Camden Council (202339236)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339236

Camden Council

31 January 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 how the landlord responded to his:
1. reports of noise nuisance.
2. Concerns that his neighbour was homophobic and about the landlord staff’s LGBTQ+ awareness.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secured tenant of the landlord since June 2022. He lives in a 1 bedroom basement flat, which is within a converted house. The resident has told this Service that he has mental health concerns.
On 4 July 2022 the resident reported noise nuisance from the flat above him. He said his neighbour (Ms T), did not have carpets or underlay. He explained that he could hear every footstep and items being dropped on the floor which was disturbing his sleep. He asked the landlord to investigate the matter.
The landlord spoke to Ms T on the same day, who confirmed that she did not have carpets. Shortly after, the landlord updated the resident on the situation. It told him that Ms T had “suitable thick underlay”. It explained that it had asked Ms T to be mindful of her neighbours and that it would review the situation in 4 weeks.
On 11 October 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he did not think it had taken his concerns seriously and it had not helped him in the matter. He also said that he felt intimidated by Ms T’s boyfriend as he stared at him in the garden and made comments. He said that he believed that he and Ms T were homophobic. He also expressed concerns to the landlord that it was “ignoring” his concerns and not supporting him as a gay man. The resident continued to raise these concerns to the landlord in the months that followed. The evidence available does not demonstrate that the landlord responded.
The resident also continued to report noise nuisance in January, February and March 2023. He told the landlord that the noise was “unbearable” and was affecting his mental health. Again, there is no evidence to show that the landlord responded.
At the end of May 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had advised Ms T to install carpets and underlay. It subsequently informed the resident in July 2023 that it would be taking tenancy enforcement action against Ms T as she had not complied with its request. In October 2023, the landlord confirmed that it would be referring the matter to its legal team.
On 5 February 2024 a friend of the resident, told the landlord that there was a lack of support for gay residents “who were quite clearly” being victimised and were given less support than other residents. In response, the landlord signposted the resident to a LGBTQ+ support agency and refuted that it gave the resident less support because of his sexuality.
Carpets and underlay were fitted in Ms T’s flat on 28 February 2024.
On 18 April 2024 we informed the landlord that the resident wished to raise a formal complaint. The resident subsequently confirmed with the landlord that his complaint was about its handling of his reports of noise nuisance. He explained that although carpets and underlay had been fitted in Ms T’s flat, he could still hear noise.
On 17 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. it partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue with Ms T’s flooring.
2. it would carry out a sound test which would help establish the current level of sound transmission between the flats.
3. it refuted “any suggestion” that it treated the resident unfairly because of his sexuality.
On or around 31 May 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
1. the landlord had taken 19 months to ensure Ms T fitted carpets after it had told him that she had already had them. The carpet “made little difference” and the noise continued. He said that the floorboards were damaged and asked the landlord to repair them.
2. the landlord was biased and lacked awareness of LGBTQ+ people. It had ignored his reports that Ms T and her partner were homophobic and his emails for help and support.
On 18 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. Ms T had reported that the resident had made abusive comments towards her and banged on her ceiling. Subsequently the relationship between them deteriorated which had affected its ability to finalise a solution to the noise nuisance.
2. the neighbourhood team refuted that they had treated the resident unfairly because of his sexuality.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate his concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has explained that the landlord’s handling of his concerns affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we will consider the resulting distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy states that normal everyday activities or household noise is not ASB. The resident’s concerns were that he could hear footsteps and items being dropped on Ms T’s floor because she did not have carpets or underlay. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not manage this case under its ASB policy. However, it is unclear whether the landlord has other suitable policies in place for such cases – such as a domestic noise nuisance or noise management policy. In the absence of such a policy or procedure, we have assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness.
When the resident made his initial report of noise nuisance to the landlord in July 2022, it promptly contacted Ms T. It established that Ms T did not have carpets and asked her to fit some. We do not have a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, the evidence shows that the landlord generally requires residents who reside in its first floor flats and above to fit carpets in their homes. It also does not permit residents in those flats to have laminate or wooden flooring. This is to reduce the likelihood of noise nuisance. Therefore, the landlord’s actions at this time were appropriate. This was positive.
