Camden Council (202324323)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324323

Camden Council

4 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 2bedroom split-level converted flat, occupying the basement and first floor of an endofterrace house. The landlord has recorded the resident as having “enhanced” needs. She has explained to the Ombudsman that she and her children have learning difficulties.
  2. On 18 May 2023 the landlord raised a job to attend the property following the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It attended within 6 working days and noted it had “submitted a report” for the damp and mould team to action.
  3. On 20 June 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said that:
    1. She had reported damp and mould in February 2023. An operative attended and said the matter needed to be treated as damp, but did not return.
    2. An operative had attended that morning with no appointment. They advised they were there to treat the mould, but left the property shortly upon entering. They advised they would be back in 5 minutes, but never returned.
    3. When she had contacted the landlord’s call centre, she had been told the operative had left the property because of the poor condition of her home, which she felt was unfair.
    4. She wanted the damp properly inspected and repaired. She also wanted the operative who had left her property abruptly spoken to, as she felt their behaviour was unacceptable.
  4. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response on 6 July 2023. It said that it was partially upholding her complaint, and explained that:
    1. It was sorry there had been a delay in resolving the damp and mould.
    2. The operative did not carry out works at the property on 20 June 2023 because her elderly cat had left faeces around the house. It was sorry that this had not been explained to her, but it had escalated the matter to its damp and mould team, and it would be discussed at their next team meeting.
    3. A mould wash would take place at the property and a supervisor would attend to investigate the damp issues at the same time.
  5. The resident later explained that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that although the landlord had made arrangements to visit her in August 2023, the appointment was to plaster one part of her child’s bedroom. It had offered her no solution to the damp she had identified in other areas of the property, including the bathroom. She asked for the landlord to put a plan in place to address the issue, or confirm to her in writing that it believed that no damp was present.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process on 22 August 2023, and upheld her complaint. It explained that:
    1. It was aware an appointment had taken place on 11 August 2023 but its database held no notes of the outcome of the visit.
    2. It had been unclear about the root cause of the damp and mould, and acknowledged that she had been given conflicting messages. A lack of any written survey report had exacerbated the problem.
    3. It would ask the damp and mould team to arrange for a new survey, covering all areas of the property. She would be updated of the outcome in writing.
    4. It wanted to offer her £50 in compensation for the time and trouble she had experienced.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2023. She explained that the situation was unresolved and had had a detrimental impact on her health. In recent communication with the Ombudsman, she said that following an independent survey commissioned by the landlord, some remedial works had been completed but small patches of damp remained in both bedrooms. In September 2024, the resident informed the service that the cause of damp had not yet been explained to her.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact her living conditions have had on the health of her and her family. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
  2. At the time the resident first raised the issue, the landlord did not have a specific damp and mould policy in place, therefore it addressed her reports under its housing repairs policy. The policy stated it would attend “routine” appointments within 20 working days. It is noted that the landlord has since implemented a specific damp and mould policy which details specific timescales for responding to reports of an issue. This is appropriate and in line with good practice.
  3. Whilst the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s assertion that she first made a report of damp in February 2023, the earliest recorded report was found within the landlord’s repair records on 18 May 2023. According to these records, the landlord first attended the property within 6 working days, which was reasonable and in accordance with its housing repairs policy.
  4. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep robust records of repairs, including the outcome of any visits or surveys undertaken. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord’s record keeping about the matter was insufficient. For example, despite noting its attendance on 25 May 2023, the landlord failed to record sufficient detail. The notes simply stated it had “submitted a report to the damp and mould team”, but provided no context as to why it felt this was necessary. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to evidence its initial observations and ultimately prolonged a resolution for the resident.
  5. The recent spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights explains that the Ombudsman defines vulnerability as “a dynamic state which arises from a combination of a resident’s personal circumstances, characteristics and their housing complaint. Vulnerability may be exacerbated when a social landlord does not act with appropriate levels of care when dealing with a resident’s complaint … if effective reasonable adjustments have been put in place, the vulnerability may be reduced”.
  6. In this case, the landlord was aware from its own records that the resident had “enhanced” needs. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the landlord explained that it had not recorded the exact details of the resident’s needs for “GDPR reasons”. It is therefore unclear how the landlord uses its vulnerability information to tailor its service for residents who have a diverse range of additional needs. It also remains uncertain how the landlord assessed any potential risk posed to the resident by the presence of damp.
  7. As the resident was registered for an enhanced service with the landlord, it was important that its communication with her was consistent and clear. However, it failed to communicate effectively with her about the outcome of its visits. This included the visit that took place on 20 June 2023 whereby the landlord failed to explain why the appointment had been cut short in a timely manner. This caused the resident evident upset and frustration.
