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

London Borough of Camden Council (202326521)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326521

Camden Council

20 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a repair to the communal front door following a forced entry to deliver a fire safety programme.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a first-floor flat, which shares a communal hallway with one other property.
  2. In April 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it would be starting work to upgrade the smoke alarms in the communal areas and individual properties. It said its contractor would contact the resident to arrange access. On 5 June 2023 the landlord attended to complete a pre work inspection. It could not gain access to the building and forced entry via the communal front door. This resulted in the lock being damaged and a pane of glass in the door being broken.
  3. On 10 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that it had left the building insecure following the forced entry. He said he had to instruct his own contractor to replace the lock because he was concerned that his insurance would be invalid as a result. He said he had been on holiday at the time and had spent several hours trying to deal with the issue which had interrupted his holiday. He also complained that he had tried to speak to the landlord following a letter received on 11 June 2023 and he had not received a response. As an outcome he wanted the landlord to reimburse him for the cost of the lock, which was £384. The landlord to replace the 2 broken glass panes. The landlord to pay him and his neighbour £500 for the time and trouble spent dealing with the issue and an apology and explanation as to how this happened.
  4. On 18 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained that it had forced entry to inspect the property prior to its fire safety works. This was after its contractor was unable to gain entry, despite sending a letter on 28 April 2023. The landlord felt its contractor had made reasonable attempts to gain entry. It stated the door remained secure due to a second working lock and the presence of the resident’s own front door. It admitted failing to board the broken pane initially but actioned this on 6 June 2023 and installed a yale lock for added security. It left the resident’s key with a neighbour. On 22 June 2023 it installed a temporary glass pane, with a proper replacement scheduled for 28 September 2023. The landlord said it would not reimburse the resident for the cost of the new lock, noting that the resident knew it had ordered a replacement which it would install upon arrival.
  5. On 10 October 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord:
    1. should not have forced entry for non-emergency inspection work
    2. had not made the effort to contact him
    3. had not told him it had installed a temporary lock
    4. should have contacted him to tell him not to instruct his own contractor
    5. had not responded to his concerns around poor communication
    6. had not addressed his concerns around insurance implications
  6. On 19 October 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. The landlord explained the importance of its fire safety programme and how it wanted to deliver this within target. It admitted it should have replaced the glass pane sooner and confirmed it had now fitted the correct pane. It recognised its stage 1 response failed to fully consider the distress caused, particularly while the resident was on holiday. The landlord maintained it would not reimburse the cost of the lock, as the resident had made that decision independently. It admitted its communication had fallen below expected standards and apologised for not addressing this in its initial response. It also apologised for not discussing the potential insurance implications of the unsecured door, advising the resident to consult his insurance policy. In recognition of delays, poor communication, and lack of empathy, the landlord offered £200 in compensation, which it broke down as follows:
    1. £25 – delays and failure to provide response to initial letter
    2. £150 – inconvenience, time and trouble
    3. £25 – missed or avoidable appointments
  7. In communication with this service the resident said he did not feel the landlord had made reasonable attempts to gain access by contacting him. He said it was very distressing to hear that the landlord had forced entry and having to deal with this whilst he was on holiday made matters worse. He was concerned that having an insecure communal door would impact upon his insurance cover. He said that the landlord’s communication had been poor throughout its handling of the repair and it had not responded to direct emails he had sent. As an outcome he wanted the landlord to apologise and acknowledge its failures and reimburse him for the cost of replacing the lock.

