Camden Council (202308451)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308451

Camden Council

6 November 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:
1. Reports of damp and mould, cracks to the exterior and interior walls, and repairs to the windows and doors of the property.
2. Concern that the front door to the property was insecure.
3. Concern that there was a legal restriction on the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

At the time of her complaint, the resident held a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property she lived in was a ground floor flat in a converted terraced house. The resident has health issues that the landlord was aware of.
The landlord’s repair records show that prior to the resident moving in, it installed thumb-turn locks on the front and back doors of the property.
The resident moved into the property in January 2022. She said she reported to the landlord that repairs were needed to the property at the time of her moving in.
On 24 April 2023, the landlord’s repair records show that it carried out a damp and mould survey. The survey recommended that it investigate the roof area above the bay window as there was a major crack in the lounge wall. The survey also recommended that it adjust the sash window in the lounge and apply anti-mould sealant to the area under the windowsill and repair the bathroom fan. The survey noted there were no draught excluders around the front and back doors. It recommended that it seal around the door frames.
The resident complained to the landlord on 6 June 2023. She had not heard anything further from it regarding the works needed to her property and it had told her that it had closed her case down. She said she would not be able to live at the property during any works as she had health issues. On 7 June 2023, the resident sent the landlord photos of the property showing cracked and discoloured paintwork on the exterior of the bay window. She said the landlord should not have lifted the legal restriction on the property and should not have moved her in.
On 8 June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident. It said it would respond to the concerns she had raised in due course. It had booked an electrician to repair the bathroom fan on 22 June 2023, a carpenter would attend on 28 June 2023 to replace the draught excluders round the front and back doors, adjust the window in the lounge, adjust and align the back door, and apply sealant to the back door. It had booked a plasterer for 2 August 2023 to remedy the large crack in the lounge wall. Its contractor would need to put up scaffolding to address the water ingress above the bay window and would contact the resident the following week to arrange this. It would also arrange to apply a mould wash to areas affected by mould. It said it routinely carried out these types of repairs without the need for residents to move out.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day to say that plastering was needed in other rooms, not just the lounge. She said the area round the sash window was mouldy and rotten as was the back door. The bedroom windows also needed repairing. She said her health had deteriorated since moving to the property and plaster dust or mould released into the air during the works would put her health at risk. She asked that the landlord contact her GP to confirm this. She said she did not give her permission for the works to go ahead and asked that the landlord move her.
On 9 June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident. It said that 2 members of its staff would visit her to discuss her concerns about the repairs. The resident replied to the landlord the same day. She said she would welcome a visit from the landlord’s staff. She asked it to book in the works, but she was giving permission for this under duress. She said it needed to repair the windows in the back room as these were allowing rainwater to come in. She asked that the landlord split the works it had booked in for 28 June 2023 into 2 days. She asked that the landlord prioritise the works to the lounge as this was her main living space.
The landlord responded on 9 June 2023. It could not bring the appointment to carry-out the plastering forward, but it could arrange to do this first and rearrange the other works for a later date. The resident replied to the landlord the same day. She said she was not asking the landlord to delay the works; she was asking it to carry out the works over 2 days to minimise the risk to her health from dust and mould. She said there were cracks along the front wall of the property that also needed addressing.
On 11 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask it to confirm the works were going ahead and that these would be split over 2 days as she had requested. She said she was seeking to move via a mutual exchange.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2023 to cancel the electrician’s visit to repair her bathroom extractor fan as she had been burgled the day before. She provided the crime reference number. She said the police officers who attended her property had told her that the main door to the property as well as the door to the resident’s flat were of poor quality and that the landlord should have fitted better doors and locks. She said approximately £8000-£9000 worth of her jewellery had been stolen. She did not have contents insurance. She would send the landlord photos of the missing items and of her front door.
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 June 2023. It said it was sorry to hear that she had been burgled. It had checked its records and could not find any reports of the front door being reported as faulty or not closing correctly. It would arrange for a carpenter to visit as soon as possible. It said it did not provide contents insurance as part of its tenancy agreement, however if the resident believed it had responsibility for the incident, she should contact its liability insurance department.
