Camden Council (202230620)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230620

Camden Council

25 July 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:
1. Issues with subsidence at the property.
2. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 1 bedroom second floor flat. She has lived at the property with her 2 children since 2016. Her 2 children suffer with breathing difficulties and the resident has mental health conditions, which the landlord was aware of.
The records show the resident first reported issues with cracks in the walls and ceiling in October 2020. The landlord inspected the property on 13 October 2020. It found some evidence of subsidence. On 27 January 2021 the resident said that she had no response to 2 previous emails. She was concerned about cracking in the front room and visible cracks on the front of the building. There was a sewage smell in the property because of damaged drains below ground. Holes had formed in the front garden where the ground had sunk.
The resident sought an update in February 2021. She said that the cracks were worsening, causing plaster to fall and expose concrete below. The landlord began monitoring the subsidence on 18 February 2021. It planned to take readings at regular intervals. It expected the monitoring to take around 1 year. The landlord would receive recommendations to resolve the issues at the end of the monitoring period. It appointed a specialist contractor to begin investigations in May 2021.
On 17 May 2021 the resident provided a timeline of her reports between April and May 2021. She highlighted the impact the issues had on her and her family. She said:
1. She was pregnant at the time and was living with her 5 year old daughter.
2. She had reported repairs for around 8 months that were unresolved.
3. There was cracking to the walls and crumbling of plaster to the walls in both living room and bedroom. There was rubble and dust falling from the walls. A surveyor told her that the property was subsiding.
4. She was concerned about the cracks around the living room window. She felt that this may have been unsafe.
5. The external walls were no longer weatherproof. This caused damp and mould in the living room and bedroom.
The resident sought legal advice in November 2021. A solicitor wrote to the landlord on her behalf on 11 November 2021. It said:
1. There were large cracks on the walls/ceiling in the living room, bedroom, and bathroom. These had been present for around 3 years and were worsening.
2. There was mould surrounding the cracks in all rooms. Mould growth/damp in the bedroom. The issues had been ongoing since around 2016.
3. The bedroom wall was crumbling, caused by the lack of a waste pipe on the boiler.
4. The windows were defective/faulty in the living room and bedroom, causing moisture ingress and excess cold. There had been no repair since the resident moved into the property.
5. It required the landlord to conduct an inspection.
The landlord inspected the property on 17 November 2021. It said:
1. Throughout the property there was evidence of cracks caused by structural movement. Its insurer was monitoring the cracks.
2. It found areas of plaster damage in the bedroom caused by a failure to add a condenser pipe to the boiler.
3. The bathroom extractor fan had been turned off. There was a cover plate missing from the fan transformer. There were no signs of mould in the bathroom.
4. It found an area of mould behind the couch in the living room and behind the bed. It believed this was caused by inadequate air flow. It found no evidence of mould spores adjacent to the cracks in the lounge, bathroom, or bedroom.
5. Some of the windows required new seals.
6. Dependent on the time taken to monitor the structural cracks, it may be necessary to decant the resident. It considered that she had 2 young children.
7. It would wash down the mould affected areas, repair the plaster in the bedroom, and replace the window gaskets to help in the short term.
The landlord conducted a mould wash throughout the property in November 2021.
The resident complained to the landlord on 27 October 2022. She said:
1. It had been 2 years since she first reported disrepair. There was no progress despite her sending over 100 emails.
2. Her daughter had been made unwell and hospitalised 5 times in 18 months. The property condition was causing her ill health as she suffered with asthma and a severe dust allergy.
3. The landlord said it would help her to move home. She had no update for 18 months.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 November 2022. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
1. It could not find any failure to provide the resident with a good service.
2. It was sorry to that the there was an ongoing matter of cracks affecting the property. This had been with its insurance team since 2020.
3. Subsidence investigations need many months of monitoring to determine the cause. It was progressing this monitoring with its loss adjuster. It would update the resident when it knew what action was required.
4. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response. She asked it to escalate her complaint on 4 November 2022. She said:
1. There had been issues with repairs since 2016. She had multiple repair teams visit the property to remedy the issues however, the repairs conducted were only temporary and had not resolved any of the issues. She provided a list of outstanding repairs.
2. She understood that subsidence required monitoring, she had waited 2 years. The contractor ended its monitoring in May 2022 and there had been no progress or information since. No one visited the property, conducted any observation or remedial work. The wall continued to fall away and new cracks were appearing.
3. The issues had impacted her and her children’s health. Her daughter developed severe asthma and allergies. Her daughter had been hospitalised 5 times, had visits to A&E, and the GP. She had missed significant amounts of school, impacting her education and ability to socialise. Her son was prescribed an asthma pump at 14 months old. She had been prescribed medication for anxiety due to the constant worry for her children’s health.
