Camden Council (202315839)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315839

Camden Council

30 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of damp and drainage repairs at the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a flat and the lease began on 2 February 2018.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. At stage 1, the landlord will issue its response within 10 working days and at stage 2, it will issue its response within 20 working days. At both stages, the landlord may extend the timescales by a further 10 working days if required and will provide an explanation to the resident of the reasons for the extension and a clear timeframe for when the responses would be received.
The landlord’s repairs policy classifies repairs as:
1. Emergency to be attended within 2 hours if is out of hours; or before 8pm on the same day if in daytime hours.
2. Urgent repairs to be completed within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs to be completed within 20 working days.
4. Programmed repairs which are repairs that are complex, subject to leaseholder consultation or involve specialist works will be completed within an agreed timescale. The landlord states damp proof works as an example of a programmed repair.

Summary of events

On 3 September 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she had damp patches on her interior walls. The resident followed this up with the landlord on 28 September 2022 and informed it that the damp patches were getting bigger. The resident said she was upset as she had recently decorated the property after previous damp issues and the damp patches had returned.
On 5 October 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to conduct a damp survey. The survey noted:
1. Possible cold spots on the chimney breast but no damp in the lounge.
2. Severe damp present on the middle of the wall around the towel radiator in the bathroom.
3. Severe damp on the middle of the wall around the radiator in the hall.
4. Severe damp to the services duct and adjacent wall and floor in the spare room/cupboard.
The report stated it may be necessary for the existing plaster to be removed and replaced with a waterproof render finish and it recommended further inspection.
The landlord has stated it did not receive a copy of the findings of the report until 6 February 2023.
The resident reported a blocked drain to the landlord on 23 December 2022 that was causing a flood into her property and the landlord raised works for the drain to be investigated and rectified. The landlord attended the same day, completed works and stated it found no blockage and it was unclear where the water was coming from. The recommendation was to expose the internal manhole to check the branches. Also, the drains at the next-door neighbour needed to be checked. On the same day the landlord requested internally for it to attend the resident’s property to carry out the recommendations.
The resident reported the blockage had become worse on 28 December 2022.
The landlord provided as evidence an email from 31 December 2022, sent to it from its contractor, which stated that on 28 December 2022, the contractor had attended the site, traced the leak using a CCTV camera survey and found that the water was coming through the party wall from the neighbour’s foul gullies. It cleared the blockage and restored the flow and jet washed and cleaned the overflowed area. It recommended that the concrete area around the gully was excavated from the neighbour’s property and sealed with waterproof concrete as the basement of the resident’s was approximately 3 foot lower than the gully from the neighbour and the blockage caused the water from the gully to leak into the ground affecting the resident’s property.
On 3 January 2023 the landlord raised repairs to excavate the gully and seal, carry out a CCTV survey and install a new bottleneck trap. The landlord’s records stated these works were completed on 7 August 2023.
On 6 February 2023 the landlord read the survey from October 2022 and established this had recommended further investigations. The landlord stated a full damp survey was required. The resident was informed a full damp survey would take place and she would be contacted by the surveyor to book an appointment.
The resident complained to the landlord on 15 February 2023, stating:
1. She had not heard back from it regarding ongoing repair problems and lack of communication.
2. She had been diagnosed with respiratory problems directly caused by her proximity to the mould and damp in her property.
3. She had initially reported the issue in 2019 and the landlord assured her in writing in 2022 that the problem was resolved due to the works done to the property next door (which were the source of the damp problems according to the survey report). It had paid her compensation to redecorate the damage caused which she did the previous summer only for the damp to reappear within days of the works being completed.
4. It sent a surveyor to her flat in October 2022. She had not heard from it since and the scale of the damage had escalated and the length of time passed had impacted her health.
5. She was told by email that she could see a copy of the survey, but it had failed to send it to her. The surveyor was clear that the damp walls were over 95% wet and nobody had replied to her emails or phone calls about it.
6. Her basement was once again flooded on 21 December 2022. This was reported as an emergency and the landlord’s records would show that this was due to the overflow of the drains from the next door neighbour which was the landlord’s responsibility, as their overflow pipe directly came into her property. This had happened for the first time in 2019 and in 2022, the landlord had finally agreed to pay her compensation for the extensive damage caused to her flat. This had happened again, and the landlord was breaking the terms of its responsibility to maintain the building.
7. She was again being forced to make an insurance claim and expected to live in a post flood environment. This had resulted in her not being able to sleep in her own bed since 21 December 2022 which was not ideal given her new health diagnosis and she asked the landlord if it would let her know whether it could uphold its legal obligations.
8. According to the drainage company who eventually came to look for the source of the flood, regular (even yearly) inspections were apparently what was needed. They were quickly able to detect that the second flood was caused by the same issue as the first flood (which could have been foreseen since the drains had not been attended to since their last visit in 2019).
9. She hoped that the formal complaint would force it to give the matter its urgent attention.
The landlord’s records indicate that on 23 February 2023, a full damp survey was scheduled for 16 March 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 February 2023 and stated:
1. It was partly upholding the resident’s complaint as it could see the matter had been ongoing for an extensive timeframe, however it could also see it had tried to resolve the matter and could not find evidence for an outright service failure.
