London Borough of Camden Council (202226400)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226400

Camden Council

28 February 2025

 

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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request to waive/reduce his service charges.
    2. Concerns about the treatment of damp and mould in his property.
    3. Concerns about the impact its damp-proofing work had on the size of his kitchen.
    4. Request for assistance with the maintenance and purchase of the communal garden.
    5. Associated complaints.
    6. Concerns about the landlord’s missed appointment.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a ground floor flat with access to a communal garden. The landlord owns the freehold of the block.

Complaints a to e

  1. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in December 2019 (exact date unknown). He requested for his major works service charge to be waived or reduced for delays, poor workmanship, conduct of contractors, and the excessive time scaffolding was up regarding major works to the property. He said that the landlord had ignored his request for reimbursement for damp-proofing work he had paid for. The damp proofing work it had completed had resulted in the walls increasing in depth by 100mm each, leading to a substantial loss of kitchen space. He felt it should compensate him for this loss of space and the cost of the kitchen he had to replace. He said a contributory factor to damp in his property was the historically overgrown communal garden. He had asked it for help with clearing the garden, which it had rejected because the communal garden was residents’ responsibility to maintain. He said no one had maintained the garden for about 8-10 years. He also complained that having been told that he could purchase the garden, and paid £300 to clear it, it had retracted its agreement.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 March 2020. It said it had not charged him for the damp proof works. It had agreed to complete this as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience caused by the maintenance contract. It would not sell him the garden, as other residents had a legal right to use it. It would not agree to a clearance fee. Any maintenance of the DPC was its responsibility, it would pay for the work and charge the resident. It would not reimburse his damp-proofing costs. It said its contractor had discussed the kitchen space reduction from the damp works with him prior to starting the work. It acknowledged they had not commented on why there was a difference in the original reduction measurements. It advised any damage caused to his property he should claim for through his insurance. If this was not possible, he could make a public liability claim to its insurers.
  3. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint on 15 March 2020. He still wanted his service charge erased or reduced. He disputed he had not been told it was his responsibility to treat the damp. He said he could not have had his old kitchen re-fitted; it was damaged from the damp and the reduction in kitchen space meant it would no longer fit. He said he had an email agreeing to the sale of the garden. He disputed he had been offered a one-off clearance, he paid £300 to have garden waste removed himself.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 April 2020. It said it would only dispose of a shared asset (garden) when there was a strong reason to do so. It needed to consider the interest of all residents affected. It said the lease specified where the responsibility lay for repairs and should have been consulted before he undertook any damp work. It suggested he provide his damp report and costs but might want to consider an application to the small claims court. It apologised that it had not informed him it could arrange a green waste bin to assist with the disposal of garden waste. It said if he felt his “rights as a leaseholder had been violated” because of failings from the maintenance contract, he could challenge this via the 1st Tier Property Tribunal.
    1. Further communications between the parties in April and May 2020 indicate that they remained in dispute about the issues.

Complaint f

  1. The resident reported to the landlord that, following its completion of damp works to his property, damp and mould had reappeared. It arranged an appointment to attend for the 30 January 2023.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint on 6 February 2023. He said the landlord had arranged an appointment for 30 January. He took the day off work and waited, but no one turned up. He had called on 2 February 2023 but the officer he spoke to did not listen to his concerns.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 March 2023. It confirmed it had made an appointment and not attended. It arranged a further appointment for 7 February 2023, at which it decided a mould wash was required. It confirmed it did not compensate for loss of earnings but awarded £25 compensation for a missed appointment.
  4. The resident requested his complaint be escalated on 15 March 2023. He felt the £25 offer was “insulting” and reported further appointments had been missed.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 June 2023. It said it had found no evidence of any further missed appointments where it was at fault since 30 January 2023. The £25 compensation offered was in line with its compensation policy for a missed appointment. It offered him a further £25 compensation for the delay in its stage 2 response and committed to calling the damp and mould team back for an inspection.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with both of the landlord’s responses and brought his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is called our jurisdiction and is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Paragraph 42.b. states that we may not consider complaints that were brought to us more than 12 months after they completed the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. Under paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme, the following aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside our jurisdiction.
    1. Request to waive/reduce his service charges.
    2. Concerns about the treatment of damp and mould in his property.
    3. Concerns about the impact its damp-proofing work had on the size of his kitchen.
    4. Request for assistance with the maintenance and purchase of the communal garden.
    5. Associated complaints.
  3. We are unable to investigate these aspects of the resident’s complaint because they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure on 30 April 2020. He did not bring these aspects of his complaint to us until 30 January 2023. This considerably exceeded the 12-month timeframe in which you can escalate a complaint to this Service.
  4.  It must be noted also that paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. As such, the resident’s request for his service charge to be waived or reduced, would ordinarily be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal. The landlord gave this advice in its stage 2 response. He has been advised if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint, he may seek advice from the Leaseholder Advisory Service.