  8. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its failures within its stage 1 complaint response, it did not appear to take any learning from the resident’s experience. As a result, it continued to make the same mistake during its next appointment on 11 August 2023 by failing to keep accurate notes of the visit.
  9. The landlord’s final response was an opportunity for it to adopt the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. It acknowledged that it had failed to keep sufficient repair notes on the matter and apologised for failing to communicate effectively with the resident, which was appropriate.
  10. Despite this, it did not go far enough to put matters right for the resident using its own remedies guidance. For example, it failed to consider an increased offer which took into account the distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced. As a result, the £50 it offered in compensation for time and trouble was not reflective of her full experience.
  11. To put matters right, the Ombudsman has considered a greater offer of compensation which takes into consideration the landlord’s remedies policy. Within the policy, it states that it will consider paying £25 per month for failure to provide a service and up to £300 for distress and inconvenience. An additional amount of £600 in compensation has therefore been ordered and calculated as:
    1. £25 per month for failure to provide a service between May 2023 and September 2024. A total of 17 months equals £425.
    2. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  12. The landlord demonstrated a lack of learning from the resident’s complaint within its final response. It did not set out how it would ensure that its repairs records were maintained and it did not provide the resident any reassurance of how it would keep oversight of its damp and mould investigations in line with its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HSSRS).
  13. The landlord was delayed in sending a damp and mould specialist to attend the property. It was not until after its stage 2 response that the landlord arranged for a specialist survey to take place on 1 September 2023. The delay of 4 months in instructing a qualified person to identifying the root cause of the damp since she first reported the issue was inappropriate and caused the resident inconvenience and frustration.
  14. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of the qualified surveyor it sent to the property. The survey highlighted that although the damp was “mild”, it had been caused by the accumulation of 3 factors, external, ventilation and spillage. Despite assurances made in the landlord’s final response, there is no evidence that the outcome of the survey was shared with the resident in writing so she could understand what it had found. This contributed to her lack of confidence and belief that the landlord had not established the root cause of the damp.
  15. The survey identified that a schedule of works was required which included 11 repairs. The landlord’s failure to share the schedule of works with the resident was a missed opportunity to set out a plan of action including dates for each repair to be addressed, to demonstrate openness.
  16. Despite the landlord’s more recent assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, it has been unable to demonstrate effective oversight of the outstanding repairs through use of its “daily tracker”. To date, the landlord has completed some remedial works, but it has confirmed that 2 repairs related to the survey in September 2023 remain outstanding due to an “IT error”.
  17. The additional delays the resident has experienced after the conclusion of the complaint to complete the repairs over a period of approximately 1 year are unreasonable. By failing to carry out the repairs in a timely manner, the landlord has failed in its duty to mitigate the risk of the ongoing damp and mould, in accordance with its repair and HHSRS obligations. Furthermore the landlord failed to consider the vulnerabilities within the household, including the resident’s concerns about the long term impact on the health of her family. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it has considered how it could adapt its service to better support her.
  18. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and gaps in its repair records have hindered its ability to demonstrate what actions it has taken over time. Once the landlord instructed a damp specialist, it failed to update the resident of the outcome in writing as it had promised. There continue to be further delays in concluding matters, causing the resident additional frustration and upset.
  19. In December 2023, the Ombudsman launched a special investigation into the landlord after rising maladministration findings relating to damp and mould, repairs and complaint handling. Special investigations are launched by the Ombudsman using paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme to see if issues in casework are indicative of wider failings of the landlord. A management case review has not been ordered in this case, as active work between the Ombudsman and the landlord is in progress to drive learning on the same themes.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £650 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks. The amount is to be made up of:
    1. £50 the landlord offered the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process on 22 August 2023, if not already paid.
    2. an additional £425 for the landlord’s failure to provide a service. A breakdown of this calculation is explained in paragraph 19 of this report.
    3. an additional £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould.
  3. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to update her of the outcome of the survey undertaken in September 2023. A copy of the correspondence should be sent to the Ombudsman, within 4 weeks. The correspondence should explain:
    1. what the landlord understands the cause of the damp to be.
    2. when it will complete all outstanding works, in accordance with its repairs, damp and mould policy.
    3. what further steps it will take to monitor the property in line with its HHSRS obligations.

Recommendations

  1. It recommended that the landlord utilises the Housing Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning and gives consideration to arranging staff attendance to its virtual workshops on:
    1. Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
    2. Attitudes, Respect and Rights for case handlers.