London Borough of Camden Council (202504809)

Decision
Case ID	202504809
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Camden Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a first-floor 2-bedroom flat that she occupies with her partner and 2 children. For the purpose of this report, both the resident and her partner will be referred to as ‘the resident’. In January 2025, the resident reported mould in the bedroom, and separately, an uncontainable leak in the bathroom.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould and a leak.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and a leak.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and a leak

4. The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to complete repairs, causing prolonged impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her home. The compensation offered did not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience she experienced over 7 months.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord complied with the required timescales for issuing both stage 1 and stage 2 responses. Although it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days, this did not significantly affect the complaint’s progress.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a member of staff at head of service level or above. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 for its handling of her reports of damp and mould and a leak, made up as follows: £800 for distress and inconvenience. £200 previously offered to her for delays, time and trouble. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may not deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 07 January 2026

3

Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the areas of damp and mould in the property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.

No later than 07 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
January 2025	The resident reported mould in the bedroom. The landlord arranged an inspection. The resident reported an uncontrollable leak from behind boxed–in pipework in the bathroom. The landlord attended to the leak out of hours, with the contractor noting the resident did not want a visit late at night.
29 January 2025	The resident requested to escalate the matter as a formal complaint. She expressed dissatisfaction with having to wait 22 days for the landlord to respond to her reports of mould growth. Furthermore, she said when the contractor attended, they advised that they could not carry out any investigative works and would only treat the affected area. The resident stated that the full remedial works were not scheduled until 10 February 2025, which left her unable to use the bedroom for sleeping.
February 2025	The landlord identified the source of the leak as the flat above, caused by damaged tiles around the bath. It arranged an appointment for 7 March 2025 to replace the tiles. Despite this, the resident continued to report water ingress from the flat above and expressed concerns for her health and safety.
19 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, outlining the steps it had taken to address the issue. It included excerpts from the contractor’s notes, which described the mould as moderate. The landlord stated that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint, as it had responded to each report of leaks and damp/mould concerns and had taken appropriate action.
1 March 2025	The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2, disputing the assessment of the mould’s severity and stating that the mould had not been treated. She also disputed the claim that she refused entry on 27 January 2025, explaining that no contractor attended on that date. Additionally, she noted that although the source of the leak had been identified, it had not been repaired, and the damp and mould team continued to treat the affected area without conducting a proper investigation into the underlying cause.
22 April 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It again outlined the action it had taken. It accepted that despite its actions, delays continued, and the leak persisted, causing ongoing mould issues. Following review, the complaint was upheld due to delays and unresolved repairs. The landlord apologised, escalated the repair to a senior manager, and awarded £200 compensation (£100 for delays and £100 for time and trouble).
Referral to the Ombudsman	In April 2025, the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, explaining that the issue had not been resolved. By August 2025, she confirmed that the tiles in the flat above had been repaired but there was still damp and mould in her property. She said this was causing bathroom tiles to crack and fall off, mushroom growth, and a strong small of damp.

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.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of damp and mould and a leak
Finding	Maladministration

