London Borough of Camden Council (202331237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331237

Camden Council

19 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:
   1. Reports of noise nuisance.
   2. The resident’s request for rehousing.
   3. Compensation offered following a previous Ombudsman determination.
   4. The associated complaints.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom basement level flat. She lived at the property with her husband and mother-in-law between March 2013 and July 2024.
3. In March 2023 the resident reported noise caused by DIY from the flat above to the landlord. She was concerned that the neighbour did not have adequate flooring.
4. On 2 May 2023 the Ombudsman issued our determination on case 202126123. This related to a separate complaint made by the resident about the landlord’s handling of reported leaks, damp, and mould in the property. We found severe maladministration and made orders related to these findings. The orders included a requirement for the landlord to move the resident urgently.
5. The resident made 2 complaints in July 2023:
   1. On 23 July 2023 she said she was unhappy because the landlord had not offered her a new property to move to. She wanted a list of all the vacant properties the landlord had in the area.
   2. On 26 July 2023 she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her noise reports. She said that she had reported noise nuisance between December 2022 and June 2023. She believed the neighbour had not laid carpets and was not complying with the tenancy conditions.
6. In July 2023 the landlord made 4 direct offers of alternative accommodation to the resident.
7. The resident made a further complaint on 9 August 2023. She was unhappy with the time taken to find her alternative accommodation. She disagreed with the compensation offered following the Ombudsman’s determination on 2 May 2023.
8. The landlord made an additional offer of alternative accommodation in October 2023.
9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in November 2023. The response is undated. It did not uphold the complaint. It referred to the 5 properties it had offered the resident between July and October 2023. It said this was above the 2 direct offers it would ordinarily make and the resident refused them without viewing. It would not list all its 2 bed properties that were vacant in the area.
10. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 11 November 2023. She said:
    1. The landlord had not fully addressed her complaints and reiterated the concerns raised in her 3 complaints.
    2. She was unhappy with the presentation of the landlord’s stage 1 response.
    3. She was unhappy with the time taken by the landlord to make any offers of alternative accommodation.
    4. She felt the properties offered by the landlord were unsuitable.
    5. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication.
11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 November 2023. In the response, the landlord:
    1. Apologised for the delay in its complaint response and the impact this had on her reports.
    2. Listed the actions taken in response to her noise reports. It said that it did not establish evidence of noise nuisance and was satisfied the neighbour had acted appropriately to reduce noise transference. It found no evidence that it had acted outside of its policy and procedures.
    3. Said the resident should not have raised her concerns about its response to the Ombudsman’s decision from May 2023 as a complaint. It directed her to contact the Ombudsman to determine if it had complied with the orders that we made and the compensation awarded.
    4. Said there had been confusion in her requests to it for contact details for named officers that it had not addressed at stage 1.
    5. Said it was satisfied that it had made suitable offers of alternative accommodation.
    6. Offered £80 compensation for the complaint handling failure, which amounted to £20 per month for the stage 1 response delay.
12. The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in December 2023. She continued to report problems with noise transference in February 2024.
13. The landlord moved the resident to an alternative property in July 2024. It provided the resident with £805 as a disturbance payment, provided a decorating voucher, and paid for removals.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. The records show a complex history regarding repairs and requests for rehousing from 2021 onwards. This report will seek to address the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing from May 2023 onwards. This is following the Ombudsman’s previous determination of 2 May 2023 under reference 202126123 in which we ordered the landlord to pursue an urgent move for the resident.

