Camden Council (202417239)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417239

Camden Council

8 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:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. Handling of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant in a 1 bedroom flat in a converted house. He lives alone, and his tenancy started in August 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord in June 2021 and said he had reported damp in his property almost 6 months prior. The landlord’s records show that it raised works. The landlord completed a damp and mould survey in December 2022. The survey made recommendations, and found:
1. Severe damp in the entrance hallway, front elevation, floor, and party wall.
2. Damp was present on the ceiling of the bedroom, near the entrance hallway and party wall.
3. Damp was also present in the rear addition bathroom at low level in the corner, and at high level on the party wall.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 29 January 2024. He explained he was demanding urgent action about the severe and ongoing damp issues within property. He said it directly affected his health due to his disability. He reiterated the findings of the survey and said it had taken no effective measures. He said it had breached its legal obligations to him including the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 February 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint as it had not rectified the cause of the damp. It offered him £160 in compensation for the delay in addressing the root cause of the problem. It said he had reported damp and mould in 2021 but had not received any other reports. It explained the actions it had taken to try to resolve the issue and confirmed it had also raised works to address the broken pipe at the back of his garden. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and said it had booked another inspection for 3 February 2024.
The resident responded to the landlord on 19 February 2024 to escalate his complaint as he felt the compensation offer was grossly inadequate “in light of the severe impact on his life”. He said the damp and mould not only deteriorated his living conditions, but also affected his health. He explained the impact on his health and said the situation had escalated to a point where his home environment was a direct threat to his health. He said he believed an amount of around £2,000 was appropriate. He had also sought guidance on the possibility of relocation due to the impact on his health and asked if its policy accommodated such situations.
Between 26 February 2024 and 12 July 2024, the resident sought a response from the landlord to his escalation request. He explained he had not received a response. He raised new concerns including the rotting of the wooden frame above his door, obstructed and unsafe entry way. He explained he wanted it to repair the rotten wooden frame above his door and resolve the damp and mould issues as they compromised the property’s structural integrity and his health. He also asked for a detailed action plan and timeline.
The landlord apologised to him on 15 July 2024 and said it had registered his complaint as a stage 1 request. He explained to it on the same day that it had already provided a response, and it responded on 17 July 2024 and agreed to escalate.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 July 2024 and apologised for the incorrect registration of his complaint. It acknowledged there was a failing in its handling of the damp and mould and its communication. It explained the investigations it had carried out between March 2024 and May 2024. It discussed his concerns with the rotten door frame and obstructed and unsafe entry way. It upheld his complaint and increased its compensation offer to £300.