The resident responded to the landlord on 25 June 2023. She provided photos of the door showing the splintering of the frame where the burglars had forced entry. The photos show cracks to the doorframe and paper stuffed between the door lock and the door frame. The resident said that the door had been in this condition since she had moved in. She said the landlord had told her that the carpenter booked for 28 June 2023 to assess the repairs needed to her property would not be able to attend on that day as they were on long-term sick leave. She said she did not have receipts for the items that had been stolen so doubted that an insurance claim would be successful.
On 25 June 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it would log a complaint about the concerns she had raised with it. On 26 June 2023, the landlord attended to check the resident’s front door. However, it said that no further repairs were needed as the resident’s friend had made the door secure.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 25 June 2023. She gave permission for the Service to contact the police in relation to the advice she had received from it about the doors to the property.
On 3 July 2023, the resident confirmed to the landlord that roofers had attended to repair the top of the bay window. She asked the landlord when it would book in works to fill in the cracks to the property which were letting in water and damp. She said she had told the landlord she was allergic to black mould.
The landlord responded to the resident on 4 July 2023. It said its plasterer would assess the cracks in the property when they attended on 2 August 2023. The plasterer would cut out and repair any cracks larger than the width of a pound coin. Any cracks smaller than this would be the resident’s responsibility to repair. It may need to refer cracks on the exterior of the property to its major works team and would contact the resident once this had been confirmed. It apologised that the carpenter was not able to attend as initially planned but this had been rebooked on 8 August 2023. It said it would book any necessary works following this visit over 2 dates as the resident had requested.
On 20 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for its delay in responding. It said that this was due to it experiencing heavy workloads which it was trying to address. It said:
1. It had not received any reports that there were issues with the front door prior to the burglary. Following recommendations in its damp and mould survey, it had raised a works order for a carpenter to ease and adjust the back door, but no works were needed to the front door.
2. It had checked with its staff and there were no legal restrictions on the property. The resident was offered the flat due to experiencing anti-social behaviour at her previous property.
3. It did not uphold the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 21 July 2023. She said that she would testify under oath that a member of the landlord’s staff had told her on the phone that the landlord had lifted a legal restriction on the property.
On 26 July 2023, the resident informed a member of staff working for her local councillor that a plasterer had attended the previous day to assess the internal works and had also checked the exterior of the building. The plasterer had told the resident that the works were not likely to be carried out until November 2023. A roofer had carried out a survey and said they would repair the flashing which was mouldy. She had not heard from the landlord’s major works team in relation to the cracks to the front of the building.
A carpenter attended to assess the works needed to the windows and doors on 8 August 2023. An appointment booked by the landlord for 17 August 2023 to repair the windows and the back door did not go ahead as when the landlord’s operative attended, the resident advised that she was not well.
On 7 September 2023, the landlord repaired plug sockets in the resident’s property. On 15 September 2023, the landlord repaired lead work above the bay front room window, the rotten windows and the back door frame. It also adjusted the back door lock and one of the windows.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 27 September 2023. She said the lock on her front door did not double lock and she could not use the bottom lock. She had not heard from the landlord in relation to it completing works to the back door and sealing the cracks in the building. She said the windows were sticking due to rot and this would slow down her escape in the event of a fire. She had been exposed to mould during the carpenter’s visit which had made her very sick. She said the carpenter the landlord had sent was argumentative and had not carried out the majority of the works. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord the same day to request that it escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 October 2023. It reiterated that there had been no reports of a faulty door prior to the burglary at the resident’s property and there were no legal restrictions on the property. It said there was no report on its system relating to the large crack on the lounge wall. It said it would progress this repair. The appointment to repair the bathroom extractor fan had not been rebooked, so it would arrange an appointment to do this. It set out the repairs it had completed to the bay window roof, the windows and door frame, and the plug sockets. It did not uphold the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
On 4 October 2023, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord had not repaired the windows or the back door and there was still damp and mould in the property.
On 9 October 2023, the resident moved into a new property.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

