Camden Council (202124650)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124650

Camden Council

26 October 2023

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. leaks from the property above.
3. an overgrown tree.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord since October 2004. The property is a 1 bedroom, ground floor flat. The landlord is a local authority.

Policy and legal framework

The resident’s lease agreement says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, including external walls, gutters and external pipework.
The landlord’s service charge guide for leaseholders says that it is responsible for repairs to guttering, external pipes, brickwork and damp proofing.
The landlord’s guide for tenants says that uncontainable leaks are an example of an emergency repair.
The landlord’s tree policy says that it will not prune a tree because of obstruction of light or view or leaf-fall.

Summary of events

On 31 December 2020 the resident reported damp and mould in the property with reference to an external downpipe. The landlord raised a works order, which was recorded as closed on 11 January 2021 due to no access with the note “tenant did not answer the phone”.
On the same day the resident reported a leak from the property above. The landlord raised a works order and noted that it attended the same day and resolved the leak. The resident made a further report of a leak from above on 25 January 2021. The landlord raised a works order and from the records provided, it appears that it attended on 5 February 2021 and noted that it resolved the leak.
On 17 February 2021 the resident reported a leak that was causing water to penetrate through the brickwork. The landlord raised an emergency works order and attended that day but said it could not identify any leaks. It noted that the external wall was damp and recommended an inspection be carried out. The landlord raised a further works order the next day for the inspection to be done and said that it attended on 24 March 2021, and noted that no faults were found. The resident reported that no one had attended so the landlord raised a further works order to inspect the wall. It noted that it attended 2 days later and couldn’t find anything wrong with the brickwork and mould was seen within the property.
On 12 April 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about:
1. Damp, mould and condensation in her property, caused by a problem with the external brickwork. She had been told by private builders that this was rising damp. In a follow up e-mail on 21 April 2021 the resident said she had asked for a chartered surveyor to inspect the property but the landlord had told her it did not do this anymore.
2. Leaks from the property above which had caused damage to her property and the landlord had not resolved the issues. She reported her neighbour had been doing DIY and thought this might have caused the leaks.
3. A tree at the back of the property needed pruning and had not been done properly when visits had been carried out.
On 22 April 2021 the landlord raised a works order for an inspection to be carried out regarding the suspected rising damp. The landlord contacted the resident that day to schedule the appointment for the following month.
On 26 April 2021 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response which said:
1. The complaint was not upheld.
2. There was no evidence that there was rising damp but an inspection the following month had been arranged to look into this.
3. It had responded to all reports of leaks form the property above. If she believed the neighbour was damaging her home, it advised her to report this to the housing officer. It said it would get in touch with her and the neighbour to find a solution.
4. She had submitted a request for the tree to be pruned. During lockdown the tree section had only been inspecting and carrying out work in rear gardens if there was an emergency or urgent situation. Her request for tree works because of overhanging branches and leaves dropping would not be considered an emergency or urgent. Works to the tree would be carried out in accordance with its policy and the team were starting to resume normal service and would be in contact to arrange an appointment soon.
On 10 May and 16 July 2021 the resident asked the landlord to cut back the tree in a neighbouring garden and provided photos to support the need for this. The landlord responded on 16 July 2021 that an inspection had been booked for 20 July 2021.
In May 2021 the landlord carried out an inspection regarding the suspected rising damp and noted there was visible damp and mould in the property. It noted possible causes and actions required to investigate this, including a drainage survey and damp survey. It also noted it would attend in 3 months time to confirm if the actions had resolved the issues. Follow on works orders were raised 2 days later for the surveys. The landlord has said that the drainage survey order was recorded as cancelled on 11 January 2023, with no update on attendance.