Post complaint

The resident continued to raise repair requests and communicate with the landlord. The resident raised his concerns with the Ombudsman on 30 July 2024. He reiterated the impact on his health and wellbeing and explained his vulnerabilities. He said:
1. The persistent damp and mould had led to frequent infections, increased pain, and numerous hospital visits.
2. The unsafe entry way with rotting wood and exposed wiring posed a significant hazard, hindering his safe access to the property.
3. The issue had aggravated his anxiety and one of his conditions, further deteriorating his health. Despite multiple reports and formal complaints, the landlord failed to address the issues and left him in a hazardous living environment. This significantly compromised his treatment and recovery.
4. To resolve the matter, he wanted:
  1. The repairs completed immediately, and if it could not do this, he asked it to provide him with alternative permanent accommodation.
  2. The landlord to enhance their communication efforts, providing regular updates and clear timelines for all actions it took. It should also register him as an “enhanced resident, reflecting his disability and ensuring appropriate support.”
The resident expressed his ongoing frustration on 31 July 2024 as the issues remained unresolved. He said he had not received the phone call it said it would make in relation to its next steps.
The landlord completed a disrepair survey in November 2024. This identified that some of the issues with the property were in breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It identified issues with the property including:
1. Blockage of the back inlet gully which caused flooding in the yard.
2. Vegetation growth from the neighbour’s property.
3. Damp to the walls and ceiling in the bathroom, electrical cupboard, and hallway.
4. Penetrating damp from the external retaining wall in the hallway.
5. Addled wall plaster, and rotten skirting in the hallway.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns in relation to hanging wires from his front door with the Ombudsman. He also raised concerns about rotten window frames. He said that he raised this with the landlord in February 2024 when he raised his concerns with his rotten doorframe. The landlord has provided a transcript of the webchat in which the resident raised his concerns. The chat does not mention his concerns around the hanging wires or rotten window frames.
The evidence shows that landlord said in its stage 2 response that it could find no reference to the issue in relation to the hanging wires. It however said that it would ask someone to attend and complete an inspection. They would advise the landlord if it needed to complete any works and if so, what these were. The resident then did not raise a repair around the wires until 29 July 2024. The landlord treated the matter as a service request. As such, his concerns about the works to the wires did not complete the landlord’s complaint’s process. The Ombudsman will therefore not consider these issues within this investigation.
Following the completion of the complaints process, the resident has raised concerns with the landlord. These include issues with a leaking toilet, wanting his windows and doors replaced and heating issues. There is no evidence that these matters also exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s process. As such we will not consider them within this investigation. Should they remain outstanding, the resident can bring a complaint about them to the landlord. The Ombudsman encourages the landlord to provide the necessary responses.
As part of the resolutions sought, the resident has advised that he would like the landlord to either complete the repairs or move him from the property. The Ombudsman does not have the power to ask a landlord to move a resident from a property. As such we will not consider this as a potential remedy in this determination.
The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the outstanding repairs, and ongoing situation on his health. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the impact on the resident’s health. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. The courts must decide on personal injury claims as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on his health.
The resident told the Ombudsman during a call that the landlord resolved his concern around the cracked bedroom window. As such he did not want it considered. The resident has also not raised concerns about the repairs to the gutter pipe. As such the Ombudsman will not consider these issues within this report.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s property

The landlord’s policy says that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It gives an example of doorframes as such repairs and says it will repair them only when they have reached the end of their life cycle. The resident raised concerns on 8 February 2024 about a wooden door frame which needed replacing as the rain had rotted it. The resident explained to the Ombudsman that the landlord completed the repair in November 2024.
This is unreasonable and is a delay of about 9 months between the resident’s report in February and September 2024. This contributed to the resident’s frustration and distress with the situation.
In summary, the resident believed he had reported concerns with hanging wires and rotten windows in February 2024, but the evidence does not support this. The repair he reported in relation to the rotten doorframe remained outstanding for around 9 months. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
The landlord’s remedies policy and procedure say that if appropriate it will issue a financial remedy between £100 to £300 for distress, time, and trouble. It will also issue a payment of up to £500 for risk of harm. The landlord offered the resident £300 in compensation. It awarded £160 of this at stage 1 for the delay with identifying the root cause of the damp and mould. Its £300 offer at stage 2 is however unclear as it does not provide an explanation of what this was for.
Based on the time and trouble, delay and lack of communication, and clarity around the offer, the Ombudsman believes that the offer does not go far enough. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident more compensation.

