London Borough of Camden Council (202441561)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor flat in a 3-storey building. She complained about an ongoing leak into the property from the roof which caused damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of water ingress from the roof, damp, and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about water ingress from the roof, damp, and mould.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Water ingress

6. There were delays in the landlord acting on the resident’s reports and it did not keep her informed. We have seen no evidence that it acted on the recommendations for essential work to the roof made in September 2023. We have also seen no evidence that it acted following an inspection of the property and the flat above in August 2024 which identified that both properties had damp external walls. It completed minimal damp and mould investigation and treatment.

Complaint

7. There were delays in the complaint handling process and the landlord did not follow remedies through to completion.

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.

8. The resident described the effect the water ingress has had on her mental health. We do not doubt her comments. However, it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. However, we have considered whether she experienced any general distress because of any errors by the landlord.
9. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 28 December 2022 onwards. Any reference made about events that occurred prior to this are for context only.
10. The lease states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building including the roof, gutters, and rainwater pipes. It also confirms that the resident is responsible for internal repair and maintenance of the property.
11. A housing repairs service leaflet provided by the landlord says will complete programmed works within an agreed timescale. It describes programmed works as repairs that are complex, subject to leaseholder consultation, or involve specialist work.
12. The landlord’s repair log shows that the resident reported a leak coming from the roof on 28 December 2022. There is evidence that a contractor attended the property on 6 April 2023 and cleared the gutters on both sides of the building, added 1.5 metres of eaves protection, and 20cm x 30cm of lead to cover the roof tiles gap. Therefore, there was a delay of 3 months between the resident reporting the issue and the contractor attending. This delay was significant and we have seen no evidence that the landlord agreed this timescale with the resident or kept her updated. This delay and lack of communication caused the resident distress and inconvenience because she was living with damp walls in her lounge and kitchen.
13. On 25 September 2023 a contractor inspected the roof and cleared the front and rear gutters on the building, unblocked the downpipes, and replaced a damaged roof tile. The contractor wrote a report which recommended that further repairs were “essential to prevent further issues and potential structural damage”. The report said that the mortar joints below the roof ridge needed attention due to weathering and deterioration, and a hole in the firewall’s brickwork should be fixed to prevent unwanted access and potential structural concerns.
14. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acted on these recommendations. This error was a missed opportunity to potentially resolve the issue. There is evidence that the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions for an update during this time and that she was told to call the leaseholder team by the repairs team and vice versa. This demonstrates the time and trouble she took due to the landlord’s failings, and the distress and inconvenience she reported experiencing.
15. On 17 July 2024 the landlord raised another repair job following the resident’s complaint. It inspected the property on 7 August 2024 and noted that there was water damage on the external kitchen wall. It checked the flat above which had a similar issue on the same wall, although it noted that the damage did not “start at the top of the ceiling”. It also noted that scaffolding would be needed to complete the work. An internal email dated 2 January 2025 said that the operative that visited referred the issue to the major repairs team in August 2024.
16. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord confirmed that it had taken no further action following this referral to the major works team. An email to the resident dated 15 January 2025 suggests that this was because it had decided that the problem was caused by a leak from a flat above which was also a leasehold property and therefore not the landlord’s responsibility. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord based this decision on any further inspections or evidence.
17. Despite the resident highlighting the damp and mould the water ingress had caused there is no evidence that the landlord completed a damp and mould survey and mould wash in the property until August 2024. This was an unacceptable delay and meant that the resident was living in unsatisfactory conditions for longer than necessary.
18. There is evidence that the landlord inspected the property in August 2025 and concluded that there was “a small amount of historical water staining to living room wall” which it said was caused by a leak from the flat above. However, it did not mention whether the kitchen wall was still water damaged and damp. As the inspection took place during a particularly dry summer, the issue may not have been apparent, however the resident has advised us that the issue remains.
19. In summary, there were delays in the landlord taking action. We have seen no evidence that it acted on the recommendations for essential work to the roof made in September 2023. We have also seen no evidence that it acted following an inspection of the property and the flat above in August 2024 which identified that both properties had damp external walls. This resulted in the resident living in a property with damp walls for a prolonged period and during this time only 1 mould treatment took place. This has caused her considerable distress and inconvenience and has cost her considerable time and trouble chasing the repairs. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress from the roof, damp, and mould.

20. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge complaints at all stages within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. Exceptionally, it may extend these timescales to respond by a further 10 working days and will provide an explanation to the resident for the reasons for the extension and a clear timeframe for when it will provide a response.
21. In this case the landlord took 8 working days to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint and a further 15 days to provide a response. It then took 28 working days to provide a stage 2 complaint response. It did not provide an explanation to the resident for the extension. These delays, lack of communication, and failure to follow its policy meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her distress and inconvenience. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
22. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
23. In this case in the stage 1 response the landlord said that the management of the major repairs team would investigate the matter. However, we can see no evidence that the resident received any feedback regarding this and therefore she had to take time and trouble escalating the complaint.
24. In the stage 2 response the landlord said that the major repairs team manager would inform the resident of the course of action the landlord would take within 4 weeks. However, we have seen no evidence that the manager contacted the resident directly within this period. An email to the resident dated 15 January 2025 said that the manager had decided that the leak was caused by an issue in the flat above. Had the manager investigated fully and spoken to the resident directly they may have discovered that there was a possibility that there was more than 1 cause for the water ingress into the property and further investigation into the roof was required.
25. The landlord’s failure to follow the proposed remedies through to completion caused the resident further distress and inconvenience, it undermined the complaints process and cost the resident time and trouble escalating the complaint to this Service.
26. Due to the delays in complaint handling and the landlord’s failure to follow remedies through to completion there was maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

27. The landlord should consider measures that facilitate its leaseholder services and repairs team working more closely together so that it does not direct residents from team to team.
28. It should also ensure that it empowers complaint handlers to make sure that other teams follow remedies offered through to completion.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. No issues identified.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication was poor and it did not keep the resident informed throughout the process.