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

Camden Council (202305735)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305735

Camden Council

31 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Failure to keep appointments to identify the cause of the resident’s reports of mould at the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom third-floor flat. The building is grade 2 listed. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 17 November 2022 the resident informed the landlord that her son had been in hospital 3 times due to quinsy. A complication of tonsilitis. She described his bedroom as an “ice box” and said she had asked it “on numerous occasions” to improve the property’s windows and issues with mould. The resident repeated her concerns to the landlord on 1 December 2022, 6, 13, and 17 February 2023.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 March 2023. She said the landlord had failed to keep 2 appointments to inspect her property on 13 and 24 February 2022. She said she had “waited months” and asked the landlord to rebook. She considered it should compensate her for her time and its failure.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 3 April 2023. In which, it said there had been no service failure and it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said its repair system showed that it had attended both appointments. It considered there had been no access on 13 February 2023 to complete the mould inspection.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on 3 April 2023. She considered the landlord’s stage 1 response “grossly wrong.” She considered its facts incorrect and repeated that neither appointment took place.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 4 May 2023. In which, it upheld the resident’s complaint. It said its records supported the resident’s view that progress has been confusing and inefficient.” It apologised and planned further damp and mould prevention work to the resident’s property in May 2023.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and brought her complaint to us. She said she had reminded the landlord she had taken time off work for it to attend the property. She considered compensation due for its failure to attend as planned. Her position regarding the poor condition of the property’s windows, cold room temperatures, and mould growth remained the same.
  8. During our conversation with the resident on 17 October 2024, she reported that the property continued to suffer with mould. She said the property remained cold and the windows offered little insulation. She said the landlord’s attending staff had previously described them as “defective and needed to be replaced.” The resident explained remedial work completed by the landlord had never been effective.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We note from the resident’s correspondence that she expressed concern about the landlord’s handling of her window repair and reports of damp at the property. In particular, that the property’s conditions may have contributed to the ill health of a household member. She also considered the landlord’s failures to keep appointments affected her employment and income. We do not doubt these comments or the distress this situation may have caused.
  2. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. This includes whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or personal finances. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore, we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must make an assessment of liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health or finances.
  3. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Failure to keep appointments to identify the cause of the resident’s reports of mould at the property