2. It had inspected the last year of repairs history and confirmed that the specialist surveying contractor attended on 5 October 2022 and highlighted that there were areas of severe damp.
3. The damp and mould team advised that they received the report from the contractor on 6 February 2023. However, the team had also advised that the report may have been sent directly to a manager shortly after the survey had been carried out but were unable to confirm this as the manager had been away from the office for some time, due to unforeseen circumstances.
4. It advised that an order was raised on 6 February 2023 for a full damp survey to be carried out and that a repairs manager would therefore be attending with the surveyor from the contractor on 16 March 2023. It would arrange for an order to be raised to the specialist contractor for their operatives to attend and carry out any works highlighted by the survey and the damp and mould team would then provide the resident with an update on the works order. The resident would be contacted by the contractor to book an appointment to carry out a pre-start inspection, and then to arrange an appointment to start the works.
5. In regard to the drains, it confirmed that an order was raised on 20 November 2019 following a report that the property was being flooded by a drain outside the neighbouring property. The records showed that the specialist drainage contractor attended on 28 November 2019 and 2 December 2019 and carried out extensive works.
6. It advised that an order was raised on 23 December 2022 following a report that a blocked drain in the basement underneath the floor boards was causing a flood inside the property. Its records showed that the contractor attended on 23 December 2022 and carried out further works, including a CCTV survey. An order was raised on 28 December 2022 for the contractor to attend and carry out the works recommended in their report on 23 December 2022. The engineers attended on 28 December 2022 and carried out further works. Another order was issued in January 2023 but there were no records on its repairs system of the contractor attending and carrying out the works – this was due to issues in accessing the rear of the next door property. It was attempting to resolve that matter and once it got access it would undertake the works.
7. It was sorry for any inconvenience caused to her during the repairs process and it hoped its actions mentioned would help to shortly conclude the matter.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint to stage 2 on 7 March 2023 and said it was unreasonable that she was expected to live under these conditions and with no known timeframe of when that would end. She put her ill health completely down to its negligence and she still could not sleep in her own bed due to the damage done via the flood. It seemed the landlord had no idea when repairs would take place and in the meantime she expected to be flooded again at any time.
On 16 March 2023 the resident called the landlord to advise she had received an email stating the survey due to take place that day had been cancelled. The landlord’s records indicate that the survey took place on 21 March 2023.
The resident submitted a public liability claim to the landlord regarding the incidents from 23 December 2022 on 4 April 2023.
On 11 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in replying to the resident’s request for a review of her complaint. Limited staff resources had meant her complaint had been held in a queue to be reviewed.
2. It noted that it had partially upheld her complaint at stage 1 and acknowledged that the issues had been ongoing for an extensive time.
3. It could see from consulting its records that a damp and mould survey was carried out by a specialist surveying contractor on 5 October 2022. As a result of that survey, follow on work was recommended. It appeared there was a delay in the repairs team receiving the results of the survey. In addition, it was sorry to hear that the remedial work connected to damp and mould was yet to be carried out. There was also the outstanding matter of drains which had caused flooding to the resident’s home in the past. It did regret that those concerns were still ongoing.
4. It could see that even though it was on record that extensive works had been carried out to resolve the issue with the drains, some follow on work had not been carried out and the resident had reported that she felt she could expect to be flooded again at any time and it was sorry she was having to live with that anxiety.
5. It did not agree with the stage 1 response conclusion that there had been no service failure. It was upholding her complaint as it related to the length of time she had been waiting for works to be carried out or to be informed of a timeframe for these. This was because it could see the matter had been ongoing for an extended period and the resident had not been given an update when she could expect things to improve. It noted that although it had tried to resolve those matters through a number of interventions, the resident had not received an effective remedy, to the ongoing issues.
6. The resident was still waiting for the recommended works from the damp and mould survey to be carried out and for the issues with the blocked drains outside a neighbouring property to be resolved. This was despite concerns being first reported in 2019. Having acknowledged that, it did recognise that there had been efforts made by it, specifically retaining drainage contractors to carrying out works. However, it could not find that there had been a remedy because the issue was still ongoing, and it appreciated that the resident had said it was negatively affecting her.
7. The resident had mentioned she believed her home was a health hazard. It noted that repairs had not been completed and she had not been given adequate information with regards to carrying out the necessary repairs. Therefore, it concluded that there had been a service failure. It was sorry that was the case and it apologised for the frustration, inconvenience and upset the resident had experienced.
8. It had written to a senior repairs manager and asked for the resident to be contacted within 10 working days to give her an update regarding the outstanding work needed and to discuss the way forward.
9. In relation to her insurance claim, it had noted that she was on her third insurance claim and the issues resulting in her making those claims had still not been resolved. It had emailed an insurance manager and asked for the resident to be contacted directly within 10 working days with an update on her claim.
10. It could not uphold the part of the resident’s complaint related to her health as that was an area outside of the remit of the complaints process. The resident was able to complete a council public liability form.
11. It acknowledged and recognised that the delay in providing a resolution to the ongoing issues in the property had caused her inconvenience and distress. It had also taken time and trouble for her to contact it to chase repairs. In line with it’s compensation policy and Housing Ombudsman guidelines, it was making a compensation award of £420, consisting of £140 for service delay, £100 for time and trouble and £180 for inconvenience and distress.

