London Borough of Camden Council (202421397)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421397

London Borough of Camden Council

9 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
2. staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, which is a first floor 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority. The tenancy began on 19 September 2016. The landlord is aware that the resident has several vulnerabilities.
The landlord said the resident first reported ASB from her neighbour on 6 June 2024. The landlord carried out a risk assessment on 8 June 2024 and invited the resident for an interview on 11 July 2024. The landlord took several further measures in August 2024, including requesting police disclosure on 12 August 2024 and holding a joint meeting with the resident and the police on 22 August 2024.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance raising a complaint on 2 September 2024. She said she had been a victim of racial abuse from a neighbour and felt that the landlord was not taking her seriously. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 3 September 2024 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 September 2024. It signposted the resident to resources on managing her mental health and said:
1. it had not upheld the resident’s complaint, as it was satisfied that it had made reasonable efforts to find a compromise between the resident and her neighbour.
2. there were allegations from both sides and while the landlord was working to find a solution, the resident “had not been forthcoming with any suggested mitigations.”
3. the resident had refused to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA) and had declined mediation.
4. the police were dealing with the alleged incident of racial abuse so the resident should contact them directly for any updates.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 September 2024. She said:
1. she was unhappy with how 2 staff members had spoken to her throughout the ASB case and had asked for them to be removed from the case 5 times.
2. she felt it was unfair that the landlord had passed one of her emails to the police.
3. the ASB was still ongoing, and she felt the landlord had been dismissive of this.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord to request a stage 2 response on behalf of the resident on 27 January 2025. The landlord said it had not previously had sight of the resident’s escalation request. It provided its stage 2 response on 18 March 2025 and said:
1. it had partially upheld the complaint because of delays in responding to the resident’s ASB reports.
2. it was sorry to hear of the impact of the ASB on the resident’s mental health and wellbeing and signposted her to support services.
3. it had found that the staff members the resident had complained about correctly followed and adhered to the landlord’s Code of Conduct throughout the course of their duties.
4. the resident was found to have sent a “malicious and abusive” email to one of the staff members in question, which led to the closure of her ASB case.
5. the resident had refused to sign an ABA and had continued making regular contact with her neighbour.
6. the resident had reported further ASB incidents since September 2024 and there had been delays in the landlords handling of these reports.
7. it had passed police disclosure to its lettings team to decide whether harassment points could be added to the resident’s housing application.
8. it was offering the resident £120 for the delays in responding to her ASB reports of September 2024.
The resident continued to report ASB from her neighbour to the landlord throughout February and March 2025. On 17 March 2025 a representative for the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an urgent move due to concerns for the resident’s wellbeing.
The resident confirmed that she would like the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint on 24 March 2025. She said she was unhappy with the stage 2 outcome and wanted the staff members involved in her ASB case held accountable. In recent correspondence with this Service, the resident has said that the ASB is ongoing, and she is currently trying to move into temporary accommodation. The resident said she would like to be compensated for the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the issues reported, and to be moved somewhere suitable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said the incidents she reported caused her significant distress and anxiety. However, it is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it has followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord and the Ombudsman that the landlord discriminated against her and showed bias in favour of other residents. While it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make legally binding findings on discrimination allegations, we will consider the overall handling of the resident’s complaint and whether the landlord responded to the resident in line with its policies and procedures.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues she had raised with the landlord around her application to move properties.
These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us and it is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint on 2 September 2023. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