4. Surveyors and assessors said that the living conditions were “terrible”. She had no feedback or any progress with rehousing.
On 1 December 2022 the landlord’s contractor inspected the subsidence. Several structural defects were observed in the form of cracking in the masonry walls and finishes. Multiple locations of internal cracking were observed throughout the property. The maximum crack width recorded was up to 25mm in width. It believed the structural defects to be related to subsidence. Most of the cracking was extensive damage. It recommended intrusive opening up works within the property.
On the same day the landlord contracted a surveyor to inspect the property. It found:
1. Large cracks in the lounge. Damp was present close to the cracking. There were high moisture readings requiring immediate intervention. There was condensation and mould in the window. The window was binding slightly against the frame when opened.
2. There was evidence of historic leaks in the kitchen and rear bedroom. The plasterwork had been reinstated but left undecorated. There was no evidence of water penetration. There were issues with the connection from the condensation pump to the boiler.
The surveyor determined that the property was suffering from dampness, condensation, and structural cracking. It recommended further investigation and the following works undertaken:
1. Conduct a mould wash and redecorate as appropriate to the areas affected.
2. Repair or replace the double-glazed window unit.
3. Temporarily fill the cracks exposed while further investigations/structural repairs were conducted.
4. Decoration should be reinstated following plaster works.
5. The roof should be examined for potential damage which may have allowed water ingress to the structure of the building.
6. It was necessary during the repair phase to rehouse the resident on a temporary/permanent basis.
On 15 December 2022 the resident said she had not received a response to her escalation request. The landlord replied on 16 December 2022. It said that there were delays in its processing of complaints and was unable to give a timescale to issue its response. It apologised for the inconvenience this caused.
The landlord visited the resident on 2 January 2023 to discuss the repairs and her rehousing. She said that her heating bills had increased substantially. She was concerned about the condition of the property and the impact it had on her family. The landlord agreed to follow up its repairs and update her.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 January 2023. It considered the request to escalate from 16 December 2022. It set out its understanding of the complaint and its previous correspondence considered at stage 1. It said:
1. It partly upheld the complaint. It was sorry for the delays involved in dealing with the repairs. It apologised for the effect this had on the resident over a protracted period. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. It was sorry that the communication had not been of the standard it would expect.
2. It spoke to the contractor on 30 November 2022. It was told that repairs would not start until vegetation had settled. It chased for an update on 18 January 2023 and was told that a further period of monitoring was required to determine if the removal of the vegetation had achieved settlement in the building.
3. The report from 30 December 2022 found mould in the lounge and cracking throughout the property. It would arrange a mould wash while the monitoring continued. It would arrange this separately.
4. It would provide a response within 10 working days regarding the structural issues with an update on proposed works and any approximate timescales.
5. It apologised for the delay to investigate the complaint at review. This was due to a high volume of complaints under investigation. It was sorry for the inconvenience this caused.
6. It offered £100 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.
The resident’s support worker emailed the landlord on her behalf on 24 March 2023. It said that the resident had no update regarding repairs since 10 March 2023. It was concerned about the impact the issues had on the resident and her family.
In April 2023 the resident provided a copy of her energy bill for 2022/23. It showed her total energy use over the period. Her electricity cost £125 per month and her gas was £414 per month. Between January and March 2023, she had used £1,498 in gas.
The resident sought assistance from the Ombudsman on 20 April 2023.
The landlord’s records show that on 8 November 2023 it conducted a mould wash throughout the property.
The landlord assessed the resident’s request for rehousing on 24 November 2023. It considered the property to be in a “very poor” condition. There was a “very urgent” need to move the resident. It listed the following repairs as outstanding:
1. It had not replaced or repaired the window units.
2. It had not filled the cracks in the wall.
3. The plasterwork and decoration required reinstating.
4. It had not examined the roof for potential damage.
The resident told the Ombudsman she was offered a permanent move in July 2024. Throughout the period the landlord conducted only 2 mould washes. No other repairs were resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. We can consider the distress and inconvenience caused.
During the complaint journey the resident sought assistance from the landlord for rehousing. Under paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident’s requests for permanent rehousing were dealt with by the landlord acting in its role as the local authority. Complaints related to its awarding of points or banding on its housing register fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO). However, we can consider the landlord’s handling of requests for a managed move or to decant the resident. We have assessed its response to these issues below.

