Camden Council (202013322)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013322

Camden Council

27 July 2021

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 refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. The resident’s request for compensation for her damaged belongings.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The complaint was raised by the resident and, at times, by her representative. For clarity, this report will refer to the resident and her representative as ‘the resident’.
The resident initially reported issues with damp and mould at the property on 7 March 2020. She said that she had only lived in the flat for three months and was concerned that the landlord should have identified this issue in the void period before she moved into the property. The landlord treated and redecorated the affected areas at this time.
On 3 January 2021, the resident sent a further email to the landlord about damp in the property. She explained that the damp had returned and spread much faster than before in one of the bedrooms. She was not present at the time of the previous visit, less than a year previously, but had been informed that a decorator had wiped down the wall and painted over it. She said the landlord had not investigated or resolved this matter effectively and explained that this was causing distress and inconvenience to the family member who slept in that room. She asked the landlord how it proposed to resolve this matter correctly as she did not want to involve the local authority’s Environmental Health department (Environmental Health).
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 13 January 2021 and explained the following:
1. She had raised a complaint on 6 January 2021 but had received no response.
2. The damp and mould had gotten worse; this was now affecting the health of the resident’s family. The damp had damaged many items of clothing, as well as a newly purchased wardrobe. She attached photos of the damp and mould issues.
3. She felt that there was a major defect in the property, given that the issue had reoccurred within a matter of months. She suspected that water pipes ran behind the external wall and needed repair. She asked the landlord to provide a plan of action and reiterated that she did not feel that painting over the damp areas would remedy the problem.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 January. The resident sent a further email on 25 January 2021 and asked for a response as the damp and mould worsened every day.
The landlord responded on 26 January 2021 and explained that it had reviewed the photographs and determined that the mould was not excessive. It advised that tenants were responsible for dealing with small amounts of mould, however, it would deliver a mould wash kit and leaflet to the property.
The resident responded on the same day and expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s response. She did not feel that the pictures were a true reflection of how severe the issue was. She asked the landlord to send a surveyor with a moisture meter to investigate. She added that the external wall was damp and suspected that the exterior area of the building needed repairs to find the source of the issue. She confirmed that she would be looking to recover costs for the damage to furniture items and clothing and believed she would not be in this situation that if the landlord had rectified the problem in the first instance. She said that it was unfair for her family, who were struggling financially, to be penalised for matters beyond their control.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 27 January 2021. The landlord’s records show that the resident received the mould wash kit on the same day.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 1 February 2021 as she had not received a response. She asked the landlord to confirm the compensation available to her related to costs incurred because of the defect and the distress and inconvenience caused. She asked for £200 at the least. She said she had contacted a laundrette who said that mouldy clothes would need to be washed with a special detergent. Alternatively, she asked the landlord to attend the property and assessed the damage to the walls, wardrobe and clothes and raise a quote for repairs and replacement items. She did not want to escalate matters further and hoped the landlord would reach an amicable resolution.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 February 2021 and said she had raised a formal complaint. She had used the mould wash on 6 February 2021, but it was only a matter of time before it returned as the source of the issue remained unresolved. She asked the landlord to respond to her concern about the cost of the laundry; otherwise, she would have no choice but to deduct this from the rent. She said that the same applied to the wardrobe, which had been cleaned down but was currently unusable. The landlord’s records show that the resident was sent a public liability claim form on the same day, to allow her to make a claim for the damaged items against the landlord’s insurer.
The resident’s complaint detailed the issues she was having with mould in the property. She explained that she had been waiting for someone from the landlord’s repairs service to attend but it had only sent a mould wash kit. She felt that there was a major underlying issue which the landlord seemed reluctant to accept. She asked the landlord to resolve this issue and consider her request for compensation for dry cleaning, the damaged clothes and a new bed and wardrobe replacement.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 February 2021 and confirmed that it would visit the property the following week. It explained that the visit would be to check if there was a leak coming from the external parts of the property and said that the contractors would not enter the property in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. It asked the resident to confirm her availability.
The resident responded on the same day and expressed concern that the contractors would not be entering the property, but the landlord was asking for her availability. She sent a further email on 1 March 2021 to confirm whether the contractors would be entering the property. On 2 March 2021, the landlord confirmed that the contractors would attend on 4 March 2021 and needed access to the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 March 2021 and asked for the contractor’s report. The report was sent on 9 March 2021 and advised that the bedroom was the only room with mould. It confirmed that this was mild condensation and no water was entering the property from the outside. The contractor had advised the resident to move the wardrobe to allow for better airflow and concluded that no repairs were needed.
The resident responded on 9 March 2021 and explained that she disagreed with the contractor’s findings. She asked the landlord to confirm whether the staff member who attended was a surveyor. If not, she asked the landlord to send a structural surveyor to review the matter. She added that she did not consider the damp to be minor condensation and the full extent was not apparent as she had recently washed down the wall.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 11 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. It said that it would not be able to uphold the resident’s complaint on the basis that on 11 March 2021, two separate employees had attended the property to assess the damp issues. Both had reported that the damp was not excessive and would need to be managed by the resident.
2. During the previous visit, a supervisor had checked the condition of the walls with a damp meter as the resident had requested. This reading showed that there was only internal condensation and no water coming from the outside of the property. it did not feel that a surveyor’s visit was necessary as its two visits had resulted in the same findings. It confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 16 March 2021. The damp/mould issue was ongoing despite her washing down the walls frequently. She did not feel it was appropriate for the landlord to deflect responsibility and did not think it had done enough to resolve the matter. The landlord acknowledged this request on the same day.