ASB from a neighbour

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines ASB as:
1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation or residential premises, or.
3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the landlord’s approach to investigating reports of ASB. In accordance with its policy, the landlord:
1. considers verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation, hate related incidents, and threatening behaviour to be examples of ASB.
2. will acknowledge all ASB reports within 2 working days and contact the complainant with further case details within 7 working days.
3. will carry out a risk assessment at the start of an ASB case to inform an action plan, which it will then create and share with the complainant.
4. will keep victims updated in line with established action plans.
5. will take reasonable and proportionate action when dealing with an ASB case, which may include written warnings, mediation, acceptable behaviour agreements, and requesting police disclosure.
6. will put support in place where it knows there is a vulnerability or high risk of harm.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident said she complained to the landlord about ASB from her neighbour in January 2024. In a letter sent to the resident on 5 September 2024, the landlord said the resident reported an argument with her neighbour on 6 June 2024. Based on the documentary evidence available, the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on when the resident first reported ASB.
The landlord completed an ASB risk assessment during a phone call with the resident on 8 June 2024 and arranged an initial interview for 11 July 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to complete a risk assessment in line with its ASB policy.
However, the ASB Tool Kit for Social Landlords sets out that victims of ASB need to feel confident and assured that swift action is being pursued to address the behaviour of the perpetrator. In this case, there was over 1 month between the landlord completing the risk assessment and conducting its first interview with the resident. This was an unreasonable length of time.
On 19 June 2024 the landlord raised concerns with a third-party safeguarding team about the resident’s mental health and wellbeing. The landlord contacted the third party again on 28 June 2024 and requested an update to help inform an action plan. It was reasonable for the landlord to take steps to safeguard the resident once it had identified concerns about her wellbeing.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord did create an action plan informed by its concerns at any point throughout the investigation. Doing so would have allowed the landlord to tailor individual support to the resident, as recommended by the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Attitudes, Rights and Respect. That it did not was unreasonable.
On 2 August 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said she was reporting her neighbour to the police for racial abuse. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this email. While it is understood that the police were dealing with this incident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to consider whether it needed to complete a new risk assessment given the escalation in the ASB.
In a letter to the resident dated 5 September 2024, the landlord confirmed it had issued the resident’s neighbour with an ABA further to the incident of racial abuse. It said the ABA contained conditions around derogatory language. This was an appropriate measure in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The resident emailed the landlord to report further incidents of ASB from her neighbour on 6 September 2024. The resident said she had called the police 4 times in the past week and the ASB had made her feel suicidal. There is no evidence that the landlord replied to this email or made any attempt to contact the resident. Given the seriousness of the statements made by the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow safeguarding procedures to identify any immediate welfare concerns. The landlord failed to comply with the support measures set out in its ASB policy.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Attitudes, Rights and Respect highlights the importance of landlords not placing blame on residents in complaint responses. In its stage 1 response, the landlord used language at times that shifted blame on to the resident for the ongoing ASB issues. While this Service recognises the complex nature of the counter-allegations in this case, the landlord’s response focused too heavily on the resident’s behaviour over its own ASB handling. This was unreasonable.
A representative for the resident contacted the landlord on her behalf on 4 occasions between February and March 2025. They provided new crime reference numbers and asked the landlord for an update on its ASB handling. The landlord failed to respond until 11 March 2025, 1 month after the representative’s first contact. This was inappropriate.
In its email to the resident’s representative on 11 March 2025, the landlord confirmed that the resident had a housing application with its lettings team. It said it was awaiting a police report to determine whether the application would be classed as urgent. This was reasonable.
As set out in its Housing Allocation Scheme, the landlord uses a points-based system to determine the priority of housing applications. The resident told this Service that harassment points were added to her housing application. This Service understands that the resident has not yet moved properties due to nowhere suitable being available.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised that it had failed to action the resident’s reports from September 2024. It confirmed it had now actioned them and offered £120 compensation for the delay. Given the length of the delay and the nature of the case, the Ombudsman does not consider this amount proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Due to the serious counter-allegations made by both parties, the Ombudsman recognises the difficulties faced by the landlord in its handling of this case. The Ombudsman also appreciates that the landlord found the resident to have at times communicated with it in an unreasonable manner. The landlord acted reasonably in serving written warnings to the resident where required.
The landlord missed opportunities to consider what support it could offer the resident or signpost her to relevant third-party organisations on multiple occasions throughout the ASB case. Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities from the start of the case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide more support options than it did to the resident while the ASB was ongoing.
The landlord failed to consider several non-legal tools to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord provided or reviewed any diary entries of the alleged ASB. The landlord also failed to provide contact details for the resident to send video evidence to, despite the resident requesting this on several occasions. This was unreasonable and not consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy.
Overall, there were several failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour which amounted to maladministration. This is because:
1. the landlord failed to complete an action plan with the resident at any point throughout the case. The landlord missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations.
2. the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports on several occasions throughout the case. This caused inconvenience, time and effort to the resident who contacted this Service multiple times to request help getting an update from the landlord.
3. the landlord failed to consider how it could provide individually tailored support to and appropriately safeguard the resident on several occasions throughout the case.
4. the landlord failed to consider several non-legal tools to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB.
The impact of the above failings on the resident has been significant. In correspondence with this Service, the resident has shared that her mental health has suffered as a result of the ASB and the landlord’s handling. She said she feels unsafe in her home and has no choice but to move.
To acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the above failures, an apology and compensation of £600 has been ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord may deduct the £120 it has already offered from this amount if it has already been paid.
The resident has said the ASB is ongoing, and she does not feel safe in her home. We have therefore ordered the landlord to create an action plan setting out how it will address any ongoing ASB. The action plan should address the resident’s concerns about her safety in her current property and provide information on housing options where required.

