Camden Council (202217379)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217379

Camden Council

29 September 2023

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:
1. reports of a leak within his property.
2. reports of damp and mould within his property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a ground floor flat.
On the 11 May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that during heavy rain he had noticed water leaking around the sill and frame of the window in his bedroom. On 27 June 2022, the landlord instructed a carpenter to inspect the resident’s property, who advised that there was no issue with the resident’s window, but that the brickwork and walkway above the resident’s property needed to be inspected.
On 4 August 2022, the landlord instructed a bricklayer to inspect the resident’s property. The bricklayer reported to the landlord that during heavy rain, it appeared as though water was seeping through the brickwork, penetrating above the resident’s bedroom window, and running down the walls, due to a concrete beam protruding from the brickwork. The bricklayer also confirmed that there was damp around the window in the resident’s bedroom. To remedy the issue, the bricklayer explained that the brickwork would need repointing, and to complete the job, scaffolding would need to be erected.
On 22 October 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He advised that damp and mould was affecting his property, and the landlord’s delay to resolve the matter had resulted in damage to his personal belongings.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on 24 November 2022. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay in completing the repair to the brickwork of his property. It explained that due to the nature of the repair, it was taking longer than anticipated to resolve, and as a repair to the exterior of the building was required, it had been waiting on scaffolding to be erected. The landlord confirmed that a survey for scaffolding had been conducted on 24 October 2022, therefore, the works to the brickwork would commence shortly. It also advised the resident that it did not provide redress for damage to personal belongings through its complaints process, and that he would need to complete the enclosed public liability claim form, which would be assessed by its insurance team.
On 29 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process. He stated that he was unclear about which parts in his complaint had been upheld. He highlighted that it had been 25 working days since the survey for erecting scaffolding had been conducted, but no works had commenced. The resident complained that the landlord had not explained what it intended to do to remedy the issue of damp and mould within his property.
On 19 December 2022, a bricklayer attended the resident’s property to repoint the brickwork, and installed flashing to stop any further water leaks. On 20 December 2022, the landlord instructed a damp and mould surveyor to assess the resident’s property. On the same day it sent its stage two complaint response to the resident. In this it acknowledged that between May and October 2022, it was at fault in progressing matters, but felt that the delay in waiting for scaffolding to be erected, mitigated any service failing. However, it explained that it would change its original decision and uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord stated that as the bricklayer had completed the required works to resolve the leak, it considered the resident’s complaint as resolved. It advised that his case relating to damp and mould had been referred to its damp and mould team who would provide the resident with guidance on how to remove damp and mould within his property. The landlord reiterated to the resident that he would need to raise any concerns regarding damage to his belongings through a liability insurance claim.
The resident emailed the landlord on the same day to dispute the findings set out in its stage two complaint response. He questioned why the landlord had considered his complaint as resolved when it had not yet received the findings and recommendations from the damp and mould survey. The resident also highlighted that no scaffolding had been erected for the bricklayer to complete his job, therefore, the landlord’s reason for its overall delay appeared to be inaccurate.
The resident then contacted this service to ask for his complaint to be investigated. He told this service that the damp and mould within his property had not been resolved, that the landlord had failed to share the findings of the damp and mould survey with him, and that he would like an apology and reimbursement from the landlord for the damage caused to his belongings as a result of the damp and mould within his property.
On 6 January 2023, the landlord received the outcome of the damp and mould survey and subsequently on 3 March 2023, its contractor carried out remedial works in line with the recommendations set out in the report.

Scope of investigation

The resident has confirmed that he has made a public liability claim to the landlord’s insurer regarding his personal belongings which he states were damaged by the damp and mould within his property. He has told this service that he is still waiting for a response to his claim and that he is unhappy with the length of time taken to receive a response.
What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, which is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Paragraph 41(b) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. The landlord’s insurer is not a member of the Scheme as it is not a social housing provider, therefore, the Ombudsman cannot investigate or comment on the length of time taken to respond to the resident’s public liability claim. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation however, for the landlord to follow up with its insurer on the status of the resident’s public liability claim, so that it can provide the resident with an update. In investigating the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has only considered the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s response to reports of a leak within the resident’s property, damp and mould within the resident’s property, and the resident’s associated complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak within his property.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for keeping in repair and good working order the structure and exterior of the resident’s property. This includes internal walls and plasterwork and repairing brickwork.