Events after complaints process

On 7 August 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s property and completed drainage works originally raised on 3 January 2023.
A further damp survey was requested on 13 October 2023 and received by the landlord on 2 November 2023.
The landlord’s records show works were raised for damp and mould on 14 November 2023 (under the term ‘specialist trades’) but it is not clear as to the nature of the works raised.
On 27 November 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that damp works had been approved to take place for the hallway and utility room plus floor renewal.
The landlord has not confirmed to the Ombudsman that the works have been completed. In referring the case to this Service, the resident said the damp and drainage repairs remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

It is noted that the resident continues to have concerns regarding the quality of works carried out by the landlord and the time the works have been outstanding. However, this investigation report cannot consider the issues which have arisen after the date of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those events. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint by the resident can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
The resident has said that the damp and mould has had a negative effect on her health. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to decide on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and any ill health. The resident 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. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience which she experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is normally within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, although it is acknowledged that the resident had reported issues to the landlord since 2019, this investigation will only consider the events in this case from her reports made in September 2022 onwards

The landlord’s handling of damp and drainage repairs at the resident’s property.

The landlord has been aware of damp and drainage issues in the property since 2019 and the evidence provided shows it carried out inspections and works related to the issues reported during that time.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for treating damp and maintaining drainage at the resident’s property. The repairs policy states blocked or leaking foul drains would be classed as an emergency repair. Damp proof works are classified as programmed repairs.
The landlord classified the resident’s reports of flooding from blocked drains as an emergency repair. This was appropriate as it was an issue which would cause health and safety concerns. The landlord‘s records indicate it raised a repair on 23 December 2022 and, following investigations that day, it requested follow on works to be completed. The landlord re–attended 5 days later on 28 December 2022 when it conducted an investigation and found no blockage so it recommended further works to expose the internal man hole and check the drains for the neighbouring property. From the landlord’s evidence, it also appears that works were completed on 31 December 2022. Although this Service can see it was emailed by the contractor to confirm the works completed, the landlord’s repairs records did not contain this information. This indicates a record keeping failure by the landlord.
The landlord raised further works under its routine timescale of 20 working days on 3 January 2023. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged that those works had not been completed and stated this was due to it not being able to gain access to the neighbouring property. It said it was trying to resolve this and repairs would be undertaken once access was gained.
In the stage 2 response in July 2023, the landlord acknowledged the drainage issues were still ongoing but again stated it had made efforts to resolve the issue. From the evidence provided by the landlord, this Service cannot establish what actions the landlord did take in an attempt to gain access to resolve the drainage issue. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord’s repair records stated the completion date of the works raised on 3 January 2023 was 7 August 2023. This was 150 working days after those works were raised, significantly beyond the landlord’s 20 working days timescale. The landlord’s records also stated on 7 August 2023 that further works were still required.
The landlord has not provided evidence it had a damp and mould policy in place during the time covered in this investigation. It is noted that as of February 2024, the landlord does have a damp and mould policy which outlines how it will deal with damp and mould reports. As the landlord did not have a specific policy and procedure, this Service would expect a landlord to respond to reports of damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe. In this Service’s opinion, a period of 28 days is reasonable in the circumstances and in line with common practice in the industry.
The resident has stated she was reporting damp within the property since 2019 and when she made the report of damp in September 2022, the landlord would have been aware of the previous reports and understood the issues the resident had already dealt with.
