Camden Council (202307298)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307298

Camden Council

19 November 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 handling of the resident’s reports regarding:
1. Heating and hot water issues.
2. Damp and mould in the property.
3. Damage to personal property.
4. The complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has stated that he has multiple health conditions which include asthma, diabetes, cataracts, and arthritis. These conditions were reported to the landlord at the time of the complaint.
The property is heated via a communal boiler which is located in a plantroom within the building.
On 28 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that he was having to bleed his radiators 8 times a day due to the lack of heating in his property. The landlord attended the same day and reset the boiler. It attended again on 1 October 2022 and concluded that the valves needed to be changed. The resident reported the lack of heating again on 5 October 2022. On 15 October 2022, a leak occurred from the Air Admittance Valve (AAV) in the airing cupboard. The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 October 2022. He said that following a leak from the AAV in the airing cupboard, damage had occurred to his carpet and personal belongings. The resident asked for £50 compensation for the inconvenience.
The resident continued to report issues with heating and hot water in his property. The landlord attempted to resolve the heating issue on 11 November 2022, but the resident said this was unsuccessful. On 17 November 2022 he chased a response from the landlord to his heating issues. He said the weather was becoming colder and he was having to use hot water bottles. He said he would not turn on his radiators because of the noise they made. The landlord apologised for the delay and confirmed it would be replacing part of the boiler to rectify the issue.
On 22 November 2022, the resident reported that the radiator in his hallway had burst. The landlord removed the radiator and capped the radiator valve the next day. The resident raised a complaint again on 24 November 2022 and the landlord told him that it aimed to investigate his complaint within 10 working days.
On 28 November 2022, the resident reported that damp and mould had started to collect on his living room wall. He said mould was also growing on his kitchen wall. He said this was because he had been without sufficient heating and hot water since 28 September 2022. The resident said his asthma had become worse, and he had to boil water to carry to the bathroom for his personal hygiene. He said he could not dry clothes and that his kitchen floor felt damp. The resident said he was almost 77 years old and he feared an accident would happen. He asked for a repair timescale. On the same day, the landlord removed a blockage from the pipework in the downstairs plantroom. It said it would be in touch regarding the radiator installation.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 December 2022. It said that the resident’s complaint was about heating loss and that it was partially upholding the complaint due to its poor communication. It said it had responded to reports of heating loss and leaks in a timely manner and outlined the action it had taken so far. The landlord said there had been a boiler issue in the plant room, which was affecting the heating to residents in the block. It said the issue was resolved on 28 November 2022. It said a new radiator was on order and it would contact the resident once it was ready. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on the same day.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 April 2023. It said that it was partially upholding the complaint and acknowledged that its stage 2 response did not address the reported damp and mould. It said the hot water and heating issues had been resolved. The landlord confirmed that a damp and mould report was provided on 9 February 2023 and follow on works had been agreed. The works were wallpaper removal, mould wash, and redecoration. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It said claims for damaged belongings would need to go through his contents insurance and if the resident did not have insurance, he could complete a public liability form.

Post internal complaints procedure

The resident said that the landlord completed some damp and mould treatment in the property on 19 July 2023. However, there was outstanding damp and mould treatment required for his bedroom. The landlord visited the property on 14 September 2023. It confirmed there was no mould, but said dampness was stripping the bedroom wallpaper. It said the wallpaper needed to be removed, the damp to be scratched down, and the walls replastered, sanded, and decorated. It confirmed the windows were double glazed, the extractor fans were functional, and that there was no active internal or external leak.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said he wanted the landlord to pay compensation for its unprofessional behaviour, lack of commitment, and lack of apology. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the repairs for his bedroom wall are still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:
1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The records show that the resident experienced a leak from his neighbour’s radiator in the property above. On 23 February 2023, he asked the landlord to add this to his stage 2 complaint, after it issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did not address the leaking ceiling in its stage 2 complaint response. This issue did not form part of the resident’s original complaint, and the landlord did not have the opportunity to address it at stage 1.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a new complaint should be logged with the landlord for new issues raised. This is where a stage 1 response has already been issued, and the new issues are unrelated, or would unreasonably delay the response. The landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the leak from the neighbour’s radiator in the flat above the resident. Therefore, if the resident wishes to pursue this complaint, it should be logged as a separate complaint.
The resident has referred to his health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.

