London Borough of Camden Council (202505115)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat with her 3 children. The property is run by a tenant management organisation (TMO) but the landlord has direct responsibility for certain repairs. She raised concerns about reoccurring damp and mould in the property and the impact on the health of her children.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

7. The landlord unreasonably delayed responding to the resident’s query about whether it would temporarily rehouse her. It took 41 working days to confirm it would not be temporarily moving her despite her phoning it on multiple occasions to ask for a response.
8. The landlord has stated that major works are planned to the building to improve ventilation and resolve damp and mould. However, there is no evidence of what works have been planned in the long-term or that the resident has been given information about when this will take place.

Complaint handling  

9. The landlord responded at both stages of the complaint in line with its complaint policy timescales. However, it did not attempt to define the resident’s stage 2 complaint with the resident or take action to understand why she was unhappy with its previous response as it should have in line with the Code. As such, its stage 2 response was largely a repetition of its previous response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

10. The resident has told us that she wants to move to a larger property due to overcrowding. This is not an issue we can investigate or make orders about. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in this capacity because applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (including overcrowding) are a duty it has as a local authority under the Housing Act 1996. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her request to be moved due to overcrowding, she may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
11. The resident said that the damp and mould has affected her and her children’s health, in particular her youngest child’s kidney condition. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

12. The first record of the landlord attending the property for concerns around damp and mould was on 24 January 2024. We have not seen evidence from either party about when this was first reported. The landlord recorded ‘severe’ mould was present in the living room, bedroom and on the bathroom ceiling. Mould washes were carried out to remove this on 24 and 25 January 2024.
13. The resident did not report further issues with damp and mould until 7 November 2024, 9 months later. The landlord attempted to inspect on 14 November 2024 but was not granted access. It arranged for a later inspection on 16 December 2024, 27 working days after it was reported. While this exceeded the target of 20 working days in its damp and mould policy, there was a mitigating factor in it not being granted access when it originally attempted to inspect.
14. The landlord’s inspection of 16 December 2024 recorded there was ‘extreme’ mould on the balcony wall of the property and additional mould in the bathroom and bedroom. It completed work to remove the mould on the same day.
15. On 30 January 2025 the landlord raised a further repair request to inspect for mould, it did this proactively to see if the issue had returned which was good practice. It inspected the property on 19 February 2025, which was in line with the timescales of its damp and mould policy.
16. The landlord’s inspection of 19 February 2025 recorded the mould had returned in all areas and major work was necessary to the balcony due to the extent of mould. It recommended a supervisor or surveyor inspect the property due to recurring issues with damp and mould, this inspection took place on 27 February 2025.
17. We have not seen records of the landlord’s findings from its inspection of 27 February 2025. However, its repair records say it completed mould washes that day for the affected areas recorded from its inspection of 19 February 2025. It also requested a carpentry repair to the balcony window which it on 2 April 2025, 24 working days after it was raised. Though this slightly exceeded the landlord’s target to complete routine repairs within 20 working days, it was not to such a degree we consider this a failing. We also note it originally scheduled to complete this on 12 March 2025 but rearranged this as the resident was not available.
18. On 3 occasions in March 2025 the resident told the landlord the operative who attended on 27 February 2025 said they would arrange for her to be moved out of the property, due to the mould. But her housing officer said they were waiting on a form to progress this. It told her each time it had forwarded her message to its damp and mould team and it would respond shortly. There is no evidence that it responded until 1 May 2025 when it replied stating that it had not agreed to move her as no intrusive repairs were needed and the overcrowding issue was for its housing team to address. Though we have not seen any evidence to suggest it had agreed to move the resident and her family following the inspection on 27 February 2025 this was an unreasonably long time for it to respond to her query.
19. The landlord agreed to jointly inspect the property with the TMO, which took place on 14 May 2025. There is no evidence of a written report from this inspection. In its internal emails it noted the structure of the building was likely contributing to the damp and mould. It said it was not possible to fit extractor fans within properties, and the TMO had planned major works to the building during the current financial year to remedy this. It said there was not a need to temporarily move the resident and her children due to the low levels of mould seen during the inspection but said it would consider this further if she provided medical evidence that the property condition was affecting her youngest child’s health. It also said it would provide the resident with a dehumidifier and arrange ongoing damp and mould inspection and treatment.
20. We have not seen that the resident provided any medical evidence to the landlord or reported further issues with damp and mould. It told us that it delivered a dehumidifier to her on 23 May 2025 and had agreed a follow-up damp and mould inspection for 24 October 2025. Whilst this is consistent with what it said it would do, we have not seen it has provided her with details of how it and the TMO intend to address the underlying structural issue with the building as part of its response to her complaint. We consider this to be a failure which we have ordered it to remedy as part of its planned inspection. 

21. The resident originally complained to the landlord on 20 February 2025, it acknowledged this on the same day. It issued its stage 1 response on 6 March 2025, 10 working days later. This was consistent with the timescales of its complaint policy and the Code.
22. The landlord recorded on 22 April 2025 that the resident asked to escalate her complaint as she wanted to be moved to another property due to the impact of the damp and mould. It confirmed to us there was no written escalation request.
23. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident about her stage 2 complaint until it issued its response on 28 April 2025, 4 working days later. While this is in line with the timescales of its complaints policy it should have defined the stage 2 complaint with her and made reasonable efforts to understand why she was unhappy with its previous response. It did not do this. As such, the landlord’s stage 2 response was nearly identical to its stage 1 response from 6 March 2025. It gave no further information about events following the stage 1 response or how it intended to address her ongoing concerns.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord should ensure it creates written reports from its inspections. This will allow it to demonstrate a clear rationale for the repairs it raises and any other relevant decision (such as whether a temporary move is required for the occupants).

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident was generally poor, with little evidence it contacted her directly about her concerns and delays in its responses. It should ensure residents are given a clear point of contact for reporting damp and mould and given realistic service standards for when it will respond.