However, it told the resident during this period that Ms T had “suitable thick underlay”. It is unclear what information the landlord relied upon for its comment. There is no evidence that it inspected Ms T’s flat or carried out any other review on the matter. Therefore, it has not demonstrated that the information it provided the resident was accurate. That is unreasonable.
Furthermore, its comment gave the resident the impression that it had considered that Ms T’s flooring was “suitable”. This caused him distress and inconvenience as he had to reiterate his concerns about the noise that was being transferred. Given that the landlord had already advised Ms T to fit carpets, it would have been reasonable for it to have informed the resident of this. This would have reassured him that it understood his concern and was taking reasonable steps to resolve the matter. The reason it was not transparent in its update to the resident is unclear.
It also told the resident that it would review the matter within 4 weeks at this time. However, there is no evidence that it did. The review would have been a chance for the landlord to assess the situation. This could have included asking the resident for an update on the situation and seeking confirmation from Ms T that she had fitted carpets. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to take timely action as a result of failing to review the matter when it said it would.
It also meant that it failed to follow through with its own commitment. The Ombudsman’s 2022 Spotlight report on noise complaints (the spotlight report) states that when landlords set an expectation and then fail to deliver, residents are understandably going to feel they are not being treated fairly. This is demonstrated in this case, as subsequently in October 2022 the resident told the landlord that he felt that it was not taking his concerns seriously. This could have been reasonably avoided if the landlord had carried out the review as it stated that it would.
At this time, the resident also reiterated that Ms T still had not fitted carpets. There is no evidence that the landlord responded. The landlord’s lack of response would have likely reinforced the resident’s concerns that it was not taking the matter seriously. This would have exacerbated his distress and inconvenience. Therefore, while the reason that the landlord did not reply to the resident’s concerns at this time is unclear, that it did not was unreasonable.
In January 2023 the resident told the landlord that the noise nuisance had become unbearable and was affecting his mental health. He continued to reiterate his concerns in February and March 2023. There is no evidence to show that it responded to him during that period. This also meant that it missed an opportunity to signpost the resident to support agencies. Therefore, the landlord’s inactions during this period were a further failing.
It was not until April 2023 – 9 months after it first contacted Ms T about carpets – that the landlord contacted her to ascertain whether any had been fitted. The evidence available suggests this was the first contact it had made to Ms T about the issue since it had spoken to her in July 2022. The resident had made several reports that the noise nuisance was ongoing after that date, it is therefore unclear why the landlord had failed to take any further action. The landlord’s delay in contacting Ms T meant that the resident lived in conditions that he advised was affecting his mental health without any meaningful progress in the case. Therefore, while the reason for the landlord’s delay in contacting Ms T is unclear, that there was one was unreasonable.
There is evidence that suggests that the landlord was taking action to ensure that Ms T installed carpets in her flat between May and August 2023 – this includes making frequent calls to request an update/remind her of the obligation to fit carpet. The Ombudsman recognises that in such circumstances it is appropriate for landlords to engage and work with residents before it considers taking any adverse action against their tenancy. However, we do not have contemporaneous records of the calls, so it is unclear what was discussed. Nor do we have any other evidence shows that it set an action plan with Ms T and whether any deadlines were set for her to comply with. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord had formulated or communicated a plan, or kept the resident updated. This was a further failing.
On 13 October 2023 the landlord told the resident that it was going to refer the matter to its legal team. When or whether the referral was made is unclear from the evidence. This should have been clearly documented within the landlord’s records.
Between October 2023 and mid-January 2024, the resident continued to report noise nuisance to the landlord. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded or updated him on the progress of the case. Our spotlight report states that landlords should ensure that there is ongoing and consistent communication with its residents in such circumstances. It also states that landlords should manage residents’ expectations when communicating about enforcement action. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s reports meant that they went unanswered, and he was left not knowing whether it had progressed his case as it stated that it would. That caused him, time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
There is also no evidence that the landlord progressed the case during this time. For example, there is no evidence that it continued to reasonably engage with Ms T or show that it was actively working with its legal team to resolve the matter. It was not until January 2024 that it took some action to further prompt Ms T to fit carpets in her flat. It is unclear why the landlord had not taken any action, but that it had not was inappropriate.
The carpet was fitted in Ms T’s flat on 28 February 2024. Subsequently, the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance. He also explained that he still could hear noise although Ms T’s flat had been fitted with underlay and carpet.
