Camden Council (202227578)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227578

Camden Council

17 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy on a one-bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident has several health conditions including liver cirrhosis, polyarthritis and hypothyroid. She has limited mobility and walks with a stick. The landlord is aware of the resident’s health conditions.
The resident first reported damp and mould in the property on 24 January 2020. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 10 February 2020. He identified multiple jobs for completion including a partial kitchen removal, fixing the stop cock, fixing window vents, removing damaged carpets, and redecorating. He noted that the property had working humidistat fans but the damp issue would continue until the repairs were completed. He advised that the resident had to be moved out of the property before repairs could be completed.
On 13 February 2020, the surveyor completed a form recommending that the resident should be rehoused on grounds of essential repairs (ESR) form.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 July 2020, in summary it stated that:
1. A transfer application had been completed and would be sent to the allocations team along with the surveyor’s report.
2. The allocations team would contact her to advise if she had to bid for a property or if a direct offer could be made.
3. It would ask the allocations team to consider her for a ground floor flat.
4. It would write to the resident’s GP to get the correct health diagnosis and update its records.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 14 September 2020. In summary it stated that:
1. It did not have a one-bedroom ground floor property available for the resident to move into temporarily.
2. She had the maximum points for moving and she could bid for properties outside the catchment area.
3. It would continue to check for available properties that the resident could move into temporarily until the repairs were completed in her flat.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2021, stating that she had tried to bid for properties but she did not have any points available from the rehousing team. She explained that the rehousing team should have moved her to a different property without her going through the bidding process. She informed the landlord that her health was getting worse.
The landlord replied to the resident on 9 February 2021, confirming that her points had been reinstated and she could commence bidding. It reiterated that its policy was for the resident to bid for properties advertised on its website. If a suitable property became available it would confirm if a direct offer could be made. In the meantime, it encouraged the resident to bid for properties.
The resident made a formal complaint on 7 November 2022. In summary, she stated that:
1. She had issues with damp and mould in the property for 4 and half years and she had lost numerous clothes and furniture.
2. The landlord’s surveyor advised the flat needed to be “redone” to get rid of the damp but she had not heard anything from the landlord for over a year despite ringing it.
3. Her entire flat had damp and mould.
4. She had numerous health conditions and should be listed as an enhanced tenant.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 23 November 2022. In summary, it stated that:
1. Its surveyor attended the property on 10 February 2020. He observed that the property was suffering from condensation however the main issue was water ingress into the concrete floor slab believed to be caused by a defective stop valve in the kitchen.
2. He advised that the resident had to be temporarily moved into alternative accommodation under the landlord’s Essential Repairs Policy (ESR) because the works were considered too disruptive to be completed with the resident in the property.
3. The surveyor sent a completed Essential Repair Transfer form to the resident’s housing officer who contacted her on 1 July 2020.
4. Due to the lockdown restrictions, it postponed the bidding and advertising process because it was not conducting viewings or moving residents into new homes.
5. The resident and her partner had been actively biding but were not successful. Its allocations manager agreed that the resident could receive direct offers, and she subsequently viewed a property which she had specifically requested. However, the resident refused the property on the basis that the kitchen was too small.
6. Another property was offered and viewed; however, was refused because the resident was concerned about the appearance of the other residents entering the main property (concerns surrounding illegal activity). She also stated that the external steps leading down to the property were considered too steep.
7. The resident advised that she wanted to re-commence the process of bidding by herself without the help of the neighbourhood officer. After a few months of not being selected, she advised the housing officer that she wanted to move to another local authority.
8. The housing officer provided the resident with mutual exchange details, checked for properties in the area the resident had expressed an interest in and provided her with their contact details so that she could discuss transferring to that area with them.
9. The housing officer advised that she was happy to go back to the allocations manager to request approval for direct offers to be reinstated; however, had not heard from the resident in this regard.
10. The neighbourhood officer stated that the resident had never discussed putting her on the “enhanced list”.
11. It suggested that the resident contacted the housing officer to discuss the offer to approach the allocations manager for approval for direct offer and to discuss the possibility of being considered as an “enhanced tenant”.
12. It reiterated that it was unable to commence works to the resident’s home until it had vacant possession of the property.
13. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 November 2022, stating that she had damp and mould in her property for years and the landlord was breaking the law by refusing to deal with the issue.
The Landlord issued its final response on 3 January 2023. In summary, it stated that:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had been living in accommodation suffering from damp and mould for a considerable period. However, it had been trying to achieve vacant temporary possession of the resident’s home to undertake required works since February 2020.
2. The works were too disruptive to be undertaken while the resident was in the property hence the need for her to be temporarily rehoused.