The landlord’s repairs policy explains that repairs fall within three categories:
1. Emergency repairs – where there is an immediate threat to residents’ health and safety or security of their property.
2. Essential repairs – where there would be a risk to the resident or property and would likely lead to further damage if not fixed.
3. Nonessential repairs – problems that need fixing but are not causing serious discomfort or inconvenience.
Repairs falling under category ‘a’ are attended to within 24 hours. Repairs that fall under category ‘b’ are attended to within 35 working days, and repairs falling under category ‘c’, appointments are to be agreed with the resident.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported a leak around the sill and frame of the window in his bedroom on 11 May 2022, and 21 working days later, the landlord instructed a carpenter to attend the resident’s property to investigate the leak. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the resident’s report was considered by the landlord as an essential repair and was attended to in line with its repairs policy timescales. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
The Ombudsman understands that the source of a leak can often be difficult to locate and trace, which means in some circumstances to identify the appropriate works required, a landlord may instruct more than one tradesman to investigate and resolve a reported issue. Therefore, following the carpenter’s assessment, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise a job for a bricklayer to attend the resident’s property. The Ombudsman notes that the bricklayer attended the resident’s property 29 working days after the carpenter’s inspection, which was also in line with the landlord’s essential repairs policy timescales.
However, the evidence shows that despite the bricklayer’s assessment of the resident’s property, and outlining of the necessary works, the landlord failed to keep the resident informed on the status of the job. The Ombudsman would have expected to have seen a record of the landlord providing an update to the resident after each visit from the carpenter and bricklayer, explaining their findings and estimated timescales for the repair works. However, from the date of the resident’s initial report of a leak until the issuing of the landlord’s stage one complaint response, almost six months had passed until the resident was provided with an explanation for the delay to resolve the leak, and a summary of the actions that had taken place thus far. This was inappropriate and would have understandably caused stress and frustration to the resident, as for a significant amount of time, he was faced with an unresolved leak in his bedroom and was left not knowing when the leak would be resolved.
The landlord told the resident and this service that the reason there was a delay to complete the necessary works to resolve the leak affecting the resident’s bedroom window, was because it was waiting on scaffolding to be erected. There is evidence confirming that on 24 October 2022, an operative attended the resident’s address to take photos, which were then sent to management for review. However, it appears as though that at some stage, the landlord and its contractor decided scaffolding was no longer required to complete the necessary works. The landlord’s repair records specifically state that scaffolding was not required and that a long ladder was needed instead. Consequently, on 9 December 2022, a job was scheduled for the 19 December 2022, where the landlord’s repair records confirm that a bricklayer completed works to resolve the leak without the use of scaffolding. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the landlord was initially under the impression that scaffolding was required, as its repair records reflect this. However, without evidence to explain why it took 57 working days to conduct a scaffolding survey and a further 35 working days to ascertain that scaffolding was no longer needed, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord took the appropriate steps to fulfil its repair obligations within an acceptable amount of time. Over an 18-week period, this failing caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, each time he attempted to get the leak affecting his bedroom window resolved.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident completed the landlord’s complaints process on 20 December 2022, and by this stage, the landlord considered the leak affecting the resident’s bedroom window and the resident’s complaint as resolved. However, on 22 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the leak affecting his bedroom window had not been resolved, and enclosed photographic evidence to support his claim. There is no evidence within the landlord’s repair records to demonstrate that it raised a new job to investigate the resident’s further report of a leak, and while the landlord considered the bricklayer’s work as resolution to the resident’s initial report of a leak, it should have carried out a further inspection to satisfy itself and the resident that no further work was required. That said, the resident has told this Service that since his last report to the landlord of a leak affecting his bedroom window, there have been no further occurrences of a leak. Therefore, while the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s further report of a leak as a service shortcoming, it appears as though that in this instance, the landlord’s inaction has had little impact on the resident because the leak has not reoccurred.
