From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Camden Council (202322539)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322539

Camden Council

6 May 2025


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of asbestos control measures during proposed fire safety works.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom ground floor flat and the resident has lived there since December 2013.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 December 2022 in relation to installation of new smoke alarms. The resident responded on 12 December following up on some questions he said he had raised about asbestos during a visit by the landlord on 23 September. On 16 December the landlord confirmed it had requested a full asbestos survey be carried out before work started.
  3. On 17 January 2023 the resident asked to raise a formal complaint as he was unsatisfied with the landlord’s responses to his questions about asbestos. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 June, in which it said:
    1. it apologised for its delayed response – it had responded to an enquiry from his local councillor at the same time and overlooked the complaint
    2. it explained what equipment was due to be installed, and why this was necessary
    3. it apologised that a contractor had turned up, even though he had declined the work
    4. it wrote to the resident to confirm a new asbestos survey would be done – its records showed that asbestos containing material had been removed in 2015, after the most recent asbestos survey was completed
  4. On 6 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. He said the stage 1 response did not explain why the existing survey could not be relied upon. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 7 August 2023, in which it said:
    1. the 2013 asbestos survey report was old and up to date information was needed
    2. as its records shows that some asbestos was removed in 2015, completing a new survey was a reasonable approach
    3. it would make arrangements for an asbestos survey to be carried out and contact him to facilitate access – it would also share the survey with him so he would be clear on the result
  5. On 21 September 2023 the resident told the landlord he would not allow the survey to take place until this Service had determined the complaint. He contacted us on 1 October to ask us to investigate the complaint. He said no asbestos removal work had been carried out since the 2013 survey.

Assessment and findings

Asbestos

  1. The landlord carried out an asbestos survey in November 2013, a month before the resident moved into the property. This showed that some asbestos was removed but some was left in place at that time. In June 2015 an asbestos air test was carried out after plaster ceiling believed to contain asbestos was removed. The landlord has provided a copy of a hazardous waste consignment note which says asbestos was disposed of.
  2. In September 2022 the landlord visited the resident to discuss the installation of new smoke alarms. On 7 December the landlord wrote to the resident about the installation. The resident responded on 12 December, saying:
    1. he had asked questions during the September visit about asbestos that had not been answered
    2. he had not provided consent for work to go ahead, however a week later a contractor had arrived with the intention of installing the smoke alarms – he asked if they had a plan in place to avoid disturbing asbestos
    3. he would cooperate if the landlord could put in writing that the asbestos would not be disturbed
  3. On 16 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say that a full asbestos survey would be completed before the smoke alarm work was carried out. The resident responded on 18 December to say that the landlord’s response had not reassured him. He contacted his local councillor on 19 December saying he had asked the landlord to take safety precautions in relation to asbestos but that it was insisting on a new survey.
  4. On 21 December 2022 the landlord told the resident it would arrange a suitable time for an asbestos survey. He responded to say he would not agree to a survey. He said that it was incorrect that asbestos was removed in 2015 and that any document that said it was must be due to an admin error. However, as noted above, the landlord has provided evidence of asbestos removal in 2015, and it was reasonable for it to rely on this.
  5. On 3 January 2023 the resident’s local councillor contacted him to say they were concerned he was not allowing access to the property. They said it would be helpful if he allowed access for the survey. On 4 January they confirmed access would be needed as the 2013 survey was very old.
  6. The landlord’s internal communication record from 9 January 2023 shows that the landlord had reviewed legislation which said that any risk assessment must be reviewed regularly. This said that if there was any reason to suspect the risk assessment was no longer valid a new one should be done. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for the landlord to want to carry out a new asbestos survey based on the evidence that some asbestos was removed in 2015.
  7. The resident asked to raise a complaint on 17 January 2023. The landlord’s records do not show that it made any further contact with the resident until it sent its stage 1 response on 12 June. In this it acknowledged that an appointment had not been cancelled after he had declined to consent to work. It said this was due to an administration error and apologised for this, which was reasonable. The landlord did not explain the regulations it had reviewed in January, or in its stage 1 response. Had it done this, this may have helped to alleviate the resident’s concerns.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 6 July 2023 as he said its response did not address his questions about why the existing survey could no longer be relied upon. In its stage 2 response of 7 August the landlord said that a new survey was a reasonable approach due to its records showing that asbestos was removed in 2015. It again did not explain the regulations that were the reason behind this decision, which was not appropriate.
  9. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of asbestos control measures during proposed fire safety works. Its records demonstrate that its decision to order a new asbestos survey was based on regulations. This was a reasonable approach for it to take. However, it missed several opportunities to explain this reasoning to the resident.
  10. It was clear from the resident’s communications with the landlord that he did not understand why the new survey was required, leading him to be concerned about the landlord’s proposed actions. A clear explanation of the regulations could have provided him with reassurance.
  11. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to clearly explain the need for a new asbestos survey. This award has been made with the landlord’s remedies guidance in mind.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days. It can agree an extension of up to 10 working days by providing clear reasons for the extension to the resident. At stage 2 the landlord says it will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and send its response within 20 working days. It can again agree an extension of up to 10 working days if it provides clear reasons to the resident.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 January 2023 to ask to raise a complaint. The landlord’s internal records acknowledged the complaint and said it would provide a response. However, no evidence has been provided of an acknowledgement being sent to the resident, which was not in line with its policy.
  4. The landlord did not sent any updates to the resident before sending its stage 1 response on 12 June 2023, 5 months after the complaint was raised. This represented an unreasonable delay. While it acknowledged it had overlooked the complaint in this response and apologised for this, it did not go far enough to put things right.
  5. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 6 July 2023. Again the landlord did not send an acknowledgment in line with its policy. It sent its stage 2 response on 7 August, slightly outside of its policy timescale.
  6. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It did not acknowledge or respond to the complaint in line with its policy at either stage, and there was an unreasonable delay in it responding at stage 1.
  7. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This award has been made with the landlord’s remedies guidance in mind.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of asbestos control measures during proposed fire safety works.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £250, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to clearly explain the requirement for the new asbestos survey
    2. £150 in relation to its complaint handling failures
  2. The landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified within this report.
  3. The landlord to provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendation

  1. Following completion of a new asbestos survey the landlord to clearly set out in writing to the resident the precautions it will take when carrying out the installation of the new smoke alarms.