When the resident reported she had damp patches in the property on 5 September 2022, the landlord responded 2 days later and offered an appointment for a survey for 15 September 2022. The appointment did not appear to take place and the resident reported on 28 September 2022 that the damp patches were getting bigger. The landlord’s contractor then conducted a survey on 5 October 2022. At this point, the landlord had responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of damp.
The landlord stated in the stage 1 response that its damp and mould team did not receive the report until 6 February 2023 but said it may have been sent to a site manager shortly after the survey had been completed. This was a failure by the landlord as it should ensure that it has processes and procedures in place for the monitoring of any outstanding works or surveys and this should include for when a member of staff is not available for a prolonged period of time.
Although the landlord carried out a survey of the resident’s property within a reasonable timescale, there is no evidence that between October 2022 and February 2023, it sought to obtain the report or completed any further works in the resident’s property. This is especially concerning as it was in contact with the resident regarding the drainage issues during this time and the report from October 2022 identified severe damp in at least 3 areas of the resident’s property. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord and a recommendation is made for the landlord to review this Service’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report and consider its record keeping processes.
The survey from October 2022 identified severe damp in the bathroom, hall and the spare room/cupboard. The report recommended further inspection. As the findings of the report were not examined by the landlord until February 2023, the landlord missed the opportunity to conduct further inspections earlier and unnecessarily prolonged the damp and mould repairs by a further 4 months.
After considering the report, the landlord did request a full damp survey on 6 February 2023 with a 20 working day timescale. The survey was booked for 16 March 2023 which was already 28 working days after the request had been raised and the survey was then cancelled with the landlord citing train strikes as the reason. There is however no evidence that the landlord gave notice to the resident of the appointment being unable to take place and it appears she was only made aware when she received an email on the day from the contractor. The landlord then conducted the survey on 21 March 2023. The findings of that survey were not provided by the landlord. At the time the stage 2 response was issued, there were still no records any significant damp works being carried out at the resident’s property. This would inevitably have caused the resident further distress as it had been 10 months since she first reported damp.
The landlord did initially respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of the damp in September 2022 and the drainage issues in December 2022 when first informed of each issue. However, it then failed to resolve these issues within appropriate timescales, including those set out in its repairs policy, with no further works being completed on the drainage or damp until after its stage two response in July 2023.
There appeared to be no concern by the landlord that “severe” damp had been identified in the October 2022 report and once further action was taken further works were cancelled and delayed and the issue remained unresolved at the time of the stage 2 response.
The evidence provided by the landlord showed it consistently was asking internally if works or surveys had been completed and, if so, to provide further details. The landlord failed to keep adequate records to show that it had monitored works and surveys, or how it had managed its contractors throughout the process. Its failure to maintain accurate records affected its ability to provide the resident with the service expected. This likely contributed to substantive works not commencing at the property until October 2023, over a year since the resident made her damp report.
The landlord has failed to evidence that it communicated with the resident throughout the works, or offer regular or meaningful updates. This led to the resident spending additional time having to chase the landlord. At the time of this investigation the resident had stated the issues were still outstanding and the landlord has not provided evidence of the works being completed.
Overall, at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response, it had been 10 months from the first report of damp and 8 months since the reports regarding the drainage and it had yet to remedy the issues. It is unacceptable that more than 11 months after making a formal complaint, it is apparent that the resident remains living in a damp property. The landlord’s failure to perform works to address what the resident reported to be long-standing damp and drainage problem represents maladministration by the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that the resident had been waiting for the recommendations from the damp survey to be carried out and the blocked drains outside the neighbouring property to be resolved. It also acknowledged there had been service failure in its handling of the damp and drainage issues. It offered compensation of £420, consisting of £140 for service delay, £100 time and trouble and £180 for inconvenience and distress. Having considered the levels of service failure, this Service is not of the view that this level of compensation is proportionate given the extent of the delays and the significant impact on the resident’s living conditions.
