Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Camden Council (202452404)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452404

London Borough of Camden Council

30 September 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 response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupied her flat under a secure tenancy. The landlord did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but it had written to her GP about its concerns.
  2. On 18 November 2024 the resident made a complaint as follows:
    1. The neighbour downstairs (N) had resumed making class A drugs. There was evidence of drug dealing.
    2. The chemicals were affecting her health.
    3. N’s partner was living in the property unlawfully.
    4. N allowed his dog to roam without a lead or with a very long lead which was dangerous.
  3. On 4 December 2024 the landlord replied at Stage 1 of its complaints process as follows:
    1. It had taken a number of steps over the years including working closely with the police, attending N’s property and it had spoken to other neighbours but had found no evidence to support the resident’s allegations including of illegal drug activity or smell of illegal substances.
    2. The landlord had offered a move to both parties but neither party wanted to move home.
    3. It was unable to pursue the matter without evidence as this could be considered to be harassment of N.
    4. It would not re-open the case.
    5. The resident could continue to make reports to the landlord.
    6. The landlord had issued a warning to N about the dog not being on the lead. N was allowed in the communal garden.
    7. There was no evidence that N’s partner was living with him. Other agencies have investigated but not confirmed these allegations.
    8. It did not uphold the complaint.
  4. On 6 January 2025, the resident asked to escalate the complaint on the following grounds:
    1. The landlord had refused to speak to or issue a warning to N.
    2. The resident attended hospital on 28 December 2024 because of the chemical fumes from the illegal drug production.
    3. The landlord lacked independence. The quality of the evidence it had collated was bad as the witnesses were not English speakers. The landlord had inappropriate relationships that compromised its impartiality.
  5. On 12 March 2025, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 complaint response as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delay in its response.
    2. No allegations had been substantiated.
    3. The description of the neighbours was unfair and potentially libellous.
    4. The landlord was concerned about the allegations about staff. It rejected the accusation. It may refer the matter to its legal services.
    5. It had forwarded the letter addressed to N’s partner to the Council Tax offices.
    6. The acts the resident described were criminal acts. The Police has investigated the resident’s reports and was the most appropriate body to investigate them.
    7. It invited her to send it the medical evidence after her hospital attendance on 28 December 2024.
  6. The resident made a number of further similar complaints.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB

  1. We do not investigate whether ASB has occurred. We investigate the landlord’s response to a resident’s reports, and whether the landlord responded in line with its policies, obligations and good practice. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and took such steps as is within its powers. The landlord’s role is to establish whether there is any evidence of ASB, and if there is, to take steps in accordance with its policies and procedures.
  2. The resident had been making a number of reports about N for a number of years, since at least 2019. She had also made complaints before the one we are investigating. The landlord closed a case concerning similar issues (using and making illegal drugs and human trafficking) on 14 February 2024. It had not reopened one since. If a landlord has carried out investigations of the same issues, it is entitled to draw a line under its investigations, as long as it retains an open mind, unless different reports arise or if there is supporting evidence.
  3. According to the landlord’s contemporaneous emails to the resident and the correspondence itself, the landlord had, in the past, carried out investigations including as follows:
    1. On 21 January 2022, it wrote to residents in the resident’s block to ask for witnesses to drug making and drug dealing in the block.
    2. In 2022, it investigated N’s partner’s 2019 conviction which had been overturned.
    3. In 2022, the resident’s case was referred for a Multi-Agency Assessment Conference (MARAC) and was subsequently closed due to there being no concerns.
    4. In February 2023, it visited and spoke to all tenants in the resident’s block and also visited the neighbouring block of flats to see if other residents had also witnessed the allegations reported. The landlord reported that none collaborated the resident’s concerns.
    5. On 15 March 2023, the landlord wrote to residents in the block stating its security patrol was monitoring the block and telling residents not to give access to people they did not know. It asked residents to contact it if they saw anything suspicious. It set out how to make reports.
    6. On 27 April 2023, the landlord referred the resident to the police in relation to her reports of drug use by N as only they can raid N’s property.
    7. On 23 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident. It had visited her and listened to recordings of an argument. It told her that it would only get involved if N’s arguments became frequent and physically violent.
