London Borough of Camden Council (202521825)

Background

1. The resident reported damp in the property in 2016, 2022 and 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

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

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord repeatedly failed to meet obligations under its repairs and damp policies. It did not carry out repairs in appropriate timescales, or document required risk assessments, and delayed by 6 months before commissioning an appropriate damp survey. It then failed to act on the survey’s recommendations, did not share the report with the resident, and provided no repair timescales. These failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
7. The landlord failed to follow up on actions, delayed escalating the complaint, missed required response times, gave incorrect information about the process, and placed the burden on the resident to chase for updates.

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

8. The resident has said the situation affected his health and wellbeing. While we do not dispute this, determining the cause of, or liability for, health impact is outside of our remit and is instead a matter for the courts or a personal injury claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
9. We may not investigate issues raised more than 12 months after they occurred. Although the resident reported in 2025 that damp had persisted for several years, the landlord reasonably reviewed events back to 2022 at stage 2. We considered earlier evidence for context but did not make findings on repair handling prior to 2025 due to the time that has elapsed.

What we have investigated

10. The landlord’s repairs policy sets targets of 5 working days for urgent repairs (such as unblocking gutters), 20 working days for routine repairs, and says it will agree timescales for planned works like damp proofing. Its damp and mould policy requires an initial risk assessment and a follow‑up visit within 20 working days for low‑risk cases. It will then investigate to determine the cause and carry out necessary actions in accordance with the lease. Under the lease, the landlord must maintain sewers, drains, boundary walls, and the external and internal structural walls, but it is not responsible for internal wall.
11. The resident reported damp, mould and a leaking gutter in January 2025. The landlord failed to resolve the blocked gutter until November 2025. This was well outside of their 5 day target and an unreasonable delay that likely contributed to damp on the external walls. There is no evidence of a risk assessment, despite a visit within 20 days of the report which identified high damp levels throughout the property.
12. In April 2025, the landlord sent its stage 1 response advising it had escalated this to a damp and mould surveyor to diagnose the cause. It said it would contact the resident within 2 working days to arrange this. This was a reasonable escalation in line with its policy. It appropriately acknowledged the delay and offered £20 compensation. This was broadly in line with its compensation policy.
13. Following repeated chasing for the promised damp and mould surveyor, the landlord sent its stage 2 response in May 2025. It acknowledged its additional failings. It referenced a 2022 damp survey had noted repairs which were not the landlord’s responsibility to resolve but confirmed that the 2025 visit showed it needed a full inspection. It said it would arrange this and provide a diagnosis, clarification on freeholder duties and next steps and timelines for a resolution. It increased the compensation offer to £100. This did not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its 4 month delay after the February inspection and its failings continued subsequently.
14. An independent damp specialist completed the survey in July 2025. The landlord apparently did not provide a history of issues at the property to the surveyor. This was unreasonable as it held previous surveys, including a drainage survey (highlighting collapsed and leaking joints), that may have helped inform the diagnosis. The survey noted high damp readings and walls saturated with visible damp. It provided a list of recommended works all within the landlord’s responsibility, including the blocked gutter raised in January 2025. A minor internal issue (a shower‑screen seal) was correctly identified as the resident’s responsibility, and he has confirmed that he has addressed this.
15. To date, the landlord has only unblocked the gutter. It has not appropriately completed the recommended works, provided the report to the resident, or agreed repair timescales. This is a significant failing under its repairs and damp policy. This has caused the resident excessive distress and inconvenience as he continued to pursue the landlord for an update.
16. The landlord did not carry out an appropriate damp survey for 6 months after noting high damp readings throughout the property. It then failed to act on the eventual inspection findings or communicate with the resident in line with its damp policy. This delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and the prolonged inaction is unreasonable.
17. We make a finding of maladministration. We have made orders for the landlord to conduct a further independent damp survey given the time that has passed since July 2025. We have also made an order for compensation of £500. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had an adverse effect on the resident.

18. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s policy is in line with this.
19. Although the landlord issued its stage 1 response on time, it did not respond to the resident’s repeated follow‑up queries or treat these as an escalation request. This was unreasonable, showing poor communication and a failure to act within its complaints policy.
20. When the resident made a further complaint, the landlord appropriately treated this as an escalation. It did not send its stage 2 response for 35 days. This was an unreasonable delay. It then took a further 2 months to arrange the survey it committed to, which was inappropriate given the delays already experienced.
21. During the escalation process, the landlord told the resident that it would have 20 working days to respond once it had assigned the case. This was inaccurate, misleading, and inconsistent with the Code. It also advised the resident it did not know when it would assign the case, and it recommended that he keep calling to check. This was inappropriate and took the resident further time and trouble in chasing the landlord.
22. The failure to escalate after stage 1, the delay in the stage 2 response, and the lack of timely follow‑up action amounted to service failure. In line with our remedies guidance for failings with limited impact, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord demonstrated consistently strong record‑keeping practices, with clear, detailed, and contemporaneous notes maintained throughout the period in question. However, it failed to effectively use these records to inform timely or appropriate action. Despite having sufficient information to identify emerging patterns of concern, the landlord repeatedly failed to translate its documented knowledge into meaningful intervention. This disconnect between robust recording and an inadequate operational response represents a missed opportunity to resolve issues earlier and prevent escalation. Landlord’s should ensure that not only are they keeping accurate records but that they actively review them and use them to guide decision‑making, prompt follow‑up actions, and improve overall service delivery.

Communication

24. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident. Although it made some contact, it often appeared to be a box‑ticking exercise rather than meaningful engagement – for example, calling to discuss the complaint while indicating a written response was already prepared. The landlord also failed to share key outcomes with the resident, leaving them without clarity on decisions or next steps. In addition, it did not engage with video evidence the resident provided to help progress repairs. The landlord should ensure its communication is transparent, genuinely consultative, and responsive to the information resident’s provide.