Camden Council (202337252)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202337252
Camden Council
26 April 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
- This complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- Complaint handling.
- The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s record keeping.
Background and summary of events
Background
- The resident is a secure tenant and her tenancy began in 2018. The property is a 3 bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority. There are 6 adults in the resident’s household. Four of them use inhalers to manage respiratory conditions. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord said it had no record of any vulnerabilities for the family.
- The landlord provided the property’s repair history from July 2017. It did not refer to damp or mould until 2020. The first related repair order, from 4 March 2020, said the resident had reported mould in the bathroom and the landlord should check the extractor fan. The order was closed on 16 March 2020.
- In December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again. She said there was damp in the bedrooms and the family’s belongings were affected. She was told to complete an online questionnaire to report the damp. The repair history shows works were completed to the bathroom window on 25 January 2021 and a new fan was installed. There were no works to the bedrooms at this point.
- The resident chased the landlord in October 2021. She said she knew it was dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it had not responded to her completed questionnaire. Subsequently, in March 2022, a contractor completed a damp and mould survey on the landlord’s behalf. This was around 15 months after the resident reported damp in the bedrooms.
- The contractor’s report was dated 7 April 2022. It said there was damp and mould in each bedroom, along with the kitchen and bathroom. However, it was difficult to gauge the extent of the problem because “an excessive amount of furniture (blocked) a full visual inspection”. The contractor made the below recommendations:
- Investigate possible water ingress from an external overflow pipe. Complete any repairs needed.
- Repair or replace extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
- Repair a thermostat to ensure efficient heating of the property.
- All damp and mould to be treated and affected areas to be redecorated.
- After chasing the landlord again, the resident complained on 15 August 2022. She said it was almost 2 years since she reported extensive damp. However, she had been told the landlord had no record of the contractor’s inspection. Around 18 working days later, the landlord told the resident her repair request fell outside of its complaints procedure. As a result, it had passed the details to its relevant team.
- The resident told us a contractor visited the property in December 2022. She said, due to overcrowding, it felt the repairs could not be completed with the family in situ. There was no record of this visit in the landlord’s repair history. However, the contractor relayed its findings to the landlord in an email the following month. It asked the landlord how to proceed given the lack of space.
- In February 2023 the resident complained again. She said damp and mould related disrepair was impacting the family’s health. The landlord issued a stage 1 response 10 working days later. It upheld the resident’s complaint on the basis the repairs were delayed. Although it apologised, no compensation was offered. Other key points from the landlord’s response were:
- A repair order was raised to the landlord’s contractor on 21 February 2023 (there was no corresponding record in the property’s repair history).
- During a subsequent pre-work inspection, the contractor concluded the works could not be completed due to the amount of personal items in the property.
- The landlord’s local representative had been asked to contact the resident. This was to assist with moving the family’s items.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 1 April 2023. She said the landlord’s response did not resolve matters. Further, despite emailing them directly, she had not heard from its local representative. She reiterated damp and mould were damaging the family’s health and belongings. She referenced asthma and sinusitis. She wanted to know how and when the works could be progressed given the family’s vulnerabilities.
- On 3 May 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2. This was 20 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The resident’s complaint was upheld due to a lack of contact from the landlord’s previous local representative. Again, no compensation was awarded. Other key points from the response were:
- The landlord acknowledged the resident reported damp and mould from 2020 onwards. Its initial repairs were delayed by the pandemic.
- It felt her “renewed reports in 2022” were caused by a different issue. However, this “was not ever established” (by the landlord).
- Since March 2023, the landlord had been unable to progress the repairs due to “cluttered conditions” in the property.
- There was a new local representative, they would contact the resident in due course about clearing the property.
- The damp was likely due to overcrowding. When treatment works were complete, the landlord would monitor the situation.
- It would complete any necessary repairs that arose from this monitoring.
- The landlord’s new local representative spoke to the resident on the same day. A follow up email shows they wanted to arrange a home visit. The resident replied around a week later. She said she preferred phone or email contact to avoid delays. She asked what task the representative had been given to complete. No information was seen to show the representative responded.
- The representative contacted the resident again on 6 September 2023. Records confirm they visited the property within days and noted the amount of personal belongings. Subsequently, these parties exchanged a number of emails. The exchange was prompted by a chaser from the resident. As part of the exchange, the representative made the following points on 26 October 2023:
- The landlord could not provide alternative accommodation to facilitate the repairs. This was because an “emergency repairs move” (ESR) had not been recommended.
- However, it might be able to put some of the family’s belongings in storage for a limited time. This should create the necessary space for the works.
- The representative recommended applying for rehousing because the property was overcrowded.