    8. The evidence over the same period (2022-3) showed that it continually liaised with the police.
    9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 February 2024 about her investigations into a different neighbour. It closed the case about N for lack of evidence. This included the resident’s reports about the use and making of illegal drugs and human trafficking.
  4. While we have not seen the notes of the investigations themselves, we consider it reasonable to rely on what the landlord reported to the resident at the time. That is because the a) we do not consider it proportionate to look at historical records exhaustively, and b) we accept the emails from the housing officer will be the same as her notes. We have no reason to doubt the veracity of the emails. The notes and letters sent to residents in the block, including going back to 2019, support the landlord’s emails. Moreover, emails from the police to the landlord stated they had not found any evidence of criminality. This supported the landlord’s conclusions that there was no evidence to support the resident’s reports about N’s behaviour.
  5. It was reasonable that the landlord stated that it would re-open the case if the resident could provide evidence in support of her allegations. Moreover, the evidence showed it responded to the resident’s further reports as follows:
    1. According to the landlord’s note of 30 October 2024, it had inspected N’s flat in September 2024 and found no evidence of drug use or drug making. The police had done the same.
    2. The landlord reported that it warned N not to allow his dog to wander without a lead.
    3. According to the landlord, agencies had investigated the resident’s allegations about N defrauding them. They had not found evidence to support this.
    4. According to police disclosure dated 27 February 2025, the police had found no evidence of fires in early 2024, or of Class A drugs or human trafficking.
    5. According to its records, it visited N on 12 December 2024.
    6. On 7 January 2025, the landlord wrote to say it would contact the resident’s neighbours who would also have been affected by the chemical smells.
    7. The landlord continued to liaise with the police in 2024 and 2025.
  6. For the landlord to take enforcement action against N, it would need evidence. The landlord did not have any evidence based on which to take action. Its explanation that to take further steps could be considered to be harassment of N was reasonable. This is because it had no evidence to support any action. Where the landlord had evidence, it took action, which was reasonable. It issued a warning to N about using a lead or his dog, and it sent the letter addressed to N’s partner at N’s address to the council tax office for investigation.
  7. While the landlord’s role is also to consider whether the person complained of has breached their tenancy agreement, not all the resident’s reports were ASB. The landlord’s policy stated that cases of illegal drug use, production or supply when there is no associated ASB was not ASB.
  8. The allegations that N’s partner was living with him, using or making unlawful drugs, that N was defrauding statutory agencies were a matter for the landlord, police, and the agencies themselves. It was not ASB in so far as the resident was not being directly affected. The landlord would have an obligation to take steps regarding breaches of tenancy such as unlawful activity and unlawful occupation. However, this would be a matter for the landlord to act upon as it saw fit and would not have an obligation to report back to the resident.
  9. While using, selling or making drugs would have been a breach of the tenancy agreement, the landlord would be limited in what actions it could take in any event. This would include making some preliminary enquiries, such as attending the property and looking out for distinctive odours or drug paraphernalia, and interviewing neighbours. This it had done. The landlord does not have the same investigation powers as the police, or other agencies, for example, the benefits agency. The landlord reasonably reported back to the resident that it had passed on the resident’s reports to the relevant agencies and the police and those agencies had not found any supporting evidence. The landlord was entitled to rely on those findings.
  10. Odours and chemicals in the air could be ASB if they caused a nuisance. They could also be hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating system (HHSRS) of the local authority. The resident sent the landlord a hospital letter following the hospital visit on 18 December 2024, which recorded she had suffered dry eyes and redness of skin. The letter did not state a cause or raise concerns. On 17 January 2025, the resident sent her GP’s letter asking the landlord to investigate the findings of her air quality measuring equipment. According to the GP letter, the results showed that the particulate matter was measuring ‘hazardous’ and formaldehyde (HCHO) and ‘Total Volatile Organic Compounds’ (TVOC) were measuring ‘Unhealthy’. According to the local authority air quality team, HCHO can be produced by a range of legal usages including furnishings, flooring, activities such as cooking and consumer products. Atmospheric particulate matter can be produced from open fireplaces, candles and cooking, as well as cleaning products. In the circumstances, they did not in themselves prove illegal activity. However, according to the team, the measurements appeared high. According to gov.uk, they are produced by “human activity” and can be of concern to health.