The resident requested an update from the landlord on 1 April 2021 and asked when she could expect to receive a response. The landlord responded on the same day and apologised for the delay, it said it would respond the following week.
The resident sent a further email on 5 April 2021 as a chunk of plasterwork had now fallen off the ceiling of the affected bedroom. She added that there had been no obvious cracks in the plaster and was concerned that this would happen elsewhere and injure her family. She explained that this matter was causing considerable distress and asked the landlord to arrange for the ceiling to be inspected to understand why the plaster fell.
The resident sent a follow-up email on 7 April 2021 as she had not received a response. She had reported the plaster incident to the repairs team, who said that an operative would attend, however no one showed up. She had called to check this and had been told that the operative did attend but could not gain entry. She said that this was untrue as her family had been home all day. She asked the landlord to also confirm the status of her complaint.
A contractor attended the property on 8 April 2021 and completed work to scrape off some of the loose plastering.
The landlord formally responded to the resident on 8 April 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response. It reiterated its position that inspections had shown the damp was condensation. It also explained that there was advice on its website on how to prevent mould and condensation in the home.
2. It advised that it would not register the resident’s complaint at stage two of its process as it did not believe that an additional investigation would bring a different conclusion. It acknowledged that the resident had completed a public liability claim form and confirmed that it would be the correct procedure for reimbursement for any damaged items. It noted that the resident had been in touch regarding the ceiling plasterwork and told her to liaise with its repairs team.
The resident emailed the landlord and her local mayor on 4 May 2021 regarding the damp and mould. She explained that the effected walls had begun cracking and a foul odour and insects were apparent. She maintained her position that there was an underlying issue which needed to be addressed by the landlord. She asked for a surveyor to attend, along with an environmental health officer so that this could be investigated fully. She sent a follow-up email on the same day and asked for further information about the repairs. (pg146) She was told that a repair had been raised for a plasterer to return, but an appointment had not yet been made.
On 8 May 2021, the resident explained that another section of plasterwork fell in a different bedroom that day. She added that the first section of plasterwork had fallen off on 14 June 2020 and was yet to be made good. There were further cracks in the third bedroom of the property and her family feared that the plaster would fall whilst they were asleep. She said that her family wished to be re-housed given the nature of the repair issues in the property. The landlord responded on 11 May 2021 and said that the resident would need to complete the online rehousing application to start this process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about this. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould and the resident’s family’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her family’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident and her family experienced because of any errors by the landlord. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the state of the property was affecting her family’s health and whether this response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s housing repairs booklet states that it would be responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, including damp-proof works to the external parts of the building. The resident’s tenancy handbook confirms that the resident would be responsible for plastering and finishes, including surface cracks to the wall and ceiling plaster in the property, but the landlord would be responsible for the Internal walls, skirting boards, and overall plasterwork. The tenancy handbook also states that it would be the resident’s responsibility to prevent condensation in their property and gives various recommendations on how condensation can be prevented.
When the damp and mould was reported on 3 January 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection rather than rely on pictures sent by the resident to determine who would be responsible for resolving the issue. Without an initial inspection, the landlord could not confirm the cause of the damp or that this would be the resident’s responsibility to manage. It was reasonable for the landlord to send the resident a mould wash kit on 26 January 2021 as a preventative measure, however, it had not determined the cause of the issue at this point which was not appropriate. There was also a lack of communication with the resident at this time and she spent considerable time seeking a response throughout January 2021.
An inspection was carried out on 4 March 2021 which was a considerable length of time after the resident’s initial report of mould. The contractor found that the issue was mild condensation and would be the resident’s responsibility to manage. Whilst the resident clearly disagreed with the landlord’s position at this stage, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion of its suitably qualified employees and contractors, in deciding how to respond to a repair request. The landlord had arranged for appropriate inspections to be undertaken and no outstanding repairs were identified at this stage. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to say that this would be the resident’s responsibility to deal with in line with its tenancy handbook.
Whilst the damp was originally found to be caused by mild condensation, the resident has since reported that plaster had fallen off the ceiling and walls in different areas of the property, there was a foul smell and insects were present. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the ceilings to be replastered given the resident’s reports. However, this would not rectify the underlying damp issue or prevent the problem from reoccurring.
Since the damp is now affecting the plaster in other areas of the property, this would suggest a more widespread issue. It would be appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to attend the property to determine whether there were other causes of damp and prevent the problems with the plater from reoccurring because the cause of the plaster damage has not been identified. It would also be appropriate for the landlord to recognise the level of inconvenience that the resident was experiencing due to the damp and mould that led her to ask to be re-housed. The landlord should and act proactively in looking at resolving the damp and mould issues with the resident.
In summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to attend the property from the outset to determine the cause of the damp, prior to stating that it would be the resident’s responsibility to resolve. There have also been failures in communication which meant that the resident spent a disproportionate amount of time following-up with the landlord. The landlord should offer compensation to the resident in view of this.
The landlord should also arrange for a surveyor to attend the property to identify any structural defects which may be attributing to the spread of damp in view of the worsening damp issues the resident is experiencing. The resident may also wish to contact the local authority’s environmental health department (Environmental Health) if she has further concerns about the damp in her property.

