Camden Council (202344618)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202344618
Camden Council
16 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
Background
- The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord in a ground-floor studio flat. The resident has multiple physical and mental health conditions, including issues with her immune system which the landlord is aware of.
- In November 2022 a damp and condensation survey took place. The survey attributed dampness to a damaged external downpipe, the condition of the concrete cladding panels and a possible leak from the property above. In addition, it recommended the landlord replace the bathroom extractor fan and fit a new one in the kitchen. On 1 December 2022 the landlord repaired the external downpipe. In late December 2022 the resident raised concerns that the property was ‘unliveable’. Subsequently, the landlord raised a mould inspection for 24 January 2023. It also made appointments for mould washes between April 2023 and August 2023.
- On 7 September 2023 the resident reported that the ventilation in the property was not working. Subsequently, the landlord fitted a new extractor fan in the bathroom on 19 September 2023. The following day the resident asked the landlord to put ventilation in her glass doors and added that the lack of ventilation was causing damp and mould. On 10 January 2024 the resident raised a formal complaint. In summary, she said the damp and mould remained unresolved and had caused damage to her food and belongings. She added that she was unable to live in such a condition due to her illnesses. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to move her to an alternative property. On 17 January 2024 the landlord raised another mould inspection of the property.
- On 18 January 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It partially upheld the complaint. In summary, it said it had inspected the property in January 2023 and had arranged multiple mould washes. However, due to the resident’s unavailability, these washes were rescheduled and cancelled. The landlord added that she had not raised any further requests or concerns regarding mould until this complaint. Further, it said it had arranged for a mould wash to be carried out on 12 February 2024.
- The next day the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said there had been multiple inspections and it had taken a long time for the landlord to contact her regarding the mould washes. She said an inspector had told her the issue was a lack of ventilation in the ‘main room’ which remained outstanding. She felt that mould washes would not resolve the problem, and that the landlord had ignored her health and living conditions. In addition, she explained that a mould wash would not be appropriate due to her health issues and repeated her concerns about damaged belongings.
- On 13 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It again partially upheld the complaint. In summary, it said:
- It apologised for the poor level of communication and the time taken to progress remedial action to resolve the damp and mould.
- There had only been 1 mould inspection on 24 January 2023 and subsequent follow-up visits had been rearranged at the resident’s request.
- In 2022 it introduced a dedicated damp and mould team who would identify the root cause and works needed. Residents would receive a copy of the survey report within 15 working days and be advised of the next steps.
- A mould wash was carried out on 12 February 2024.
- It acknowledged that she was a vulnerable resident and could apply to become an ‘enhanced tenant’ which would allow assistance under its Handyperson Service.
- It acknowledged that the situation had caused distress and inconvenience to her which could have been prevented if it had carried out the mould wash at the same time as the inspection.
- Although the mould wash was rescheduled on 2 occasions it could have followed up to ensure the issue was resolved.
- It would award a total of £300 compensation, made up of, £100 for distress and inconvenience caused, £100 for the failure to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities and £100 for time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
- In the resident’s referral to this Service, she said despite the landlord carrying out mould washes the situation had worsened. She felt there was inadequate ventilation in the property and explained that an inspector had advised that a unit was needed in the main room. She added that the damp and mould was affecting her mental and physical health, and the compensation offered did not cover the financial impact of the damage to her belongings. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to install adequate ventilation or move her to another property.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident has advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in her health. The Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. However, this Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident and whether it acted fairly in the circumstances.
- Additionally, this Service recognises that the resident felt that the landlord was responsible for damage caused to her possessions due to its handling of her reports of damp and mould. However, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court.
The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould
- When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
b. Put things right.
c. Learn from outcomes.
- The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
- The Ombudsman would reasonably expect that on receiving reports of mould, the landlord should respond, arrange an inspection and investigate to determine the causes of damp and mould and, if necessary, carry out remedial repairs within a reasonable timescale.
- Following a survey of the property in November 2022, various repair works were recommended. This included replacing the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans. However, except for repairs to a downpipe, these recommendations were not acted on within the landlord’s 20 working day routine repair policy timescales. Indeed, the landlord’s records showed that it did not replace the bathroom extractor fan until September 2023, around 10 months later. Additionally, the kitchen extractor fan was replaced in April 2024 around 17 months after the survey. It is also unclear whether the landlord inspected the external concrete cladding or the property above as recommended in the survey. These were fallings on the landlord’s part who should have acted on these recommendations within a reasonable timescale. Its failure to do so would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt the landlord was not taking the situation and her health concerns seriously.