  11. The landlord itself would not have the specialism to investigate and assess the accuracy and significance and causes of the results. In the circumstances, it was reasonable that, on 15 January 2025, it referred the results to its specialist departments for investigation. This included its noise and pollution team, the environmental health team, and the health and safety team. The teams issued various advice including that readings were undated and unreliable and further enquires were required. The advice in February 2025 was to explore the domestic contents such as decorations, floor coverings, fires and extractor fans and household activity such as cooking. This also confirmed that the chemicals could be produced by normal household living.
  12. The evidence showed that the local authority was taking the matter seriously. On 4 February 2025, according to internal emails, the noise and pollution officer wrote to the resident offering to attend the property to carry out air quality tests. The resident did not reply.
  13. We cannot investigate the actions taken by these teams. However, the landlord reasonably followed up the enquiries. On 15 March 2025, the landlord asked the team to try contacting the resident again. On 8 April 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident asking a number of questions as advised by the local authority. The resident told us on 11 September 2025 that she did not receive the offer of an appointment. We will therefore make a recommendation that the landlord liaises between the resident and pollution team in order to arrange an appointment. While the landlord stated that it would contact other residents in the block about the odours and chemicals, we did not see evidence it had done so. We will therefore make a recommendation that it does so, if it has not done so already.
  14. Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord was colluding with N and his partner, it was lying, and it had inappropriate relationships with N and/or his partner. We did not see evidence of such wrongdoing by the landlord. The landlord addressed issues where it had evidence to do so, such as the dog not being on the lead which indicated it was objective.
  15. We appreciate the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord had carried out investigations into the resident’s reports, it had attended on her property as well as N’s. It had liaised with the police and other agencies who equally had not identified any evidence. Where there was evidence N was breaching his tenancy agreement, such as not keeping his dog on a lead, the landlord acted. It referred the reports about the air-quality to the appropriate teams at the local authority. In the circumstances, we find no maladministration about this complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Stage 2 response was delayed. The resident had asked to escalate the complaint on 6 January 2025 but the landlord did not respond till 12 March 2025.
  2. The Stage 2 response included a number of comments including:
    1. The resident’s comments about her neighbours were “an unfair, and potentially libellous, description of your fellow residents”.
    2. It warned that if the resident made “further slanderous or libellous comments” about the landlord, it may need to refer them to its Legal Service.
  3. We consider that the landlord was entitled to raise its concerns about the resident’s serious allegations. However, it was inappropriate to deal with those concerns about the resident’s behaviour within its complaint process. This is because it can indicate bias, it deflects from the resident’s complaint and undermines the purpose of the complaint handling which is to resolve and put things right. It gives the impression the landlord was being defensive and could put residents off from making a complaint. Making a statement it may refer the resident to its legal services was a serious matter. The landlord had expressed concerns about the resident’s mental health. It considered she was vulnerable. In our view, the landlord should have dealt with the issue as part of a proper, and separate, process and its approach was unreasonable.
  4. We therefore find maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. We also note that the resident made a number of complaints, at times, one quickly succeeding another. These included complaints in October 2024, February and March 2025, including while this complaint we are investigating was ongoing. The resident raised the same or very similar concerns about N. We do not know if the landlord responded to these complaints. However, it would be good practice for the landlord to either respond to those complaints or explain to the resident why it was not addressing her complaints under its complaints procedure so that the process are clear.. As these were outside the complaint the resident was referred to us, we are not making a finding but we will make a recommendation accordingly.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £150 for the distress and inconvenience addressing the resident’s own conduct in its complaints responses rather than through a separate process.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. The landlord should liaise between the resident and pollution team in order to arrange an appointment for the team to investigate air quality in the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord should contact the other residents in the block about the odours and chemicals who would also have been affected by the chemical smells, if it has not done so already.
    3. The landlord should either respond to the resident’s complaints or explain to the resident why it was not addressing her complaints under its complaints procedure. This applies where even where a resident raises what may be duplicate complaints.
  2. The landlord should feedback to the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.