Camden Council (202401811)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202401811
Camden Council
31 January 2025
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 the resident’s reports of roof repairs and the associated internal damage, damp, and mould in the property.
- The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Background
- The resident lives in a 2-bedroom property on the third floor of a block that is owned and managed by the landlord which is a local authority. The resident bought the lease from a previous leaseholder and took up occupation of the property in August 2006.
- The resident reported water ingress, internal damage, and damp and mould to the landlord between August 2006 and February 2023. The resident complained about the water damage that had occurred to the landlord on 28 February 2023. She said:
- she had endured water damage from blocked guttering each year because the landlord did not adequately maintain the roof. Roofers had been unable to identify where a roof defect was but had told her that there was likely to be a problem with the external brickwork. These matters caused stains and damp to develop inside the property.
- Its damp and mould team had sent her a text on 8 November 2022 saying that it could not help her with the matter. The landlord had inspected the property and erected scaffolding in January 2023, but it had not completed any repairs since she had reported the matter on 7 November 2022.
- the water damage had occurred since the landlord had completed internal plaster and paintwork repairs in April 2022 in response to water damage during the previous year. The problem was having a detrimental effect on her physical health and quality of life.
- she was expected to pay a £350 excess if she submitted a building insurance claim. The window to initiate a claim had elapsed because the landlord had been slow to repair the damage.
- The water damage had become a liability that could affect a sale or rental of the property. She had submitted a public liability claim to the landlord on 15 February 2023 but had not heard back about this.
- she asked the landlord to waive its estimated service charge for 2022/23 or provide a similar sum as compensation for the disruption and inconvenience that water damage and mould had caused her.
- The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 March 2023, and it sent a response to the resident on 27 April 2023 in which it said:
- It had raised a roof repair on 7 November 2022 to take place on 13 January 2023 which was the first available appointment. The attending operative advised that scaffolding was required to repair a leak behind the chimney stack and unblock a downpipe.
- it approved a quote for the works on 21 April 2023. It completed the repairs on 25 April 2023 by cleaning the guttering, repairing asphalt cracks, and applying a liquid coating, sealing joints, repointing brickwork, and replacing lead on the chimney stack.
- it had arranged for raised a mould inspection to take place on 10 March 2023, but it had not recorded whether it attended the appointment. It rearranged the appointment on 28 March 2023 and inspected the property on 13 April 2023. The mould inspector identified mould in the bedrooms kitchen and living room.
- it had booked an appointment to complete a mould wash of the areas on 5 May 2023, but it would not make good any internal decoration works.
- it apologised for a delay in responding to the complaint and for any inconvenience caused by the issues she had raised. It said that a named officer would handle the resident’s public liability claim. It upheld the complaint, and it offered £190 for its repair and complaint handling delays.
- The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 9 May 2023 in which she:
- attached a photograph of an operative’ identification in dispute of the landlord’s advice that it had no records of a 10 March 2023 appointment.
- advised that it had previously completed internal repairs in April 2022 to address previous water ingress. It was unfair that it would not provide the same service in response to the same type of damage.
- reported that it had not attended a mould wash appointment on 5 May 2023, and it had not contacted her to rebook the appointment.
- said the landlord’s compensation offer was unsatisfactory. She had to endure scaffolding outside her window therefore the total inconvenience since she reported the matters on 7 November 2022 had lasted for 185 days. This was increasing because it had not carried out any internal works.
- said the complaint response had not provided any assurances of any planned guttering maintenance in the future.
- listed 13 items of ‘physical damage’ which included damage to personal property, decoration works and equipment, utility costs, and emotional inconvenience. She also listed 10 items of ‘personal damage’ which included further examples of distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
- She asked the landlord to consider waiving £1,660 of outstanding service charges in settlement of the matters, or to provide a similar compensation.
- The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 10 July 2023. It said:
- the stage 2 complaint had been dated 9 May 2023, but it had not been registered until 14 June 2023 for which it apologised.
- it was unable to write off service charges but would consider her compensation claim in line with its remedies policy and procedures.
- Five of the points the resident had referred to as ‘physical damage’ should be submitted as an insurance claim under her own policy or the landlord’s public liability insurance.
- its compensation award was more than the recommendations in its remedies guidance which awarded £20 per month for delays. It had revised the compensation award to £270 which is itemised as: £120 for delays between November 2022 and May 2023, £100 for inconvenience, time, and trouble, and £50 for missed or avoidable appointments.