- The resident replied on 7 November 2022. She acknowledged the landlord’s temporary storage solution but said she needed more information about its plans. This was on the basis it was unreasonable for the family to stay in the property during the repairs because there were 6 adults, and 2 of them shared the living room. She reiterated that some family members had breathing conditions.
- In late January 2024 the resident reiterated her request for a plan. She asked: what goods would be moved, how long the storage would last, and how the property’s rooms would remain useable for the family. The representative replied around a month later. They said a contractor’s visit in February 2023 had determined an ESR was unnecessary. Other key points were:
- All items obstructing the repairs must be relocated. A subsequent inspection would determine the extent of the works.
- Storage would likely last for 2-3 weeks. The exact timeframe depended on the extent of the works.
- The landlord’s contractor would ensure the family could use the rooms.
- The resident updated the Ombudsman during a call in April 2024. She felt the landlord typically arranged temporary accommodation in situations like hers. She could not understand why it expected her family to remain in situ during the repairs.
Assessment and findings
- It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any damage to the family’s health or personal belongings.
- From around September 2023, the resident began to raise concerns about the landlord’s handling of a rehousing application. Her concerns were noted, but they were beyond scope of this assessment. This is because, in line with the Ombudsman’s remit, our assessment focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint. Any more recent concerns should be raised as a formal complaint with the landlord in the first instance.
Policies, procedures and other relevant information
- The Ombudsman has seen the resident’s payment history from 2018 to date. It details her rent payments during this period. It shows her weekly rent was £176 in 2021, £182.31 in 2022, and £197.18 from 2023 onwards. Based on these figures, the Ombudsman calculated the resident’s average weekly rent at £185.16. This figure applied from around May 2021 onwards.
- The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
- The timeline points to significant failures in respect of this complaint point. For example, the landlord accepted responsibility for several failures including delays from 2020. Though it upheld the resident’s complaint at each stage, it made little attempt to put things right for her. Given what went wrong, it should have awarded compensation to address the issues it was responsible for. Nevertheless, the timeline shows the landlord only apologised to the resident. This approach was unfair, inappropriate, and highly disproportionate.
- Another serious failure concerned the resident’s reports of related damage to the family’s belongings and health. The resident first raised this issue in December 2020. The timeline shows she repeated her concerns several times afterwards. Where a resident alleges a landlord was responsible for damage, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to refer them to its insurance team. Alternatively, it can inspect the damage before resolving matters through its internal complaints procedure.
- In this case, there was no indication the landlord took either of these steps. From the information seen, the resident’s related concerns remain unaddressed around 40 months later based on the timing of this assessment. Again, this was unfair, inappropriate and likely distressing. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s repairs team should be capable of signposting residents to its insurance team, or setting basic expectations around its insurance process. It is also reasonable to conclude that insurance claims can be time sensitive.
- On that basis, the resident may now have difficulty evidencing a damage claim through the landlord’s insurer. This situation could have been avoided if the landlord had promptly followed the correct process (outlined above).
- Another failure involved the landlord’s decision-making. More recently, the timeline shows a lack of space in the property presented a barrier to the repairs. It was noted the resident was given inconsistent information about an ESR (assumed a temporary decant). For example, in October 2023 she was told an ESR had not been recommended. In January 2024, she was told the landlord’s contractor had deemed an ESR unnecessary in February 2023. There was no evidence to support the information provided in January 2024.
- To summarise, there was no evidence the contractor had given this advice in February 2023 (or elsewhere during the timeline). This was based on the landlord’s own case evidence, along with a detailed timeline that the resident provided. The landlord’s record keeping will be assessed separately below. Ultimately, the landlord should have decided whether or not a decant was necessary. As part of this process, it should have considered all the relevant information including the contractor’s opinion and the family’s circumstances.
- For example, it should have considered the effect its repair works would have on the family’s breathing conditions. Similarly, if it had not addressed the matter clearly, the landlord should have asked the contractor whether it felt completing repairs around the family was feasible. In contrast, the landlord’s January 2024 comments suggest it expected the contractor to resolve any practical issues while the repairs were ongoing. This was an unreasonable approach given the contractor had already asked the landlord how to proceed in January 2023.
- Given the above identified flaws, the landlord’s decision-making was inappropriate. As mentioned, it should have taken the family’s vulnerabilities into account when considering a temporary move.
- Overall, the timeline confirms there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. This was based on the landlord’s failures to; fairly put things right for the resident, address important concerns around damages and health impacts, or reflect the wider case circumstances in its decision-making (including the family’s vulnerabilities and their understandable concerns). Each of these issues is a significant failure in itself. The rest of this section will focus on putting things right for the resident based on the information we have seen.