Assessment and findings

The repair to the communal front door

  1. It was reasonable that the landlord and the contractor wrote to the resident on 17 April 2023 to make him aware that it was intending to start works to install a new fire detection system in the resident’s home and the communal areas. The letters said that the contractor would contact the resident to make an appointment and it expected to complete the work by the end of May 2023.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 May 2023 requesting further information about the fire safety works and asking it to put the works on hold until he had time to consider, due to him being liable to contribute to the costs. Although the resident’s request for further information was reasonable, we would not expect the landlord to put the works on hold for this reason. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to this email, which was a failure.
  3. The lease states that the resident must allow the landlord and its contractors access to the building, upon the landlord giving 48 hours written notice in writing (and in the case of an emergency, without notice).
  4. The resident said that he did not receive any further contact from the landlord or the contractor about the fire safety work. We have seen an email from the contractor to the landlord dated 5 June 2023 in which the contractor said it had knocked on the resident’s property at least 5 times between 2 May 2023 and 2 June 2023 but was still struggling to access the building. The contractor also said it had written to the resident on 28 April 2023 requesting access.
  5. We understand the importance of fire safety works and that the landlord wanted to ensure it delivered its fire safety programme within target. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided the contractor with the resident’s contact details. There is no evidence that the resident received the letter dated 28 April 2023 or what the letter said. There is also no evidence that it left calling cards or attempted to contact the resident by phone or email, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord’s records indicate that it sent automated text messages on 2 June 2023 and 5 June 2023, regarding its attendance on 5 June 2023. The records do not show which telephone number the landlord sent the messages to. The resident said he did not receive these messages. Therefore, based on the above there is no evidence upon which we can be satisfied that the landlord made reasonable attempts to contact the resident before forcing entry to the building. This was a failure.
  7. On 5 June 2023 the landlord forced entry to the communal door. The landlord’s records indicate there were 2 locks on the door. It drilled the top lock and had to smash a pane of glass to open the second lock. It was appropriate that the landlord left a note on letter–headed notepaper for the resident to contact it to arrange a new lock. In its complaint response, the landlord said it believed the property was secure because it had a second operational lock and the resident had his own individual flat door. However, the landlord accepted that due to it not making safe the glass pane before leaving site, it had left the building insecure, which was not acceptable.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on the afternoon of 5 June 2023 after a friend had informed him about the door. The landlord logged an emergency repair to make safe the communal door and glass window. The resident said the landlord told him it would do its best to attend later that day.
  9. The landlord’s repair booklet says it considers unsafe doors as an emergency repair. Its website says that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Its repair booklet says it will offer the next available appointment for non-emergency repairs with a general waiting time of about 20 working days.
  10. The resident said he had spoken to his neighbour on the morning of 6 June 2023 who informed him the landlord had attended, removed the barrel of the lock but the repair was outstanding. The resident contacted the landlord who told him that it had ordered a replacement lock but could not give him a timeframe when it would arrive.
  11. The landlord’s records show that it attended between 3:30pm and 4:49pm on 6 June 2023 when it fitted plywood to the broken glass and a Yale lock to the door. It is normal practice for a landlord to complete a temporary repair whilst it is waiting for parts to arrive. The landlord’s attendance was appropriate because it completed the temporary repairs within 24 hours.
  12. The resident said he contacted the landlord’s emergency repairs service at approximately 4pm on 6 June 2023. He said the landlord told him it would fix the lock by the end of the day. The resident said that based on his recent experience, he did not believe the landlord would complete the repair by that evening. He informed the landlord that if it did not attend to complete the repair by the end of the day he would instruct his own contractor. He said the call handler agreed to email the relevant department to let it know what the resident had said. The resident said if the landlord was not happy for him to do this, it should call or email him to say so. The following morning, 7 June 2023, upon the resident not receiving contact from the landlord, he instructed his own contractor to replace the lock.
  13. From the information available to us, the resident made his call to the landlord’s emergency repair line at approximately 4pm on 6 June 2023. The resident’s contractor attended the property to replace the lock at 10:09am on 7 June 2023. The landlord’s office hours are between 8am and 6pm. This therefore provided the landlord with a total of 4 office hours in which to provide a response. This was not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, a reasonable amount of time for the landlord to respond. While we do not disbelieve the resident’s account of the telephone call on 6 June 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord agreed to the resident’s actions or that it would reimburse him for the replacement of the lock. Based on this, it was reasonable that the landlord did not reimburse the resident for the replacement of the lock.
  14. The resident complained that communication with the landlord was poor throughout and that he had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and responses to his concerns. The resident referred to a letter from the landlord which he received on 11 June 2023, dated 23 May 2023. He said the letter repeated information from an earlier letter about the fire safety works. He said he emailed the landlord to request further information but had not received a response. We have not seen this letter or the resident’s request for information. We are therefore unable to make a finding on this matter. However, the landlord accepted within its complaint responses that its communication had not met expected standards and apologised for this.
  15. The landlord fitted the glass pane on 22 June 2023. It then identified the glass needed to match the existing glass because the property was in a conservation area. The landlord fitted the matching glass on 27 September 2023. While this was not consistent with the landlord’s repair timescales, the landlord fitted the temporary glass, which meant the property was fully secure, on 22 June 2023, which was within 14 working days. The further delay was in sourcing matching glass. In the circumstances we would consider the landlord’s actions to be reasonable.
  16. In summary, there were failures by the landlord in that it:
    1. Failed to make reasonable attempts to contact the resident regarding access to the building.
    2. Failed to respond to the resident’s initial request for additional information.
    3. Failed to complete a temporary fix to the broken glass on 5 June 2023 which left the building insecure for 1 day.
  17. The landlord has not produced evidence to show that it has a forced access procedure and what it should do in circumstances where it requires access. The Ombudsman cannot, then, be satisfied it acted fairly, reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures. We have therefore concluded the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
  18. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  19. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the inconvenience caused to the resident and the distress caused by having to deal with the issue whilst he was on holiday. It acknowledged it had failed to complete a temporary repair to the pane of glass on 5 June 2023 and that its communication had not met the standards it would normally expect. However, it failed to recognise that it had not given reasonable notice of its intention to force entry to the building. We have therefore increased the amount of compensation offered to reflect this.
  20. The landlord showed its attempt to put things right by completing the temporary repairs, ordering the replacement lock, replacing the pane of glass and by offering the resident compensation. It explained that it was planning to introduce a universal key system to support such inspections to common spaces in the future.
  21. The landlord did not recognise any learning it could take from the resident’s complaint. We have therefore made a recommendation below to reflect this.
  22. Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, a fairer level of compensation would be £400. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in this case.
  23. We cannot make orders for the resident’s neighbour as there is no evidence he raised a complaint or is joined in on this complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 3-stage complaint process. The landlord said it would acknowledge all stages within 5 working days. It would provide a response at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Stage 3 was an independent review by this Service.
  2. The resident made his initial complaint on 10 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and sent its stage 1 response on 18 September 2023, which was 51 working days later. The landlord ought to have communicated any delay in providing its response to the resident, as per paragraph 5.2 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022). There is no evidence that it did this. This was a failure.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 October 2023. The landlord sent its response on 19 October 2023, which was within its policy timeframe and compliant with the Code.
  4. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint procedure meant it missed an opportunity to address his concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to his concerns. The landlord should have conducted a prompt and proper investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
  5. Further to this, the landlord did not respond appropriately to all elements of the resident’s complaint at stage 1. For example, it did not appropriately acknowledge the distress caused or respond to the resident’s concerns about insurance. This was a complaint handling failure as per paragraph 5.6 of the Code which says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. 
  6. The Ombudsman considers the failures identified as maladministration.
  7. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused, it did not put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a repair to the communal front door following a forced entry to deliver a fire safety programme.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation in addition to that offered via the complaint procedure (£200) (£500 in total). The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repair to the communal door
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
    2. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord complete a review of this case to identify what went wrong and what learning it can take from it.