The damp survey order was recorded as cancelled on 2 April 2022, with a note that 3 access letters had been sent with no response. It noted “cannot see attempts at access as with external contractors”. The resident has provided copies of 2 letters in June 2021 asking for contact to arrange an appointment, a letter dated 15 July 2021 confirming an appointment for 30 July 2021, an undated letter cancelling the appointment for 30 July 2021 and a letter dated 26 August 2021 asking for contact to arrange an appointment. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2021 following receipt of the cancellation letter and told it that the damp and mould was affecting her health and well-being and said it had taken a very long time to sort this out.
The landlord inspected the tree in the neighbouring garden on 20 July 2021 and noted that it declined the resident’s request for this to be cut back. It confirmed this in writing 3 days later and advised that leaf-fall and access to light were not grounds for additional works to be carried out as per its tree policy. The resident reported that the tree was posing a risk to her safety on 26 July 2021 and the landlord responded 4 days later that no defects had been found with the tree during the inspection and the issues reported would not be considered a health and safety risk. It confirmed the next inspection would be in 2023/24 and would look at any issues again at that time. The resident asked again for the tree to be cut back on 2 August 2021 and the landlord responded the following month that it would not carry out any works to the tree for the reasons previously given.
Between February and April 2022 the resident contacted this service and said that the landlord had arranged an appointment regarding the damp and mould but this had been cancelled. She also said it had declined her requests to cut back an overgrown tree in a neighbour’s garden. The Ombudsman made contact with the landlord in July 2022 and asked it to provide the resident with a stage 2 response, which it did on 1 September 2022, and this said:
1. A works order to investigate the drainage system had been closed due to a lack of access. It would raise a new order for this to be attempted again and asked her to look out for requests for access.
2. She had not reported any further leaks from the property above.
3. Her e-mails confirmed that the issue with the tree was overhanging branches and leaves falling into her garden and there was no evidence that it was causing damage. Its policy was not to prune back all overhanging branches as this would damage the tree.
4. Her complaint was not upheld as all the issues had been correctly responded to or it had not had the opportunity to fully investigate the issues.
In October 2022, May 2023 and July 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update in respect of the damp and mould. On 11 July 2023 the landlord raised a works order for a damp survey to be carried out. It said that it tried to contact her on 12 and 13 July and 15 August 2023 to arrange this and sent a letter on 15 August 2023 with an appointment for 22 August 2023. The resident told this service on 21 August 2023 that she did not want to allow the landlord’s contractor access as they were not registered damp proof surveyors. The landlord noted the same day that the resident advised she was not happy for the contractor to carry out the survey.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The evidence provided shows that the resident raised concerns regarding the damp and mould and the overhanging tree in 2019. The Ombudsman will not investigate historical events in detail and so this investigation has focused on the period beginning 31 December 2020. Events prior to this date have not been assessed as part of the complaint due to this having taken place over twelve months prior to the resident bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman; meaning it falls outside of the scope of this investigation.
The resident raised additional concerns about major works carried out by the landlord in 2015 and 2019, which included works to external paving as well as more recent concerns about an overgrown garden causing damage to a fence. As these concerns have not been responded to as part of the landlord’s formal complaint procedure, these fall outside of the scope of this investigation. In addition to this, the concerns regarding works carried out in 2015 and 2019 would be considered historic and would not be investigated for this reason.
The resident has provided this service with a large number of photographs in respect of her complaint. These have been considered as part of the investigation; however, the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this service to determine the location or circumstances of the photographs. It is noted that some of the photos show damp and mould within the property; however, the presence of this is not disputed by the landlord, it is the cause that is unknown, which the photographs provide no additional insight on.
The resident has said that the damp and mould has had a negative effect on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. 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. 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.

