London Borough of Camden Council (202414557)

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy started in May 2021. The property is a 4‑bedroom flat arranged over 3 levels. The basement contains 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. The ground floor contains the main living room and the kitchen. The first floor contains the fourth bedroom and a second bathroom. The residents’ wife has Asthma. He has four children that live in the property. The resident has not reported any additional needs. In May 2024, the resident complained about two leaks affecting the property, one of which had caused damp and mould in the basement. The resident asked the landlord to repair the leaks, resolve the damp and mould, and consider compensation. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and brought his complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the property and the resultant damp and mould.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the property and the resultant damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the property and the resultant damp and mould.

5. The landlord did not follow its repair policy or its damp and mould policy. It took an unreasonably long time to complete the follow‑on works after it became aware of the leaks and did not act on the resident’s clear indications that the problems were continuing. It relied on the resident to chase progress and failed to adequately communicate with him. It also failed to show that it had taken proper account of known vulnerabilities in the household. These shortcomings left the resident without full use of key rooms in the property and caused avoidable worry and disruption. They also meant the household was potentially exposed to damp and mould for longer, increasing health risks.

The complaint handling.

6. The landlord issued its complaint responses within the timescales required, but it did not act on the commitments it made in its complaint responses. The landlord’s complaint management failed to maintain oversight of its repair responsibilities, missing an opportunity to resolve the complaint. It relied on the resident to chase its progress of its promises rather than providing clear, proactive updates. The landlord showed no evidence of learning from mistakes during the complaint handling process. These failings delayed resolution, worried the resident, and created avoidable time and trouble.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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 did not investigate and why

7. We acknowledge that the presence of damp and mould in the property, caused by a leak, will have caused the resident distress. The resident raised concerns about the potential impact on his family’s health, and we understand those concerns. However, unlike a court, we cannot determine the cause of any health issues or establish liability and award damages. Such matters are usually addressed through legal action or a personal injury claim.

What we found

8. The evidence shows that the property was impacted by two separate leaks. The first leak came from a communal pipe impacting the downstairs bathroom. The second leak occurred when a pipe in the courtyard burst. It was the second leak that led to the associated damp and mould in the basement rooms of the property. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for repairing the leaks that affected the property.

Leak one

9. The landlord’s Repairs Policy says it must make safe emergency repairs by 8pm on the day they are reported. Follow on work must then be completed within the relevant priority timescale. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
10. On 3 March 2024 the resident reported a leak affecting the bathroom light. An operative attended the same day and made the light safe. On 6 March 2024 the landlord raised a plumbing order to repair the leak and reconnect the light.
11. The landlord did not complete this plumbing order within 20 working days, as its policy requires. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 May 2024, when he made a formal complaint. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident between 6 March 2024 and 15 May 2024 reportedly left him feeling frustrated and lacking in confidence that the landlord was going to resolve the issue.
12. The landlord attended the property on 16 May 2024 for an electrical appointment and on 17 May 2024 for a plumbing appointment. It repaired the bathroom light and temporarily stopped the leak, and it raised a further order to complete the permanent repair. The resident was unable to use the bathroom light from 3 March to 16 May 2024. The landlord completed the permanent repair on 29 November 2024, which was approximately 8 months after the issue was first reported.