Heating and hot water issues

The Decent Homes Standard 2006 states that even if the central heating system covers most of the house making a dwelling decent, under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) a landlord must be sure that the home is warm enough for the occupant.
The landlord’s website states that if you are an enhanced tenant, then it will try to prioritise the repairs required. It said it will look for the earliest possible appointment and move the appointment forward if another slot became available.
The landlord’s repairs policy separates its repair priorities and timescales under the following categories:
1. Emergency (out of hours): A 2 hour response time where there is danger to people or the property.
2. Emergency (daytime): A same-day response time before 8pm where there is danger to people or the property.
3. Right to repair (urgent): A 3 working day response time where repairs are not an emergency but must be done within this timescale.
4. Urgent: A 5 working day response time where repairs are not an emergency but would cause significant nuisance if not completed quickly.
5. Routine: A 20 working day response time where repairs are not considered an emergency or urgent.
6. Programmed: Completed within an agreed timescale where repairs are complex, subject to leaseholder consultation or involve specialist works.
Under the landlord’s repair policy, total or partial loss of hot water and heating between 1 November and 30 April is considered an emergency repair. A severe leak from a water or heating pipe, tank or cistern, or a water supply pipe or storage tank is considered a right to repair. We would categorise the heating and hot water issue as an urgent right to repair up to 31 October under the landlord’s repair policy. This is because it was not an emergency but would cause significant nuisance if not completed quickly. From 1 November, we would categorise it as an emergency repair under the policy. We would also categorise the burst hallway radiator as an emergency due to the time of year and partial loss of heating.
The resident first reported the lack of heating from his radiators on 28 September 2022 and said he had to bleed them multiple times a day. The landlord’s notes showed that the resident was recorded on its systems as an enhanced tenant. It appropriately recorded the report as an emergency and attended the same day. The notes said that there was no heating or hot water and the boiler was reset, with the system left back up and running. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report was appropriate.
The resident reported the issue again on 5 October 2022. The landlord made multiple visits throughout October and November 2022. It sometimes repeated the same work to try and resolve the issues, such as venting the system. The resident’s reports of heating and hot water issues stopped after the landlord removed a blockage in the pipework on 28 November 2022. This was 2 months after the resident first reported the issue. This not only exceeded its repair policy timescales but likely inconvenienced the resident as he had to chase the landlord for updates and bleed his radiators most days.
The resident reported the burst hallway radiator to the landlord on 22 November 2022. The landlord’s repair policy would categorise this partial loss of heating as an emergency repair, as it occurred after 1 November. The landlord removed the radiator and capped the radiator valve on 23 November 2022, but the new radiator was not installed until 12 January 2023. This exceeded the landlord’s repair timescales. The landlord said that the replacement radiator was on back order, which was the cause of the delay. Although waiting for replacement parts may be outside of the landlord’s control, there was still more it could have done. If it knew the resident was to be without a hall radiator for some weeks, it could have supplied temporary heaters to assist with keeping his property warm. This would have also reduced the risk of any damp and mould developing.
The delays in resolving the hot water and heating issues did not show due regard to the HHSRS or Decent Homes Standard 2006 as the resident was left in a reportedly cold property. He had to resort to using hot water bottles to keep warm and carry boiling water to the bathroom for his hygiene. It was also not reasonable for the resident to continue to try and use his radiators. He would have to bleed them throughout the day, and the noise they produced caused him concern and disruption. He had already made the landlord aware of his health conditions and expressed that his plea was becoming “desperate” as the weather became colder. The repair notes stated that the resident was an “enhanced tenant.” Living in excessive cold would not only be uncomfortable and increase the risk of damp and mould, but he was likely at a greater risk due to his health issues.
The landlord had said that the resident’s reports were responded to in a timely manner, however, this does not mean its actions were sufficient. Any action taken by the landlord before 28 November 2022 did not resolve the underlying heating and hot water issues. It should have investigated the plantroom sooner. The records show that on 28 October 2022, the resident was informed that the whole block was experiencing issues with heating and hot water. This information came from the landlord. It is unclear how early the landlord was aware of this, but it indicates that the repair attempts should not have been focused solely within one property. An issue affecting multiple flats in the block would likely have a different source, such as from the plantroom.
The landlord did not consider compensating the resident for its failures to resolve the hot water and heating issues. It concluded that its only failure was insufficient communication. When considering the landlord’s compensation policy, the resident likely experienced considerable distress. It also cost him his time and trouble in repeatedly chasing the landlord. The landlord did not offer alternative means of heating his property during the time he was without sufficient heating, hot water, and a hallway radiator. The Ombudsman will therefore order compensation to be paid to the resident in recognition of the failings identified and the likely impact on the resident as a result.
Overall, the delays in the landlord’s handling of the heating and hot water were not appropriate. Its responses were reactive, rather than proactive, which led to the issue reoccurring, and likely contributed to the growth of damp and mould in the property. The landlord failed to outline how it had followed its policies, assessed the impact of the reports made, and how its handling of them was fair in all the circumstances. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of hot water and heating issues.