Handling of damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what we expect from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, and communicate effectively with residents. It also says that where a landlord may need to carry out significant works, it should consider whether it should move the resident from the property at an early stage. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took such an approach, and this is unacceptable.
The resident raised concerns with damp and mould to the landlord in June 2021. It arranged for an inspection of the property for 7 July 2021. He also raised further concerns on 14 July 2021 in relation to a leak and black mould. Its records however do not detail the outcome of the inspection of July 2021, or its findings and actions around the mould. Although it explained all appeared fine in relation to the concerns on 14 July 2021, it is unclear whether this was in relation to the leak, or both the leak, damp, and mould. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord then completed a damp and mould survey in December 2022. It is however unclear what led to the survey, raising further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. The survey made recommendations to the landlord, and its records show that it raised the works in March 2023.
The records show that the landlord cancelled the works, however it said in its stage 2 response that following a water leak, it completed works in April and May 2023. It said it worked on the resident’s ceilings filling in cracks, plastering, scraping back flaky pain on the hallway walls and applied a deep hole filler. When dried, it sanded down and applied new plaster. It is however unclear whether the works completed also related to the damp and mould concerns. As such it is not clear if it resolved the concerns.
The landlord also found that it had commissioned another damp and mould inspection in January 2024. It is however unclear what led to this, raising further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. It attended on 23 February 2024, and it explained in its stage 2 response that it found that there was damp in 1 area, the entrance by the front door. It said the resident had cleaned the mould within his home so it could not report on this.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it had also investigated other factors such as the drain in March and May 2024 which may had caused the concerns. It completed a disrepair survey of the property in November 2024 which found that the issue of damp and mould remained within the property. The resident explained to the Ombudsman on 8 January 2025 that the issue remained ongoing. The landlord had taken no action around the concerns found. This represents a delay of over 2.7 years in dealing with the concerns and this was unreasonable.
The HHSRS states that issues of damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards. This means that the landlord left the resident exposed to a potential category 1 hazard for a substantial amount of time without taking necessary action. There is no evidence provided to show that it took any action to try to resolve the root cause of the issue between June 2021 and January 2025. This is especially important given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The evidence shows that the landlord was also aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and health conditions since 3 July 2020. His doctors also wrote to it and explained the impact of his accommodation on his health. It has not demonstrated that it took this into consideration. For example, it should have considered whether it remained appropriate for the resident to remain in the property. The failure to take such consideration was unreasonable.
In summary, there were several issues with the landlord’s record keeping. In over 2.7 years, it has not demonstrated that it took any action around addressing the root cause of the damp and mould. It also has not shown that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and if this meant it needed to change its approach. It left the resident exposed to a potential category 1 hazard. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration.
The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident and offered compensation. Despite this however, its actions do not go far enough in addressing the distress and inconvenience faced by the resident. It also does not take into consideration the risk of harm faced by him by the potential exposure to a category 1 hazard, and its failure to consider his vulnerabilities appropriately. Its offer also does not consider the impact the situation would have had on the resident’s enjoyment of the property.
The resident explained to the Ombudsman during a call on 8 January 2025 that the matter remained ongoing. The Ombudsman orders for a compensation amount based on approximately 10% of the weekly rent. This is between the period of 6 June 2021 to January 2025. This amounts to £2,048 and this additional compensation. This is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord did not identify that the resident’s request was actually an escalation. He had received the stage 1 response in February 2024 and continued chasing between 19 February 2024 and 15 July 2024 before receiving a response. The response then said it would treat the matter as a stage 1 complaint. He had to correct it before it realised it was a stage 2 response. This represents a delay of over 4 months in acknowledging his complaint and demonstrates poor investigation into his complaint. This would have added to his belief that it was not taking his concerns sufficiently serious.
Following the resident’s escalation on 19 February 2024, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 23 July 2024. This represents a delay of over 5 months, and this was unreasonable. It failed to appropriately acknowledge the delay in its response. Although it apologised that it treated it as a stage 1 response, it did not apologise for the delay. This was unreasonable, and its actions were not in keeping with its policy.
The landlord also told the resident in its stage 2 response that it would contact him within 5 working days from its response. This was in relation to an update on its intentions, timeframes, and the need to accommodate his health issues until it completed the works. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 July 2024 and explained that he had not received the any communication around its next steps. He expressed his frustration at the situation. Although only a day after the deadline, the failure to provide a prompt response and meet its promise was unreasonable. Given the potential impact on the resident, this was especially important.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. Severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
3. Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from its Chief Executive Officer for the failings identified.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £3,698. This is inclusive of any previous offer which remains outstanding. The Ombudsman breaks this down as:
  1. £500 for its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
  2. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident with its handling of the damp and mould. This is inclusive of its earlier offer of £300.
  3. £2,048 for its handling of the resident’s concerns around damp and mould and its lack of appropriate consideration of his vulnerabilities.
  4. £150 for its complaint handling.
3. Consider whether it remains appropriate for the resident to remain in the property while it completes the necessary works and explain its findings to the resident and Ombudsman. It must then provide an action plan and schedule of works to the resident and Ombudsman around the outstanding repairs to the property. It must provide a start date for the outstanding works, and a month in which it aims to have all necessary repairs to the resident’s property completed.
4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.