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

London Borough of Camden Council (202417664)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417664

Camden Council

30 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a three bedroom maisonette flat under a secure tenancy that started on 7 January 2002. Her landlord is a local council. The resident appointed a relative to act as her representative throughout this complaint. For the purposes of this report, both will be referred to collectively as “the resident”.
  2. The landlord has told the Service the resident is registered as an ‘enhanced tenant’. Its website says these tenants have known vulnerabilities and it aims to prioritise their repair requests.
  3. The resident had been reporting an issue with damp and mould in her property. She said the problem was particularly bad in one of the bedrooms where rainwater was getting in around the window. In response the landlord completed several inspections and mould washes.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 1 September 2023. She said the damp issue in the bedroom had been ongoing for 10 years. She said it was because the bedroom window was rotten and the surrounding brickwork needed repair. She acknowledged the landlord had dealt with the mould, but it had failed to provide a permanent fix for the damp.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 September 2023. It said it had taken some action in response to the resident’s reports but acknowledged there had also been delays with some repairs. It said following recent inspections it was now awaiting quotes from contractors to complete the necessary window and brickwork repairs.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 November 2023. She said the landlord had still not completed permanent repairs to fix the damp and resolve the damage in the bedroom. She said it had missed an appointment in October 2023. She wanted it to treat the issue as an emergency.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 November 2023. It acknowledged, and apologised, for the repair delays. However, it said it could only find one failing in how it handled the issue so far. This failing was a delay to completing works following one inspection. It said it was still awaiting a quote from its contractor and once received it would need to go through its internal consultation process before works could start. It offered her a total of £355 compensation.
  8. The resident remained unhappy and brought her complaint to the Service on 6 September 2024. She said the damp issue was still ongoing. She said the landlord had completed some external repairs in January 2024 but these had not fixed the damp issue. She also said it had not completed any repairs internally to fix the damage the damp had caused. She said the issue had impacted the health of people in her household. She wanted it to complete all the repairs and offer compensation for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. When the resident brought her complaint to the Service she said the damp issue had caused health issues for several members of her family who live with her. She said they had needed to take time off work because of ill health.
  2. Although we can consider the general distress and inconvenience of the situation on the resident and her household, we cannot assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. That is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue the option.
  3. Additionally, when the resident asked us to investigate she said that the damp issues had been ongoing for the past 10 years. The Ombudsman will usually only consider complaints which have been raised formally with the landlord within a reasonable period of the events occurring, which is generally 12 months. No evidence of an earlier complaint has been seen. Therefore, the focus of this investigation will be on the events and issues in the months leading up to the resident’s complaint in September 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of damp and the associated repairs