Damp and mould

When the resident first reported this in December 2020, the landlord cancelled the works order raised because of no access; however, it is not clear from the records provided whether the appointment was pre-arranged. It is unreasonable for landlord’s to expect residents to provide access where no prior notice has been given. The works order was cancelled after 1 attempt at access and whether this was pre-arranged or not, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow up and make further attempts at access before cancelling the works order. It was a further 6 weeks before the landlord raised another works order and attended regarding this issue, and this was only as a result of a further report from the resident.
The landlord attended in February 2021 and while no leaks were identified, a further inspection was arranged, which was appropriate. The landlord said this went ahead but the resident disputed this and said no one attended. The Ombudsman cannot say whether the landlord did or did not attend; however, when the resident reported that no one had attended, it raised a further works order and attended 2 days later. This was appropriate and showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord noted that it could not find anything wrong with the brickwork but that it had seen mould inside the property and so it would have been appropriate to consider what, if any other investigations were required. It was only after the resident made a complaint the following month that it arranged for a damp and mould inspection to be carried out.
There is a detailed record of the landlord’s damp and mould survey and following this, it raised works orders to further investigate the cause, which was appropriate. However, neither of these went ahead, with both works orders being cancelled. The landlord said that the drainage survey was cancelled with no record of attendance or notes and this suggests that no action was ever taken in respect of this, which was inappropriate and meant the investigation into this issue was delayed. It said that the damp survey order was closed due to the resident not responding to requests for access; however, the resident has provided records showing that the contractor cancelled an appointment that had been arranged in July 2021. While a further letter was sent requesting contact after this, there is no record of any other attempts made to rebook the cancelled appointment, which would have been appropriate. While frustrating for the resident that the appointment was cancelled, the reason given was unavoidable; however, the landlord should have done more to follow up and rebook the appointment to ensure this investigation was carried out. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration and has contributed to an extended delay in the investigation of this issue.
The landlord did not have copies of the letters sent by its contractor regarding access for the damp survey, which is a concern. It based its decision to cancel the works order on feedback from the contractor, without fully understanding what had happened. It is important that the landlord has full details about access attempts by its contractors so it can properly assess what steps to take where they report back that access has been refused. Where a contractor has difficulty arranging access, it is appropriate for the landlord to also contact the resident regarding this to ensure the required works can be progressed. The records provided show that the landlord took this approach in July 2023 when its contractor had difficulty arranging an appointment with the resident, which was sensible and resulted in an appointment being arranged. An order has been made below for the landlord to review what information it receives from its contractors regarding access attempts and how it responds to reports of no access.
The landlord noted in its inspection report in May 2021 that a further inspection would be carried out in 3 months. This would have been sensible to assess the progress of the proposed actions; however, there is no record that this was done. Regardless of what works had been carried out since the previous inspection, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to go ahead with this to assess the level of damp and mould and review progress. Its failure to proactively follow up meant that the onus was on the resident to continue reporting the issue, which was unfair and placed additional burden on her to chase the landlord for action to be taken. This was particularly concerning as she had told the landlord that this was impacting her health.
As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to raise another works order to investigate the damp and mould. From the records provided, it wasn’t until 10 months later that it did this, which was an unreasonable and extended delay and amounts to maladministration. Within the 10 months, the resident chased the landlord on at least 3 occasions but there is no record that it responded to her or gave any update. This would have left her feeling ignored and as though the landlord did not care about the issue, which would have been particularly upsetting as she had told it how this impacting her health.
An appointment was arranged for August 2023 but did not go ahead at the resident’s request. While she has told this service her reasons for this, there is no record that she has explained this to the landlord. The landlord is entitled to decide on which contractors it uses to carry out inspections or works. Where residents have concerns regarding the expertise of the contractor, the landlord should provide reassurance around their suitability. It is important that this survey is carried out as quickly as possible due to the extended delay in investigating this matter so an order has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her concerns around the suitability of the contractor and rearrange the inspection.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The resident first reported this issue almost three years ago and despite several works orders being raised and inspections being carried out, the landlord is no further forward in identifying the underlying cause of the issue. While there have been some access issues beyond the landlord’s control, it could and should have done more to arrange appointments with the resident to progress this investigation. Its lack of proactive follow up meant that the resident has had to chase the landlord repeatedly for progress to be made, which would have been frustrating and placed an unfair burden on her. The resident told this service the landlord had dismissed her reports and it is understandable why she felt this way based on the landlord’s lack of response and follow up. The resident told the landlord how this issue was impacting her health on several occasions but there is no record that it considered this as part of its response, which would have been upsetting for her. An order has been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of this issue and pay her £700 compensation.