Staff Conduct

We are unable to assess how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
However, the Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s communication with the resident as a whole. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be against the landlord rather than the individual. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint and whether this was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
On 5 separate occasions in August 2024, the resident reported what she felt to be inappropriate conduct from 2 staff members (officer A and officer B) involved in her ASB case. She expressed feeling that the staff members were biased against her and had repeatedly made her feel uncomfortable. The landlord failed to acknowledge or investigate these concerns until it provided its stage 2 response on 18 March 2025. This was unreasonable and caused prolonged distress to the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord addressed a claim by the resident that officer A had complained about the resident’s tone of voice and tried to dictate how the resident should speak. It also addressed a claim by the resident that officer B had “yelled” at her and caused her to have an anxiety attack in a previous meeting.
The landlord said it had found that there was no misconduct by officer A throughout the course of their duties. While this Service understands the difficulties the landlord may have faced in investigating reports that could not be substantiated by any evidence, the landlord failed to explain how it had investigated the resident’s reports to reach this conclusion. This was unreasonable.
In its response to the resident’s allegations against officer B, the landlord referred to an email the resident had sent to officer B on 23 August 2024. The landlord said it considered this email malicious and abusive. It said officer B had responded in line with its Code of Conduct by reporting the email to their manager.
The landlord failed to evidence that it had investigated the specific report the resident had made about a previous meeting. In referring solely to a separate incident, it shifted blame on to the resident. This was unreasonable.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about staff conduct. This is because:
1. the landlord failed to acknowledge or investigate reports made by the resident on 5 occasions in August 2024.
2. the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had completed a full investigation into the resident’s reports in its stage 2 response.
3. the landlord shifted blame on to the resident in its stage 2 response and failed to demonstrate that it had investigated her concerns seriously.
To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the above failures, an apology for the failure to investigate and compensation of £150 has been ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The associated complaint

In accordance with the Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”), landlords must ensure they:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 3 September 2024 to raise a stage 1 complaint on behalf of the resident. We asked the landlord to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord complied with these timeframes, which was appropriate.
On 14 January 2025 the resident told this Service that she had asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 18 September 2024 but had not heard back. When we wrote to the landlord, it said the resident’s email of 18 September had been sent before the stage 1 response was issued, so was not considered an escalation. This Service agreed a deadline of 5 March 2025 for the landlord to provide its stage 2 response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 March 2025, which was 9 working days after the agreed deadline. The landlord attempted to put things right by acknowledging and apologising for the delay in its response, which was appropriate.
Section 5.8 of the Code sets out that landlords should give residents a fair chance to set out their position at each stage of the complaints process. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint at either stage in this case. Given the complexity of the ASB case and the landlord’s awareness of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so. That it did not was unreasonable.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is because:
1. the landlord failed to evidence that it had discussed the resident’s complaint with her prior to issuing its response at either stage. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who contacted this Service on several occasions as she felt the landlord was not listening to her.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, a fair amount of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling would be £50.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for:
  1. the failures identified in its ASB handling.
  2. its failure to appropriately investigate her reports about staff conduct.
  3. in its apology letter, the landlord should set out what it will do to prevent similar failings from happening in the future.
2. pay the resident a total of £800 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £600 for the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the failures in its ASB handling. The landlord may deduct the £120 it has already offered from this amount if it has already been paid.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the resident’s reports about staff conduct.
  3. £50 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its complaint handling.
3. create an action plan setting out how it will address any ongoing ASB in line with its policies and procedures. The action plan should address the resident’s concerns about her safety in her current property and provide information on housing options where required. The action plan should be shared with the resident and this Service.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this determination.