London Borough of Camden Council (202318181)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318181

Camden Council

25 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:
    1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated works.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 24 January 1994. The property is a 2-bed flat.
  2. The resident emailed her Housing Officer (HO) on 4 March 2023 about a leak from the property above. As the property above was a leasehold property, the resident asked that the landlord contact them about the leak. On 7 March 2023, the resident requested a damp and mould inspection for her property. The landlord failed to attend 2 appointments made for the inspection.
  3. On 28 March 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. The complaint was about the lack of response to her reports of the leak and damp and mould. She said that it failed to respond to her initial email and that promises around callbacks where not met. Following receipt of the complaint, a damp and mould inspection took place on 3 April 2023. Several works were recommended and works orders were raised the same day.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 14 April 2023 and partially upheld the complaint. It acknowledged that it had failed to attend the 2 agreed appointments for the damp and mould inspection and offered £70 to address those failings and the delay from March to April 2023. However, it said the HO was away at the time she sent her email and, upon searching, he had no record of it. It added that any teams that were required to contact her had done so in arranging the failed appointments.
  5. Following the complaint, the landlord completed the works it identified during the inspection on 3 April 2023 but the resident raised concerns about the quality of those works. The resident also made the landlord aware of the leak from above continuing, as she had issues with the electrics in her bathroom.The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 31 May 2023. This was based on the continued leak.
  6. The resident raised a complaint through her councillor in July 2023. The landlord responded to the councillor on 21 July 2023 and said that the leak from above had been resolved. It said that external works were completed in both March 2023 and May 2023 to the guttering and the water tank at the property as overflowing from both had likely contributed to the leak. It explained that a further leak reported in June 2023 was found to be from a different property than the previous leak.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 10 August 2023 and upheld the complaint. It acknowledged that there had been an “unreasonable delay in tracing and rectifying the leak”. The landlord said it would prioritise the required repairs but that there was a “backlog of disrepair cases”. The landlord said that the resident should contact the damp and mould team once the leak was fully repaired. It offered a compensation payment of £100 for the 5 months that the issue had been ongoing.
  8. Following its stage 2 response, the resident brought the matter to this Service for review on 21 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated works