Damp and mould in the property

Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord said it did not have a policy specific to damp and mould issues at the time the resident experienced it, so it would have applied its general repairs policy. Its repairs policy says that for damp and mould reports, it would attend the affected property within 10 days. We have assessed the landlord’s response to damp and mould against this policy. Where the repairs policy is not specific enough to damp and mould issues, we have decided whether the actions it took were reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident first reported damp and mould to the landlord on 28 November 2022. He said it was growing on his living room and kitchen walls. An inspection of the damp and mould was not completed until 1 February 2023, where the areas of damp and mould were confirmed. Though an inspection was appropriate, it was conducted more than 2 months after the damp and mould was reported, beyond the landlord’s 10 day timescale.
The report stated that there was no damp in the property, however, there was mould in some areas. It said the kitchen wall required a mould wash and redecoration. It said a wall in the bedroom had bubbled wallpaper and suspected that mould may be behind it. It said the paper would need removing and the remainder of the wall should be treated and redecorated.
The landlord did not carry out damp and mould treatment in the property until 19 July 2023, 5 months after the inspection and 3 months after the stage 2 response. The report from the treatment in July 2023 rated the mould as an 8 on a scale of 1 – 9, with 9 being extreme. It is concerning that the resident was left living with damp and mould for approximately 8 months. This does not show due regard to the HHSRS, as damp and mould is a specified health hazard. It does not show consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities either.
The resident disputed the works which were carried out in his bedroom. The landlord visited on 14 September 2023 and acknowledged there was damp which was causing the wallpaper to peel in his bedroom. It said the wallpaper needed to be removed, damp to be scratched down, replastered, sanded and decorated. It did not find mould at the time. The resident has stated the work remains outstanding and it has now been over a year since the landlord’s last visit, which is concerning. Therefore, the conclusion of the damp and mould inspection is no longer valid after this length of time. Another inspection will be needed to assess the extent of the damp in the bedroom, and to see whether mould has now started to grow.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that remedial works were required for the reported damp and mould. However, during November 2022, it was aware that the resident was no longer using his radiators due to the noise and their ineffectiveness. It has already been identified that the landlord should have done more to address this. Turning off the radiators and boiling water for hygiene reasons created an environment where damp and mould could start to grow. It was therefore likely that the landlord’s delays in handling the hot water and heating issues led to the damp and mould growth. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this failing in its response.
We cannot say whether the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports directly affected the resident’s health, but it likely caused him distress in having to live in such conditions. The landlord’s repair records stated that the tenant should receive priority health repairs and that the resident was asthmatic. It is troubling that with this information, the landlord still failed to follow its repair responsibilities, and the situation is still ongoing for the resident in regard to the damp in the bedroom.
As such, the Ombudsman has found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. Orders have been made with the intention of putting this right for the resident.