3. The resident had been referred to Housing Needs and encouraged to seek alternative temporary accommodation via their services.
4. The COVID-19 pandemic caused delay, in that for a considerable period works had to be suspended. The backlog of work that arose during that time was now in hand and it was keen to progress the repair to the resident’s home. However, it could not progress the repairs until the resident agreed to temporary or permanent rehousing.
5. it tried to be sensitive to her wishes and be led by her where possible, however given the length of time the problem had continued, and her stated health concerns due to the damp and mould, it believed it may be time for it to take a firmer approach to progress the repair need.
6. It was concerned that restrictions the resident was placing upon the agreement to move were not in her own best interests and it had to consider its wider duty of care towards her and her family.
7. While such an approach might restrict the resident’s freedom to choose, it might be outweighed by a reduction in risk to her health from the existing conditions.
8. It would ask that involved parties met to discuss the conditions at the resident’s home and to decide if a more enforced approach to gaining access to the property was merited.
9. It would inform the resident of the outcome and plans, arising from such a meeting, within one month from the date of this letter.
10. It partially upheld the resident’s review stage complaint.
The resident contacted this service on 2 April 2023 asking us to investigate her complaint as the issue with damp and mould was still ongoing. She informed this Service on 18 September 2023 that she had successfully bid and moved into another property permanently on 15 August 2023.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has requested compensation for items damaged because of damp and mould in the property. However, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to explore the option of making an insurance claim for the damaged items.
In her escalation request the resident claimed that the landlord had broken the law by not responding to her complaints of damp and mould. It is not within this Service authority to determine whether a landlord has broken the law. The purpose of our investigation is to assess whether a landlord responded appropriately to a given situation and to decide whether its actions were fair and reasonable, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.
The resident stated that the landlord “hid” the damp and mould before she moved into the property and intentionally moved her from one damp property to another. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident moved into the property in 2018, in accordance with the above, we are not able to consider this element of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that for moderate and low risk cases an officer will aim to visit a property where damp and mould has been reported within 10 working days (moderate risk) or 20 working days (low risk) of receiving a report. It states that during this initial visit, the officer will assess the situation regarding damp & mould, complete an assessment survey checklist and share the result with the resident.
The policy also states where there are delays to completion of works this will be clearly communicated to residents.
Furthermore, it states that for complex cases, or where intrusive building work is required and/or there is a serious health risk to the resident or a member of their household, it will consider moving them to alternative accommodation as set out in the Essential Repairs Transfer Procedure (ESR). Essential repair transfers take place when residents must move out of their homes, either temporarily or permanently, to allow the landlord carry out repairs.
The landlord’s Essential Repairs Policy (ERP) which contains information on how the essential repairs transfer procedure works, states that:
1. Generally, tenants opting for a permanent move through the allocations scheme will be encouraged to bid under Choice Based Lettings (CBL) and some tenants may prefer this option. People bidding should be monitored and encouraged to bid regularly.
2. However, there may be occasions such as health and safety concerns or where disrepair action is likely, when the tenant needs to be moved out as quickly as possible. Each case should be judged on its merits but where case manager (CM) or neighbourhood housing officer (NHO) recommends a quick move, a direct offer could be made.
3. Both the housing teams and the allocations team should be proactive in this instance in trying to identify a suitable offer.
4. If a tenant refuses to bid or does not bid when there are suitable properties to bid for, the NHO should request a direct offer.
The landlord’s ESP policy states after 2 reasonable offers, it is best to write to the tenant to advise them that the next offer will be their last and that legal proceedings may commence should they refuse this.
The landlord’s compensation policy in relation to damp and mould states that compensation will be paid where the service has not been delivered. This includes where furniture or belongings have been damaged and/or distress and inconvenience caused. Each case will be considered with respect to the individual circumstances of the resident and their household.

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

The landlord’s surveyor attended the property within 11 working days of the resident’s report of damp and mould, on 10 February 2020. This was only 1 day outside the timeframe to attend for moderate risk as stated above. The surveyor noted that the property had significant issues with damp and mould and would require major repairs. He communicated his findings to the resident and explained what actions he would take to remedy the damp and mould. He also informed the resident that she would need to be moved out of the property before the repairs could be completed. To facilitate the residents move he completed an essential repairs form on 13 February 2020. The surveyor’s actions were proactive and in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
The landlord’s housing officer contacted the resident on 1 July 2020. This was more than 4 months after the surveyor completed the ESR form. This was a long delay and the landlord did not provide any explanation for this. This was not reasonable, and it understandably would have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
In the landlord’s correspondence of 1 July 2020, it informed the resident that the allocations team would contact her to advise if she had to bid for a property or if a direct offer could be made. On 14 September 2020, a further 2 months, the landlord confirmed that the resident had the maximum points for moving and she could bid for properties.