Noise nuisance

15. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy sets out how it will respond to reports of ASB. It will acknowledge the initial report within 2 working days and contact the person reporting within 7 working days. At the initial contact it will offer a service intervention to resolve the ASB. If this service intervention is successful it will close the case. Where the problem persists, it will conduct further interventions such as Acceptable Behaviour Agreements or consider legal enforcement.
16. Sections 2(e) and (f) of the tenancy conditions stipulate type of flooring suitable for the property to prevent noise transference between properties. It says the resident must keep all floors covered with carpet and a good quality underlay, or a suitable other floor covering. This is to ensure that the flooring present has noise reducing qualities. It does not allow laminate or other types of wooden or artificial floor coverings without written permission.
17. On the receipt of the resident’s report on 22 March 2023, the landlord should have contacted the resident and agreed a plan of action. Its records show that it responded to the report the following day and agreed to visit the neighbour and discuss the allegations. Although it was compliant with the timescales set out in its ASB policy, it did not agree any follow up action with the resident. The oversight early in the process caused the resident additional time and trouble later in the timeline.
18. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the landlord responded to the resident’s additional reports in May and June 2023. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s reports and investigated the noise nuisance. It is common practice within the sector to open an investigation into the causes of noise nuisance following repeat concerns. The landlord should have established how the resident could evidence her allegations and agreed how it would respond. It did not and this was a failure by the landlord.
19. The landlord visited the resident and attempted to visit her neighbour on 13 July 2023. Had the visit to the neighbour been successful, the landlord could have satisfied itself that an appropriate floor covering was present. If the floor covering was unsuitable, it could have begun action to enforce its tenancy conditions. Instead, the reports show the landlord called the neighbour and took no further action. This was also a failure by the landlord, contributing to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
20. The resident made further reports of noise nuisance in her complaint on 26 July 2023. She reiterated her same issues in an email to the landlord on 7 September 2023. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports. Its failure caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
21. The landlord did not provide any response to her noise complaints at stage 1. In its stage 2 response on 30 November 2023, the landlord said it visited the neighbour on 6 September 2023. It says that it found rugs in the rooms throughout and this was a suitable floor covering and there was no evidence of noise transference. This contradicted the landlord’s emails to the resident on 23 October 2023. It said that it wrote to the neighbour about the flooring, noise nuisance, and visitors to the property. It said that it reminded them of the tenancy conditions and planned to arrange a further home visit to the neighbour. It treated the resident unfairly, its communications were inconsistent, and it failed to use its complaint handling effectively to reflect on its failures or put things right for the resident.
22. Additionally, the landlord’s records surrounding its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance are poor. There are no notes that were available to the Ombudsman showing the outcome of visits to either the resident or the neighbour. There was no record of written correspondence it says it sent to the neighbour. The only correspondence seen related to the resident’s noise reports was in the email communication between the resident and landlord.
23. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken. In this case, it would have ensured that there were clear reasons for its decision making that it could have shared with the resident. The lack of evidence contributed to its ability to respond effectively to the resident’s complaints which contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
24. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance. The resident has now left the property which has ended the impact any noise nuisance may have. However, throughout her reports to the landlord, the resident clearly believes that the lack of suitable flooring in the flat above made the noise worse. She said the increased noise caused her and her husband to lose sleep. The landlord failed to treat the resident’s reports seriously or use its policy and procedures effectively. It failed to comply with its own tenancy conditions, policies and procedures, or good practice. The landlord should have established early in the timeline how the resident could evidence her allegations and agreed an action plan. Its failures contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience throughout the timeline.
25. The landlord should pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This reflects the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for maladministration. The impact repeated by the resident throughout her reports to the landlord demonstrated the adverse effect the situation had on her and her husband. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings or make attempts to put things right in its complaint responses.

Request for rehousing

26. The landlord’s Housing Allocation Scheme sets out how and when it will make direct offers to move. It does not describe any maximum number of offers it will make under the scheme. It instead states that when an applicant refuses an offer, it will review the application and discuss housing options.
27. Rehousing can often be a complex process and require both the resident and landlord to make compromises. Landlords must ensure the best use of their available stock to discharge both their statutory housing function, as well as their general needs applications. Any restrictions such as a need for a specific property type or area can add time to this process.
28. The landlord was ordered by the Ombudsman to consider rehousing the resident urgently as part of our orders from 2 May 2023. The property was in disrepair and the landlord needed to move the resident to complete the repairs. Its records show that it responded to this order promptly when it met with the resident on 11 May 2023. It appropriately agreed to find 2 bedroom flats in the areas requested by the resident and added her to its direct offer list.
29. The landlord’s records show that it made its first offer of alternative accommodation on 6 July 2023. This was 51 working days after visiting the resident on 11 May 2023 when it agreed to make offers of 2 bed accommodation. It then made 3 further offers on 13 July 2023. This was a reasonable period given the location and availability of suitable housing stock. The landlord showed that it was seeking to find suitable alternative accommodation for the resident.
30. The landlord made good use of the tools it had available to find permanent alternative accommodation. Its offer for the resident to complete a housing application through which it could award points was further evidence of this. It demonstrated its intention to help the resident move urgently to suitable accommodation.
31. In her complaints to the landlord, the resident said the offers she received were unsuitable. She said that it knew the properties were not appropriate as they were in the wrong area, or also in properties subject to substantial repairs. There is no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the properties offered to the resident would not meet her housing need. They met the necessary size criteria, 3 were within 0.5 miles of her desired area, 1 was within 2 miles and 1 was within 4 miles. In the absence of records showing that the properties were in a poor condition, the Ombudsman finds the offers made were reasonable.
32. The landlord used its complaint handling to explain its points system and the requirement for the resident to place bids within a set period. It appropriately explained the complications caused by outstanding repairs to the properties in her desired area. It said that it would ordinarily only make 2 direct offers but it did not say how many additional offers it would make. It could have used this opportunity to clarify its position and manage the resident’s expectations. It could have considered if it should have made these clearer to the resident in May 2023. It did not and this caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
33. The landlord missed the opportunity to further consider the resident’s position in its stage 2 response. Although it was acceptable to reflect on the number of direct offers made, it could have made its own assessment on the suitability of the offers. It could have set out how many additional offers it would consider, and what it would do if she refused these.
34. The frustration between the parties grew because they disagreed that the offers made were suitable. The landlord’s failure to decide the suitability and number of offers it would make early in the timeline contributed to this frustration. It could have set out how many offers it would make under the direct offer scheme. It should have been clear with the resident about the availability of properties in her desired area. It did not do so and this caused the resident distress and inconvenience later in the timeline.
35. In its correspondence with the resident in February 2024, the landlord treated the resident in an unfair and heavy handed manner. After viewing 2 properties on 1 February 2024, the landlord decided that it would not make any further offers (it later changed this decision). Once the resident refused the offers, the landlord unreasonably suggested she pursue a mutual exchange. The landlord should have known that it was pursuing a direct offer because the property needed extensive repairs. It was unprofessional and its response was distressing for the resident. It is important that the landlord maintains a positive landlord/tenant relationship. This poor communication can damage this relationship and further complicate matters between them.
36. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing. The landlord responded urgently to the Ombudsman’s earlier determination to pursue a move for the resident. It explored the available options to speed up the resident’s application. It made suitable offers of accommodation and allowed the resident to make more than 5 refusals, while still pursuing other offers.
37. However, it should have been clearer with the resident early in the timeline. It could have prescribed the number of offers it would make. Because it did not, its decision that the offers it made in February 2024 were the final ones, surprised and distressed the resident. The landlord’s tone in its correspondence in February 2024 was also unsympathetic and dismissive of the underlying disrepair present at the property. The landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is reflective of the short duration involved and the impact on the resident in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.