Damage to personal property

On 15 October 2022, a leak occurred from the AAV in the airing cupboard. The resident said this had stained his carpet and some of his personal belongings. He reported this to the landlord on 17 October 2022 and the landlord replaced the AAV on 24 October 2022.
Under the landlord’s repair policy, a severe leak from a water or heating pipe, tank or cistern, or a water supply pipe or storage tank is considered a right to repair. The landlord did not have knowledge of how severe the leak was until it inspected. It would have been appropriate for it to attend the property within 3 days of the report, in case it was a severe leak. However, it attended in 7 days and resolved the issue. Although this was outside of timescales, we cannot say the damage to the resident’s personal property was due to the landlord’s negligence. The resident had already informed the landlord of the damage on 17 October 2022. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to his contents insurance or to complete a public liability form.
The Ombudsman finds that that it took the landlord too long to provide the resident with this advice. The resident was not informed he needed to complete a public liability form until the stage 2 response. When it was made available, the resident could not complete the form. He asked for it to be sent in a different format but there is no evidence that the landlord did this. This means that the resident has not been able to make a public liability claim. The landlord should have acted much sooner as it may now be more difficult for the resident to provide any additional information or evidence of the damage. This could frustrate the process of claiming for damaged belongings and cause further inconvenience.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found service failure for the delay in providing the resident with the appropriate information to submit a claim. If it has not already done so, the landlord must send the resident another public liability form in a format of his choosing. It should also reflect on its own compensation policy about loss of value. The items the resident has described as being damaged are of lower value, so it could have applied a reasonable judgement without formal valuation.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that complaints will be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 within 2 working days. They will then be resolved and responded to in 10 working days. If a resident requests a case to be escalated to stage 2, this will be responded to within 25 working days.
The landlord’s compensation framework shows that it considers compensation for residents if its standards have not been met. It considers compensation for:
1. Loss of value, which might be an insurance issue. When items are of lower value, a reasonable judgement can be applied without formal valuation.
2. Distress: £100 – £300.
3. Time and Trouble: £50 – £250.
4. Ex-gratia/goodwill payments: Anything from a bunch of flowers to £200.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaints within its published timescales. It should have responded to the complaint at stage 1 in 10 days, and the complaint at stage 2 in 25 days. The earliest complaint raised by the resident was on 24 October 2022, but this was not addressed until 8 December 2022. The case was escalated to stage 2 on the same day, but a stage 2 response was not issued until 13 April 2023. The delays were not appropriate. This left the resident waiting for a response regarding issues which should have been treated with greater urgency.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) became statutory on 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords are obliged by law to follow its requirements. Therefore, no order will be made in relation to the above failings identified. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and to provide a better service to residents.
The Code which was in force at the time states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. Landlords must also provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not address the damp and mould the resident had asked to be added to his complaint. This was reported before the landlord issued its stage 1 response, so it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed it. The landlord addressed the AAV leak, but it did not address the resident’s damaged belongings. The complaints procedure was an opportunity for the landlord to put right its failures and it did not appear to do so.
As already stated, the landlord should have considered compensation for the failures identified in the report and it is a failing that it did not do so. In not offering compensation, this suggests a lack of empathy on the landlord’s part for the likely detriment suffered by the resident as a result of its failures. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay a total of £1,750 to the resident which is comprised of:
1. £550 to the resident for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the heating and hot water. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord failed to address the detriment to the resident. In this case, while the issue was fully resolved after almost 4 months, the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience likely caused to the resident was significant.
2. £1,000 for the landlord’s failures in its handling of damp and mould in the property. This is to reflect the delays in responding to the resident’s reports and the landlord’s failure to follow its policy, especially when taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests this amount is appropriate for findings of severe maladministration and where the offer of redress was not proportionate to the failings.
3. £50 for the service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged personal property.
4. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified.
To conclude, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to the reports of hot water and heating issues.
2. Severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of damp and mould.
3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the reports of damage to personal property.
4. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise for the additional failures identified in this case.
Due to the time passed since the previous inspection, the landlord must arrange for another damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. If the inspection finds that repairs are required in the property, the landlord must provide a schedule of works with defined timescales for the work to be completed. The findings must be shared with both the Ombudsman and the resident.
The landlord should also conduct a risk assessment for the resident taking into account his vulnerabilities and any outstanding works in the property. If the resident still meets the criteria for an “enhanced” service, it should clarify what this means for any current repairs required in the resident’s property. It should also ensure its systems are appropriately updated, if required.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £1,750 in compensation.
The landlord must provide the resident with another public liability form in an accessible format for if he should wish to proceed with a claim for the damage to his personal property.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should reflect on the failures in this case, in particular to the requirement to prioritise the resident’s repairs. It should consider whether its policies and procedures appropriately outline what is required in such cases, and whether updates are required to its staff training and record keeping systems.
The landlord should also reflect on its own compensation policy about loss of value. The items the resident described as being damaged are of lower value, so it could have applied a reasonable judgement without formal valuation.