London Borough of Camden Council (202414070)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette with his partner and 4 children that at the time of the complaint were all aged 19 years old and under. The resident reported damp and mould issues in the property on 5 May 2023. A GP letter of 1 November 2023 advised that his 19-year-old daughter’s had breathing difficulties. The doctor referred to damp and mould issues in the property along with overcrowded conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s housing application.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application is outside of our jurisdiction.
5. There was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord’s poor record keeping meant that it could not evidence the outcome of its damp and mould inspections and it was not aware of the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord could not find records of any advice given to the resident or that it had communicated the outcome to the resident.
   2. There is no evidence that it completed any risk assessment of the property considering the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities in line with its damp and mould policy.
   3. There is no record that it considered the overcrowding in the property, and any measures that could help ventilate the property and whether the provision of dehumidifiers would be appropriate.
   4. The landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint on damp and mould in line with its complaint’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
   5. We have seen no evidence of any learning from the complaint’s process, or consideration of an appropriate remedy, which is contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on his family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. This is because courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide the overall distress and inconvenience and if a landlord should pay compensation for this.

What we did investigate

8. According to the landlord’s repair records, the resident reported the damp and mould in the property on 5 May 2023. The landlord arranged an appointment for 6 July 2023, 42 working days later. The landlord’s records state that a follow-on mould surveyor inspection was needed. This was arranged for 27 July 2023, 57 working days after the report. The landlord confirmed the appointment by SMS which was appropriate. However, the delay in responding was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy requires urgent repairs to be completed within 5 working days and routine repairs to be completed within 20 working days. The landlord’s records are unclear as to why there was a delay in its actions. The landlord’s records were also unclear as to the outcome of the inspection and if it went ahead. This evidenced that the landlord’s record keeping was insufficiently robust.
10. We found similar record keeping issues on another recent case involving a leaseholder of the landlord (reference 202347174) and we recommended that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information managed based upon the recommendations set out in our recent Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its record keeping practices.
11. The landlord sent us a copy of the GP letter dated 1 November 2023 that also reported damp and mould conditions. However, we have seen no further records of any works orders raised or inspections completed at this time which was inappropriate. The resident’s subsequent report of damp and mould was on 6 March 2024. The landlord raised a works order on the same date. The landlord tried to phone the resident but was unable to get through, so it sent an SMS with a mould inspection appointment for 28 March 2024. It was reasonable to follow up the phone call with an SMS so that the resident was aware an appointment had been arranged. This was within the repairs policy 20 working days routine priority timescale which was appropriate. However, given the landlord’s earlier knowledge of the GP report of damp and mould issues, its actions were unreasonably delayed.
12. Following the inspection, a further works order was raised on 28 March 2024 for follow on work to complete a mould wash. The landlord reported that the living room ceiling had water damage and there was also black mould in the bedroom under the window that required cleaning. The landlord completed the work on 1 May 2024.
13. This was 23 working days after the landlord’s inspection and 39 working days after the resident’s report from 5 March 2024. This was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale for routine repairs which was inappropriate. It was also unreasonably delayed given the landlord knew of the damp and mould conditions from around November 2023.
14. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether it determined the cause of the damp and mould, checked for any possible leaks and whether it used appropriate equipment such as a damp meter. This again indicated issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
15. The landlord’s damp and mould policy (December 2023), states that the landlord should have surveyed the resident twice. The first survey should be completed when the job is closed and a second survey after a period of 3 to 6 months to capture insights on the overall work delivery. It would also check whether the work has been successful. The landlord has a dedicated damp and mould team in place and will use internal and external surveyors to determine the cause where this needs to be investigated. Cases remain open and are monitored by its central team until all issues are closed.
16. We have seen no record that the landlord has followed its policy in completing the required surveys and whether it determined the root cause of the damp and mould. This was inappropriate.
17. The landlord’s damp and mould policy also says that it will triage damp and mould reports according to risk to health and severity including those that are more vulnerable to more severe health impacts. There is no record that this approach has been used despite the landlord being aware of the household vulnerabilities. This was inappropriate and not in line with its damp and mould policy.
18. According to the landlord’s self-assessment based upon our Spotlight report on damp and mould – it’s not lifestyle (October 2021) and follow up report (February 2023), where overcrowding is a contributing factor and there are insufficient bedrooms for the number of occupants, the repairs service will consider additional measures. These can include additional ventilation or heating or providing residents with advice on using the heating system correctly and providing a dehumidifier. We have seen no records that the landlord has taken any such action in this case which was inappropriate.
19. Whilst the landlord took some action to inspect the property and complete the mould wash, it failed to consider other issues that could cause the damp and mould and to act in accordance with its policy. The Ombudsman considers that for the identified failings there was maladministration in respect of its handling of the damp and mould in the property, and we have made orders.
20. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay £350 compensation to the resident. This comprises £200 in respect of the poor response to the reports of damp and mould and poor communication and £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
21. We have also ordered the landlord to complete an inspection of the property by a suitably qualified surveyor. It must send a copy of its inspection report and any schedule of works to the resident and to us.