- It is accepted the landlord was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. National lockdown restrictions were introduced soon after the resident’s initial report of mould in the bathroom. However, the timeline shows it took the landlord around 11 months to respond to her report. This was based on the period between 4 March 2020 and 25 January 2021. During this period, national lockdown restrictions were in place for around 5 months. For clarity, the Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timescale to respond to a routine repair.
- Given the above, the evidence points to unreasonable delays of around 4 months at this point. The Ombudsman’s calculation included an additional 1 month grace period to allow the landlord’s operations time to recover. While the pandemic was beyond the landlord’s control, it was in control of its recovery and response measures. In addition, the resident was impacted by related delays through no fault of her own. On that basis, the landlord should have acknowledged its contribution to the prolonged initial response timescale.
- Subsequently, the resident reported more extensive damp on 15 December 2020. At this point, she said each of the property’s 3 bedrooms were affected. The information seen suggests her email included several supporting images and a video. The timeline shows the issue remains ongoing to date. It also shows other rooms were affected from around April 2022 onwards, including the kitchen and bathroom. Given the extent of the problem, it is reasonable to conclude the family’s enjoyment of the property was significantly reduced.
- Given the number of impacted rooms, it is also reasonable to conclude that they had limited respite from the situation. On that basis, the resident cannot be fairly expected to pay her full rent during the above identified impact period. The Ombudsman’s calculation was adjusted by 5 months to reflect; the lock down restrictions in place between 6 January and 29 March 2021, a 1 month routine repair timescale, and the 1 month grace period referenced above. On that basis, the relevant delay period was around 35 months (or 152 weeks).
- Though it is not a rent refund, the Ombudsman’s core compensation calculation, for the above identified period of 35 months, will be broadly equivalent to an 8% rent reduction for the key rooms affected. In line with our approach to compensation, it will include a separate element to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s above identified failures. This approach is proportionate given; the extent of the landlord’s failures, the duration of the impact, and the family’s vulnerabilities.
- In summary, there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. This was based on the landlord’s failures to; fairly put things right for the resident, address important concerns around damages and health impacts, or reflect the wider cases circumstances (including the family’s vulnerabilities and their understandable concerns) in its decision-making. Each of these issues was a significant failure in itself.
The landlord’s complaint handling
- The timeline also points to significant complaint handling failures. For example, in September 2022 the landlord told the resident her concerns were a repair request that fell outside of its complaints procedure. As a result, it said, it would forward them to its relevant department for a response. Its correspondence quoted the landlord’s complaints policy. It included the following wording, “But if someone was unhappy with…the delays in carrying out a repair, which they have previously requested, then this would be considered a formal complaint”.
- Based on this wording, the landlord’s approach to the resident’s August 2022 complaint was both unfair and inappropriate. In effect, the landlord raised a barrier to the complaint. It is reasonable to conclude this was distressing. Its failure to engage with the resident’s concerns at this stage were also a missed opportunity. For example, the landlord should have been capable of using its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve matters for the resident. The evidence points to similar missed opportunities at various points in the timeline.
- For example, it was unclear why the landlord’s complaints team asked a local representative to provide assistance in relation to the family’s belongings. It is reasonable to conclude that progressing the repairs depended on this key aspect of the complaint resolution. On that basis, the complaints team should have taken responsibility, or at least monitored closely and followed-up if necessary. Nevertheless, the timeline shows there were significant delays after March 2023. Given the above, it is reasonable to conclude they were avoidable.
- The evidence points to further missed opportunities. For example, the landlord’s stage 2 response noted the property was overcrowded. However, the timeline shows the landlord did not suggest rehousing until around 6 months later. This was based on the period between 3 May and 26 October 2023. This showed a lack of reasonable care on the landlord’s part. There was also further evidence of an insensitive or dismissive tone in the landlord’s stage 2 response. For example, it implied the family’s belongings were clutter several times.
- In addition, the response referred to overcrowding as the likely cause of the damp. In contrast, the contractor’s 2022 report did not reference overcrowding. As a result, the above comments appeared to be grounded in speculation rather than fact. In general, landlords should avoid blaming residents for damp and mould problems in the first instance. Instead, they should rely on the professional opinion of a relevant qualified specialist. The evidence suggests the landlord’s stage 2 response did not adopt the above approach.
- Overall, there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. By unfairly treating her August 2022 complaint as a service request, the landlord effectively raised a barrier to the resident’s complaint. Subsequently, the landlord failed to monitor a key complaint resolution through to completion. Its stage 2 response was insensitive/dismissive and showed a lack of reasonable care. Overall, the resident was impacted by the landlord’s failure to use its complaints process as an effective resolution tool.
The landlord’s record keeping
- The evidence shows there were multiple record keeping failures. For example, there were no records of any contractor visits, or findings, in the property’s repair history. It is reasonable to conclude this made it more difficult for the landlord’s operatives to keep track of events. For example, in August 2022 the resident reported she was told the landlord did not have a copy of its contractor’s recent inspection. She also said she was told she would have to “start the process all over again” due to the missing record.