- it acknowledged the resident’s evidence of an appointment and said that it had reminded staff of the importance of making notes it could later rely on.
- restated that as the resident was a leaseholder she was responsible for repairs to internal decorations in accordance with the lease. It remained responsible for repairs to common areas and the structure of the building and therefore it completed works to repair the drains, guttering and the roof.
- it could not agree to the resident’s request to redecorate the property or increase the compensation further therefore it partially upheld the complaint. She should submit an insurance claim if she considered the property damage was due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the common parts.
- The resident said that she wanted the landlord to provide compensation due to its failure to maintain the roof and guttering reasonably and within a satisfactory time frame. She also wanted it to complete annual maintenance of the roof and guttering.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- The resident said to the landlord that internal damage to the property was impacting on her mental and physical health and quality of life. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because it is difficult to determine what caused or made a health issue worse based on a review of the housing file. In personal injury claims, the parties will appoint Independent medical experts to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. Where the injury/health condition or its cause are disputed, the resident and the medical expert may give oral testimony which can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the impact of the damp and mould on health is better dealt with via the court under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme.
- The resident made reference to historical damp and mould repairs in the property dating back to 2006. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, we may not investigate complaints not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time normally within 12 months of the matters arising. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint the resident made on 28 February 2023.
Roof repairs and internal property damage, damp, and mould
- Under the terms of the property lease the landlord is responsible for maintaining and making good structural defects and the common parts of the property. The structure of the block includes the roof, chimney stacks, gutters rainwater and soil pipes. The landlord notified the resident on 21 May 2021 that it had arranged to complete roof repairs at the property on 27 May 2021. It is unclear to what extent the landlord completed remedial works.
- The landlord arranged for a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) registered surveyor to inspect the property on 14 February 2022. The inspection concluded that there had been a problem with debris entering the gully situated between the pitched roof and the parapet wall, causing blockages. However, there is no evidence that the landlord completed any further work in response to the survey prior to the resident sending an email to chase the repairs on 27 March 2022. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have programmed works to unblock the gully in response to the surveyor’s recommendations in keeping with its 20 working-day routine repairs policy timescales.
- The landlord subsequently arranged for a roof inspection and repairs to be completed by a specialist contractor using abseiling equipment on 22 April 2022. The contractor cleared blockages, cut out and resecured cracks on the walls and repointed brickwork. It reported that it had been unable to unblock a cast iron pipe, and it recommended a jet wash to remove the blockage or the replacement of a connector. It was reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for a specialist contractor to complete the works using abseil equipment given access to the roof had been required. It programmed and completed the roof repairs within 18 working days of the resident chasing up the matter. However, this was 48 working days after the RICS surveyor had completed the inspection which was inappropriate under the circumstances.
- The landlord completed internal decoration works in the resident’s property on 25 April 2022 which the resident referred to as immaculate in her stage 2 complaint. The landlord was not under any obligation to complete decoration work inside the resident’s property. Section 2 of the property lease says that the resident is responsible for the premises (the flat). The first schedule of the lease defines the premises and explains that this includes the ceilings of the flat and the surfaces of walls within the flat. The surveyor’s report said that internal plaster repair and redecoration had been excluded from the recommended works because the property was leasehold. The landlord therefore responded generously to the matters by completing the additional decorative works.
- The resident reported further concerns about water ingress to the landlord on 7 November 2022. The landlord sent a text message to her the next day saying that it could not help her with the matters she had reported. This advice was inappropriate and not in keeping with the lease which set out the landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain the structure of the property. This was a failing that was likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
- Prior to sending its message to the resident on 8 November 2022, the landlord had made arrangements to inspect the roof on 13 January 2023 which it noted was its earliest appointment. It was appropriate for the landlord to have made arrangements to inspect the property to ascertain to what extent it was responsible for the repairs. However, it was unreasonable for it not to have scheduled the works sooner. The landlord did not complete the inspection until 46 working days after the resident had reported the matters. This was outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescales and was a failing.
- The landlord identified a leak behind the chimney stack and a blocked downpipe during its inspection on 13 January 2023. It subsequently erected scaffolding on 27 January 2023. However, there is no evidence that it had programmed any remedial works prior to the resident submitting a stage 1 complaint on 28 February 2023. This caused time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter which could have been avoided.
- Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for insuring the building. The landlord passes the costs of this insurance to leaseholders in its service charges, thereby enabling them to make claims where they are eligible for damage in their homes. The landlord publishes the policy with advice on how to submit claims on its website which is appropriate. The resident expressed a view that the landlord’s delay in completing the works prevented her submitting a claim within a 90 day window of opportunity. However, the resident could have lodged a claim under the building insurance when she had reported matters to the landlord.
- It is evident that the resident submitted a public liability claim to the landlord on 15 February 2023. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that her claim was being handled by a named staff member which was appropriate under the circumstances. It is unclear whether the landlord upheld the resident’s claim or to what extent it provided compensation to her. It appears this was the most appropriate way of dealing with the claim for financial losses. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the handling of an insurance claim handled by an insurer.
- The resident chased the landlord again on 20 March 2023 setting out that it had not completed any remedial works despite arranging an appointment to do so on 13 March 2023. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have raised the resident’s expectations by arranging an appointment that it did not attend. Furthermore it was unreasonable for it not to have kept the resident informed so as to reduce the time and trouble caused to her in pursuing the matters.
- The landlord completed works to repair the roof and clear the associated blockages on 25 April 2023. It was appropriate for it to have upheld its obligations to repair the structure of the property. However, given it had erected scaffolding 60 working days previously, the time taken for it to complete the repair was inappropriate and represents a further repair handling failing.
Damp and mould
- The landlord arranged to complete a damp and mould inspection in the property on 10 March 2023 in response to the concerns the resident raised in her stage 1 complaint. The Housing Ombudsman produced a Spotlight report on Damp and Mould in October 2021, which recommends landlords adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. The landlord’s decision to inspect the property was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report. However, it did not record the outcomes of the appointment which was inappropriate. The landlord was expected to keep robust records of its repair works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regard to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlord’s failure to record the outcome of the inspection appointment and coordinate repairs was a failing.
- The landlord inspected the property on 13 April 2023 during which it noted signs of damp and mould. It was appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the property. However it did so 31 working days after the resident had raised the matter in her stage 1 complaint which was not in keeping with its routine repairs policy and therefore inappropriate.
- The landlord notified the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 27 April 2023 that it had booked a mould wash to take place on 5 May 2023. It also said that it would not complete any works to make good the internal decorations. However, the landlord failed to explain why it would not complete decorations despite completing these previously. Furthermore, it failed to attend the appointment which caused unnecessary time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord failed to rebook the missed appointment prior to the resident raising the matter in her stage 2 complaint on 9 May 2023. These matters were unreasonable and represent further failings.
- When assessing the landlord’s response to resident’s reports of damp and mould, the key elements are whether it was proactive in identifying the cause of the damp and mould, the actions it had taken to treat, remove, and combat the mould, as well as its adherence to the relevant policies and expected customer service standards. There is no evidence that the landlord completed the mould wash it had set out to complete in the property prior to issuing its final complaint response. This was unreasonable under the circumstances.
- The landlord reviewed its handling of the roof repair and the associated internal damage it its final complaint response on 27 June 2023. It recognised that its handling of matters had caused inconvenience to the resident for which it apologised. It offered the resident £270 as compensation in keeping with its remedies policy which it accurately summarised in its complaint response. Furthermore, it evidenced that it had taken learning from the complaint and as a result had instructed its staff to keep accurate inspection and repair records.
- When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- The landlord sought to put right the roof repairs it was responsible for which was appropriate. Furthermore, it explained to the resident that it was unable to reimburse her service charges but that it would consider her request for compensation using its remedies policy and procedures. This advice was in keeping with the lease which sets out the resident’s obligation to pay a share of the costs of the repair and maintenance of the block as a service charge. The landlord’s decision to refer to its remedies policy was therefore reasonable.
- However, the time it took to the landlord to complete the repairs due to its failure to appropriately programme inspections and repair appointments in keeping with its repairs policy was unreasonable. Furthermore, its cumulative failures to address the damp and mould issues it had identified in the property and had committed to resolve was unreasonable under the circumstances.
- The landlord raised the resident’s expectations by completing decoration works inside the property in 2022 when it had responded to similar water ingress matters. However, it failed to explain why it would not complete similar repairs in response to the blockages and roof repairs it addressed during 2023. While it is evident that the landlord was not responsible for completing any internal decoration works, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained the reasons why the circumstances in 2023 differed from 2022 for clarity.