22. We cannot investigate complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application under the local authority’s choice-based lettings scheme. Therefore, the resident may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if he is unhappy about the local authority’s handling of his housing application.

23. The resident raised his complaint on 1 March 2024. The landlord responded within a reasonable timescale on 5 March 2024. However, it said that the resident’s complaint fell outside of its complaints policy. This was incorrect as the landlord’s complaints policy did not exclude the complaint issues raised by the resident.
24. The Code requires landlords to accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to and it requires landlords to not take a blanket approach to excluding complaints. Despite saying that it would not consider the complaint, the landlord’s response of 5 March 2024 answered some of the complaint issues. It also said it had reported the damp and mould issues to its damp and mould team.
25. The resident requested that his complaint be escalated on 22 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same date and issued a stage 2 complaint response on 8 May 2024, 11 working days later. This was sent within the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code’s timescales for a response at stage 2 which was reasonable. However, according to the landlord’s previous response on 5 March 2024, it had not issued an appropriate response at stage 1. The landlord’s decision to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process, indicates that the landlord considered its earlier response as a stage 1 complaint response. This would have been confusing to the resident.
26. The landlord’s final complaint response upheld the resident’s complaint concerning damp and mould, but it offered no remedy in line with its remedies policy which was inappropriate. There was no suitable apology offered to the resident for the failings in dealing with the resident’s damp and mould reports or explanation of why it upheld the resident’s complaint which was inappropriate.
27. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require a response to be sent at stage 1 within 10 working days and for a response to be sent at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord therefore responded in line with its response timescales at stage 2.
28. The Ombudsman considers that these failings amount to maladministration. In line with our guidance on remedies, as above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation to reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble these failings would have caused the resident.

Learning

29. We have seen no evidence of any learning from the resident’s complaint in the landlord’s complaint responses. The Code requires landlords to consider the circumstances, and beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint, to see whether service improvements can be made as a result. We have therefore ordered the landlord to conduct a senior management review of this case. This should help the landlord to consider the context that led to the complaint being made, and to consider its self-assessment of its damp and mould policy. It should then be able to identify improvements to prevent similar failings from occurring.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

30. The landlord told us that it was unable to find any information on the cause of the damp and mould. It was also unable to locate any separate survey or inspection report. The landlord also told us that it was unable to find that it provided an information leaflet or advice to help ventilate the property to reduce the damp and mould. This evidenced poor records management. It also evidences that the landlord did not appropriately communicate the outcome with the resident or provide suitable advice in line with its policy. This was unreasonable particularly since the landlord knew of the resident’s and his family’s vulnerabilities. It would have caused unnecessary worry and distress to the resident in seeking a resolution to the issue.