Policy and Procedures

The landlord operated a 2 stage complaint process. It states that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repair policy says that structural repairs are conducted under programmed maintenance. The works will be conducted within an agreed timescale.
The landlord did not have a dedicated damp and mould policy during the above timeline. It has since self-assessed against the Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould’. It introduced a damp and mould policy in 2024.

Issues with subsidence at the property.

The evidence shows the resident raised concerns about cracks and movement in the property to the landlord in October 2020. It was clear from her reports that she was concerned about the impact the issues had on her and her family from the outset. Large cracks forming across a wall would have been distressing for the resident. The landlord’s initial response was appropriate. It inspected the property and arranged for further surveys to investigate for subsidence. However, it did not provide clear advice or guidance to the resident. The landlord should have assessed the impact on the resident and agreed an action plan which included regular communication early in the timeline. It did not take these actions. The records show that it did not provide timely responses to the resident’s emails. Its failure to proactively respond to the residents reports caused considerable time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident throughout.
Issues relating to subsidence are complex. The landlord’s inspection was conducted within 20 working days of the initial report. It was appropriate to arrange for a specialist contractor to assess the impact on the property. However, it took around 7 months to appoint a contractor and begin the initial monitoring of the subsidence. There were no records that show the cause for this delay. It is accepted by the Ombudsman that it may be difficult to source suitably qualified contractors for this work. However, this was an unreasonable delay. It shows that the landlord did not consider the impact these issues had on the resident. It should have communicated this delay to the resident. She was only given this information after multiple requests for updates by email. The landlord should have kept the resident informed of the progress of its inspections. This failure caused the resident additional time and trouble.
The resident made multiple attempts to receive updates on the progress of the repairs between May and November 2021. There were no records available to the Ombudsman that the landlord responded to these concerns. The landlord treated the resident unfairly as a result.
The first full survey of the property available to the Ombudsman was arranged following the resident’s contact with her solicitor in November 2021. It showed evidence of cracks caused by structural movement. The surveyor set out recommendations to the landlord that would have mitigated some of the impact on the resident. These were routine repairs and should have been conducted within a reasonable period. Additionally, there was a recommendation for the landlord to consider decanting the resident in view of the time it would take to monitor the structural issues. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the landlord considered the urgency of the resident’s situation. It did not conduct any assessment of the resident’s housing circumstances or consider a temporary decant. It did not conduct any repairs outside of its mould wash in November 2021. Its failure to progress any of the actions above worsened the distress and inconvenience that the resident suffered.
There was a delay of more than 12 months before any other action was taken by the landlord. The evidence shows that it failed to provide any updates to the resident or respond to her enquiries. This was an unreasonable delay and caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord missed the opportunity to assess its response to the repairs in its stage 1 response in November 2022. It should have considered the recommendations made by professionals to temporarily move the resident. It could have sought to provide clearer channels of communication to the resident. Instead, it failed to consider the overall impact the issues had on the resident. It did not reflect on the recommendations made by its contractors and surveyors. It did not schedule any remedial repairs or assess the risks present to the resident. It did not reflect on its communication or address any plan to improve this going forwards. Its failures at this stage contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s survey on 1 December 2022 found evidence of extensive structural damage. The surveyor made recommendations to rehouse the resident on a temporary/permanent basis while it conducted repairs. It reiterated the same temporary works from November 2021 suggested to mitigate the impact on the resident. It also raised concerns that further damage could be present to the structure and roof of the property. The evidence shows that the landlord did not take any action to conduct remedial works. It failed to acknowledge the impact the issues had on the resident and her families’ health. She had frequently told the landlord that her daughter was made unwell by damp and mould. Her daughter had been hospitalised with breathing difficulties which she attributed to her living conditions. Its failures to take remedial actions or update the resident caused her distress and inconvenience. Its allowed the resident to continue to live in a property that in its own assessment was unsuitable and in a poor condition. It continued to expose the resident to further risk and took no action to mitigate those risks.
