Camden Council (202322222)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322222

Camden Council

30 April 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 response to reports of damp and mould, related repairs, and a crack in the window.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat in a converted town house and the resident moved in via mutual exchange. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, although she has explained that she has an auto-immune disease and suffers from anxiety.

Summary of Events

In January 2019 the resident reported damp patches in the hallway and kitchen. When it rained the gutters would overflow and there was also a leak from the boiler pipework. The landlord raised a repair to check the boiler pipework in January 2019 and a roofer was booked for February 2019. The landlord identified a problem with blocked guttering which was causing water to leak in through the pipes, but no issues with the boiler. It raised a work order for this to be cleared. The contractor that initially attended did not have the right equipment, it was raised again in October to November 2019 but then it was cancelled.
National lockdowns were then implemented in March 2020, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and no repairs were undertaken. The landlord gave the resident a leaflet about managing condensation and the resident was managing the damp and mould by cleaning and using dehumidifiers. However there were still damp patches, peeling paint, marks on the walls, and lingering smells of mould. She would wake up with sore, itchy eyes and headaches. She discovered that the mould had also spread behind the wallpaper in the lounge and beneath the kitchen sink, and she reported this to the landlord.
In August 2022 the landlord visited again and confirmed that the upper external guttering was blocked and coming away where the boiler was. There were mould washes, and the resident re-raised reports about mould to the landlord, in December 2022.
On 11 January 2023 the resident reported a leak under the kitchen sink, and repeated her reports about the worsening mould. The landlord inspected the property on 27 and 30 January 2023 and, while it did not evidence a specialist damp and mould inspection, it provided repair records which showed that mould washes were raised. There has been no evidence that the landlord identified the root cause of the damp and mould in the January 2023 inspections. The resident reported that, at the time, she was told by the contractor there was black mould in the brickwork and this needed to be replaced. She also explained that the inspections did not include the external guttering/pipework or the boiler which was still flooding when it rained.
The resident chased the landlord’s repair team for the outstanding work to the brickwork in March 2023. In response, on 23 March 2023 the landlord raised an urgent inspection. It then recorded that there were access issues, which the resident disputed.
The resident emailed a complaint to the landlord on 23 July 2023, saying that, in the last 6 months, 2 teams had turned up on the same day to take photographs of the mould. They had identified work beneath the sink and told her it was the ‘worst kind of mould’ but then failed to communicate an action plan for remedial work.
On 27 July 2023 the resident also complained about the landlord’s response to a separate report made in May 2023 about a crack in the window. A repair appointment originally booked for 21 June 2023 had been rebooked by the landlord for 27 July 2023 between 12pm and 6pm. The resident said she called twice on the day to confirm and on the second call she was told that they were not turning up and then the call was ended while she was still talking. She complained about the lack of repair service and the conduct of staff.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 9 August 2023, it:
1. Upheld the complaint due to the missed appointment for the window and the time taken for mould works to be carried out following the inspections of January 2023. It apologised and offered £175 for time and trouble.
2. Advised that a new damp and mould inspection was required, due to changes in its approach to damp and mould, and invited the resident to book this in.
3. Said there was staff absence which is why the original window repair appointment of June 2023 was rebooked and then there was a delay in the landlord’s system which caused the operative not to receive notice of the new appointment in time. It had now rebooked this for a third time for 18 August 2023. It apologised for the abrupt ending of the telephone call.
On 15 August 2023 a mould inspection was booked in. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord her response to its stage 1 letter:
1. She was looking after her elderly mother and had her own health issues, causing her time and trouble in chasing repairs. She asked if the landlord could refer to the photographs and records it had from previous inspections.
2. An appointment for 23 March 2023 for the mould was not communicated to the resident.
3. She was told that the brickwork beneath the kitchen sink showed the ‘worst kind’ of mould and needed to be removed rather than washed, but no one called to follow up about this.
4. There was black mould in the living room where she slept and when she wiped this away it returned. The landlord had sprayed over it but she was not sure this was addressing it, and she had itchy eyes and headaches.
5. There was no appointment given for the window repair, following the failed appointment of July 2023, and she wanted to know when it would attend.
6. She had appointments to keep for her mother so asked for the repair appointments or any cancellations to be communicated ahead of time.
7. If the window and mould repairs were sorted she was happy to close the complaint at stage 1.
On 21 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and reported that no one had attended to fix the window, though she sat in for hours waiting for them. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 29 August 2023 on the following grounds:
1. Missed appointments for the repair to the window. This was booked for 18 August 2023 but no one attended or communicated with her.
2. Another appointment was made for the window on 29 August 2023 but this was also not attended and no communication was received by her. Instead, the operative for the mould visited and took pictures of the window crack as well, indicating that they had prior knowledge that the repair team for the window would not be attending.
3. Appointments were not kept, or communicated, and the resident had a lot of other commitments as she was caring for her elderly mother and managing her appointments, so it was not acceptable.
The resident also reported that water was flooding behind the boiler, a repair was booked for 8 September 2023 but she changed this to 15 September 2023. However, the landlord attended on 8 September 2023 and reported no access, so it was then closed.
On 6 September 2023 the landlord raised work for a mould wash to be carried out in the kitchen, lounge and bathroom. It specified work for the area beneath the kitchen sink, the boiler, and the lounge, and highlighted that there was water ingress due to blocked pipework outside. This was arranged for 18 and 19 September 2023. On 19 September 2023 the operative attended and found that there was disrepair to the guttering causing rain water to come through the boiler flue and there was nothing wrong with the boiler itself. The repair logs state that this needed to be passed to the guttering team, and this was already established historically by a surveyor.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 11 September 2023, it acknowledged missed appointments for the window repair on 18 and 29 August 2023 due to staff sickness and planning of appointments. It had tried to communicate this to the resident but failed to. It apologised and rebooked this for 15 September 2023. It noted that 2 more mould inspections took place in September 2023 which identified that a mould wash was needed, and this was scheduled for 18 September 2023.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