  1. The resident said she initially raised a concern about the leak from the property above to her HO by email on 4 March 2023. The landlord said that the HO was “away at the time” of the email and did not have a record of receiving it. Within her complaint submission, the resident provided an email chain which shows that she provided the landlord with a copy of this email but it failed to comment on this within the stage 2 complaint. This is a service failing by the landlord as it failed to act on her email on two occasions – when it was first sent and as part of the complaint. The initial failing likely contributed to the delay in the leak being addressed.
  2. It is clear that the landlord failed to attend 2 damp and mould inspections, despite agreeing appointments with the resident in March 2023. This is a another service failing on the part of the landlord. It did not make the resident aware that it would not attend, causing unnecessary inconvenience for her. Not only did this delay the required treatment works, it also meant that alongside the failure to act on her email, the landlord did not record the leak until the resident’s complaint at the end of March 2023.
  3. When the landlord attended on 3 April 2023, it noted the leak from above and raised a works order to address it. Its repair policy says that such a leak would be considered an urgent repair with a repair timeframe of 5 working days. However, after raising a works order to locate and repair the leak on 3 April 2023, it took the landlord until 23 May 2023 to attend the property for this job. This was a service failing by the landlord as it took 36 working days for it to complete a repair that should have taken 5 working days in line with its repair policy.
  4. The resident’s complaint outlined that she made the landlord aware of the leak on 4 March 2023 and no action had been taken. In view of this, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have prioritised its attendance to treat the leak. However, no additional priority was placed on it attending. This delay allowed further potential and unnecessary damage to the resident’s property.
  5. The resident informed the landlord on 24 May 2023 that the leak was not resolved. She advised that an operative attended the day before to inspect the leak, said they would go and speak to the neighbour above but never returned. The resident said she had also informed her HO and he said he would contact the leaseholder of the property above.
  6. This Service has not had sight of any evidence of the landlord responding to the resident. It is understandable that, given the lack of contact, she requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 31 May 2023. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord. It continued to demonstrate a lack of urgency or oversight in managing the leak. Even if it was not in a position to fix the leak in the property above, it should have updated the resident throughout.
  7. After the resident reported issues with the electrics in the flat due to the leak from above on 23 June 2023, the landlord attended to make the light safe. The resident complained about the ongoing leak (and her other concerns about the related works) again on 26 June 2023. The landlord carried out an inspection at the property on 3 July 2023 and identified that the leak was coming from another property. The landlord said it contacted the leaseholder on the same day and advised they would need to have the leak repaired. The landlord confirmed that the leak was repaired by 17 July 2023.
  8. The only note of the landlord contacting the leaseholder for the property above was in its response to the local councillor in July 2023. This response shows that once the leaseholder was made aware of the leak, it was repaired 2 weeks later. Had the landlord contacted the leaseholder following the resident’s requests in the 3 months prior, this could have been fixed much sooner. The landlord’s delay in contacting the leaseholder was a service failing. This delay caused the resident significant distress due to the health concerns linked to damp and mould, which she made clear in her complaint, along with the inconvenience caused by managing the continued leaks and faults with the electrics.
  9. The resident reported another leak from above on 8 August 2023. The landlord records show that it contacted the leaseholder and the leak was repaired, however, no date is given. Follow on works, which had been delayed until the leak was repaired, were completed on 11 September 2023 and 8 November 2023.
  10. When responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord offered 2 compensation payments. In recognition of the 2 failed visits in March 2023, it offered £35 per missed visit, a total of £70. The landlord’s complaint policy does not have a specific amount for a missed appointment payment. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that this amount is reasonable when addressing a missed appointment.
  11. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord offered an additional payment of £100, made up of 5 monthly “delay” payments, as per its complaint policy. Although this payment was in line with its policy, the landlord did not fully account for the distress caused to the resident during that time. The complaint policy guidelines provide a separate standard for “distress” payments but it failed to make such an offer in its response. This is a service failing by the landlord as, although it accepted the delays and made an offer towards them, it failed to acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident. This Service will order an additional payment to account for that detriment.
  12. Ultimately, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s reports of leaks and damp and mould in a timely manner or in line with its repair policy. During this period, the landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of the required works and did not keep the resident informed and updated throughout the process. When the resident had to chase these repairs with the landlord, it should have taken further ownership of the matter, prioritising the works and keeping the resident informed of progress.
  13. The landlord did not apply the appropriate level of urgency throughout and the quality of works completed at the property was acknowledged as having been insufficient. When responding to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged the delays in it resolving the leaks, damp and mould. Despite this acknowledgement, the landlord still asked that the resident arrange follow up works, rather than offering to manage them through to completion itself. Having considered the failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord failed to acknowledge a stage 2 escalation request on 31 May 2023, despite having offered to escalate the matter a few days earlier. The resident initially allowed time for the landlord to provide an update but when it did not provide one, she asked for it to be escalated. Although there is evidence of actions being taken in June 2023, the first stage 2 escalation request was not acknowledged or responded to. This is a service failing by the landlord which delayed the complaint process unnecessarily.
  2. The landlord recorded the escalation to stage 2 on 26 June 2023, after the resident had again requested an escalation to the next complaint stage due to continued problems with the leak. As per its complaint policy, the landlord should have provided a response within 20 working days. OHoHoHowever, it did not provide a response until 10 August 2023, some 33 working days after it was acknowledged. This is another service failing as the landlord failed to meet the timeframe set out in its policy.
  3. When providing its stage 2 response, the landlord did acknowledge its failings throughout the process. However, in proposing a resolution to the complaint, it could have provided a more detailed outline of the steps it would take to address the ongoing leak and the follow on works that would be required. Despite this lack of detail, the landlord did confirm the leak as having been resolved shortly after the complaint response and the follow on works were booked in 11 days later.
  4. In summary, the landlord managed the stage 1 complaint in line with its policy and acknowledged the failings at that time. However, it failed to identify or acknowledge the stage 2 escalation request on 31 May 2023, meaning its response was even later than the 33 working days detailed above. The landlord could have taken better ownership of this complaint at a number of stages and this may have led to it being resolved much sooner. The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £420 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of the reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated repairs (in addition to the £170 it already offered);
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaint;
    3. £170 that was previously offered to her during the complaint, if this has not been provided already.
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.