London Borough of Camden Council (202527520)

Decision
Case ID	202527520
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Camden Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor flat. He reported leaks and damp affecting multiple areas of the property. He has several health conditions, and told the landlord that his medication makes him more susceptible to infection, mould, and stress‑related flare‑ups. The resident and his representative contacted the landlord about the issues. For clarity, we refer to all contact from the resident and his representative as “the resident” in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks including damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks including damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord’s acknowledgement of failings and compensation offer did not fully reflect the detriment caused to the resident. This is because of the cumulative impact of the prolonged delays, the limited consideration of the resident’s reported vulnerabilities and the lack of clear and timely updates.
5. The landlord apologised for its delayed stage 2 response. However its lack of communication when handling the stage 2 complaint caused the resident inconvenience. In our view the landlord has not fully put things right.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of leaks including damp and mould. £50 to recognise the inconvenience caused by the its handling of the associated complaint. 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 deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 26 May 2026

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 July 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. He said: Leaks from a property above were affecting his bathroom, hallway, and lighting, and that these had not been investigated. A leak from the roof was entering his kitchen and lounge ceiling. A surveyor had attended around 5 weeks earlier and said that the ceiling might not be structurally safe and that black mould was likely beneath the surface, but he had not received any updates since. He had serious health conditions and took medication that made him more susceptible to infection. Decoration and personal belongings had been damaged. He was concerned about upcoming heavy rain and wanted the landlord to urgently address the cause of both leaks.
28 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said: It attended in November 2024 and visited a property above but did not identify a leak. It said it attempted to access another property but was unable to do so, and that the neighbourhood manager would follow this up. It repaired a leak from the roof water tank on 21 July 2025 and a job had been raised for scaffolding to complete the remaining roof repairs. It had identified light damp and mould in the property, which it believed was due to a leak from above. A mould wash would be completed on 1 September 2025. A plasterer would inspect the living room and hallway ceiling on 30 July 2025. It does not complete redecoration. It provided a link to claim for damages such as carpet, personal belongings and decoration.
1 August 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said: The situation was worse. The source of the leak had not been property investigated or permanently repaired. A plasterer attended but told the resident it would not complete a repair. There was another major flood, the living room was not useable and the ceiling appeared heavier. He said he reported the issue but nobody attended. He wanted a permanent repair, structural assessment and redecoration of all damaged areas. He also wanted compensation for damaged belongings and for the landlord to take preventative action due to forecasted heavy rain.
18 September 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: The resident had been affected by both leaks for a significant period and it had resulted in damp and mould. The resident asked the scaffolders not to erect scaffolding. It asked the resident to confirm his availability. It was unable to access the property on 1 September 2025. A mould wash was booked for 20 October 2025. It said due to the resident’s health conditions, it would try to bring the appointment forward. Plastering works were booked for 28 and 29 October 2025. It said work to treat the mould needed to be completed first. The resident could claim for damaged items through his own insurance policy or the landlord’s public liability insurance. It provided mental health signposting and acknowledged the situation was harming the resident’s physical and mental health. It offered £400 compensation, broken down as: £100 for distress and inconvenience £150 to reflect unsuitable accommodation £150 for risk of harm
Referral to the Ombudsman	In summary, the resident wanted a clear timeline of when the repairs would be completed. He also wanted the landlord to redecorate his living room.

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 landlord’s handling of leaks including damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