  1. Both the landlord’s tenancy guide, and the resident’s tenancy agreement, say it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of window frames, internal walls, plasterwork, brickwork and any damp proofing.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says it puts repairs into 4 different categories and timescales depending on the severity. It defines emergency repairs as the most severe. It says emergency repairs include issues such as uncontrollable leaks or loss of utilities. It says it aims to attend emergency repairs the same day and make the area safe at a minimum. It defines repairs that are complex, or require specialist work as programmed repairs. Its examples of these type of issues include where damp proofing works or those that require scaffolding. It does not set a target for when these types of works should be completed, but state the target will be agreed depending on each case.
  3. At both stages of the complaints procedure the resident told the landlord it had failed to complete a permanent repair for the damp issue in the bedroom. She said it had completed some works, including treating the mould, and also some temporary fixes to the window. However, she highlighted that it had completed multiple inspections over the past few years but no long lasting repair had taken place. She acknowledged its work to deal with the mould had worked, but the damp issue remained. She said she had repeatedly asked it to replace the bedroom window, complete necessary repairs to the surrounding brickwork and ensure the affected internal walls were made good.
  4. In both the landlord’s complaint responses it maintained that, apart from one event, it had handled the resident’s reports of damp appropriately. It identified that the resident had reported issues with the bedroom window and associated damp on 6 April 2023, but had failed to complete the repairs for this until 14 August 2023. It apologised for both this failing, and for the general delay in getting the issue resolved.
  5. At stage 2 it explained that following recent inspections, the repair required scaffolding to be erected outside the building in order to complete some window repairs. Because of this, and the associated cost, it had passed this work to its major repairs team, and it was now being treated as a “programmed” repair. It advised it was awaiting quotes from its contractor for the work, and that once it received those the work would need a period of consultation before approval. It advised this could take several months. It acknowledged the further delay, and offered the resident a total of £355 compensation, comprising of:
    1. £80 for 4 months of delays in not completing a specified job (£20 for each month between April and August 2023)
    2. £25 for one missed appointment.
    3. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
    4. £150 for what it called “risk of harm”.
  6. The evidence shows there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp. This includes the delayed repair it acknowledged in its complaint responses. However, the landlord incorrectly said this delayed repair was completed on 14 August 2023. The operative’s notes from the job state that they were able to complete a temporary fix to the bedroom window. The operative told it that while the repair may help, the window still needed significant repairs, or replacement, to help resolve the damp issue.
  7. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the delays for this repair as it had not met the timescales set out in its repair policy. However, its response incorrectly stated the repair was fully completed, when the evidence shows the repair was only a temporary fix. Not acknowledging that the works had not been fully completed was a failure as it failed recognise some work was still outstanding.
  8. In the landlord’s complaint response, it said it could not find any evidence of “significant” failings, apart from one. The evidence confirms that it usually attended the property each time she made a new damp and mould report.
  9. However, many of these visits were to inspect, rather than complete repairs. Between September 2022 and November 2023, the evidence shows the landlord inspected the resident’s property at least 8 times. During the same time period, while it did complete works to tackle the mould, it only completed one temporary repair to the window and surrounding plaster.
  10.  Damp issues can be complex and can often require several inspections to identify the works needed. However, 8 inspections in 14 months without then completing a full repair is unreasonable. This is because the evidence shows each inspection was finding the same route causes of the damp each time. The landlord apologised in both its complaint response for the delays in getting the damp issue resolved. However not recognising the delays had at least partly been caused by a cycle of reinspection without follow on works was not reasonable.
  11. Furthermore, the landlord knew the resident was an ‘enhanced tenant’. By its own policies that meant she should receive priority on her reports of repairs on account of certain vulnerabilities. In its complaint response it failed to recognise that it had completed multiple inspections, with no meaningful permanent work to resolve the cause of the damp, and that the resident’s situation meant that speedy resolution was even more important than it would otherwise be. .
  12. In her escalated complaint the resident complained that two operatives had visited her in October 2023 saying they were there to treat the mould, but the mould had previously been resolved. She asked the landlord why this had happened. However, it failed to acknowledge this in its response. This was not appropriate, as the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states landlords should address all points raised in a complaint and provide a clear reason for its decision.
  13. When the resident brought her complaint to the Service, she said the landlord had completed some repairs to the external brickwork of the building in January 2024. However, she was still experiencing damp problems in the bedroom. She also mentioned the despite the landlord’s promises in its stage 1 response to repair any internal damage caused by the damp it had not done so.
  14. The evidence supports the resident’s comments. There is no evidence showing the landlord had resolved all of the repair issues it had identified from its multiple inspections, or completed the internal works it had promised her. Nor is there evidence that had it decided certain works were unnecessary or no longer needed. This is not appropriate, as it promised these works in its stage 1 response..
  15. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp in the resident’s property. While the landlord took appropriate action in dealing with the mould, it did little to treat to the cause. Its complaint responses failed to acknowledge the delays caused by repeatedly inspecting her property without rectifying the damp causes, or that her enhanced tenant status meant it should be considering greater priority for resolving the issue. The landlord failed to put things right through its complaint responses and its offer of £355 compensation was not proportionate to the scale of the delays and their impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and the associated repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. pay the resident compensation of £605. This is comprised of:
      1. £355 offered in its complaint responses.
      2. £250 in relation to the additional services identified with its handling of the residents reports of damp and the associated repairs.
    2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord must confirm with the resident when the internal repairs it promised in its stage 1 response will be completed or provide a reason why these works will no longer go ahead. Alternatively, if these works have now been completed, it must provide evidence of this to the Service.
    3. Provide evidence of the above to the Service by the respective deadlines.

Recommendations

  1. When the resident brought her complaint to the Service she advised she was still experiencing damp issues in her property. It is not apparent whether these are connected to the unresolved repairs considered in this report, or if they relate to new problems. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any ongoing issues with damp in her property and arrange necessary works as required if they are outside the work it has already identified as needed.