Missed appointments

  1. The landlord rang the resident on 25 January 2023 to arrange an appointment to inspect the damp in his flat. He accepted an appointment for 30 January 2023 and states that he cancelled his work plans for that date (he is self-employed).
  2.  On the day of the appointment, the resident waited in for the damp inspector, but no one attended. When he contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023, it denied an appointment had been booked.
  3. In his complaint of 6 February 2023, he said after trying for months to get an appointment with the damp and mould team; they had not turned up to the pre-arranged appointment. This had resulted in him losing a day’s pay un-necessarily. When he called on 2 February 2023, he said the officer he spoke to would not listen to his concerns or what had happened. She said, “there had not been a booking so he could not have waited in for anyone”.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response 10 March 2023, it confirmed it had arranged an appointment. It explained it had mistakenly raised the repair for the block and not the resident’s flat and apologised for this failing. It explained that it does not reimburse for lost income but offered £25 compensation for the failed appointment. Its remedies policy allows for a £25 payment for service failure, this offer was therefore reasonable and in line with its policy.
  5. The landlord did not, however, address the contact officer’s error in denying it had made an appointment. Neither did it indicate that it investigated the alleged inappropriate attitude towards the resident, which was a service failing.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response (29 June 2023) acknowledged it delayed in responding to the complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2 of its process. However, it only offered redress for the second stage and not the first, which did not align with its redress policy.
  7. The landlord’s response set out the history of its contact with the resident on the matter. This did not identify that it had failed to attend further appointments. As a result, it did not uphold this aspect of his complaint, which was appropriate.
  8. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s frustration at the damp and mould not being resolved. It put this down in part to confusion, because it was not usually responsible for resolving damp and mould in a leasehold property.
  9. There are many instances where damp and mould would be the landlord’s responsibility. It can occur as a result of a number of causes, a significant amount of which are connected to the structure of the building, which the landlord would be responsible for. These include defective roofs, guttering/ drainage pipes, brickwork damp proof courses, rainwater goods, water storage and plumbing.
  10. We are not investigating the resident’s earlier complaint on damp and mould. However, the landlord’s responses indicated a default position amongst its staff, as in this case, that damp and mould in leasehold properties is not its responsibility it is an internal problem. We have made recommendations in this report to improve this position. Its damp and mould policy states it trains property management staff and contractors in potential causes to advise, diagnose and provide solutions. It should extend this training more widely to other staff who deal with leaseholders, such as leasehold services and its complaint handling staff. They encounter leaseholders reporting damp and mould issues and should be able to advise and sign post them correctly.
  11. Later in its stage 2 response the landlord did consider that the resident’s damp and mould may have a structural cause and appropriately referred his case to the damp and mould team.
  12. In dealing with the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged some service failings and attempted to put things right by apologising and offering some financial redress. However, it missed service failures in its customer service and complaint handling and did not fully adhere to its redress policy. As a result, it missed opportunities to apologise and consider the appropriate redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme, the following aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside our jurisdiction.
    1. Request to waive/reduce his service charges.
    2. Concerns about the treatment of damp and mould in his property.
    3. Concerns about the impact its damp-proofing work had on the size of his kitchen.
    4. Request for assistance with the maintenance and purchase of the communal garden.
    5. Associated complaints.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about missed appointments.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with the following orders:
    1. A written apology to the resident for the service failings identified in this investigation.
    2. Pays the resident the total sum of £175 (including the £50 previously offered) broken down as follows:
      1. An additional £25.00 for the delayed stage 1 complaint response.
      2. £100 for failings identified in the complaint investigation.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Implements training to all staff who engage with leaseholders on landlord responsibilities to leasehold properties. With a particular focus on building structure, damp and mould.
    2. Considers refunding the resident 75% of his costs for damp proofing works he carried out that were the landlord’s responsibility.
    3. Provides proof to the resident that he and the other residents are responsible for maintaining the communal garden and the costs associated in doing so.