From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Camden Council (202348136)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348136

Camden Council

27 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 resident’s concerns about condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He moved into the property, which is a 1-bedroom maisonette, on 24 July 2023.
  2. On 27 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said that the property was damp, undecorated, and that there were outstanding repairs at the property, but did not specify what those were. On 4 August 2023 the resident reported water ingress at the property. The resident believed the roof was leaking. On 9 August 2023 the resident reported that the toilet was leaking and the toilet flush was broken.
  3. The evidence suggests that the landlord inspected the property on 16 August 2023. The staff member raised the need to replace to the toilet pan and cistern, and organised an inspection of the roof. The toilet units were replaced on 21 August 2023.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 August 2023 because he was unhappy with the delay in responding to his complaint. The resident contacted this Service for help on 6 September 2023. The landlord inspected the water ingress on 7 September 2023.
  5. On 7 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It stated that the property had been inspected and no damp or mould had been identified. It said that the water ingress was not due to a roof leak, but due to a build-up of leaves in the guttering, which it had arranged to clear. The resident told the landlord he was unhappy with its response on 8 September 2023 and asked it to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  6. On 19 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised that the resident had needed to raise repairs, acknowledging that this was likely to have caused the resident distress due to his previous experiences with his housing. It apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it had nothing further to add to its stage 1 complaint response.
  7. On 29 October 2023 the resident asked this Service to investigate. He was unhappy with the landlord’s actions and felt it had not done enough to put things right. The resident wanted the landlord to move him to a new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident moved because of repair issues at his previous property. This Service and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Service (LGSCO) has investigated complaints from the resident relating to the issues, which may be referenced in this report for context.
  2. The resident reported that some of the repairs completed, such as those to the front door of the property, were not effective. The landlord acknowledged this and some failings around this repair in January 2024. These however are subject to a separate complaint and have not been considered as part of this investigation. This investigation has focused on the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and the landlord’s initial handling of the repairs raised at this time.