6. The landlord’s repair policy says that repairs are prioritised by urgency:
   1. Emergency repairs outside normal hours are attended within 2 hours. It aims to make the situation safe when there is danger to people or property.
   2. Emergency repairs during office hours are handled the same day before 8pm, or within 2 hours if there is immediate danger.
   3. Urgent repairs that could cause significant nuisance if delayed are completed within 5 working days.
   4. Routine repairs, which are non-urgent and the landlord’s responsibility, are completed within 20 working days.
7. The repair records for this case lacked completeness and clarity. At times, the information was inconsistent or confusing, with no clear explanation of the actions taken or the rationale behind them. This absence of detailed documentation makes it difficult to understand the sequence of events, verify what work was carried out, and assess whether appropriate steps were followed.
8. The resident stated that she first reported damp and mould in the bedroom on 1 January 2025. However, this was not reflected in the repair records. The earliest entry is dated 10 January 2025, noting the need for an inspection and scheduling it for 10 February 2025. Another entry on 23 January 2025 does not clarify whether a visit occurred; the notes simply state “advise resident to clear area of work”. On 27 January 2025, the resident reported a significant leak from behind bathroom pipes, yet the log only records that the repair was “physically complete”, without specifying what work was done or when. Additionally, an entry on 28 January 2025 indicated that a contractor attended out of hours but claimed the resident declined access late at night—a point the resident disputed. These inconsistencies highlight the importance of maintaining clear, accurate, and detailed records to provide a reliable audit trail of all actions taken by the landlord.
9. On 29 January 2025, the resident submitted a complaint stating that she had reported mould in her property on 1 January 2025 but did not receive a visit until 23 January 2025. She explained that the visit only involved the contractor painting over the mould, with no investigative work carried out. The resident further noted that a damp and mould specialist was not scheduled to attend until 10 February 2025, despite her advising that there were asthmatics in the household. In addition, she reported another leak that prevented her from sleeping in her bedroom. The resident requested that the mould issue be properly investigated, and the leak resolved.
10. The repair records indicated that the leak was marked as “physically complete” on 6 February 2025, which was 6 working days after the resident reported the issue. This was one working day beyond the landlord’s policy timescale. While the delay was minor, it still impacted the resident and represented a failure to adhere to the stated repair policy. Inspection notes from 10 February 2025 confirmed that only part of the works had been completed, and recorded the presence of severe sporadic mould spores and moderate mould around the window. The area was treated; however, further notes revealed a severe active leak in the bedroom originating from the flat above.
11. The landlord attended the following day and identified the source as broken tiles around the bath in the neighbouring property. The landlord attended the property the following day, which was in accordance with its emergency repair policy, and took steps to make the affected area safe. This prompt response ensured that immediate risks were mitigated, such as preventing further water ingress and addressing hazards associated with the leak. However, while the initial action complied with policy requirements for emergencies, it is important to note that making the area safe did not fully resolve the underlying issue, leaving the resident with ongoing concerns about water damage and mould growth.
12. Between 12 and 17 February 2025, the resident continued to liaise with the landlord regarding the ongoing leak. Although the landlord took steps to make the situation safe—such as addressing the light fitting where water was penetrating—the resident reported that water continued to leak from the ceiling and mould growth persisted. She also expressed fear for her health and safety due to the unresolved issue.
13. On 19 February 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, outlining the actions it had taken, confirming that tile repairs in the neighbouring property were scheduled for 7 March 2025, and including excerpts from the contractor’s notes. However, the excerpts provided were selective and omitted a critical detail: the contractor had recorded that the sporadic mould spores were severe. Instead, the landlord only included the note stating that mould around the window was “moderate”. This omission is significant because it presented a misleading picture of the extent of the problem, suggesting that the mould identified was only moderate when, in fact, the contractor had assessed part of it as severe. Such selective reporting undermines transparency and raises concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the landlord’s response.
14. On 1 March 2025, the resident escalated her complaint. She said that although the source of the leak had been identified, it had taken several weeks for any meaningful action to be taken, and the leak remained unresolved. She expressed frustration at the prolonged delay and the continued impact on her living conditions, emphasising that the landlord’s failure to complete repairs in a timely manner had caused significant distress and inconvenience.
15. In its stage 2 response dated 22 April 2025, the landlord confirmed the action it had taken and issued an apology for the delay in addressing the ongoing leak. It stated that any further repair would be prioritised and that the resident would be kept updated. Additionally, the landlord offered a total compensation of £200, broken down into £100 for the delay and £100 for the resident’s time and trouble. While these actions were aimed at resolution, they fell short of fully acknowledging the impact on the resident. The landlord’s remedies policy allows for financial compensation for distress and inconvenience, which should have been considered when determining the award. By limiting the offer to time and trouble and delay, the landlord overlooked the significant disruption and health concerns experienced by the resident, particularly given the presence of mould and her prolonged inability to use her bedroom.
16. On 12 May 2025, the resident reported yet another leak originating from the flat above. The landlord’s case notes indicate that an appointment was scheduled for 27 May 2025 (more than 2 weeks later), which represented a significant delay given the circumstances. The notes further acknowledged that the appointment should be brought forward if any cancellations occurred and also confirmed that the leak had been active since January. This admission highlights the prolonged nature of the issue and raises concerns about the landlord’s prioritisation and responsiveness, particularly considering the ongoing impact on the resident.
17. On 7 August 2025, the resident reported she had experienced persistent damp, mould, and leaks caused by an upstairs neighbour. Although the neighbour’s repair was completed 5 weeks earlier, the resident was told someone would attend within 2 weeks to complete repairs in her property, but no visit occurred. She said the situation had worsened, with mushrooms now growing in the bathroom. The resident highlighted household vulnerabilities, including health concerns, yet was informed she would need to wait over another month for further action. The repair log shows that a works order was raised on 7 August 2025 with a priority of “extended – 35 working days”. This was contrary to the landlord’s routine repair policy timescale, and particularly concerning given the resident had already endured prolonged distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, the landlord had previously assured the resident that any further repairs would be prioritised. By allowing an extended period for completion, it failed to act in line with its own commitment and did not adequately consider the severity of the situation or the impact on the resident.
18. Overall, the landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to fully complete the necessary works, which had a prolonged and significant impact on the resident’s ability to enjoy her home. Although the landlord offered some compensation, this did not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced over a 7-month period. In light of this, and in accordance with the landlord’s remedies policy—which allows for a maximum award for distress and inconvenience—and our own remedies guidance where maladministration has been found, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £800. This is in addition to the £200 previously offered to the resident for the delays and her time and trouble.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

19. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case came into effect in April 2024. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. The landlord’s policy also allows for an extension of up to an additional 20 days if more time is needed to reach a decision, which should be communicated to complainants.
20. On 29 January 2025, the resident requested that a formal complaint be raised. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 February 2025, which was 6 working days later—one day outside its policy timescale. The landlord subsequently issued its stage 1 response on 19 February 2025, 9 working days after acknowledgement, which was within the required timescale set out in its policy. The overall timescale of 15 working days for acknowledgement and response at stage 1 was reasonable and in line with policy.
21. On 1 March 2025, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this escalation within 5 working days, as required by its complaints policy. However, it did issue its stage 2 response within 14 working days, which was in line with the policy timescale for providing a stage 2 response.
22. Overall, although the landlord did not fully adhere to its policy in all respects, it met the required timescales for issuing both stage 1 and stage 2 responses. Its omission to acknowledge the stage 2 escalation did not impact the overall progression of the complaint. We have therefore found no maladministration in relation to complaint handling.

Learning

23. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

24. It should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, particularly regarding monitoring outstanding repairs and clearly confirming their completion. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management can assist with this.

Communication

25. It should review its application of its complaints policy to ensure that acknowledgements are issued within the required 5 working days.