London Borough of Camden Council (202231420)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231420

Camden Council

10 April 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:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. She lives with her partner in a fourth floor, mid-rise flat. The landlord is a local authority. It said it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and she has not advised us of any vulnerabilities within the household.
On 16 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report antisocial behaviour. This related to a chemical smell and noise nuisance from a neighbour’s flat. She said this had been going on for a long time and was affecting her health. She asked that the landlord move the neighbour to another property.
The resident contacted the landlord, on 18 January 2023, asking it to tell the neighbour to stop spraying chemicals. She said that it was harassment, and the neighbour wanted to kill her.
The landlord’s housing officer contacted the resident on 23 January 2023. He said he visited the neighbour’s flat. Whilst he did not enter the flat, he said he could not detect a chemical smell.
Between the 30 January 2023 and 28 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times about the issue. She asked it to take action and said that it was not doing anything to help to resolve the issue.
On 6 March 2023 there was communication between the resident and the landlord’s housing officer. This indicates the housing officer visited the resident’s property that day but again was unable to detect a chemical smell. The resident said this was because her windows and doors were open.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 March 2023, as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports about the chemical smell. We advised her to raise the issue as a formal complaint with the landlord.
On 10 July 2023, the resident contacted us again about the issue. She said that she had temporarily moved out of the property, due to the chemical smell. She said that she had made a complaint to the landlord but could not remember when she did this. We contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on the same day and asked it to respond to her complaint within 15 working days.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 31 July 2023. It set out the complaint as being about a chemical smell and ASB from drilling by the resident’s neighbour. It advised:
1. its housing officer had visited the neighbour’s property, along with other properties in the block and was unable to detect a chemical smell.
2. it informed the neighbour of the time work to the property was allowed, in line with its tenancy agreement.
3. it was not upholding the resident’s complaint.
4. it was sorry for the distress the situation had caused the resident.
5. it would arrange for 2 of its officers to attend the property again and check the situation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 August 2023 and requested it escalated her complaint to stage 2. She disagreed with the ASB investigation and felt the landlord had not responded to her communication. She asked if the landlord had entered the neighbour’s property and said she had video evidence of the ASB. She said the chemical smell had affected her health.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 5 September 2023, to advise the landlord had not responded to her stage 2 complaint. We contacted the landlord on the same day instructing it to provide its response by 12 September 2023.
On 13 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. it had not received a response from its internal teams to requests for information about the reported noise nuisance and ASB, including the evidence the resident mentioned on, 3 August 2023. This supported her account about the landlord’s poor communication.
2. it upheld this part of the complaint and awarded the resident £50 for time and trouble about this lack of service.
3. its stage 1 complaint response was silent on whether it had entered the neighbour’s property.
4. it did not know if the visit agreed in its stage 1 complaint response had taken place.
5. it was sorry that, without evidence from its housing team as to its actions about the reports of ASB, it could not decide on the substantive part of the complaint.
6. it would return the matter to the service and instruct them to contact the resident within 10 working days. The service would provide the resident with a formal report of the steps it had taken, or a plan to address the issue.
The resident contacted us on 15 September 2023, as she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. She said it kept delaying and extending its response time and had not provided her with any real answers.

Post internal complaints process

The resident made a further report of ASB to the landlord on 14 December 2023. On 29 December 2023, she contacted its member support team as she said the landlord had not responded to her. She asked for help with the issue or for it to find her somewhere else to live. The member support team raised the issue with the housing officer, who said the neighbour’s flat was empty and as a leaseholder, the landlord had no power to provide other accommodation for the resident.
The landlord’s records show its housing officer and manager visited the neighbour’s property on 2 May 2024. It checked the outside of the property, which was empty at the time, visited other neighbours and the resident. It was unable to detect any chemical smells, but it noted the smell troubled the resident. It identified a drilling noise in another property about 100 metres away. The landlord told the resident that there was no basis for action on the smell or the noise. It did a dynamic risk assessment and said it arranged external support for the resident. We have not seen evidence in the landlord’s records that it did this referral.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