In September and October 2023 more works took place, including a mould wash. The resident was also shown how to unblock the gutter at ground level and the flooding from the boiler pipework had resolved. However, she remained dissatisfied with the timeframe for the repair, the mould washes did not cover all the affected areas, she was worried about the future communication of the landlord if she ever needed to raise repairs, and she felt that her health had been compromised by exposure to the mould.
In October 2023 the area behind the kitchen sink was inspected again and it was established that the resident’s actions of putting sealant around the sink area allowed the space beneath to dry out. A new leak from the washing machine was reported to the landlord in January 2024 and was resolved. There was also a broken door latch reported in March 2024, which was reportedly broken by a contractor and left access to the ground floor unsecure. The resident wanted this to be fixed sooner than the 3 months repair timeframe she was offered because she had a stalker and it was causing her anxiety.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation has considered events relating to the issues raised through the complaints process from July to October 2023. The landlord has had an opportunity to investigate and resolve these issues internally before the Ombudsman has intervened. More recent concerns would need to be raised with the landlord as a formal complaint, and to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process, before this Service could consider them further (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme).
The resident reported that she experienced itchy and sore eyes and headaches as a result of sleeping in the property with mould, and she felt that her health was compromised by delays in the landlord resolving the mould. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Damp and mould, related repairs, and a crack in the window.

