London Borough of Camden Council (202516776)

Decision
Case ID	202516776
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Camden Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	27 February 2026

Background

1. The resident made two separate complaints about the conduct of the landlord’s staff. We have combined these and considered them as one investigation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about staff conduct.
   2. Complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports about staff conduct.
4. We have found service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaints.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord carried out reasonable investigations into the resident’s complaints. In one instance, the landlord identified a failing. It apologised and took steps to address the resident’s concerns. However, an apology alone was not proportionate to the failings identified. The landlord should have offered compensation to the resident.
6. The landlord did not comply with the timescales for response set out within its own policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

 

 

 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £175. This is made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about staff conduct. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 March 2026

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 May 2024	The resident complained to the landlord as she was unhappy with the actions of a member of the landlord’s staff.
7 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said it: Upheld the resident’s complaint as a housing officer had not responded to her emails. Apologised to the resident and provided the details of a new housing officer.
3 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the actions of 3 members of the landlord’s staff and asked the landlord to take action against her neighbours.
25 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said: It did not uphold the complaint. Responded to each complaint about staff conduct and said it found no wrongdoing. It would treat the concerns about her neighbours as allegations of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and would look into them separately.
7 March 2025	The resident raised a new complaint. She said she was unhappy with a different member of staff and how they had handled several concerns she had raised.
26 March 2025	The landlord issued a new stage 1 complaint response. It: Did not uphold the resident’s complaint. Said it had investigated and the member of staff was on emergency leave. When they had returned, they contacted the resident to discuss and investigate her concerns. Provided an update on the different concerns the resident had raised.
22 April 2025	The resident escalated this complaint. She said she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response about the member of staff. She also raised several new service requests.
30 June 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It: Did not uphold the resident’s complaint. Explained that the matter related to a phone call between the resident and the staff member; as it had no record of this call, it could not reach a conclusion on what was said. Said the resident had made several service requests within her complaint. It would therefore look into them and respond to the resident separately.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy at the landlord’s responses. She told us she wanted compensation and action taken about the issues she had raised.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports about staff conduct
Finding	Service failure

7. The resident raised concerns about the conduct of several members of the landlord’s staff during her complaints. It is not our role to reach a conclusion on the conduct of individual staff. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in a way that was appropriate, fair, and reasonable in the circumstances.
8. The resident complained about 4 members of staff. One complaint was that a staff member did not respond to her emails or take action about the issues she raised. The evidence shows the landlord investigated by speaking to the staff member and checking its correspondence records. It accepted that the staff member had not responded, apologised, and referred the issues internally so they could be addressed. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take.
9. The resident also complained about the staff member who handled her stage 1 complaint. The landlord reviewed each point the resident raised and provided additional context where needed. It added further detail about the matters that had caused the resident frustration and explained the reasons behind the staff member’s comments. Although the landlord said it could not identify a failing, it accepted that there were areas where its service could have been improved. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances, and shows a willingness to learn.
10. Another complaint concerned a staff member who sent a letter to all residents in the building. The resident said the letter was defamatory and insulting. The landlord explained that it did not know who was responsible for the behaviour described in the letter, so it was sent to all residents and was not directed at her. This was a reasonable explanation.
11. The resident’s final complaint was about a staff member who she said had not dealt with her concerns. The landlord explained that the main issue related to a phone call between them. As the landlord did not record this call, it considered the different accounts and concluded it could not make a firm finding. It referred the resident’s outstanding service requests internally for review. Although no call notes were available, the landlord investigated the matter as far as it could and focused on addressing the issues raised. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
12. The resident raised several other matters during the complaints process. The landlord provided evidence that it had responded to these as service requests and confirmed when it had referred them internally. The resident told us that these were additional complaints, but there is no evidence of this. We cannot investigate matters the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.
13. The landlord investigated the complaints about staff conduct appropriately. Its responses show that it interviewed staff where needed and considered the evidence available. It identified where one staff member had failed to respond to the resident’s emails and apologised. In 3 of the 4 complaints, there was no maladministration in its response. In the case where there was a failing, the landlord acknowledged it and took steps to put it right.
14. However, the landlord’s staff did not answer the resident’s service request emails for 7 months. While the evidence shows the landlord referred her requests internally, its staff did not monitor or act on her requests.
15. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this delay. We therefore find service and order the landlord to pay the resident £100. This is consistent with our remedies guide when there have been delays in getting matters resolved.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

16. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. Though the landlord’s policy goes further than the Code, stating that a stage 2 complaint response will be sent in 10 working days.
17. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints. For this reason, the response times have been calculated from the date the resident submitted her complaint or escalation.
18. The landlord issued both of its stage 1 responses outside the required 10 working day timescale. The stage 1 response sent on 7 June 2024 took 17 working days. The landlord did not meet the timescales in its policy or in the Code.
19. The stage 2 response dated 17 July 2024 was issued in 16 working days, so it did not meet the landlord’s own 10‑day timescale. The stage 2 response issued on 30 June 2025 took 47 working days. The landlord therefore did not meet the required timescales in either instance.
20. The landlord sent all of its complaint responses outside its own timescales. Most delays were not extensive, aside from the delay in issuing the stage 2 response on 30 June 2025. This delay slowed progress on the service requests that had been referred as part of the complaint. Overall, the delays caused the resident distress and inconvenience. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
21. We order the landlord to pay £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling in these instances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s record keeping was inconsistent. While it provided detailed records in some areas and its complaint responses show that it investigated the resident’s concerns, it should ensure that investigations into staff conduct are fully documented. Incomplete records may affect the landlord’s ability to demonstrate that it has investigated a complaint appropriately. This could lead to a finding of failure in future.

Communication

23. The landlord did not communicate effectively, which contributed to the resident’s frustration. The landlord has recognised this as an area for learning. Poor communication may lead to further complaints if the landlord does not provide clear updates about the service requests the resident raises. The landlord should ensure it follows through on the learning it identified during this complaint.