In light of the failings set out above, the Ombudsman has determined that there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a leak within his property.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s acknowledgement of there being an unreasonable delay to resolve the leak affecting the resident’s bedroom window. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
There is some evidence of the landlord acting fairly, as it upheld the resident’s complaint. However, it failed to offer redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionally reflects the distress and inconvenience caused because of its actions.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that when it is at fault, suitable remedies may include providing a response, recognising what it did wrong, apologising, improving procedures, reviewing a decision, and offering compensation. When deciding on suitable compensation it considers:
1. The amount of time the resident spent trying to resolve the issue.
2. The difficulty the resident experienced trying to resolve the issue.
3. The distress to the resident.
4. Harm caused to the resident.
5. Previous responses sent.
6. Any other attempts to address the issue.
7. Administrative costs.
The landlord’s compensation policy goes on to explain that compensation of up to £300 can be offered for distress, £300 can be offered for time and trouble, and £20 per month for delays. Considering the length of time taken to resolve the leak, in addition to the difficulty and distress caused to the resident during this period, in line with its compensation policy, the landlord should have offered the resident compensation to put things right.
Regarding learning from outcomes, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has fully identified what steps it could take to avoid a similar issue from occurring in the future. The landlord should have explained how it intended to improve on its communication throughout the active status of a repair, and by continuing to cite the delay to erect scaffolding as the reason for its delays to resolve the leak, the landlord has demonstrated a lack of accountability for its actions.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. The guidance suggests compensation from £100 to £600 is appropriate for instances of maladministration by the landlord. Maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to comply with its own policies and procedures, unreasonable delays in dealing with a matter, and behaving unfairly, unreasonably, or incompetently. In this instance, an amount of £300 compensation is appropriate, being £150 compensation for the landlord’s poor communication over the status of resolving the leak affecting the resident’s bedroom window, and £150 for its unreasonable delay to resolve the leak affecting the resident’s bedroom window. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay this compensation to the resident in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its errors. This should be paid to the resident directly and not offset against any outstanding debt that may be owed to the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his property.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for damp-proof works, but that it is not responsible for damage to belongings as a result of water damage. The landlord’s repairs policy encourages residents to take out contents insurance to cover their belongings.
The landlord’s repair records show that it was made aware of damp in the resident’s bedroom on 4 August 2022, following the bricklayer’s inspection of the resident’s property. In his stage one complaint to the landlord the resident also reported that damp and mould was affecting his property and had damaged his belongings.In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain to the resident that it did not provide redress for damaged belongings through its complaints process, and that it was an insurance matter.
However, the Ombudsman notes that it was not until 20 December 2022, that the landlord advised the resident that his case had been referred to its damp and mould team and instructed a damp and mould survey to be conducted within his property. This meant that for 19 weeks the resident was left not knowing what actions the landlord intended to take to resolve the issue of damp and mould within his property. The landlord should have explained to the resident that it was important to resolve the leak affecting his bedroom window before addressing the issue of damp and mould, as getting to the source of what may be causing excess moisture within his property, would assist with eliminating any further growth or spread of damp and mould. It should have also explained that once it had received the outcome of the damp and mould survey, it would discuss with the resident the next steps it intended to take to address the damp and mould within his property. Clear and effective communication on a landlord’s part is an essential element of all aspects of its overall service delivery, and in this case, would have reassured the resident that his concerns regarding damp and mould within his property had not been forgotten.
The landlord’s repair records show that it received the outcome of the damp and mould survey on 29 January 2023, and in accordance with its urgent repairs policy timescales, a job was raised for the recommended works to be carried out on 3 March 2023, which was 25 working days later. The Ombudsman notes that the damp and mould survey identified issues in the following areas of the resident’s property:
1. across the ceiling and on the window in the bedroom – categorised as “severe.”
2. in the corner of the ceiling in the bathroom – categorised as “severe.”
3. in the corner of the wall in the lounge – categorised as “slight.”
