London Borough of Camden Council (202215702)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215702

Camden Council

23 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the residents’ reports of noise nuisance and complaints about staff conduct.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant under an agreement dated 8 April 2019. The landlord is a local authority. He lives by himself in a studio flat. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
According to its records the landlord first received a report from the resident of noise issues on 17 December 2021. He said this had been happening for over a year. The landlord investigated and found no evidence of noise disturbance. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord twice in January and March 2022 to request assistance on his behalf.
On 25 May 2022, the resident said that the landlord had been ignoring his complaints for almost two years, and no one was trying to help. On 26 May 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it was investigating his complaint. In October 2022, this Service asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 response.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 7 November 2022. It said it had received a complaint on 8 May 2022. It apologised for the delay in response time and defined the complaint as being about:
1. the resident’s housing officer not helping with the noise complaint and making the resident feel uncomfortable.
2. the noise pollution team not visiting to witness the noise.
3. not receiving a response from the Housing Officers manager.
The landlord stated that the complaint was partially upheld. It said it had given assistance, but it could have also contacted other residents to see if they were experiencing noise disturbance. It also said:
1. it had offered to arrange mediation between the resident and neighbour.
2. it had offered to listen to noise from communal areas in December 2021.
3. it had no record of contact with the Housing Officer’s manager.
4. the resident had requested the Housing Officer did not contact him on two occasions.
The resident said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision on the same day. He said the noise was currently happening and he had been complaining for years. He wanted the night team to attend when he called them and check the noise directly.
The landlord provided its final response on 16 December 2022. It said there was no evidence of unreasonable noise. It reoffered mediation with his neighbour and said:
1. it had not entered his home due to the coronavirus pandemic. These restrictions had now been lifted, and he could request the noise team again.
2. it noted the resident had repeatedly asked his Housing Officer not to contact him and this limited its ability to investigate.
3. it stated that noise transference in older buildings may be greater. It said there was little the landlord could do to limit normal domestic noises.
The resident asked this Service to investigate on 14 August 2023. He said he had tried all suggestions provided and was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He wanted the landlord to attend to witness the noise and for the noise to stop.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

The resident has complained about the conduct of an individual member of staff. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the behaviour complained of took place in the way the resident stated, or whether the landlord took appropriate action in response to the outcome of its investigation, as that would be a personnel issue outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord appropriately investigated the concerns raised.

The landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of noise nuisance and complaints around staff conduct.

