London Borough of Camden Council (202336929)

Background

1. The leaseholder rents out the property to private tenants and lives elsewhere. She complains the landlord has failed to permanently repair structural issues with the communal roof. She considers this has caused repeated water ingress and associated damp and mould. She considers the landlord should complete major structural works.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
   1. A leak from the roof.
   2. Damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
      1. A leak from the roof.
      2. Damp and mould.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Roof leak.

5. The landlord delayed unreasonably in inspecting and rectifying the roof leak. It also missed multiple scheduled appointments and communicated poorly with the leaseholder while the works were outstanding.

Damp and mould.

6. The landlord failed to inspect the property to reach a view on whether there was any damp and mould which was caused by the roof leaks, and if so, whether it was responsible for addressing this.

Complaint handling.

7. The landlord addressed the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints within the 10 and 20 working day timescales set out in its policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The leaseholder advised the landlord on 7 October 2023 that there appeared to be water ingress into the property from a leak in the roof.
9. The landlord then took no action for the following 2 months despite the resident repeatedly contacting it and asking it to inspect the property. This was unacceptable given it was responsible for maintaining the exterior of the building as per the leasehold agreement. It was also not in keeping its repairs policy which sets out it will urgently attend reported roof leaks and complete temporary repairs to “make safe” the situation pending a more permanent repair.
10. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 14 December 2023. It explained that it had completed a series of works on the roof which successfully repaired the leak in June and July 2023. It also noted that it had attempted to access the leaseholder’s property in April 2023 to complete repairs but she had not allowed access. It explained that it would inspect the property on 19 January 2024 since “despite [its] efforts, [the leaseholder]…said the roof is still leaking.”
11. We have seen no evidence to corroborate the landlord’s position about works completed in June and July 2023. We also note that the resident disputes this account and considers the first time she reported the leak in 2023 was in October. In any case, the repairs referred to in the complaint response are not relevant to the landlord’s handling of the leak in question given we can see the resident reported this 3 months later in October 2023.
12. Even if we accept that the landlord completed some repairs on the communal roof earlier in 2023, given the passage of time between July and October 2023, we would expect it to have promptly inspected the property after the October report. It failed to do so, and we consider that this omission and the confusing position set out in the stage 1 response likely distressed the leaseholder.
13. Over the following month the resident continued to complain about a lack of action by the landlord. On 8 January 2024 it issued a stage 2 response and reiterated the same position set out at stage 1. It then failed to attend the inspection it had scheduled for 19 January 2024. The resident complained about this on the same day, and it responded that the inspection was actually booked for 2 February 2024. This advice was incorrect. We can see no evidence to show that the appointment was rescheduled or that the leaseholder was informed of this. Given the leaseholder had waited for 4 months for the landlord to inspect the leak by this point, this was unreasonable.
14. The landlord said it attempted to access the property to complete the repair on 2 February 2024 but no one was in. However, there is no evidence of this visit in the repair records or of any attempts to contact the leaseholder on this date. The only related evidence is an email the landlord sent the leaseholder on 5 February 2024 advising that she had not allowed access at the scheduled appointment, and that it had thus rescheduled for 7 March 2024. The leaseholder disputes this and claims she was at the property. Given this, and the lack of objective evidence to support the landlord’s position, we do not consider it attended the appointment as planned. This omission likely further compounded the leaseholder’s frustration.
15. The landlord attended the property on 7 March 2024. Emails from the resident to her MP on the same date note that it diagnosed some likely causes of the ingress around the brickwork and water tank and advised that it needed to inspect again in a month or so. However, the landlord was unable to provide any record of this visit, and so we are unable to determine what was diagnosed. We expect landlord’s to keep detailed audit trails of any actions taken in relation to repairs since doing so ensures that works progress efficiently and precisely. Given the delays until this point, it is concerning that the landlord failed to document the long awaited inspection.
16. We can see the landlord then inspected the property and roof on 15 May 2024 and raised a series of works to fix the leak, which it completed on 25 June 2024. Ultimately, the landlord delayed from October 2023 to March 2024 in completing an inspection of the property. It then failed to document this inspection, and delayed for a further 2 months in completing a follow up inspection. As a result, it took 8 months to address the leak.
17. The records note that the repair took 4 hours to complete, and so it is reasonable to define this as routine under the landlord’s policy. On this basis, the landlord exceeded its repairs timescales by around 100 working days. We consider this likely caused the leaseholder distress and inconvenience which the landlord has not acknowledged. Therefore, we will order it pays some compensation to put this right.
18. In calculating the appropriate compensation, we have considered the repeated inconvenience the leaseholder incurred in chasing the repairs. We have also considered the frustration she was likely caused, and how this was compounded by the landlord’s repeated missed appointments and confusing communication. With all this in mind, we will order the landlord to pay her compensation of £500.
19. The leaseholder also complains that the roof appears to be leaking again at present. Therefore, we will also order the landlord to complete a new inspection of the property and roof.

20. The leaseholder reported on 7 October 2023 that the property had suffered with damp for several years, and that she considered it was related to the roof leak.
21. Under the terms of the leaseholder agreement the leaseholder is responsible for maintaining and repairing the interior walls of the property. Therefore, in most circumstances she would be responsible for addressing damp and mould in the property.
22. However, given there was a roof leak which the landlord was responsible for repairing, and that it delayed unreasonably in doing so, we would expect the landlord to have at least inspected and reached an evidence based view on whether it was responsible for addressing any issues that the leak had caused within the leaseholder’s property. We have seen no evidence to indicate that it has done so at any stage.
23. Therefore, we will order the landlord to inspect the property to determine whether there is any damp and mould caused by water ingress from the roof. It will then be ordered to reach an evidence based view on whether it is responsible for addressing any damp and mould that it identifies.
24. The resident has advised that she has had to redecorate repeatedly due to the ongoing damp and mould. The landlord should explain its position in relation to any damage caused by ongoing leaks.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s record keeping was poor for most of the period in question. For instance, there was no record of any visits in 2023 or 2024 until the May inspection. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of keeping accurate audit trails of repairs and how doing so might have allowed it to repair the leak more efficiently.

Communication

26. The communication was poor throughout the period in question. The complaint responses were confusing and alluded to repairs completed several months prior to the relevant report of the leak. It also failed to contact the leaseholder on multiple occasions to reschedule appointments. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on how it might have better mitigated the ongoing impact of the delays on the leaseholder with more meaningful communication.