The landlord’s noise and nuisance guidelines state:
1. it tries to act quickly to try to prevent an issue escalating.
2. it takes a restorative approach whenever appropriate.
3. it remains aware to the informal and formal remedies available to both parties.
4. it aims to avoid legal action when it can.
5. the general principle of dealing with the issues are to make a record of what it has done and file it where others can find the information.
6. noise diaries or other means of recording can be offered to residents reporting such issues.
The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals’ states, it is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victim, and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive reports of ASB. This should be the starting point of a case-management approach to dealing with reports of ASB. The welfare, safety and well-being of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. It is therefore important to identify the effect that the reported anti-social behaviour is having on the victim, particularly if repeated incidents are having a cumulative effect on their mental or physical well-being. A continuous and organised risk assessment will help to identify cases that are causing, or could result in, serious harm to the victim, either as a one-off incident or as part of a targeted and persistent campaign of ASB against the victim.
After the resident reported ASB on 16 January 2023, the landlord responded in line with its noise & nuisance guidelines and visited the block of flats 5 working days later. Although the landlord could not find any chemical smell, it said it would send the neighbour a letter about the noise. We have not seen evidence of this letter in the landlord’s records.
The resident made further reports about the issue, which showed this was still having an impact on her. The landlord’s evidence shows it made one further visit to the block, to investigate the issue, in March 2023. There is no record of the outcome or actions agreed following this visit.
There is no record that the landlord logged the resident’s reports as an ASB case, or if the housing officer sought advice from its ASB team. The evidence provided by the landlord shows two visits to the block of flats, as the only action it took to investigate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB. There is no record that it offered the resident noise diaries or other means of recording the noise nuisance. Its own complaint process was unable to obtain information as to the actions it had taken to address the issue, which demonstrates it did not follow its guidelines and make clear, accessible records of what it had done.
The landlord has not demonstrated it considered the Government’s guidance in its response to the reported ASB and noise nuisance. There is no evidence it assessed the risk of harm to the resident, or the impact it was having on her, when it received the initial report. Its records show it failed to consider the welfare, safety and well-being of the resident. This disadvantaged the resident, as the landlord was unable to manage her expectations and provide support, that it later identified.
There is no record that the landlord sought involvement of other agencies, which is a concern given the resident’s report she thought the neighbour was trying to kill her. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed a risk assessment, to identify the cause of the issue and provide the resident with support. The dynamic risk assessment the landlord completed in May 2024 provided it with information, which meant it considered a referral to an external support agency was needed. Had it done this at the time the resident first reported ASB, it could have provided support to the resident at an earlier stage.
The evidence the landlord has provided shows it visited the resident’s property in May 2024, 9 months after it agreed to this in its stage 1 complaint response. It is a concern that it did not complete this earlier, and it is unclear what the reason for the delay was, or whether it informed the resident. This would have caused the resident further inconvenience and distress.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint recognised its poor response to the reports of ASB from the resident and its inaction. It advised it was unable to obtain supporting information from the housing service, which it accepted supported the resident’s view there was a lack of support. It awarded compensation of £50 time and trouble for the lack of service, which we do not consider was reasonable based on the detriment caused to the resident. It also was not within its complaints policy guidelines of £100 to £300 compensation for this kind of failure.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will award £25 compensation per month where there is a failure to provide a service. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered higher compensation based upon this, as it acknowledged it failed to provide a proper ASB service over 8 months or so, between the resident’s first report and its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint was unable to decide on the main ASB issue. It returned the matter to its housing service to provide the resident with a formal report on the issue within 10 working days. However, we are unable to confirm that the landlord did this and it has failed to demonstrate it followed the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which states landlords must follow any proposed remedy through to completion. It is likely this undermined the landlord and tenant relationship.
In summary, the landlord has not demonstrated it took any meaningful action following the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance. The evidence indicates it failed to provide a service it agreed to in its stage 1 complaint response, within a reasonable timescale. It failed to consider Government guidance for dealing with ASB or follow its own guidelines for dealing with noise nuisance. It did not fully investigate to identify the cause of the issue. The steps it took to try and put things right were limited and are not recorded in the evidence provided to the Ombudsman. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to undertake a more robust investigation given the seriousness of the reported issues, even if this led to it concluding it was unable to take further action. By not doing so, it was unable to identify the effect the reported ASB was having on the resident or provide her with support, which it later identified in May 2024. This was a missed opportunity from the landlord and would have disadvantaged the resident.
We find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reported ASB. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay a further £500 compensation, in addition to the £50 set out in its stage 2 complaint response.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as when someone lets it know that they are unhappy with its service, and they want it to take action to resolve it. It states where it needs an extension beyond the timescales of, 10 working days for responding to a stage 1 complaint, or 20 working days for stage 2 complaints to enable it to respond to the complaint fully, this will be agreed by both parties.
The resident told us that she had made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord before we asked it to raise this. Whilst we do not dispute that the resident did this, we have not seen any evidence to confirm it. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response set out the complaint definition, what it had done to investigate it, the decision made and reasons for this. It provided the resident with advice on further options should the issue continue. It also agreed for 2 of its officers to visit the resident’s property to assess the issue again. Although it did not specifically address the report of ASB, it acknowledged this in its stage 2 complaint response.
There is no record that the landlord sent the resident formal acknowledgment of her complaint at either stage of the process. The landlord’s sent its stage 2 complaint response 29 working days after the resident requested it be escalated. This was outside the timescale to respond within 20 working days, as set out in its complaints policy and 1 working day after the Ombudsman’s deadline. However, the delay would not have had a significant impact, and it did provide the resident with an apology for this.
The landlord explained the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response was due to waiting for a response to its own enquiries, which was not forthcoming. As a result, it was unable to decide on the ASB issue and apologised to the resident. There is no record that the landlord sought to agree an extension to the stage 2 complaint with the resident, to allow it further time to obtain the information it had requested.
As this investigation has found an absence of records from the landlord, it was unlikely an extension would have changed the outcome of its stage 2 complaint response. However, the absence of such evidence provided to this investigation is a concern, given the length of time that has passed since its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord has not demonstrated it had a collaborative and co-operative approach towards resolving the resident’s complaint, working with colleagues across teams and departments, as set out in the Code. However, it is recognised this is through no fault of its complaints department.
We find that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation.

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 antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £550, in addition to the compensation it awarded in its stage 2 complaint response, comprised of:
  1. £500 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £50 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to discuss any current ASB concerns she has:
  1. if she is reporting further ASB, the landlord is to agree a time specific action plan:

(1) explaining what evidence it would need, how the resident can provide such evidence and any action it could take.

(2) provide the resident with support through internal and external agencies.

The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with these orders to us.

Recommendations

The landlord provides training to its housing officers on when it is appropriate to log an ASB case and carry out a risk assessment.
The landlord should provide complaint handling staff training on:
1. ensuring compliance with the actions agreed in its response.