Leak two and associated damp and mould

13. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it has a zero-tolerance approach. It commits to investigating all reports of damp and mould, identifying the cause, and carrying out remedial actions to minimise the risk of recurrence. Our spotlight report on damp and mould says that landlords should respond in a timely manner and that its response should reflect the urgency of the case.
14. The repair log shows that on 11 March 2024 the resident reported damp and mould in the basement bathroom. Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord carried out a damp and mould wash on 17 May 2024. The log records that, on 20 May 2024, the landlord left a dehumidifier with the resident. It is unclear from the evidence why the landlord did not schedule follow‑on work to investigate the cause of the damp at that time.
15. On 2 June 2024, the resident told the landlord that the damp remained unresolved and that it was also affecting all the 3 basement bedrooms. He explained that his wife has asthma, his children had become unwell, and that the family had restricted their use of the basement rooms, which meant they were sharing one bedroom. This Service has not seen evidence showing how the landlord assessed the impact of the damp and mould on the resident or on the vulnerabilities within the household.
16. In its stage 2 response on 28 June 2024 the landlord accepted that leak repairs were still outstanding. It committed to repairing the external burst pipe and addressing the related damp and mould. It offered £100 in compensation. While it acknowledged the outstanding work, the landlord did not then provide a timely or lasting resolution of the leak and associated mould despite its commitment to do so.
17. Between July and September 2024, the resident made five phone calls to chase the landlord’s commitments in its stage 2 response. The call recordings show the landlord repeatedly asked the resident for further photographs before it could progress the work, even though it had already visited the property, knew about the burst pipe, and was aware of the damp and mould. The landlord relied on the resident to initiate contact with it. This left the resident uncertain about whether it would carry out the agreed repairs.
18. The landlord completed another damp and mould wash on 26 September 2024. On 3 December 2024 the resident told this Service that the burst pipe had still not been permanently repaired and that the mould had spread as a result. The landlord completed the full repair of the external leak on 20 November 2025, around 21 months after it first became aware of the damp and mould in the basement.
19. On 12 January 2026 the resident told this Service that damp and black mould spots were still present, although to a lesser degree, in the basement rooms.
20. The evidence shows that the landlord did not take active stewardship of its investigation into damp and mould at the property. It did not monitor whether the temporary repair had resolved the leak or whether further action was required to prevent the damp and mould from returning. Instead, it focused on treating the symptoms rather than addressing the underlying cause.
21. The landlord also did not use the resident’s repeated reports that the problem was ongoing as a trigger to reassess the leak or ensure the necessary repairs were completed. It did not give the resident clear updates or reassure him it would make a permanent repair.
22. As a result of these shortcomings, damp and mould remained in the property for longer than necessary. This caused the resident avoidable worry and distress. He became increasingly anxious about the impact on his family, particularly given his wife’s asthma and the presence of young children.
23. In its final complaint response on 28 June 2024, the landlord did not use its discretion to proportionately compensate the resident for the loss of full use of the basement bathroom and the three basement bedrooms. These rooms formed a significant part of the household’s living space. Due to the damp and mould, the resident felt they could not always be used safely or comfortably. This reduced the functionality of the home and placed the family under avoidable pressure. The household had to adjust their daily living arrangements to manage the loss of these rooms, and the impact was greater because the vulnerabilities.
24. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to compensate the resident with 20% of the accommodation costs reflective of the rooms affected by damp and mould for the period from 11 March 2024, when the issue was first reported, to 28 June 2024. In April 2024 the resident paid a weekly rent of £233.22. Four of the eight rooms were affected, so £116.61 of the weekly rent relates to these rooms. Applying a 20% factor to this portion gives a weekly figure of £23.32. For the relevant period, this results in a total payment of £363. This order replaces the compensation previously offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response for this part of the complaint.
25. The Ombudsman finds maladministration because the landlord failed to deliver on its promises, did not act in accordance with its own policies, and showed no evidence of adequate learning to prevent similar failings. These shortcomings caused significant impact on the resident, and under the Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance, reasonable redress cannot be achieved in such circumstances.

26. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 10 working days (13 May 2024 to 28 May 2024) and its stage 2 response after 19 working days (2 June 2024 to 28 June 2024). It issued formal responses at both stages within the timescales set out in this service’s Complaint Handling Code, effective from 1 April 2024, and in its published complaints policy.
27. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord committed to assessing and repairing the leak, addressing any associated damage, and treating the damp and mould. However, it did not follow through on these pledges within a reasonable timeframe, which meant it missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint sooner. This demonstrates poor oversight of its commitment to provide a remedy. As a result, the resident waited longer for a resolution and had to invest additional time and effort chasing the landlord for updates.
28. The compensation offered to the resident was not proportionate to the impacts of the delay and time trouble and inconvenience created by the landlord’s complaint management failings. There was also no demonstrable commitment to learning from its failings in its responses. Reasonable redress cannot be determined in such circumstances. Consequently, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. To reflect this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £100 in compensation, in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. In this case the landlord failed to keep track of known repair needs.
30. In this case the landlord failed to follow through on the promises made in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. The landlord should ensure that commitments made in complaint responses at all stages are tracked, actioned, evidenced and relevant organisational learning is captured.

Communication

31. The landlord did not keep the resident regularly updated throughout the repairs process, relying instead on the resident to chase it for updates.
32. In this case the landlord took 21 months to complete a permanent repair to the leak causing damp and mould in the property.

General

33. It should review how delays impact residents, particularly those with vulnerabilities, and ensure that it undertakes suitable assessments of its responsibilities as set out in the Equalities Act 2010.