The findings from the damp and mould survey required the landlord to take action to address the damp and mould within the resident’s property and take permanent preventative measures to stop it from recurring. Some of the recommendations outlined in the survey included an anti-mould wash, replastering of some walls in the property, and installing extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen for better ventilation. From the evidence the landlord has provided, the Ombudsman is satisfied some of those recommendations were completed within a reasonable timescale. However, there is no evidence to suggest the property was fitted with better ventilation to improve airflow, as per the survey.
This service asked the landlord for an explanation as to why extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen had not been fitted. The landlord has explained that there is no space for an extractor fan to be fitted to the wall area in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom, and as both rooms have windows, it considers this as adequate ventilation. While the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord’s explanation, the survey report highlights damp and mould as a severe concernin the resident’s bedroom and bathroom. The resident’s kitchen and bathroom both alreadyhave windows, which would suggest that this factor would have been taken into account when an assessment and recommendation for further ventilation was made. Therefore, the Ombudsman has questioned what alternative preventative measures the landlord intends to take to resolve the issue of damp and mould within the resident’s property, and whether these measures have been discussed with the resident.
In the first instance, the Ombudsman would have expected to have seen correspondence from the landlord to the resident, relaying the findings of the damp and mould survey. It should have outlined what works it had already carried out to remedy the issue of damp and mould, explained that there was a requirement for more ventilation throughout the property, and in the absence of extractor fans, explained how the resident could achieve better ventilation and improve airflow throughout his property, such as by opening the windows. This would have demonstrated to the resident that his concerns had been acknowledged and that the landlord was taking proactive steps to resolve the problem.
Given that the resident has told this Service that his property is still being affected by damp and mould, and that he was forced to purchase dehumidifiers, it appears as though the issue of damp and mould still exists. While it is acknowledged that some works have taken place in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his property, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that in line with its repair obligations, the landlord went far enough to take all necessary steps toremedy the issues of damp and mould within the resident’s property. As such, an order will be made for the landlord to inspect the resident’s property to assess its current condition relating to damp and mould. It should consider what alternative measures can be taken to improve ventilation throughout the resident’s property, and these should be communicated to the resident. As it is not clear whether the landlord has been made aware of the resident’s purchasing dehumidifiers to reduce damp, the Ombudsman will also make a recommendation for it to consider reimbursing the resident for the dehumidifiers he has purchased.
The resident has been encouraged to continue reporting his concerns regarding the damp and mould within his property to the landlord’s repairs service so that this can be addressed further. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to the issues raised, he can raise the matter as a separate complaint through the landlord’s complaints process.
Considering the failings set out above, the Ombudsman has determined that there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his property. Additionally, the landlord has failed to recognise its failings or offer redress to the resident in acknowledgement of the distress and inconvenience caused because of its actions.
Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation, being £100 compensation for its failure to complete all the damp-proof recommendations set out in the damp and mould survey, and £50 compensation for its poor communication over how it was going to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amount proportionately reflects the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident in trying to resolve the issues raised.
The resident has told this service that he has requested a copy of the damp and mould survey from the landlord, which has not been provided. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the resident’s request to the landlord; however, a recommendation will be made for the landlord to respond to the resident’s request. It should either provide him with a copy of the damp and mould survey or explain to the resident why it will not share the outcome of the report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak within his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. £450 compensation consisting of:
  1. £150 for the landlord’s poor communication over the status of resolving the leak affecting the resident’s bedroom window.
  2. £150 for its unreasonable delay to resolve the leak affecting the resident’s bedroom window.
  3. £100 for its failure to explain or implement alternative measures to improve on ventilation throughout the resident’s property.
  4. £50 for its poor communication over how it was going to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his property.
2. This compensation should be paid to the resident directly and not offset against any outstanding debt that may be owed to the landlord.
Within four weeks of this determination, the landlord should inspect the resident’s property to assess its current condition relating to damp and mould. It should consider what alternative measures can be taken to improve ventilation throughout the resident’s property, and these should be communicated to the resident.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman within four weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should follow up with its liability insurer on the status of the resident’s public liability claim, so that it can provide the resident with an update on this.
The landlord should respond to the resident’s request for a copy of the damp and mould survey. It should either provide him with a copy of the damp and mould survey or explain to the resident why it will not to share the outcome of the report.
The landlord should consider reimbursing the resident for the dehumidifiers he has purchased.