The resident made a separate complaint to the landlord about her concern over the water quality in her property. The landlord’s response to this issue was investigated by the Service and determined in November 2023. Therefore, this issue is outside the scope of this assessment as the Service will not reinvestigate matters we have already made a finding on.
The resident has mentioned in her complaint that her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property. The Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. We understand this has been a difficult time for her. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. We have considered any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord as well as the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Policies and procedures

Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s timescales for completing repairs states that it will treat an insecure door as the result of a crime as an emergency repair. Its repairs policy states that residents must report damage caused by a crime to the police first, as the landlord needs a crime reference number before raising a repair. The policy states that the landlord will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s guidance for new residents states that the walls of the property will be sound, and without damp, large cracks or loose plaster. The guidance states that it is the resident’s responsibility to fill hairline or shrinkage cracks in the plasterwork.
The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, states that a complaint must be defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, cracks to the exterior and interior walls, and repairs to the windows and doors in the property

As noted above, the resident said she had made the landlord aware of the repairs needed to the property when she moved in, in 2022. The Service does not doubt the resident’s word; however, the landlord disputes this. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this report and as we are impartial, the Service must ensure that its investigation is evidence-based.
It was appropriate that the landlord arranged a damp and mould survey of the resident’s property on 24 April 2023. However, the landlord’s repair records do not record what date the resident first reported damp and mould to it, so the Service cannot assess whether this survey was arranged within its timescales for attending to routine repairs of 20 working days. The lack of information as to when the resident first reported damp and mould is a concern as it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is not a full audit trail relating to each repair, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy. It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping systems so that it can provide evidence to show what date a resident first reported an issue to it, when required to do so by the Ombudsman.
The damp and mould survey identified that the following repairs were needed to the resident’s property: adjusting the sash window in the lounge, applying anti-mould sealant to the area under the windowsill, sealing around the door frames, and repairing the bathroom fan. These were routine repairs; therefore, the landlord should have arranged appointments to complete these within 20 working days of the damp and mould survey in-line with its repair timescales, set out above. There may sometimes be reasons why a landlord cannot complete routine repairs within its published timescales, however, if this were the case, it would have been good practice for the landlord to explain to the resident why it was not able to do so in this instance.
The resident told the landlord on 8 June 2023 that she did not want the repairs to go ahead whilst she was living in the property. The landlord acted reasonably in offering to visit the resident prior to the works starting. In doing so, it demonstrated that it was open to listening to her concerns. It was also appropriate that it agreed to split the repairs over 2 days as the resident had asked it to, particularly as she had made it aware that she was worried about the impact the works could have on her health.
It was reasonable that the landlord organised for a carpenter to assess the repairs needed to the property as the damp and mould survey identified that works were needed to the windows and the back door. The landlord cancelled the initial appointment booked for 28 June 2023, as the carpenter was ill. This was unavoidable. The landlord arranged a new appointment for 8 August 2023. However, it should have organised for another carpenter to attend as soon as possible. The fact that the date of the new appointment was over 1 month later, meant this assessment did not take place until over 3 months after the damp and mould survey of 24 April 2023. This was an unreasonable delay which will have caused the resident, time, trouble and inconvenience.
There was a further delay due to the resident not being well on 17 August 2023, however the landlord cannot be held responsible for this delay as the reasons for this were outside of its control.
The landlord’s damp and mould survey of 24 April 2023 identified that a large crack in the lounge wall needed repair. This was the landlord’s responsibility to repair, in line with its guidance for new residents, set out above. It is accepted that due to the size of the crack, the landlord needed to investigate whether the cause was structural. However, in its stage 2 complaint response of 4 October 2023, the landlord said it had failed to progress the works to repair this crack. This was a failing, as over 5 months later, the works were still outstanding.
The landlord said the repairs to the bathroom extractor fan had not been rebooked. It is acknowledged that the resident had cancelled this appointment after the burglary. However, it is good practice for landlords to make attempts to rebook works, particularly where repairs have been recommended as part of a damp and mould survey.
The delays in completing the repairs needed to the resident’s property amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, states that where maladministration has been identified, compensation of £100-£600 should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs to her property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern that her front door was insecure

