Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Camden Council (202324739)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324739

Camden Council

24 March 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 the resident’s reports of second-hand smoke entering his property through the ventilation system.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. He lives in a 1-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a block. The property is managed by a Tenant Management Organisation (TMO).
  2. In January 2023 the resident reported that second-hand smoke was entering his bathroom. On 7 March 2023 the resident raised chased the landlord as he had not received a response to his reports. Between March and May 2023, the landlord attended the property to inspect the mechanical heat recovery ventilation (MVHR) system.
  3. On 18 July 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint as the issue had not been resolved. He advised that smoke was still coming into his property through the ventilation system, and this had started to impact his asthma. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2023 and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The resident escalated his complaint on 31 July 2023.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 August 2023. It said:
    1. a contractor had visited the property in April 2023 and could not find any issue with the ventilation system
    2. the resident’s view that the contractor said he would be back to investigate but did not do this could not be corroborated
    3. that the contractor may have meant that the resident should contact it or the TMO about the smoke so it could be investigated separately to the ventilation system
    4. in terms of its responsibility to complete the repair – it was satisfied it had acted appropriately in response to reports of an issue with the ventilation system
    5. the complaint was not upheld
  5. The resident referred his complaint to us in October 2023 and advised that the issue was not resolved. He explained that the complaint was about the ventilation system and was not an antisocial behaviour (ASB) complaint about his neighbour. To resolve the complaint, he wanted an independent surveyor to check the ventilation system and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. Since referring the complaint to us, the resident has confirmed that in October 2024, the landlord has repaired the whole ventilation system. However, this had not stopped smoke entering his home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Complaint

  1. It is noted that there was repair work carried out by the landlord in relation to the ventilation system in October 2024. However, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s actions which were dealt with in the landlord stage 2 complaint response from August 2023. This is because there is no evidence to show that after August 2023 any concerns were raised by the resident, or any further action was taken by the landlord until October 2024. This was after a Housing Officer contacted the landlord to advise that the issue with the smoke was still ongoing.
  2. Due to the time elapsed between August 2023 and October 2024, the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s actions after the stage 2 complaint response, then he should raise his concerns with the landlord first.
  3. Additionally, we are aware that after the ventilation system was fully repaired in October 2024 the resident still had an issue with second-hand smoke entering his property. He raised a complaint about this in October 2024 and February 2025. Once the resident has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, and if the complaint is not resolved, he can refer this new issue to our Service.

 

Ventilation system

  1. The resident lives in a TMO property. The TMO has responsibility for day-to-day repairs and maintenance. They also have responsibility for tenancy management and dealing with issues of ASB. However, as the ventilation system falls under mechanical and engineering repairs, this would be the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord confirmed that it was responsible for the ventilation repair in its communication with us on 13 March 2025.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says that urgent repairs should be completed within 5 working days. In its policy a repair of a mechanical extractor fan in the bathroom is considered an urgent repair.
  3. On 3 January 2023, the resident reported smoke entering his bathroom and on 7 January 2023 he reported the smoke smelled like cannabis. The landlord responded on 9 January 2023, and said the issue was sent to the Housing Manager. The landlord’s response was fair, as reports of ASB are handled by the TMO rather than the landlord. Since the resident did not mention the issue was repair related and highlighted the cannabis smell, it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to the TMO.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 and 22 March 2023 to chase for an update because the issue had not been resolved. He reported that smoke was entering through his bathroom air vent and requested a fan to prevent this. He also mentioned having asthma, which made breathing difficult when smoke entered his home. Following this, and with the support of the TMO, the landlord arranged for a contractor to inspect the resident’s property on 9 April 2023. The time taken to arrange this inspection was unreasonable and did not align with its repairs policy for urgent repairs. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
  5. Following the inspection the resident had to chase again for an update. The evidence shows that there was communication between the contractor and the TMO from 27 April and 16 May 2023. However, there were no updates provided to the resident. The resident chased the landlord 3 times before raising a formal complaint on 18 July 2023. The lack of updates provided to the resident caused him some distress and inconvenience.
  6. On 16 May 2023, the contractor informed the TMO there was no smell of smoke in the property during the inspection. They suggested testing both flats while the neighbour was smoking to understand the issue better. The landlord was copied in this communication, but there is no evidence the test was conducted. Better record-keeping and oversight could have ensured the contractor’s request to conduct a test was carried out. The failure to conduct the test caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  7. In both his stage 1 and stage 2 complaint to the landlord the resident said that the contractor had attended his property on 9 April 2023 and promised to return to investigate why smoke was entering into his property. The landlord disputed this part of the resident’s complaint in its responses. In its stage 2 complaint response it said, “I have no means of corroborating your understanding that the contractor told you he would come back but later reneged on this promise.” However, the evidence from 16 May 2023 contradicts this. The landlord was aware of the contractor’s request for the test because they were included in the communication.
  8. The failure to comprehensively investigate the complaint was unreasonable and did not follow its own complaint policy to “acknowledge when things go wrong”. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue for the resident and caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  9. While the TMO may have been managing some of the communication with the resident, it was still important for the landlord to have oversight of any issues raised. The landlord was copied into the communication between the TMO, contractor, and resident. However, the repair and contact records provided to us by the landlord were limited in terms of detail and there appear to be significant gaps. These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly show what steps it took to resolve the resident’s concerns.
  10. The landlord also told us that it was responsible for the ventilation repair, but the evidence shows a lack of accountability as it left the management of the issue to the TMO. For example, the resident on several occasions told the landlord that he had asthma, and the smoke was making it more difficult for him to breathe. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will make sure residents with the greatest need get the most help which includes vulnerable residents. However, there is no evidence to show the resident’s vulnerabilities were considered when deciding how to manage the issue. This was unfair and contributed to the resident’s distress.
  11. In summary, we have found several failings in the landlord’s actions. These were its:
    1. failure to follow its urgent repair policy
    2. record keeping
    3. failure to manage communication effectively or be proactive with updates
    4. failure to oversee or manage the repair
    5. lack of consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities
    6. failure to recognise it had got things wrong
  12. These failings had a significant impact on the resident. He has told us that the smoke entering his home was very worrying. This was highlighted in the urgency of his communication with the landlord where he consistently chased for updates and for the landlord to follow through with actions it said it would take. The impact to the resident was heightened as he had asthma, and he believed the smoke could have affected his health. The landlord did little to ease the concerns for the resident and failed to show that it considered this in its decision making. The impact was compounded by the landlord’s failure to identify it had got things wrong. When taking all the circumstances into account, this amounts to maladministration.
  13. Using our remedies guidance compensation between £100 to £600 is appropriate for failures that have adversely affected the resident but have had no permanent impact. We do not consider the impact of the failings to be permanent, this is because even if the ventilation issue had been managed better and the communication with the resident improved, the outcome would have been the same.
  14. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers a payment of £500 is fair compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is because the impact to the resident of the failings found were significant, but not permanent.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of second-hand smoke entering his property through the ventilation system.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. write an apology to the resident for the failings found
    2. pay a total of £500 in compensation to the resident
    3. provide the Service with evidence it has completed the above orders.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review its offer of training for its staff who deal with TMO’s. It should ensure that its training covers who is accountable for different types of repairs and what oversight the landlord should have for any issues raised. The landlord is to provide evidence of its review to the Service. Alternatively, if there is no training already in place, it should provide evidence of a training schedule.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss any outstanding issues he may have in relation to smoke entering his property.