In its complaints responses the landlord said that it would carry out a sound test to establish the current level of sound transmission between the flats. That was positive. However, it is unclear whether the test went ahead. Given that the landlord had stated that it would carry out the test, it is unreasonable that it has not demonstrated that it did. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to ascertain whether he is still experiencing noise nuisance. If he is, it must carry out a sound test if it has not already done so.
Overall, this investigation has demonstrated that the landlord failed to:
1. carry out a review in the initial stages of this case as it stated that it would.
2. respond to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance in a timely manner or at all on several occasions.
3. act on the resident’s reports and reasonably progress the case in a timely manner.
4. keep the resident reasonably updated about its decision to refer the matter to its legal team.
5. demonstrate that it carried out a sound test as it stated that it would.
The above failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that his neighbour was homophobic, and about landlord staff’s LGBTQ+ awareness.

Between October 2022 and September 2023, the resident told the landlord that:
1. he felt intimidated by Ms T’s partner as he made comments and stared at him. He said that Ms T and her partner were homophobic and he felt he could not use the garden because of this.
2. the landlord was ignoring the above concerns and was not supporting him as a gay man.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that ASB includes verbal abuse, intimidation and threatening behaviour. Therefore, given the nature of the resident’s concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered investigating them under its ASB policy. There is no evidence that it did. That was unreasonable. Homophobia is also a hate crime, therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have signposted the resident to the police. There is no evidence that it did.
Furthermore, the resident raised the above matters several times during that period, there is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to any of his concerns. The landlord’s lack of response would have understandably left the resident with the impression that it was not taking his concerns seriously. In addition, its lack of response and investigation into the matter meant that the resident’s concerns went unaddressed for approximately a year.
This caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time. Therefore, while the reason that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns or progress the matter under its ASB policy is unclear, that it did not was inappropriate.
In January 2024 a friend of the resident’s raised concerns that the landlord was not providing adequate support for him as a gay man. They said that the resident had been victimised and appeared to be receiving less support than other residents. In response, the landlord signposted the resident to a LGBTQ+ support agency. While significantly delayed, its response was appropriate. As a result of the referral, the support agency arranged to facilitate a meeting between the landlord and the resident to discuss his concerns. It is noted that the resident cancelled the meeting. At that time, the landlord told the resident that it would reschedule the meeting upon his request. That was reasonable.
It is unclear when the resident raised a formal complaint that the landlord treated him unfairly because he was gay. Nonetheless, the landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that it “strongly refuted any suggestion that it treated the resident unfairly because of his sexuality”.
Given the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought clarification from the resident about his concerns. For example, it would have been reasonable for it to have asked him whether he had any specific examples of it treating him unfairly that he wished it to look into. This would have provided the landlord with a starting point for it to investigate the resident’s concerns appropriately. There is no evidence that it did. That was unreasonable.
In his escalated complaint, the resident stated that the landlord was biased and lacked awareness of LGBTQ+ people. In response the landlord said that the “neighbourhood team had strongly refuted” the complaint that they had treated him differently because of his sexuality. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that complaint handlers should act independently. The landlord’s response and the available evidence shows that the landlord did not independently investigate the resident’s concern so it could come to its own conclusion on this matter. That was inappropriate and unreasonable. This meant that it missed another opportunity to meaningfully investigate the resident’s concerns. This meant that the resident’s concerns remained unanswered.
The resident also complained that the landlord did not address his reports that Ms T was homophobic. The landlord failed to address or acknowledge these concerns in its complaint response. It is unclear why it did not, but this was a further departure from the Code and a further failure to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. Investigate and respond to the resident’s 2023 concerns that Ms T and her partner were homophobic.
2. reasonably consider managing the resident’s reports under its ASB policy.
3. respond to the resident’s 2023 concerns that it was not supporting him as a gay man.
4. reasonably investigate the resident’s 2024 concerns that it was biased and lacked awareness of LGBTQ+ concerns.
5. reasonably investigate the resident’s complaint that it had ignored his reports that Ms T was homophobic.
The above cumulative failures caused the resident time, trouble, distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that his neighbour was homophobic and that it was biased and lacked awareness and support for LGBTQ+ residents.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it would:
1. acknowledge complaints within 2 working days.