The landlord failed to use its complaint handling as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issues. Its stage 2 response in January 2023 did not recognise the additional inspections required to the roof. It did not consider the overall impact the issues had on the resident and her families’ health. It did not set out a timescale to conduct any remedial works. It missed the opportunity to reflect on the recommendations made by specialists to decant or move the resident. Its offer of £100 compensation for time and trouble did not reflect the detriment caused. It should have directed the resident to its liability insurance for a personal injury claim.
The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to proactively revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint. It would have been fair for the landlord to reconsider its offer of compensation in view of the continued delays to resolve the repairs. It should have sought to put things right when the resident gave evidence of her increased energy bills in April 2023. Having combined energy bills of more than £500 per month was excessive. It did not make any offers to support the resident when the issues were raised. There was no evidence that it considered the financial hardship the resident may have faced because of this.
The landlord’s communication did not improve after it issued its final response. The records show that the resident and her representative had to chase for updates in March 2023. The landlord’s poor communication caused the resident additional time and trouble.
The landlord did not assess the resident’s request for rehousing until 24 November 2023. This was 2 years after concerns were first raised by professionals it instructed to give advice about her occupation of the property. It failed to take these recommendations into account. The landlord did not address the detriment caused to the resident. It did not consider any additional means to put things right. It should have reflected on the recommendations made by its contractors sooner and considered decanting or temporarily rehousing the resident.
The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of issues with subsidence at the property. The landlord failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. It was not fair, it did not put things right, and it did not learn from outcomes. It lacked oversight of the issues throughout the above timeline. It failed to provide the resident with reasonable or effective communication. It failed to follow through with promises made in its complaint handling. There were substantial delays to respond to enquiries. The landlord did not consider the household vulnerabilities highlighted by the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the impact on the resident and her family. The landlord missed opportunities to remedy the substantive issue, address and resolve the wider aspects of the resident’s complaint, show empathy, and improve the landlord tenant relationship.
In deciding an appropriate level of redress in this complaint, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s level of rent, the landlord’s failures and the inconvenience and distress caused. We have also considered the increased impact on the resident caused by the delays to rehouse her and her family. The property is a 1 bedroom flat and the rooms worst affected were the living room and bedroom. While the rooms were not entirely out of use, the resident could not have full enjoyment of them. As a result, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our calculation will consider compensation to reflect her loss of use of the rooms. We will also consider separate awards to address the resulting distress and inconvenience and time and trouble.
The Ombudsman has considered the period October 2020 to July 2024 in our calculation. This additional compensation is awarded in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her and her family by not having full use of the property. It is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period. It is comprised of:
1. £3,800 which is around 20% of the rent for the period.
2. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. £400 for the resident’s time and trouble.
The landlord has also been ordered below to learn from the outcome of this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. It should conduct a case review to identify why the failures found by this investigation occurred. It should propose how it will prevent them from occurring again in the future.

Reports of damp and mould in the property.

Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. The landlord is expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s first response to damp and mould was following the inspection on 17 November 2021. It found that areas of plaster in the bedroom were damaged by a failure to add a condenser pipe to the boiler. Some of the windows required new seals. Its initial response was appropriate. It planned to wash down the mould affected areas, repair the plaster in the bedroom, and replace the window gaskets. Although it conducted a mould wash in November 2021, it failed to follow through with the remaining repairs.
The landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities present in the household. It knew that the resident’s daughter had been hospitalised with breathing difficulties. It had been given advice on how to mitigate the risks present in the property but failed to take any action. Its failures to appropriately manage these repairs caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord took no action for more than 12 months in response to the survey in November 2021. Its surveyors made the same recommendations when inspecting the property on 30 December 2022. It also found evidence of mould in the property that were not present in the initial inspection in November 2021. This demonstrated the worsening impact on the resident and her family. The landlord should have considered this and used its discretion to have greater oversight of this case. It should have made reasonable adjustments in its approach to help manage the risks. Instead, it failed to assess the risk to the resident or to follow through with repairs.
The resident took additional time and trouble seeking help from external representatives in 2023. She asked support workers and the Ombudsman to contact the landlord on her behalf. Despite these interventions, the landlord took no action to reduce the risks to the resident until its second mould wash in November 2023. Its assessment of the resident’s rehousing showed that substantial repairs recommended throughout the above timeline remained outstanding.
The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property. The landlord failed to address the impact its delays had on the resident. It failed to conduct remedial repairs or mitigate the risks present to the resident. It did not act with a sense of urgency and did not consider whether the property was habitable in view of the vulnerability of the occupants. It did not effectively manage the repairs and it failed to keep the resident updated throughout. It did not acknowledge its failings in its response to the resident. It did not make any reasonable offer of redress for the distress and inconvenience caused. Its actions were limited to 2 mould washes in 3 years.
In deciding an appropriate level of redress, the Ombudsman has considered the overall detriment caused to the resident. We have considered the landlord’s failures and the inconvenience and distress caused. The resident frequently highlighted the severe impact the issues had, particularly on her daughter. Upon reflection of the vulnerabilities present in the household, damp and mould would have been of significant detriment in this case. There would have been little respite present in the property to the resident and her family. She would have been unable to have full enjoyment of the property, particularly as there was damp and mould present in the bedroom. As a result, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.
The Ombudsman has considered the period November 2021 to July 2024 in our calculation. This additional compensation is awarded in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident and her family not having full use of the property. It is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period. It is comprised of:
£2,800 which is around 20% of the rent for that period.
£800 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
£600 for its failures to consider the vulnerabilities in the household.
£400 for the resident’s time and trouble.

The associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. We also consider if the landlord considered our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s policy states that it will investigate a complaint ‘When someone lets us know that they are unhappy with our service and they want us to take action to resolve it’. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy.
The timeline shows that the resident took additional time and trouble chasing the landlord for responses to her stage 2 response. She sought to escalate her complaint on 4 November 2022. The landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days. It did not and the resident had to chase for updates in on 15 December 2022. The landlord’s response on 16 December 2022 acknowledged the delay, but it should have provided a reasonable timeframe to issue its response.
The landlord took around 53 working days to issue its stage 2 response. This was around 33 working days above the timescales set out in its policy. It sought to address its complaint handling failures in its response. It was fair to apologise for the lack of communication. It was appropriate to apologise for the delay to issue its stage 2 response. It demonstrated its intention to progress the substantive issues. However, its offer of compensation was for the substantive issue. The landlord should have made some offer of redress for its complaint handling failures.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident took considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord throughout the complaint journey. The landlord failed to treat the resident fairly. It should pay the resident additional £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of issues with subsidence in the property.
2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failings identified in this report. A copy of the letter to be sent to the Ombudsman.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £9,700. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous compensation awarded in January 2023. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation set out at stage 2, this should be deducted from the compensation ordered. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £5,000 for the failures in its handling of issues with subsidence in the property.
  2. £4,600 for the failures in its handling of reports of damp and mould in the property
  3. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Review the resident’s energy usage between 2020 to 2024. It must then calculate the difference in usage over that period and pay any reasonable additional costs incurred by the resident.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a case review by a director independent of the service area and findings shared with the governing board. It should consider whether previous actions (such as the approach to complex cases) are sufficient to prevent similar failings in future. A copy of this review to be shared with the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide the resident with details of its insurer to consider a claim for damages to her and her families’ health.