates that during over a protracted time; 6 months, the resident:
1. chased the landlord for updates as it failed to keep in reasonable contact with him.
2. taken time off of work for pre-booked appointments that the landlord failed to attend.
3. was unable to fully enjoy or use his bedroom and home office during that period because of the landlord’s failure to resolve the matters in a timely manner.
As such, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the offer of £100 does not appropriately reflect the detriment caused by its failures Therefore a further award of compensation for time and trouble and caused has been ordered in recognition of this in line with Ombudsman remedies guidance.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. identify the cause of the leak in a timely manner.
2. resolve the leak in a timely manner, once the cause of it was identified.
3. appropriately consider the resident’s concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on his health and whether any interim action could be taken.
4. carry out a damp and mould inspection when the resident first reported his concerns. Especially as he stated he had health concerns.
5. refer the resident to its insurance team when he explained that his clothes and flat were “contaminated” by the damp and mould.
6. demonstrate that it had completed the damp and mould treatment.
Therefore, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported leak, damp and mould.
It is noted that the landlord’s responsive repair policy at that time did not include a provision for damp and mould issues and it did not have a separate damp and mould policy. However it has since introduced one, which provides its staff with steps to follow within expected times frames when a resident reports damp and mould. This is welcomed.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident complained to the landlord on 21 March 2023 and it responded on 23 April 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. In this case, it issued its response approximately 13 working days passed its deadline. While this was a significant delay, there is no evidence that it advised the resident that its response would not be issued in time. It is noted that the landlord was transparent about its failures at the early stages of the identifying the leak, which was appropriate.
The landlord subsequently delayed in issuing its stage 2 response. This, again, was a not a significant delay and was 2 days outside of its 20 working day timescale. The landlord attributed its delay in responding to the complaint to a heavy workload and apologised. Although this went some way to put matters right, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer some compensation given that its response was delayed at both stages of the complaints process. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged its delays, it failed to take steps to put things right. We have therefore found service failure in respect of the complaint handling and ordered a sum of compensation aimed at putting things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported leak, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the determination of this report, the landlord should do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. pay the resident £3,710 compensation. Comprised of:
  1. £3,360 for the loss of amenity and enjoyment due to the landlord’s failure to resolve the leak and damp and mould in a timely manner.
  2. £300 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the landlord’s delays in resolving the leak, and damp and mould in a timely manner.
  3. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its delayed complaint responses.
3. pay the resident the compensation it previously offered, if it has not done so already.
4. contact the resident to:
  1. ascertain whether there are any outstanding repairs relating to the damp and mould works. If there are, they must be completed within 4 weeks of notification. It should also consider whether any further compensation for the date of this determination to the date of completion of the works is warranted.
  2. provide him with the details of its insurer and how to make a claim.
Within 12 weeks, taking into consideration the failures outlined in this report, the landlord must carry out a case review. It should:
1. review its response times in relation to leaks. In particular, it should ensure that it has a process and relevant resources in place to carry out and resolve leaks within a reasonable time period.
2. train/retrain staff on its damp and mould policy 2024. In particular, it should ensure that inspections and assessments are carried out in a timely manner.