Camden Council (202311116)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311116

Camden Council

24 April 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Cracks in internal walls and ceilings.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since April 2019. The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette and the resident lives there with her children.

Summary of events

In September 2021, the resident reported “serious” mould in several rooms. She told the landlord that her children suffered with breathing difficulties, which had been made worse by the mould. The following month, the landlord carried out a damp survey, which confirmed there was evidence of damp and mould in more than one room and recommended works to investigate and address this, including treatment of the mould.
In May and August 2022 and April 2023, the resident reported large cracks in the internal walls and ceilings. On each occasion, the landlord raised a works order and a plasterer attended and noted that no plastering works were required. The ceilings were checked and confirmed as safe and the resident was advised that surface cracks were her responsibility to address.
On 27 April 2023, the resident reported mould again. The landlord raised an urgent works order for a mould inspection to be carried out and booked an appointment for the following month.
The same day the resident made a complaint to the landlord that the issues had not been resolved. There was mould on all of the walls and cracks in most of the walls, which she suspected were caused by subsidence. She asked for these issues to be investigated.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 May 2023, which said:
1. When the resident reported the damp and mould in 2021, it had referred this to its damp and mould team but it did not make contact with her or arrange an inspection. Due to the length of time it had taken to carry out a mould inspection, her complaint was partially upheld. It apologised and offered £50 compensation.
2. On the 3 occasions it had attended regarding the cracks, no concerns had been identified and no works were required. Surface cracks to walls and ceilings were her responsibility to repair. It did not uphold this element of her complaint.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 the same day. She said she had difficulties reporting the damp and mould because the line for the dedicated team was always engaged, with no option to leave a message. She had tried chasing this matter up via her housing officer on a number of occasions but received no response. The cracks were not superficial and she asked for a surveyor to attend to check this. The offer of £50 did not resolve the issues and she asked for a professional to survey the property, repairs to be carried out and a response to her communications.
On 8 June 2023 the landlord carried out a mould inspection and noted that the severity of the mould was “moderate”. Mould was present in 3 of the bedrooms and the bathroom. It identified the contributing factors as the single glazed windows, a lack of vents and a possible leak from the property above. The same day it raised a works order to carry out a mould treatment to the affected areas, which it recorded as completed on 10 July 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 June 2023, which said:
1. The resident had reported mould in the property in 2021 but it had failed to contact her to carry out an inspection at the time. It partially upheld her complaint because of this delay. It apologised and offered her £320 compensation, inclusive of the £50 already offered at stage 1.
2. A damp and mould inspection had been carried out and the recommended works had been raised, with an appointment made for the following month to complete them.
3. It had responded in a timely manner to her reports of cracks in the walls and carried out the necessary assessments. It was satisfied that it had responded appropriately as the plasterers who had attended on all 3 occasions reported that no works were required.
4. It apologised for failing to respond to all communication from her and confirmed feedback had been given to staff regarding this.
In January and February 2024, the resident again reported large cracks that she believed were caused by subsidence. The landlord raised works orders and plasterers attended in February and March 2024. In February 2024, it noted that the cracks were hairline cracks and no plastering was required but there was some movement in the building.
In March 2024, the landlord noted that a structural engineer was required to investigate the cracks and in April 2024, it inspected and identified some plastering works required. It noted that there was no damp or mould present, only a small water mark in one of the bedrooms from a previous leak. However, in a recent update to this Service, the resident has reported that the issues with mould and cracks are ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported that the damp and mould first became a problem in 2020. It is important that complaints are brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, normally within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
The resident’s initial complaint to the landlord about these issues was made in April 2023, so the scope of this investigation would normally consider events 12 months prior to this. However, as the landlord considered and assessed its actions from September 2021 onwards, as part of its complaint investigation, the Ombudsman’s investigation will also cover this extended period. Anything that happened prior to September 2021 is considered for context but not assessed or determined as part of this investigation.
The resident has reported that the damp and mould has negatively affected her and her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the ill-health of the resident and her children.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which says that it has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
When the resident reported mould in 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection, which was sensible to enable it to understand the extent of the issue, including the underlying cause. Despite the inspection being completed and works recommended, there is no record that the landlord followed up or did any of these at the time. It was not until 18 months later, when the resident reported the issue again, that it took further action. This significant and unreasonable delay amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
The landlord identified that its response to the issue was delayed, as part of the complaint handling process, but it said that it had not carried out an inspection in 2021, which was incorrect. This factual error was repeated in both the stage 1 and 2 responses, which is a concern and suggests that the complaint investigation was not thorough.
When the resident reported the matter again in April 2023, the landlord raised an urgent works order to inspect the property, which was appropriate considering the extended delay and because the resident told it that the mould was affecting her children’s health. The records indicate that the target timeframe for this to be completed was 10 working days, but its housing repairs service booklet said that the timescale for this type of job to be completed was 5 days. Regardless of whether it was 5 or 10 days, the inspection was not carried out until 28 working days later, which was over the committed response time and amounts to maladministration.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould sets out the importance of landlord’s focusing on an accurate diagnosis of the issues at an early stage and warns that a failure to do so can lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve. In this case, the landlord identified possible causes of the mould in June 2023, but there is no record that it considered or took any actions to address the issues and only sought to treat it, which amounts to maladministration.
The resident has reported that there is an ongoing problem which is negatively affecting her children’s health. While the landlord has said it recently inspected the property and noted no mould was present, the notes are extremely brief and do not satisfy the Ombudsman that enough has been done to investigate and address this issue. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to carry out a specialist damp and mould survey, by an independent surveyor, and provide a written update to the resident, confirming what works it will carry out to treat any mould and address the underlying causes, with timeframes for any works to be completed.
Following the inspection in June 2023, the landlord raised a works order for a mould wash and completed this in 23 working days. The records indicate that the target timeframe for this to be completed was 35 days. However, it is not clear how it categorised this and this timeframe does not match any of the committed timeframes set out in its housing repairs service booklet. The landlord had categorised the mould as moderate, but given that the resident had advised it was negatively affecting her children’s health, it would have been reasonable for it to raise this as an urgent job to be completed within the 5 day committed timeframe set out in its housing repairs service booklet.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says that landlords should recognise that damp and mould issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of residents and consider appropriate timescales for their responses, to reflect the urgency of the case. There is no record that the landlord did that in this case, which amounts to maladministration and was upsetting for the resident. An order has been made for the landlord to provide staff training on a best practice approach to handling damp and mould, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.
The landlord acknowledged there had been service failure in its handling of this issue, apologised and offered compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right. While appropriate that it did this, considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the amount of compensation offered is insufficient to address the level of detriment. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation (inclusive of the £320 already offered).