- There is no evidence that the landlord considered introducing an annual maintenance programme to address the recurrence of water ingress in response to the resident’s complaint. She subsequently reported similar water ingress and mould matters to the landlord again during the winter of 2023, after the landlord’s final response. Consequently, the landlord failed to offer a full, effective and lasting resolution. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of roof repairs and the associated internal damage, damp and mould in the property.
- An increased award of compensation is due in keeping with our remedies guidance which suggests a range of awards for circumstances, like here, where maladministration is found that has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord. An additional award of £330 is therefore ordered below as proportionate compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
- In addition to an award of compensation, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for its failings. Furthermore, we have made an order for it to inspect the property, assess if any outstanding repairs are required, and to provide her and us with a timetable and details of any works it is responsible for under the lease.
- The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman which shows that it has reviewed its response to reports of damp and mould against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (October 2021). The landlord completed its self-assessment on 5 January 2024. We have therefore not made any further order for the landlord to review its approach to damp and mould.
The resident’s complaint
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
- said that it had received the resident’s complaint on 1 March 2023, instead of 28 February 2023, in its stage 1 response.
- did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 28 February 2023 until 27 April 2023 which was 30 working days later than the landlord’s 10-working day complaint policy timescale.
- did not decide whether an extension to the response timescale was needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.4 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- did not notify the resident that it was likely to miss its stage 1 response target in keeping with paragraph 5.9 of the Code. The Code says where a response to a complaint will fall outside the timescales set out, the landlord must agree with the resident suitable intervals for keeping them informed about their complaint.
- did not register the stage 2 complaint of 9 May 2023 until 14 June 2023. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.11 of Code which says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 working days.
- did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint in keeping with the paragraph 6.11 of the Code.
- did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 9 May 2023 until 10 July 2023 which was 17 working days later than the 25-working day complaint policy timescale. It is of note that since this complaint the landlord has aligned its timescales for providing stage 2 responses with the 20-working day timescales set out in the Code.
- did not fully address the resident’s stage 2 complaint such as by responding to her request for a planned programme of works to address the repeated occurrence of blockages and water ingress. Additionally, it did not address her reports that the window to initiate a claim had elapsed because the landlord had been slow to repair the damage. Nor did it respond to her comments regarding the impact the £350 policy excess would have on a claim for the reimbursement of any costs. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.18 of the Code. The Code says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
- The landlord delayed the stage 1 complaint response as it was awaiting the works to be completed. However, landlords need to ensure that they do not allow complaints to stay open indefinitely while waiting for works to be completed. This runs the risk of residents being blocked from escalating their complaints. The Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent.
- When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord apologised to the resident for a delay in issuing its complaint response and any inconvenience this may have caused which was appropriate under the circumstances. In the stage 1 response it also offered the resident a compensation payment for its recognised complaint handling failings. However, it did not break this down further so as to clarify how much of the award was intended for the complaint handling failings it recognised. This was unreasonable. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be clear about the remedies it puts in place for its failings so that residents understand and can consider the extent to which the failing have been addressed.
- In its final complaint response the landlord did not indicate that any of its compensation award was provided for its complaint handlings. Consequently, the Ombudsman has concluded that the landlord’s offer of compensation was provided for its repairs handling failings. By failing to restate or clarify its compensation offer the landlord missed the opportunity to address the impact of its complaint handling delays and recognise that they may have caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident.
- This Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation is due in keeping with our remedies guidance which suggests a range of awards for circumstances, like here, where maladministration is found. The failures this investigation has identified were likely to have adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has not appropriately put this right. An award of £150 is therefore ordered below as proportionate compensation for the detriment that may have been caused to the resident for the impact of its accumulated complaint handling failings.
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 roof repairs and the associated internal damage, damp, and mould in the property.
- the resident’s complaint.
Orders and recommendations
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
- Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of roof repairs and the associated internal property damage and damp and mould, and for its complaint handling failings.
- Pay the resident the £270 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
- Pay the resident an additional £480 in compensation made up as follows:
- £330 for distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to the roof repairs and the associated internal damage, damp, and mould.
- £150 for time and trouble that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.
- Inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
- review the circumstances and history of water ingress into the resident’s property and consider whether arranging an annual programme treatment to prevent water ingress, damp and mould would be beneficial. The landlord is recommended to write to the resident informing her of its decision and reasoning and any associated timescales.