For its failings throughout this complaint, the landlord should pay the resident £1,000 compensation, inclusive of its previous offer.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response after 10 working days which was within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The response acknowledged there was a delay in the damp survey from October 2022 being received but the landlord failed to offer any apology for this or the fact that no works had taken place since the damp had been reported in September 2022.
The stage 1 response acknowledged the landlord’s drainage works order raised in January 2023 was not completed due to issues accessing the neighbouring property. Although the landlord stated it was trying to resolve the matter, it provided no further clarity to the resident as to when it aimed for the access issues to be resolved or when it would next provide an update to the resident. These were failures by the landlord to offer a through review of its handling of the substantive issue through its complaints process.
The landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 11 July 2023. This was 86 working days after the resident requested her complaint to be escalated. There is no evidence during this time that the landlord informed the resident there was a delay in providing its response or sought an agreement with the resident for a new date for the stage 2 response to be issued. This again represented a failure by the landlord.
The landlord apologised for the delay in the stage 2 response and said that this was due to a lack of staff resources. The landlord’s explanation was not reasonable as it must ensure it has the appropriate resources in place to avoid residents being placed at a disadvantage and being unable to have their complaint considered within the timescales set out in its complaint policy.
The stage 2 response also failed to provide any update to the resident regarding the steps it had taken since the stage 1 response, including any explanation as to why the damp and drainage works were still outstanding.
When the stage 2 response was issued in July 2023, the landlord outlined the findings in the stage 1 response regarding the delay in the original damp and mould survey and that works had not been carried out. However, it failed to offer any further explanations to the resident for the delay. The stage 2 response also acknowledged that some works had not been carried out on the drains and the resident was living with the anxiety of potentially being flooded at any time. The landlord stated it could see that extensive works had been carried out but it again failed to offer an explanation of what works it had done, why further works were required, what was required to be done and when the resident could expect the works to be completed.
The landlord offered no redress for the failings identified within the stage 1 response. For its failings identified in the stage 2 response, the landlord offered compensation of £420 as previously mentioned in this report. It was not made clear however if the compensation awarded was for any part of its complaint handling delay at stage 2.
The delay in issuing the stage 2 response along with the lack of clarity in the landlord’s explanations provided in either complaints response represents maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the complaint. Although it apologised to the resident in the stage 2 response for its delay, it should have also offered the resident compensation. The landlord should therefore pay the resident £200 for its handling of her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and drainage repairs at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to address either the damp or the drainage repairs within the timescales set out in its repairs policy and did not keep the resident adequately informed of the progress of the repairs. Both repairs remained outstanding at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response and remain outstanding at the time of this report. The landlord has failed to proactively manage the repair which likely caused the resident to feel ignored, distressed and continuously chasing for an update. Its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response late and substantially outside its complaint policy timescales. The landlord failed to inform the resident there would be delay in the stage 2 response being issued.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for its handling of the damp and drainage repairs at the resident’s property.
2. Pay the resident £1,200 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the damp and drainage issues at the resident’s property;
  2. £200 for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
3. Contact the resident and provide an update of what works have been completed, a detailed list of outstanding repairs and a timetable for those works to be completed. If a further inspection is required, this must be completed within these 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident regarding the works that have been undertaken following its stage 2 response and if she remains dissatisfied with its handling of those specific works, it should raise a new stage 1 complaint.
The landlord should review this Service’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report and self assess against its current record keeping processes.