Leaks from the property above

When the resident reported leaks in December 2020 and January 2021 the landlord said it attended and resolved the leaks on the same day, on both occasions. The records provided confirm it attended on the same day for the first report; however, the records for the second report indicate that it attended 11 days later. The landlord’s guidance says that uncontainable leaks are dealt with as emergencies, which is appropriate. From the records provided it is not clear whether the leak was containable or not and so the Ombudsman cannot assess whether its response time in respect of this leak was reasonable. To ensure it responds appropriately to all reports of leaks, the landlord should assess the severity of the leak at the initial report and document its decision in respect of the response time provided. From the records provided, it did not do that in this case, which is a concern. Keeping detailed records of assessments such as this is important as it allows landlords to justify how it reached its decisions and be accountable to residents and this service. An order has been made below for the landlord to review how it assesses reports of leaks and records these assessments.
Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord committed to contact the resident and the neighbour regarding her suggestion that the neighbour’s DIY may have caused the leaks; however, there is no record that it did. While the landlord was under no obligation to do this, as it had made a commitment to the resident, it should have followed up and completed the committed action or explained why it was unable to do so. Its failure to do this amounts to service failure and an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation.

Overgrown tree

The landlord records provided are not clear when the resident first asked it to cut back the tree; however, the landlord’s stage one complaint response indicated that she had made this request prior to the complaint. There is no record when, or if the landlord responded to this prior request until the stage 1 response in April 2021. Without knowing when the initial service request was made, it is not possible to determine whether there was a delay in the landlord responding to this. It is important that landlord’s keep detailed and accurate records of all resident contact for clarity, consistency and so it can be accountable to residents and this service for its actions and decisions. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on the importance of keeping good records.
The landlord’s stage 1 response explained how the COVID-19 lockdown had impacted tree inspections and that this was why it had not yet been looked at. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable, in the circumstances. It committed that contact would be made “soon” to arrange an appointment; however, it also warned about a backlog of inspections. This would have caused confusion for the resident about when she could expect to be contacted about this, and this amounts to service failure. It would have been helpful for the landlord to provide an estimated timeframe and had it done so, this may have avoided her chasing the landlord in May and July 2021.
The landlord inspected the tree and informed the resident that it would not agree to her request to cut it back. It confirmed this in writing with an explanation and made reference to its tree policy. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s decision was reasonable and in line with its policy. When the resident challenged the decision, it provided further, timely responses to her concerns, which were appropriate.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree. Its decision not to cut back the tree was reasonable and in line with its policy. However, its records on when the resident first raised the service request are unclear so it is not possible to know whether its initial response was delayed. Its response at stage 1 was likely to have caused confusion over when an inspection would be carried out and it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide a timeframe for this. Had it done this, it may have avoided the resident chasing this up on a further 2 occasions. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for its handling of this matter.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving leaks, damp and mould. As a result of these; a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
The landlord has been ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks, of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp and mould. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202220378. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould have been unreasonable delayed. It inappropriately cancelled and delayed in raising works orders, which means that almost 3 years have passed and the landlord is no further forward in identifying the underlying cause of the issue. The landlord did not proactively follow up to assess progress, despite it noting that it would; which resulted in the resident repeatedly reporting the issue. The landlord’s response to this issue left the resident feeling dismissed and as though it was not taking her concerns seriously.
The landlord did not record its assessment of the leaks to determine whether it needed to respond as an emergency. While it attended one of the leaks as an emergency the records indicate it responded in 11 days to the second leak but the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether this was reasonable due to the lack of records. The landlord committed to follow up with the neighbour regarding a DIY concern but there is no record that it did this.
There is no record of when the resident made the service request regarding the tree so the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord’s response was delayed. The landlord committed to carry out an inspection of the tree, which was appropriate; however, it should have given a timeframe on when this would happen as its response was confusing and resulted in the resident chasing updates on 2 occasions.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Contact the resident to discuss her concerns around the suitability of the contractor identified to carry out the damp survey and rearrange the inspection. A written update to be sent to the resident following the inspection confirming the outcome and what, if any works it will carry out and a timeframe for these to be completed.
2. Apologise to the resident for its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
3. Pay the resident £900 compensation, made up of:
  1. £700 for its response to her reports of damp and mould.
  2. £100 for its response to her reports of leaks from the property above.
  3. £100 for its response to her reports of an overgrown tree.
4. Provide staff training on the importance of keeping good records, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, which can be found here https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service within 4 weeks of this report.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review what information it receives from its contractors regarding access attempts and how it follows up to reports of no access from its contractors.
2. Review how it assesses reports of leaks to identify whether it is containable or uncontainable and how it records these assessments.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service within 6 weeks of this report.