6. In contact with us and the landlord, the resident said the property condition affected his physical and mental health. While we understand the resident’s concerns about the impact on him, 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. However we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about his health.
7. The landlord’s repair policy states:
   1. Emergency out of hours repairs will be attended to within 2 hours.
   2. Emergency daytime repairs will be attended to before 8pm the same day.
   3. Right to repair works will be completed within 3 working days.
   4. Urgent repairs will be completed within 5 working days.
   5. Routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
8. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states all damp and mould repairs reported will be triaged according to priority, risk to health and severity.
9. On 3 November 2024 the resident reported an uncontainable leak. The landlord attended the same day and made the electrics safe. It inspected a neighbouring property but did not identify the source. The landlord believed the leak came from another property, but there is no evidence it attempted further access or investigations before closing the repair. It missed opportunities to investigate the cause of the leak.
10. On 23 May 2025, the resident reported damp and water damage and said he was vulnerable to infection due to his health conditions. The landlord responded appropriately, inspecting the property within 5 working days. It identified light sporadic damp and mould on the ceiling, likely caused by a property above and a balcony. It did not log any repairs until 16 July 2025, which was an unreasonable delay. The landlord then attended and repaired a leaking water tank within 3 working days.
11. The resident reported worsening leaks on 1 August 2025. The landlord reviewed the resident’s photographs but did not attend as it did not feel the photos reflected a new leak. It also relied on the outcome of a contractor’s visit on 31 July 2025, who said the plasterboard was solid. The resident then reported active water ingress on 4 August 2025. He said the ceiling was soaking wet and he had to catch water in bowls. He again highlighted his vulnerability to the landlord. The landlord did not attend until the next day which was outside the timescales for emergency repairs in its repair’s policy.
12. On 27 August 2025 the landlord cut a hole in the resident’s living room ceiling. It traced the leak to a faulty ball valve in a loft room and said water was running down the overflow pipe. Two days later the resident reported rainwater was entering through the exposed area of ceiling. The landlord missed the opportunity to consider any interim measures to minimise water ingress while awaiting for the ceiling to be replastered. The landlord replaced the ball valve on 5 September 2025 and identified that new flashing and guttering was required.
13. The landlord told the resident a mould wash would be completed on 1 September 2025. This appointment was 33 working days after the repair was raised and was a significant delay. The appointment did not go ahead as the contractor did not get access. The landlord was not proactive in rebooking the works, offering a further appointment for 20 October 2025 which was outside the timescales in its policy.
14. On 4 September 2025 the resident told the landlord that black mould was spreading, he said the property was unsafe and not habitable. In contact with the landlord via his MP the resident said he wanted a dehumidifier. The landlord considered a further inspection however its records are not clear if this went ahead. After reviewing photos from an inspection, the landlord considered that there was minimal water damage and a dehumidifier was not required. It is unclear if the information the landlord relied on its decision making was from a recent inspection or if it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.
15. The resident repeatedly told the landlord that he was vulnerable to infection due to his health conditions. It is clear the resident was very concerned about the condition of the property and the impact on him. While the landlord noted for repairs to be brought forward due to his vulnerability, this was not reflected in practice. Repairs were outside the timescales of its policy and the leaks remained unresolved for an extended period.
16. The resident was often unclear about what action the landlord was taking to address the leak. He made significant effort to obtain updates via email, telephone and webchat. On one occasion the resident told the landlord that webchats had disconnected multiple times. The landlord continued to direct the resident to the webchat. He was also told the matter was being handled by a complex case team. Although some of the repairs required co-ordination with other residents, the landlord should have ensured the resident was regularly updated. Given the prolonged nature of the issue, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a single point of contact to ensure clear communication and timely updates.
17. The landlord advised the resident that he could claim for damaged personal items and redecoration through his contents insurance or the landlord’s public liability insurance, and it provided details of how to make a claim. This was consistent with the landlord’s repairs service guide, which does not list redecoration as the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord has told us the public liability claim was closed in November 2025 because the resident did not respond to a request for photographs. It has confirmed that the resident can still contact the insurance team to progress the investigation.
18. The landlord completed the roof repair on 10 October 2025. It also replastered the ceiling in line with its commitment within its stage 2 response. The resident and landlord have confirmed to us that the leaks have stopped since repair.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of the leaks, and offered £400 compensation. In our view the offer did not fully reflect the cumulative impact of the prolonged delays, the limited consideration of the resident’s reported vulnerabilities and the lack of clear and timely updates. We have therefore made a finding of service failure. To reflect the outstanding detriment not addressed by the landlord’s offer, we have ordered it to pay a total of £500 compensation, inclusive of the £400 already offered.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

20. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
21. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 1 working day and issued its stage 1 response 8 working days later. This was in line with its policy.
22. On 5 August 2025 the landlord told the resident that someone would contact him that week to explain how the stage 2 complaint would be managed. We have not seen evidence this happened. As a result, the resident was not provided with a clear timescale for the stage 2 response. Correspondence from the resident to his MP, which was shared with the landlord, shows he was unclear about the status of his complaint.
23. The landlord issued its stage 2 response after 33 working days, which was outside its policy timescales. While it apologised and explained that additional information was needed in its stage 2 response, it should have contacted the resident in advance to agree an extension in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
24. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord apologised for its delayed stage 2 response. However its lack of communication when handling the stage 2 complaint caused the resident inconvenience and uncertainty. In line with our compensation guidance, and to recognise a short‑duration service failure that was not fully put right, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord provided adequate records for the purpose of our investigation.

Communication

26. The landlord should consider how it communicates with residents during prolonged or complex repairs. It should provide clear timescales, regular updates, and a named point of contact where appropriate. This would reduce uncertainty, avoid repeated chasing by residents, and help manage expectations.