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes window frames.
  2. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Excess cold and damp and mould growth are potential hazards. Therefore, the landlord should demonstrate its actions to assess such reports. It should consider whether the issues amount to a hazard and what action it plans to monitor and or remedy matters.
  3. There is evidence within the landlord’s repair records of reports of condensation, mould, and defects with the property’s bedroom window on 7 occasions between 8 March 2017 to 31 March 2023. While we are not assessing the individual historic reports, collectively it demonstrates a recurring problem. The resident says she repeatedly informed the landlord of these matters. While she does not dispute that historically it has attended, it has never provided her with a permanent remedy.
  4. Following the missed appointment to inspect the reported damp and mould on 17 February 2023, there is evidence the landlord completed an inspection 4 working days later, on 23 February 2023. While the disruption of a missed appointment would have understandably caused the resident inconvenience, the landlord’s timescale to reattend was reasonable.
  5. We note from the landlord’s repair records it recorded the presence of black mould on the property’s window’s and bedroom wall during this visit. Also, on 26 March 2023 a further mould inspection recorded “really need new windows made and fitted (bedroom).” It is therefore unclear why there was no evidence provided to suggest that the landlord had acted on this, and it failed to acknowledge this within its stage 2 response.
  6. Given the history of the resident’s reports, it is unclear why the landlord only repeated mould wash treatments and minor window repairs. We have identified no evidence of communication with the resident to explain any long term action plans or explain any potential delays due to the property’s grade 2 status. Nor have we seen work to assess the thermal efficiency of the property or attempts to improve ventilation and reduce condensation. This does not demonstrate the landlord monitored the identified issues or effectively communicated with the resident.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response does not dispute errors occurred with its record keeping in February 2023. It recognised that its appointment records for the resident’s property had gaps in its notes. This included missing attendance times or completion dates. This led to the resident spending time chasing matters via the landlord’s online web chat service.
  8. It was therefore reasonable that it apologised for these errors which had led to it “delivering a poor service.” This demonstrated the landlord recognised where it had gone wrong.
  9. The landlord provided its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould. In which, it states that it adopts a zero tolerance approach and has put in place dedicated resources since January 2021. Its self-assessment refers to a revised damp and mould procedure in November 2022 and the development of a specific damp and mould policy from December 2023. In which we have identified that the landlord says it will:
    1. Identify the correct root cause to deliver appropriate remedial works to prevent reoccurrence.
    2. During the initial tenant report and visit, it will consider any negative impact on the health of the resident or anyone living in the household and will complete a standardised assessment survey and share with the resident.
  10. While we are considering the landlord’s failure to attend planned appointments, we note that we have seen no evidence of how the landlord considered either of the points above. This did not demonstrate it followed its damp and mould procedures.
  11. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
    1. Adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
    2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
    3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
    4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used. This includes sharing the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
  12. Had the landlord demonstrated that it adopted the approach set out in these recommendations and its revised policy, it may have avoided the service failings identified in this report. The resident does not dispute that the landlord made attempts to wash and treat the recurring mould. That said, she says the works were always temporary and the landlord repeatedly advised her the windows were the cause. It is therefore unclear why we have been unable to identify regular communication with the resident about this issue or its strategy to provide an effective solution.
  13. While the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s failure to attend a mould inspection appointment, the identified failing goes further. There is evidence of poor record keeping and a failure to demonstrate effectively applying its own damp and mould procedures.
  14. Therefore, we find service failure with this complaint point. While there is evidence it has since attended and attempted to resolve the reported issues, these have not lasted. Though the landlord has apologised for its failure to attend planned appointments, we order it to pay the resident £75 for her time and trouble. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when we do not consider an apology alone proportionate redress.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. Also, for landlord’s to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
  2. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. In which, its relevant policy says it would respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 25 working days, respectively. This was not appropriate and not compliant with the expectations with the Code.
  3. In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s relevant complaint handling policy. However, we note on its website the landlord has completed a revised policy from July 2024. The landlord’s changes are now in line with the Code, which became statutory on 1 April 2024. Our assessment will continue based on the landlord’s relevant policy, during its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  4. Having raised a stage 1 complaint on 20 March 2023, it was reasonable for the resident to have expected an acknowledgement by 27 March 2023 and a response by 3 April 2023.
  5. While the landlord’s stage 1 response met this expected timescale, it has not provided evidence which demonstrates it sent the resident a complaint acknowledgement. That it did not, did not meet the expectations of its complaint policy or the Code. Similarly, we have also been unable to identify that it sent an acknowledgement to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its ICP.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not demonstrate completion of a thorough investigation. While it was reasonable to rely on its systems for information, the resident had clearly said the appointments had not taken place. The landlord’s response that there had been “no failure” without investigating potential record keeping errors was dismissive of the resident’s reports. This did nothing to improve the landlord and resident relationship.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response within the Code’s expected 20 working day response timescale. It was also appropriate that it acknowledged its failures in this response. While it still believed it had kept an appointment for a plastering job at the property, which the resident disputes, it acknowledged its failure regards its damp and mould inspection appointment. It advised its records supported her position and apologised for poor service and record keeping. It recognised these failures would have caused the resident “inconvenience and nuisance.”
  8. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress (apology) offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  9. It was fair for the landlord to apologise at stage 2 for the effects of poor record keeping. The landlord said it would share its findings with its staff. This demonstrated its intent to learn from the outcome of its failures. However, while the landlord acknowledged and apologised, it offered no compensation.
  10. In putting things right, the landlord should acknowledge where something has gone wrong and set out actions it has already taken or intends to take to put things right. Although the landlord apologised for failures with its appointments and arranged alternatives, we do not consider an apology alone adequate. Given the landlord’s failure to thoroughly investigate at stage 1 of its ICP, she had experienced time and trouble to progress her complaint. This was particularly upsetting for her as she believed the issues to be the cause of a household members ill health. This would understandably have caused her distress.
  11. Therefore, we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling and order it to pay £100 compensation. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when the actions to put things right were not proportionate to the identified failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s failure to keep appointments to identify the cause of the resident’s reports of mould at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. We order the landlord take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. It must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident a compensation totalling £175. This is made up of:
      1. £75 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s failure to keep appointments to identify the cause of the resident’s reports of mould at the property.
      2. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenienced caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks we order the landlord to:
    1. Arrange an independent survey of the resident’s property. The landlord must appoint an independent external contractor to complete this. It should include:
      1. An assessment of its thermal performance to ensure it is insulated appropriately.
      2. An assessment of moisture readings within the affected rooms and walls.
      3. An inspection to assess the condition of the resident’s windows. Including their thermal performance and to evaluate the need to replace them, as identified by the landlord on 26 March 2023.
    2. The landlord should discuss the findings of the independent report and provide the resident with a written summary of the findings. It should inform her of the outcome of each assessment and set out the actions arising from the surveys. This should include timescales of any remedial work and a point of contact she is able to communicate with.
    3. The landlord must provide a copy of the report and its findings to us, also within 8 weeks.