- It is accepted the landlord subsequently retrieved the contractor’s report. However, the timeline suggests other key case records remain missing. For example, both parties stressed they were given important advice by the contractor. The resident said, during a visit in December 2022, the contractor advised her it could not complete the repairs around the family. In contrast, the landlord later said the contractor had advised it an ESR was unnecessary. Ultimately, we were unable to clarify the situation from the landlord’s records.
- There were also other failures. Importantly, the evidence shows the landlord failed to capture details of the family’s vulnerabilities when the resident reported them. For example, asthma and sinusitis were clearly referenced in her April 2023 escalation request. Nevertheless, when the landlord submitted its case evidence to the Ombudsman in January 2024 it told us it had no record of any vulnerabilities. As mentioned previously, this information should have had a significant bearing on the landlord’s repair related decision-making.
- The above represents inappropriate record keeping by the landlord. The evidence shows its inadequate records: undermined the landlord’s response, impacted the resident, and hampered the Ombudsman’s own investigation. Given the extent of the failures, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. The severity of the finding reflects the landlord’s inability to use its records to guide its interactions with the resident. It is reasonable to conclude its missing vulnerability information could have put the family at risk.
- A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates that a landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractor’s or managing agents.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
- Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- Complaint handling.
- Record keeping.
Reasons
- The landlord failed to; fairly put things right for the resident, address important concerns around damages and health impacts, or reflect the wider case circumstances in its decision-making. The wider circumstances included the family’s vulnerabilities and their understandable concerns about the landlord’s repair plans. Each of the above issues was a significant failure in itself.
- By unfairly treating her August 2022 complaint as a service request, the landlord effectively raised a barrier to the resident’s complaint. Subsequently, it failed to monitor a key complaint resolution through to completion. Its stage 2 response was insensitive/dismissive and showed a lack of reasonable care. Overall, the resident was impacted by the landlord’s failure to use its complaints process as an effective resolution tool.
- The landlord’s inadequate records; undermined its response, impacted the resident, and hampered the Ombudsman’s own investigation. In relation to the family’s vulnerabilities, the evidence suggests the landlord was unable to use its records to guide its interactions with them. It is reasonable to conclude the missing vulnerability information could have put the family at risk.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident within 4 weeks. The apology should recognise the key failures identified in this report (summarised in the reasons section above). Since the executive will oversee the repairs through to completion, the apology should also include their contact details. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
- The appointed member of the landlord’s executive team to revisit the landlord’s decision-making around the need for a decant. They should take into account the wider case circumstances which include: the family’s needs and vulnerabilities, along with the contractor’s opinion. The landlord should share its decision and supporting rationale with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
- The landlord to pay the resident a total of £11,408.08 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
- £125 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the unreasonable delays to the landlord’s initial bathroom repairs.
- £6,743.36 for the loss of enjoyment the resident was caused by damp and mould in the 3 bedrooms from May 2021 onwards (£14.81 x3 x152).
- £3,139.72 for the loss of enjoyment the resident was caused by damp and mould in other rooms from 7 April 2022 onwards (£14.81 x2 x106).
- £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- £400 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The landlord to contact the resident within 4 weeks to gather information about any damaged personal items. This is with a view to refunding her accordingly. Since it failed to follow the correct procedure within a reasonable timeframe, the landlord should avoid onerous evidence requirements in relation to the damages. During this contact, the landlord should also provide its insurance team’s details. This is in case the resident wants to claim for any health impacts.
- The landlord to ensure its primary records accurately reflect the family’s vulnerabilities. The landlord may need to contact the resident and clarify the correct details before updating its records. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
- The Ombudsman is currently carrying out a special investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. As part of this process, we recently ordered the landlord to review its complaint handling. We have also issued wider orders in relation to its approach to damp and mould, and risk assessments. As a result, we have not made further related orders in this case. However, the landlord must address any additional issues highlighted in this report. For example, if it has not done so already, the landlord should:
- Ensure its repairs and complaint handling staff are capable of signposting residents to its insurance team where appropriate. Relevant staff should also be capable of setting basic expectations around its insurance process.
- Similarly, the landlord should ensure its relevant staff are capable of providing basic rehousing information where appropriate. This includes outlining different rehousing options and signposting to the correct team.
- The landlord to ensure its staff can promptly capture and record vulnerability information where appropriate. This is to ensure the landlord can guide its future interactions with vulnerable residents accordingly.
- Within 4 weeks, the landlord should share the measures it has taken to address any additional issues with the Ombudsman. This includes the above examples if applicable.
- The landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.