The resident’s request for compensation for her damaged items.

The landlord’s tenancy handbook states that the landlord would not be responsible for damage to or loss of a resident’s fixtures and fittings, including furniture, carpets, clothing or other household effects, even if it is linked to a repair that it was responsible for. It recommends that resident’s take out home contents insurance to cover such damage. If a tenant is not insured and the contents of their property is damaged, they may have to pay for the repair or replacement of their belongings and decorations.
The Ombudsman agrees that landlords are not generally responsible for damage to residents’ personal possessions due to repair issues such as leaks or damp and mould. However, in some cases it may be reasonable for the landlord to consider compensation if residents’ possessions are damaged as a direct result of the actions or inaction of the landlord or its contractors.
In this case, the landlord referred the resident to its insurer so she could raise a liability claim for the damage caused to her family’s personal items because of the damp and mould. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurer. The landlord would not be expected to pay compensation itself rather than referring the matter to its insurer as the landlord has a liability insurance policy to cover such situations and it is entitled to rely on its insurer’s expertise in this matter.
However, the landlord should consider compensation for distress and inconvenience because of any service failures in its handling of repairs, this would be separate from an insurance claim for damaged items.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two–stage process for handling complaints. At stage one, a response should be issued within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. The landlord should then respond within 25 working days. At each stage, if there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should keep the resident informed and commit to a new timescale. If the landlord feels that there are no grounds for a stage two review, it should contact the resident and explain this decision.
The resident initially raised her complaint on 9 February 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 11 March 2021, which was 12 working days outside of its complaint timescales for stage one responses. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was fully informed or updated on the progress of her case during this time, which is not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 16 March 2021 and the landlord responded on 8 April 2021, stating that it would not review her complaint as it had received reports from two separate contractors who said that the issue was mild condensation which would be the resident’s responsibility to manage. Whilst the landlord acted reasonably by explaining its decision not to review her complaint, by this stage it was aware that the damp was now affecting the plaster and it would have been helpful to address these further concerns within its complaint response. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to complete a review of the resident’s complaint to identify its service failure related to its handling of her reports of damp and mould and the associated complaint.
The evidence also shows that the resident had contacted the landlord on multiple occasions to check the status of her complaint and ask when she would receive a response. Ultimately, the landlord issued its stage two response within its published timescales, however it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond with an agreed timeframe to manage her expectations effectively.
In summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. there was a delay in responding to the resident at stage one and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was updated or provided with timescales to manage her expectations. The landlord should offer compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation for her damaged belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Following the resident’s report of damp and mould in her property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the property to establish the cause of the damp before determining that it would be the resident’s responsibility to manage. This was not done for a considerable length of time following the resident’s initial report of damp and mould. There have also been failures in communication which meant that the resident spent a disproportionate amount of time following-up with the landlord.
In line with the landlord’s tenancy handbook, the resident would be expected to ensure that her personal belongings were adequately insured in case of damage. The resident is claiming that her possessions were damaged as a result of delays caused by the landlord. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to its insurer to consider this claim. The landlord would not be expected to pay compensation outside the insurance process.
There was a delay at stage one of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The landlord has not demonstrated that it had acted in line with its complaints policy by updating the resident on the progress of the complaint and agreeing new timescales where there were likely to be delays.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are carried out within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £200, comprised of:
  1. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its initial handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused because of errors and delays in its complaint handling.
2. The landlord should arrange for a surveyor to attend the property to establish the extent of the internal damage and the cause of the damp.