Response to the resident’s reports of cracks in internal walls and ceilings

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, which would include walls and ceilings. However, the landlord’s repairs booklet says that residents are responsible for surface cracks on walls and ceilings. Therefore, it was reasonable that it inspected the cracks to confirm whether these were the responsibility of the landlord or the resident.
From the records provided, it is not clear how the landlord categorised the 3 works orders raised in 2022 and 2023. Considering the nature of what was being reported, it would have been appropriate to raise these as routine repairs, which the landlord commits to complete within 20 working days, as per its repairs booklet. On all 3 occasions, the landlord met this commitment as it attended within this timeframe.
It was reasonable for the landlord to send a plasterer to inspect the cracks on the first occasion and to rely on their opinion that no works were required. It was also reasonable that it advised the resident it was her responsibility to repair these, as they were identified as surface cracks, which was in line with its repairs booklet, detailed above.
However, when the resident reported the cracks on subsequent occasions, she said that they returned within a month of her filling them and that she believed they were caused by subsidence. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out a more thorough assessment of the cracks by a surveyor. The landlord’s failure to do this amounts to maladministration and made the resident believe that it was not taking the matter seriously.
The landlord’s records show that following inspections in February and March 2024, it noted that there was possible movement in the property and that a structural engineer inspection was required. However, it did not then take action to investigate or address this until very recently, and only in response to an enquiry from this Service. This was unfair, as the landlord should ensure that it proactively follows up on any actions required to investigate and resolve matters in a timely manner, without being prompted by the Ombudsman.
It is understandable that cracks can appear in walls and ceilings and where these are assessed as surface cracks, reasonable that the landlord would not take any action. However, the landlord must ensure that it thoroughly investigates the cracks, using the appropriate professional, before it reaches this conclusion. In this case, while a further inspection has now been carried out, the record of this is brief and does not satisfy the Ombudsman that the landlord has thoroughly investigated the cracks, using the appropriate professional, in order to provide meaningful reassurance that there is not a more serious underlying cause.
This amounts to maladministration and an order is made for the landlord to inspect the cracks, using an independent surveyor, to identify their cause and assess whether there is subsidence at the property. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of this inspection with details of any works it will carry out and timeframes for these to be completed.
While the landlord responded to this issue within the required timescales, it did not take the resident’s concerns seriously or do enough to investigate these. This was dismissive of the landlord and upsetting for the resident. Orders are made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £300 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Cracks in internal walls and ceilings.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was delayed and it failed to address the underlying cause. It did not consider the impact this was having on the resident’s children, in order to respond with the correct level of urgency.
The landlord did not do enough to thoroughly investigate the resident’s reports of cracks in internal walls and ceilings. Its continued use of plasterers to assess this matter was dismissive of the resident’s concerns that there was a more serious, underlying cause.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out a specialist damp and mould survey, by an independent surveyor, and provide a written update to the resident confirming what works it will carry out to treat the mould and address the underlying cause, including a timeframe for these to be completed.
2. Pay the resident £800 compensation (£500 for its response to her reports of damp and mould, inclusive of the £320 already offered, and £300 for its response to her reports of cracks in internal walls and ceilings).
3. Inspect the cracks, using an independent surveyor, to identify the cause of these and assess whether there is subsidence at the property. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of the inspection/ assessment with details of any works it will carry out and a timeframe for these to be completed.
4. Apologise to the resident for its response to her reports of cracks in internal walls and ceilings.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on a best practice approach to handling damp and mould, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on this subject – Spotlight-report-Damp-and-mould-final.pdf.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above order, to this Service within 8 weeks.