2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
We informed the landlord that the resident had made a complaint to it on 18 April 2024. We asked the landlord to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, in accordance with the Code. The landlord should have acknowledged the complaint by 25 April 2024, however, it did not do so until 3 May 2024. This was a deviation from its policy timescales and that of the Code. The reason for the delay is unclear and we have nothing to suggest that this was unavoidable.
On the same day the landlord asked the resident for further information about his complaint. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it was taking steps to ensure that it understood his complaint.
When notifying the landlord of the complaint, we also informed it that it should provide its stage 1 complaint response by 10 May 2024. However, it issued its response on 17 May 2024. This was 7 days after the 10 working days timescale set out in the Code and in the landlord’s complaint policy. This was a further failing. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord notified the resident that its response would be delayed, that was unreasonable.
In his escalated complaint the resident raised concerns that the landlord had taken approximately 19 months to ensure that Ms T fitted carpets and underlay.
In its response, the landlord stated that Ms T had raised concerns that he was verbally abusive towards her and banged on the ceiling causing a nuisance. It said, therefore, the relationship between the resident and Ms T deteriorated which had an impact on its ability to finalise a solution.
There is no evidence to suggest that the resident’s reported behaviour towards Ms T caused delays in the landlord’s ability to take action to resolve his concerns about the noise nuisance. If such reports had been received, it would have been reasonable for this to have been put to the resident, and for him to have the opportunity to respond. It was unfair and unreasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident’s conduct contributed to the delay, when this has not been reflected by the evidence. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to reflect on its own handling of the matter and to assess whether it could or should have done things differently.
The resident also raised other concerns in his escalated complaint. This included concerns about staff misconduct. However, the landlord failed to respond to these specific concerns. This meant that the resident’s complaint was not fully answered. The Code states landlords can raise a new complaint when a new issue is raised at stage 2. Therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have asked the resident whether he wished to pursue a new complaint on the matter.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. acknowledge the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Code’s timescales.
2. issue its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days.
3. reasonably demonstrate that its comment that inferred that the resident’s actions impacted its ability to resolve his noise nuisance reports in a timely manner was evidence based.
4. address all aspects of the resident’s escalated complaint.
These failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Given the failures highlighted above, the Ombudsman would ordinarily order the landlord to review its complaint handling policy and practices. However, the Ombudsman has recently conducted a special investigation into the landlord’s complaint handling and published its findings in November 2024. As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman recommended that the landlord carry out appropriate training for its complaint handlers.
In addition, the landlord has worked with this Service to update its policy and practices following the special investigation. Our Duty to Monitor team continue to carry out a detailed analysis of its complaint policy and will advise the landlord if any amendments are needed to align it with the requirements of the Code.
As such, we are satisfied that we have already made orders aimed at addressing and resolving the issues highlighted in this case in the special investigation. It would be redundant to duplicate similar orders. However, an order has been made for the landlord to update the Service on its progress on its complaint handling training.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that his neighbour was homophobic and about landlord staff’s LGBTQ+ awareness.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £1000 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns that his neighbour was homophobic and about landlord staff’s LGBTQ+ awareness.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. contact the resident to ascertain:
  1. whether he is still experiencing noise nuisance. If he is, it must arrange for a sound test. It should share the outcome of the test with the resident and this Service. If the test demonstrates that the level of noise is unreasonable, it should consider what further action it can take to reduce the noise transmission and update the resident and this Service.
  2. whether he wishes to report any new concerns that Ms T and her partner have been homophobic towards him. If so, upon the resident’s agreement, the landlord should take reasonable steps to investigate the matter. If necessary, the landlord should ensure that the resident is signposted to the police.
  3. whether he would wishes to pursue a new complaint about staff conduct.
4. provide this Service with an update on its complaint handling training as recommended in the Ombudsman’s November 2024 special investigation report.
Taking into consideration the failings outlined in this report, the landlord should carry out a review into whether it has appropriate policies and procedures to support and address any LGBTQ+ concerns from its residents. In doing so it should ensure that staff are trained/retrained in the relevant policies and procedures once they have been reviewed. This should include ensuring staff are appropriately responding to such concerns in a timely manner. The review should be carried out within 12 weeks of the date of this determination and shared with this Service.