The landlord’s noise and nuisance guidelines said it would act quickly and take restorative approaches where appropriate. It highlighted the importance of confidentiality and record keeping. These guidelines also gave a checklist to follow when managing noise complaints.
The resident said the incidents he reported caused him significant distress and anxiety. However, it is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether noise nuisance 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 had followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
Accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident said he had been reporting the issue for years. In its stage 1 response, the landlord referred to noise reports made in May and June 2021. The landlord has not provided evidence of this communication, which has meant it is not possible to assess whether the landlord’s actions were appropriate. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord reported in its stage 1 response that it offered mediation between the resident and his neighbour on 2 June 2021. It states that the resident refused this offer. It is not clear how the mediation was offered and the detail behind this. This is inappropriate and meant it is not possible to assess if the landlord’s actions were appropriate.
The first recorded report from the resident was on 17 December 2021. The landlord responded on the same day and offered to assess the noise from outside the property. It explained it was unable to enter the resident’s home due to the coronavirus pandemic, but it could attend outside the property on the same evening. The landlord states that the resident did not accept this offer. This was proportionate and in line with its guidelines.
The landlord investigated the noise report on the same day. It told the resident it had spoken to his neighbour regarding the report, and they had told it that they did not have a TV. It stated it could not act because there was no evidence to support the claim of noise disturbance. It asked the resident to contact the mobile patrol team if there were further noise issues. This was a quick and reasonable response.
The landlord did not offer the resident the option of a diary sheet nor noise recording equipment to evidence the noise in future. This was not in line with its guidelines, and it limited the resident’s ability to evidence any noise directly to the landlord.
On 19 December 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord. He stated that he was unhappy with an individual staff members’ conduct, and he did not want that individual to contact him again. The landlord should have considered whether to treat this expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint and confirmed this to the resident. The failure to do so led to a breakdown in communication between the landlord and resident and meant it was difficult for him to escalate his concerns further.
The resident then contacted his MP about the landlord’s response to the noise complaint. The MP wrote to the landlord on 18 January 2022 and reported that the resident said the landlord was not providing sufficient support. It did not receive a response and sent a follow up email on 3 March 2022. The landlord did not have the resident’s permission to talk to the MP on his behalf. However, it did not contact the resident directly to ask about his concerns and why he had escalated to his MP. This showed a lack of professional curiosity.
On 13 May 2022, the landlord’s internal communications show there was confusion over which system case notes had been stored in. The landlord’s noise and nuisance guidelines specify that information should be stored where others could find it. The landlord’s difficulty in locating case notes was another example of a record keeping failure which delayed support to the resident and impacted his ability to escalate the complaint.
The resident has told this Service that he contacted the landlord 5 times in August 2022, and that the landlord responded twice. This indicates another record keeping failure by the landlord.
Between 17 December 2021 and 7 November 2022, the landlord recorded attempting to phone the resident once on 12 August 2022 regarding his noise disturbance report. It is unclear what prompted this contact attempt, and the landlord did not follow this up with email or post communication. It is unclear if the resident contacted the night patrol team to ask them to attend for noise during this time. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 7 November 2022. It noted that the resident had asked the individual staff member not to contact him again. It said this had made it difficult to investigate his reports of noise. Again, the landlord did not investigate why the resident felt its’ staff members actions made him feel uncomfortable. Although, it informed the resident of staff changes and provided him with the details of his new housing officer. The lack of investigation prevented the landlord from fully understanding the resident’s complaint.
The resident told the landlord that the noise continued to happen in his stage 2 escalation on 7 November 2022. The landlord stated that there was no evidence of unreasonable noise in its final complaint response and stated that noise transference may be greater in older buildings.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints (which is available on our website) acknowledges that it is positive for landlords to recognise noise transference may be the key issue. It recommends that landlords should consider what immediate and practical steps they could take on noise transference. The landlord did not explore options to reduce possible noise transference which led to a failure of its service. The resident has since told this Service that he has carried out sound proofing causing him time and trouble.
The landlord recognised that it could have contacted other residents to see if they were experiencing noise disturbance. However, it did not offer to do this after the resident continued to report noise disturbance in November 2022. This was another missed opportunity to investigate the noise disturbance the resident was reporting.
In summary, there were several failings including:
1. sustained record keeping failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
2. a failure to offer the resident methods to evidence noise disturbance after 17 December 2021.
3. a failure to consider investigating the complaint about staff conduct.
4. a failure to investigate if noise transference was the key issue and to offer practical solutions if necessary.
The resident has told this Service that the noise has had a significant impact on him and has affected his work. While the landlord acknowledged it could have asked other residents about the noise, it did not identify any other failings. It did not offer proportionate actions to put things right. As of May 2025, the resident reports that the noise issues are still ongoing.
The Ombudsman considers that this did amount to maladministration. The landlord has not demonstrated that it learnt from the complaint or took actions to put it right. Considering the landlord’s compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused. We have also made orders to address the noise complaints which are detailed below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action… affecting a resident’.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would:
1. acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days.
2. respond to all stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
3. respond to all stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
The Code states that landlords should issue a final response to stage 2 within 20 working days of it acknowledging the complaint. The landlord’s policy is now in line with the Code.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the service on 17 December 2021. He further complained in an email to the Housing Officer on 19 December 2021. The landlord did not acknowledge either as a complaint. This was not appropriate.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 18 January 2022 and 3 March 2022 to report that the resident said he was not being provided with sufficient support. This was not acknowledged as a complaint and the landlord did not contact the resident to follow up, which was unreasonable.
On 13 May 2022, the landlord internally noted it was aware of a complaint but had not logged it. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 May 2022 to inform him it was investigating a complaint. It did not define the complaint. This was a missed opportunity to ensure it fully understood what the complaint was about. The landlord did not follow this complaint forward and this shows it was operating an obstructive complaints process.
On 19 October 2022, this Service requested that the landlord respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord then sent its stage 1 response on 7 November 2022. This was 223 working days after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction. It was 114 working days after the landlord told the resident it was investigating the complaint. Which was unreasonable and out of line with its complaint policy timescales.
The landlord’s response refers to a complaint received on 8 May 2022, which this Service has not been provided with. This was a record keeping failure. While the landlord apologised for confusion around response time, it did not take further actions to put this right. The landlord’s delay in response caused the resident time and trouble and delayed his ability to use the Ombudsman service.
This investigation has not seen evidence that the resident received an acknowledgment to his stage 2 complaint. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 16 December 2022. This was 29 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay. The landlord failed to follow its complaint policy.
The Ombudsman considers this did amount to maladministration and therefore the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise its failures impacted him.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord should pay £350 for complaints handling failures. These include:
1. not raising a complaint in response to the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction made on 17 and 19 December 2021, 18 January and 3 March 2022.
2. not providing a stage 1 response until after this Service requested it.
3. not responding to the stage 2 escalation within its’ complaints policy timeframe.
4. not responding to the stage 1 or 2 complaints within its’ complaints policy timeframe.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of residents’ reports of noise nuisance and complaints about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in the report.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £750.This is made up of:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to investigate the residents’ reports of noise nuisance and complaints about staff conduct.
  2. £350 for its complaint handling failures.
3. meet with the resident to discuss how it will investigate his noise disturbance reports. This should include discussing ways to evidence any noise disturbance (for example, asking other residents if they are experiencing noise disturbance or the use of noise recording equipment and noise diaries) and exploring options to reduce noise transference.
4. following the meeting above, send the resident and this Service an action plan outlining what steps the landlord will take and what steps the resident will take.
5. provide documentary evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days.