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy

  1. The landlord’s ‘Lettable Standard’ documents set out ‘the standards that tenants can expect when moving into their new home’. There is a document which it shares with residents, as well as an internal document which gives more detailed and technical expectations. It also gives a detailed description of the inspections it will carry out prior to a tenant moving in, such as gas and electricity safety checks, asbestos surveys, and window inspections.
  2. The lettable standard states that within 3 months of the start of a tenancy, any repairs highlighted should be raised to the ‘Voids Team’. After 3 months of the tenancy, all repairs should be raised to its day to day repairs service. The lettable standard explains that it is the tenant’s responsibility to decorate, and that walls, ceilings and woodwork will be left ready to receive decoration.
  3. It is understandable that the resident would be disappointed that any repairs should be required early into a new tenancy. However, the landlord’s responsibility is to ensure that reasonable inspections are carried out and works identified are done, in line with its ‘lettable standard’ and its legal and contractual obligations as a landlord. The need for repairs therefore does not necessarily mean that there were failings. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it acknowledged the resident’s disappointment and apologised that the resident needed to raise repairs early into the tenancy.
  4. When repairs are raised, the landlord’s Repairs Policy categorises them as ‘emergency’, ‘urgent’, ‘routine’, or ‘programmed’. Each should be repaired within its own set timescale. Urgent repairs should be completed within 5 working days, and routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
  5. The resident complained on 27 July 2023, 3 days into the tenancy, that there was damp, no decoration, and that there were ‘outstanding repairs’. The lettable standard outlines that it does not decorate properties prior to moving in. The landlord’s ‘Housing Repairs Service’ handbook states that it is the tenant’s responsibility to keep the inside of your home decorated. There was no failing in the lack of decoration at the property.
  6. The evidence shows that a senior member of staff from the Voids Team attended to investigate the reports of damp and outstanding repairs on 16 August 2023, in line with its policy. The landlord’s inspection confirmed that no damp or mould was affecting the property. The resident later disputed this and pursued his concerns via a legal disrepair claim. There is no evidence of any failings in the landlord’s initial response to concerns about damp and mould.
  7. The landlord identified that the basin and cistern of the toilet needed to be replaced, and raised these replacements appropriately. The evidence shows that the resident first raised concerns about the toilet specifically on 9 August 2023. These repairs were completed by 23 August 2023, in line with the 20 working day timescale required of routine repairs.
  8. The lettable standard does not specify that the toilet should be inspected beyond the changing of the toilet seat, which the evidence shows was completed before the tenancy began. Therefore although it was disappointing for the resident that these works were required so early into the tenancy, it did not reflect a failing relating to the condition of the property when it was first let to the resident.
  9. The landlord also listened to the resident’s concern about a leaking roof and raised investigations with the appropriate team. These investigations began on 7 September 2023. Further investigations were completed on 13 September 2023, and 22 September 2023. The investigation ruled out a leaking roof and revealed that in the time the property had been empty, leaves had built up in the guttering, causing water ingress. The landlord raised the works to clear the guttering, in line with its policy. These were completed on 16 October 2023.
  10. The evidence shows that the landlord made reasonable attempts to identify the cause of the water ingress and resolve it within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The evidence shows that in depth investigations were needed by different specialist teams, in different areas of the property. In view of what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, there was no failing in the time it took the landlord to resolve the water ingress reported.
  11. However, the landlord’s lettable standard document which it shares with residents outlines that ‘drains, gutters, downpipes and overflows will be safe and secure, and free of blockages and leaks’ when a tenancy begins. It was a shortcoming that the landlord did not inspect the gutters prior to the tenancy.
  12. We have assessed the ‘Void Survey Form’ which the landlord completed prior to the tenancy starting alongside the lettable standard documents. It shows that all the elements specified within the survey form met the lettable standard. However, there was no evidence on the form that that condition of the exterior of the building was inspected.
  13. The evidence shows that as well as the blocked gutters, the resident raised issues with the front door of the building which was ‘rotten, sticking, and sometimes prevented access for the resident and his neighbours’. The resident raised this on 10 August 2023. The landlord attended the same day and ‘planed down the door and left it in working order’. There was no failing in the landlord’s handling of the door repair at the time.
  14. The lettable standard document also outlines further external standards its properties will meet, such as that the front door will be ‘safe and open and close freely’. It is unclear if the front door was in the condition described at the start of the tenancy, because we have no evidence to show that the landlord inspected its condition.
  15. It is unclear if the required inspection of external doors referenced in the landlord’s lettable standard document is intended to apply also to communal areas or entrances. In the absence of certainty however it is reasonable to conclude that it should. It was a shortcoming therefore that the landlord did not inspect the gutters or the front door prior to the tenancy.
  16. In conclusion, there were shortcomings in the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, however there was no maladministration. We have made a recommendation that the landlord review its ‘Void Survey Form’ to ensure that all elements of its lettable standard are covered in its inspections.
  17. As referenced earlier in this report, the resident reports that repairs to this door remain outstanding. Evidence from the landlord shows that it has since agreed to replace the door. A recommendation for the landlord to take this opportunity to inspect the door and review the progress of its repair or replacement has been made below.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations the landlord must meet in handling complaints. The Code states that landlords should provide stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days of being acknowledged. Stage 2 responses should be issued within a further 20 working days.
  2. Where delays are expected, the Code states that landlord must ‘decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.’
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement on 27 July 2023, the landlord told the resident to expect a response within 10 working days (by 10 August 2023). The resident did not receive an update and contacted the landlord again on 2 August 2023, 21 August 2023, and 30 August 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 7 September 2023 was 20 working days late, which was a failing. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident or asked for an extension. There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. The landlord was correct to apologise for this delay in its stage 2 complaint response. However, it did not consider the resident’s frustration or time and trouble as a result of this failing. Our remedies guidance suggests where there have been such a failing, compensation of £50 should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the condition of the property at the start of the resident’s tenancy.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation for the landlord’s delays in complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord may choose to review its ‘Void Survey Form’ to ensure it includes consideration of all elements outlined in its lettable standards documents.
  2. The landlord may wish to inspect the condition of the front door of the resident’s building, or review the progress of any outstanding repair or replacement.