However, it did not provide any information to the resident concerning her being considered for a direct offer. As it was aware of the resident’s poor health and that repairs could not be completed while she was in the property, the landlord should have at this point considered the resident for a direct offer without her having to go through the bidding process. The landlord not recommending the resident for direct offers was not reasonable or in line with its essential repairs policy which states that where there is a health and safety concern or when the resident needs to be moved out quickly due to disrepair a direct offer can be made.
The landlord’s policy states that residents who have been asked to bid for properties should be monitored and encouraged to bid regularly. Even though the landlord asked the resident to bid for properties there was no communication from the landlord to the resident enquiring about how she was getting on with the bidding process until it replied to the resident’s correspondence of 2 February 2021. The landlord replied to the resident’s correspondence on 9 February 2021.
There was a period of more than 4 months from 14 September 2020 until 9 February 2021 when there was no correspondence from the landlord to the resident. This was not reasonable and not in line with its essential repairs policy. It is understandable that this lack of communication from the landlord would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
In the resident’s correspondence of 2 February 2021, she explained that her health condition was getting worse and that the landlord should have rehoused her without making her go through the bidding process. In its reply of 9 February 2021, the landlord reiterated that it was its policy for residents to bid on properties but that it would enquire about a direct offer being made to the resident if a suitable property became available.
As previously highlighted, the landlord’s Essential Repairs Policy (ERP) states that a direct offer can be requested in the following circumstances:
1. where there are health and safety concerns.
2. where there are disrepair issues.
3. where the neighbourhood officer recommends a quick move.
4. If a tenant refuses to bid or does not bid when there are suitable properties to bid for.
If it followed its policy above, the landlord in its response of 9 February 2021 should have informed the resident that she was eligible to receive direct offers and provided some explanation around the direct offers process. This would be expected to include information about how the process worked, and the resident’s obligations under the process with regards to choosing a property after 3 suitable direct offers had been made.
However, the landlord response did not follow its policy. It suggested it was still considering if the resident was entitled to receive direct offers. There was a lack of clarity and incorrect information about the resident’s eligibility for direct offers. It is understandable that this would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
There is no evidence of any further communication from the landlord to the resident from 9 February 2021 until 23 November 2022 when it responded to the resident’s formal complaint which she made on 7 November 2022. This was a period of over 1 year and 9 months from the date of its last correspondence on 9 February 2021 and over 2 years and 9 months from when the surveyor completed the ESR form on 13 February 2020.
Although some of this time was during the Covid 19 pandemic, this Service would have expected the landlord to have ensured that it continued to communicate with the resident and updated her about the repairs, allocations, and direct offer process. This lack of communication was not reasonable and not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould process which states that it would communicate any delays in completion of works to residents. It is understandable that this lack of communication would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord in its stage 1 and final response stated that 2 direct offers were made to the resident which she refused. It is unclear to this Service when these direct offers were made as the landlord has not provided any evidence of it making these offers prior to mentioning it in its complaint response. It should have made these direct offers at an earlier time, for instance in its correspondence to the resident of 9 February 2021. As stated above this delay in making direct offers was a failing and not in line with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord in its stage 2 response of 3 January 2023, acknowledged that the resident had been living in accommodation suffering from damp and mould for a considerable period and it partially upheld the complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy in relation to damp and mould states that compensation will be paid where the service has not been delivered. This includes where furniture or belongings have been damaged and/or distress and inconvenience caused. However, it did not do so. This was a failing and not in line with its policy.
In summary, considering the landlord was aware of the damp and mould problem since 2020 and of the effects on the resident’s health it would have been reasonable for it to be more proactive in securing an alternative accommodation for the resident to enable the repairs to be completed. There was therefore maladministration in its handling of the residents reports of damp and mould for the following reasons:
1. There was a delay of over 4 months before the landlord contacted the resident on 1 July 2020 regarding the essential repairs recommendation made by the surveyor on 13 February 2020.
2. There was a further 2 months delay before it confirmed that the resident could bid for properties.
3. The landlord provided inaccurate and incomplete information to the resident regarding the direct offer process and it did not facilitate the direct offers process in a timely manner.
4. There were long periods where the landlord did not communicate with the resident.
5. It did not offer any compensation to the resident for distress and inconvenience.
This Service’s remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £600 and £1000 to be awarded where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Given the level of failures by the landlord, the extensive period of time these covered and the impact these had on the resident, it is the view of this Service that the compensation awarded should fall at the upper end of this range.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, a senior director must write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £1000 for the failures identified in this report.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with this order within the timescales set out above.