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof, brickwork, rainwater goods where damage is being caused, carrying out damp proof work, repairs and maintenance of gullies and drains, and unblocking pipes connected to the home as per the tenancy guidance document. It should complete emergency repairs on the same day and other repairs within appointed times. The landlord must ultimately carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985. The landlord has not disputed its repair responsibilities.
The landlord was first aware of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in January 2019 and it took reasonable steps to engage an expert opinion in at that time to identify the root case, which was found to be a guttering repair. However it then failed to complete the repair and its protracted and unreasonable repair service resulted in persistent damp and mould until 2023, which it intermittently treated with mould washes.
The resident was resolution focused and proactive in taking steps to manage the impact of the repair and resulting damp and mould, such as by taking steps to address the moisture in the property and doing patch cleaning and basic repairs such as sealing off the kitchen unit.
However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address the repairs it had already identified as causing the water ingress, which it repeatedly confirmed, sooner than it did. The timescale between 2019, when it identified the remedial work, and 2023, when it completed it, was not reasonable. This was approximately 4 years over the reasonable timescale of 28 days to complete the repairs. While it provided mould washes and further inspections throughout this time, and there were delays due to the national lockdown, the landlord missed the opportunity to complete repairs as soon as it had the opportunity to do so.
There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s response to the guttering repair, which caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident who experienced intermittent water ingress behind the boiler. She incurred time and trouble in having to chase and accommodate repeat inspections and visits, without the resolution being implemented as soon as it could have been. There was a failure in the landlord’s response to the repair related to the damp and mould.
The landlord did not clearly establish its assessment of damp and mould in the rest of the property through a specialist surveyor. The evidence shows that the resident reported she was told she had black mould beneath the kitchen sink, and this required the repairs to the brickwork; but instead the landlord provided mould washes. It remains unclear how the landlord has satisfied itself that this has been resolved entirely.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to evidence its compliance with the outcome of the updated inspection which it referred to in its stage 2 response. This would provide the resident with clarity and, if needed, an action plan to manage repairs and communication issues. This would have been reasonable given the resident’s reports of concern about the landlord’s attendance and communication regarding repair appointments, and the varied information she was reporting from the different operatives who visited.
The window repair was highlighted to the landlord in May 2023, as a crack which appeared within the window which had a fan installed. It did not affect the operation of the fan or the window, but it caused distress to the resident who feared that her elderly mother would forget and close the window as normal and this may lead to the glass breaking and causing injury. It would have therefore been reasonable for the landlord to promptly manage the repair and complete it within the appointed time it made, in June 2023.
The landlord failed to do this and missed further appointments in July and August 2023, which was unreasonable. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations fairly and the repeat missed appointments caused inconvenience to her particularly, as she explained more than once that she needed clear communication about repairs as she had to look after her mother’s care needs and appointments.
The landlord offered a total of £200 for the damp and mould repairs and delays in the window repairs. It identified missed appointments, explained the reason for the inaction by its operative, identified failure in its communication and apologised. However, it did not take into account the entirety of the repair delays and the impact on the resident; it only considered missed appointments from July 2023.
The resident experienced unnecessary and unreasonable time and trouble due to repeat visits and repeat diagnosis without follow through repairs. The landlord also missed an opportunity to explain its learning from the complaint, such as how it was dealing with the evidenced failure to coordinate with its records and contractors to complete established repairs promptly. It remains unclear at the close of the complaint whether the landlord has satisfied itself reasonably as to the treatment of the damp and mould, particularly behind the kitchen sink.
The landlord’s offer of redress was resolution focused but not proportionate to the overall impact and detriment which the resident experienced. Having regard to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our Remedies Guidance, this Service awards an additional £800 compensation (at £200 per year the damp and mould remedial repairs were outstanding beyond reasonable timescales) for time and trouble and distress and inconvenience. This is in addition to the £200 offered by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, associated repairs, and the window crack.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out the repairs associated with the damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe, and the resident was left to manage the impact of the landlord’s failure for an unreasonable length of time. The landlord arranged repeat visits despite having details of the required repairs, and it did not act soon enough in arranging the repairs. It failed to take into account the entirety of the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced within its offer of redress for its acknowledged service failures.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation (inclusive of the £200 already offered, which may be deducted if it has already been paid). This is for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
2. Confirm with the resident that it has complied with the outcome of the damp and mould inspection which it carried out as part of the stage 2 outcome, and if it has not then it should provide an action plan to the resident with timescales for any outstanding repairs for damp and mould.
As learning from this case, within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to revise with its repair team the following recommendations from the Ombudsman’s report Spotlight on: Damp and Mould, It’s Not Lifestyle:
1. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
2. Landlords should ensure that their staff, whether in-house or contractors, have the ability to identify and report early signs of damp and mould.
3. Landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. They should evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves they are taking all reasonable steps.