The Ombudsman understands that having her home burgled must have been an extremely difficult and distressing experience for the resident. However, our assessment is limited to the landlord’s obligations and whether it followed these. The resident asked the Service to contact the police officers who attended her property after the burglary to confirm that they had advised that her front door was not regulation standard. However, it is not within our remit to do so, because we are an impartial arbiter of complaints and it is outside our role to assist either party in proving their case, although we may request that the parties provide further information to us, if needed to reach a fair decision.
The resident said that the landlord was aware the door was not safe prior to the burglary. The Service does not doubt the resident’s word; however, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show this issue was raised with the landlord prior to her property being broken into. Nor have we seen evidence that any defects with the front door were reported to the landlord. There are no general obligations on landlords to provide security doors, even after a break in.
The resident provided the Ombudsman with copies of the photographs she sent the landlord of her front door. These are date-stamped and the file information show that they were taken at the property she lived in at the time of her complaint. However, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to establish whether the condition of the resident’s front door led to the burglars gaining entry to her property, therefore we are unable to conclude that this was the case.
It was appropriate that the landlord arranged for a carpenter to attend to check that her door was secure after the burglary. The landlord’s timescale for attending to emergency repairs is normally the same day. However, its website states that residents should report any emergency repairs via its emergency repairs telephone number. As the resident sent it an email, the landlord acted reasonably in arranging for a carpenter to come and assess the door within 24 hours of it picking up her email on 25 June 2023. Having assessed the door, the carpenter concluded that it was secure and that no further works were needed to it and the landlord was entitled to rely on their professional opinion.
The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident to contact its insurance department to make a liability claim if she believed that the burglary had happened due to its negligence. Matters of liability and negligence fall outside the complaints process and the landlord is entitled to use a separate insurance process to deal with complaints of this nature to manage such costs. The resident told the landlord that she did not have receipts for any of her missing items. It would have been helpful for the landlord to reiterate to the resident that she should contact its insurance department for advice in relation to any claim, however as it had already advised her to do so, we cannot find that it failed in this regard. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the actions of the landlord and we would therefore not comment on its insurer or the likely outcome of an insurance claim if one is made.
The landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns that her door was not secure, therefore there was no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern that there was a legal restriction on the property.

The landlord acted reasonably in investigating whether there were any legal restrictions on the property following the concerns the resident raised in her complaint. The landlord’s staff confirmed to it that there was no legal restriction on the property. It was appropriate that the landlord confirmed this to the resident in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
The Service does not doubt the resident’s word that a member of the landlord’s staff told her there was a legal restriction on the property, however, we have not been provided with any evidence that this was the case. Therefore, we have made a finding of no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident’s email to the landlord of 6 June 2023, expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the way it was handling the repairs needed to her property. The landlord did not issue a stage 1 complaint response until 20 July 2023, which was outside of the landlord’s timescales of 10 working days for responding to stage 1 complaints. It is appropriate that it apologised for this delay and that it explained that this was due to staff shortage. However, the delay would have caused the resident, time, trouble, and inconvenience as she was kept waiting for a response to her concerns for longer than she should have been. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where service failure has been identified, £50-£100 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for its delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint.
On 27 September 2023, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident contacted the landlord to let it know that she was not satisfied with its stage 1 complaint response. Therefore, the landlord would not have known to escalate the complaint sooner.The landlord responded promptly following contact from the Ombudsman and issued a stage 2 complaint response on 4 October 2023within its timescales for responding to stage 2 complaints.

Determination (decision)

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, cracks to the exterior and interior walls, and repairs to the windows and doors of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concern that the front door to the property was insecure.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concern that there was a legal restriction on the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders:

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the following compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. £200 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs to her property.
2. £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping systems so that it can provide evidence to show what date a resident first reported an issue to it, when required to do so by the Ombudsman.