Compensation offered following a previous Ombudsman determination

38. In our determination in May 2023, we ordered the landlord to pay £2,000 compensation for other failures set out in the report. This related to several issues, including a history of leaks into the property. In addition, we ordered the landlord to consider compensation for delays in completing repairs after 25 November 2021. We ordered the landlord to write to the resident and this Service to confirm its position and provide an explanation for this.
39. The landlord complied with this order. It reviewed its handling of the case and determined that additional compensation was necessary. It set out how it had calculated the £400 compensation offered. It said the amount offered reflected the higher end of its compensation policy for distress.
40. The period in dispute is between November 2021 and March 2022. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it awards £20 per month for delays. It will also consider compensation between £100-£300 for distress (it may consider up to £1,000 for severe or prolonged distress). The £400 compensation offered by the landlord in July 2024 does reflect its compensation policy for this additional period.
41. In its stage 2 response on 30 November 2023, the landlord said it was for the resident to contact the Ombudsman to say it did not comply with the Ombudsman’s decision. It would not make a finding on the reasonableness of the offer as part of its complaint response. The Ombudsman’s records show that the resident and Ombudsman had continued communication with the landlord regarding its compliance with our orders until July 2023. This Service advised her to pursue her complaint with the landlord.
42. It was not for this Service to determine whether the amount offered by the landlord in response to the above order was reasonable. This related to a period that post-dated that considered in our report and did not form part of our May 2023 determination. It also did not form part of the complaint made to the landlord and considered by the Ombudsman at that time. As the resident disputed the amount offered, it was appropriate for her to make a new complaint which the landlord should have responded to.
43. The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of compensation offered following a previous Ombudsman determination. The Ombudsman accepts that the decision about the level of compensation offered by the landlord was nuanced and complex. It related to periods that the landlord associated with the May 2023 determination.
44. However, the landlord could have sought clarification from the Ombudsman at any time prior to issuing its complaint responses. Instead, its approach was not resolution focused. It could have clarified its own position and how it calculated the amount of compensation awarded. It did not treat the resident fairly as a result. Its failures caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
45. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for her time and trouble pursuing her complaints. This reflects the landlord’s own compensation policy for time and trouble and the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.

Complaint handling

46. It is important for the landlord to maintain the commitments set out in its policy and procedures. Its complaint handling policy at the time stated that, at all stages, it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 25 working days. In this case, the landlord issued its complaint response at stage 1 outside these timeframes.
47. The resident made her complaints on 23 and 26 July, and 9 August 2023. The landlord issued its response sometime in November 2023. This was around 4 months later. Its response was undated, did not address each of the resident’s complaints, and failed to acknowledge the delay. These failures contributed to the resident’s time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
48. The landlord did respond within its prescribed timescales at stage 2. It issued the response on 30 November 2023, which was less than 25 working days after her escalated complaint on 11 November 2023. It appropriately apologised for the delay at stage 1. Its offer of £80 was reflective of its own compensation policy for the delay.
49. Despite the landlord’s recognition of the delays, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord took an adversarial and unsympathetic approach to the resident in its stage 2 response. It sought to apportion blame to her for using its complaint system to contact senior officers and dispute its decision making. Its actions were inappropriate and it failed to fully consider the resident’s complaints as a result.
50. The landlord did not treat the resident fairly. It did not fully address the impact its failure to respond to her complaints in a timely way had on her. The landlord should pay the resident £100 additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This reflects the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for a failure that adversely affected the resident that the landlord did not put right.

Determination

51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of compensation offered following a previous Ombudsman determination.
    4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

52. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £850 compensation. This is in addition to the £80 offered in its stage 2 response in November 2023. This is comprised of:
       1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of noise nuisance.
       2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her request for rehousing.
       3. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of compensation offered following a previous Ombudsman determination.
       4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
53. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

54. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £400 compensation offered in its letter to her in July 2024.