- The resident informed the landlord in December 2022 that her property was ‘unliveable’. In response, the landlord acted promptly by raising an inspection for 24 January 2023. However, what or if any action was agreed upon following this inspection is unclear. This may indicate issues with the landlord’s record keeping. No orders or recommendations have been made in this respect as the Ombudsman has made record-keeping orders in similar landlord cases. Nonetheless, this Service has seen no evidence of the landlord agreeing to nor carrying out any remedial works to the property following this inspection. This is concerning, particularly as it failed to act on the recommendations made in November 2022. In addition, the landlord’s final response acknowledged that it failed to carry out a mould wash during this visit. This was a further failing and it is unclear why it took the landlord until March 2023 to arrange another one.
- This Service acknowledges that the landlord made reasonable attempts to carry out a mould wash between April 2023 and August 2023 and that on each occasion, the resident asked to reschedule the appointments. Nevertheless, its records showed that on 11 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord if she could reschedule the mould wash appointment. In response, the landlord informed her that it would come back to her with another date. However, it failed to do so and instead cancelled the job. This was inappropriate and would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident, who expected the landlord to confirm a new date with her.
- On 20 September 2023 the resident asked for additional ventilation in the property and added that the mould worsened in the winter. She stated that previous landlord inspections had confirmed that the property needed better ventilation. While there is no clear evidence to reconcile the resident’s assertions, the landlord did inform her it would ‘find out why the ventilation had not been arranged for her.’ However, it did not come back to her. This was another failure in communication which delayed getting matters resolved for the resident. Furthermore, it is unclear whether inadequate ventilation is a cause of the damp and mould.
- Following the resident’s January 2024 formal complaint the landlord raised another damp and mould inspection for 12 February 2024. While its repair records suggested that it inspected the property on this date, it is unclear, other than a mould wash, what if any remedial actions were agreed upon. This is again concerning, as the landlord’s final response stated that as part of its process, it would identify the root cause and update the resident on the next steps. However, there is no evidence that this happened. Instead, the landlord continued to attempt to arrange mould washes without taking any meaningful steps to investigate the root cause of the damp and mould. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt the landlord had not properly addressed the issue.
- The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident has been left exposed to damp and mould in her property for over 12 months because of the landlord’s inability to carry out necessary remedial works within a reasonable timescale. Further, it is unclear if the root cause for the damp and mould had been identified and subsequently repaired. These were significant failings which showed a lack of regard for the resident’s health and the impact of damp and mould.
- Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs damp and mould was poor. There were unreasonable delays, failures in communication and it did not act on the recommendations made in its surveys. Furthermore, the landlord’s actions or lack thereof demonstrated that it did not adequately consider the resident’s health needs, despite the resident raising this as a serious concern throughout the complaint. Additionally, its stage 1 response stated that the resident did not make any further reports of damp and mould until her January 2024 complaint. This was inaccurate as there was clear evidence that in September 2023 she reported issues with the ventilation in the property, which she said was leading to damp and mould. This showed that the landlord had not thoroughly investigated her concerns. The landlord should have also signposted the resident to its liability insurer regarding reports in her complaint and subsequent escalation request that mould had damaged her belongings. While its final response said it was sorry to hear about this it failed to do so.
- While the landlord apologised for some of these failings and offered compensation to try to put things right, this Service considers that this amount was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests awards from £600 should be considered where there has been a significant adverse effect on the resident. In view of this, this Service has determined that there was maladministration, and orders have been made below for remedy.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of damp and mould.
Orders
- The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
- Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
- Pay the resident compensation of £900 comprised of:
- £300 as offered in its final response if it has not already done so.
- A further £600 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
- Provide an action plan to the resident and this Service on what it intends to do to resolve the damp and mould in her property, including timescales (and then adhere to these). The landlord should consider whether it is appropriate to engage an independent damp specialist to inspect the property and report on the causes of any ongoing damp and mould.
- Provide details of its insurer to the resident so she may commence a claim for any damage to her belongings.
- The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.