London Borough of Camden Council (202508589)

Decision
Case ID	202508589
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Camden Council
Landlord type	Local authority
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	9 January 2026

Background

The resident has lived in the property, which is a 2-bedroom third floor flat, since 2015. At the time of the complaint, the resident’s partner was pregnant and has since had a baby. The landlord needed to do repairs to the external steps because of safety concerns relating to access to the electrical cupboard, which was under the steps.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with works to the external steps.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with:
1. Works to the external steps.
2. The resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not plan the project effectively, as it did not expect its reliance on a third party. This led to the scaffold steps being in place for many additional months, which caused significant inconvenience and distress for the resident. There were also significant failings in the landlord’s communication, which at times were delayed, absent, or dismissive of the resident’s concerns.
There were delays at both stages of the complaints process. There is no evidence the landlord sent acknowledgements, and it did not send the resident its stage 1 response.

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 found in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures found, meaningful, and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000. This is made up of: £900 for the failings in how it dealt with works to the external steps. £100 for how it dealt with the resident’s complaint. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 06 March 2026
3	Communication order The landlord must write to the resident to confirm its position on charges for the work to the external steps and electrical cupboard.	No later than 06 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord considers introducing consider introducing a service agreement for responding to contact from residents.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 February 2024	The landlord told the resident that it needed to do major work to the external steps and the electrical cupboard. It said once it had planned the work, it would give him a start date. It said there would be temporary access to the building. Work to install temporary scaffold steps started on 4 June 2024.
14 March 2025	The resident complained that the scaffold steps had been in place for over 10 months, with little work done. He said contractors had caused damage and left rubbish. He said his pregnant partner had tripped on the temporary steps, which he said were dangerous. He wanted the rubbish cleared, the damage fixed, and a timeline for the work.
1 April 2025	In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in removing the rubbish. It said it did not cause any damage. On the work, it said due to the involvement of third parties, it could not give a timeline. It said it upheld the complaint because of the delays.
2 April 2025	In his request to escalate the complaint, the resident said he had received an email and phone call from the landlord, but these did not deal with the issues he had raised.
21 May 2025	In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised that it did not send the stage 1 response. On damage, it said there was a conflict between the resident’s and manager’s position and it could not resolve this. On the timescale for the work, it repeated it could not provide this. It said it should have given the resident regular updates.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident escalated his complaint to us, he said the landlord had not done the work. He wanted the repairs done and not to be charged for them, as compensation for the inconvenience caused. He said his partner recently had a baby and she had to climb the scaffold steps. He said this was unsafe and the situation was causing him stress and inconvenience.

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	How the landlord dealt with works to external steps
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete “programmed works” that are complex, subject to leaseholder consultation, or involve specialist works within an agreed timescale. It is our view that these works were complex, and before the start of the work, the landlord should have given the resident a timescale.
On 22 February 2024 the landlord told the resident that it needed to do major work to the steps and electrical cupboard. It said once it had planned the work, it would give him a start date. It said it would need to install temporary access to the building and apologised for any inconvenience this might cause.
We have seen no further communication from the landlord until 5 June 2024, when it responded to an email from the resident on 4 June 2024. In his email, the resident said contractors had turned up to erect scaffold steps. He said he had to use a ladder to get into his home. In response, the landlord said its letter in February 2024 explained that it needed to install temporary access. The resident replied and said it did not tell him contractors were coming that day. He wanted to know the timeline for the planned work.
The landlord sent a further response on 5 June 2024. It said it expected its contractors to plan with residents and this had not happened. It said it would discuss this with the contractor. It explained that “enabling works”, which included the scaffold steps, were to get the site up and running. It said there were logistical challenges and once it had done the “enabling works”, it would update him “as best” it could about the work.
We accept that this was a large and complex repair. We cannot comment on the scale of the logistical challenges the landlord faced. However, the landlord had an obligation to the resident to keep him updated and provide a start date. We have found that it did not meet its obligation at this time, as it did not tell him the work was about to start. In its letter in February 2024, the landlord explained the need for temporary access and said it would give him a start date. We have seen no evidence it did this. The landlord said it expected contractors to plan with residents. It is our view that the resident would have expected the landlord to provide him with an update, as it promised in February 2024.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 June 2024 about the scaffold steps and asked if there was an update on the work. The landlord’s records on 25 July 2024 noted that it had visited the resident, who was frustrated because he was getting no information about the work. The resident asked again on 6 August 2024 whether there was an update. The landlord replied to him the same day and said the scaffold steps had helped it understand the measurements, logistics, and how it could set up a safe site.
On 8 August 2024 the landlord told the resident it hoped to start work on the steps and the electrical cupboard in “the coming weeks”, but this depended on third parties. The resident replied on 9 August 2024 and raised concerns about drug paraphernalia on the scaffold steps. He said the scaffold steps had been up a long time just to take measurements. He asked how long the work was going to take.
It is our view that the landlord’s response on 6 August 2024 was unreasonable. We accept that the landlord needed to work out logistics, but by this time the resident had lived with temporary access for 2 months. The landlord’s response about the scaffold steps helping it understand measurements and logistics was about its own convenience. It did not acknowledge it had caused unnecessary inconvenience for the resident, and we agree with him that 2 months was a long time to understand measurements. We have seen that the landlord did not answer his questions about how long the work would take.
On 20 August 2024 the landlord replied to the resident about his concerns about drug use. It said it did not understand why the temporary scaffold steps were causing drug issues and he would need to report his concerns to the police or its rough sleeping team. It said it agreed to update him “not as and when” but when it had updates he needed to be informed of. It said the project was still at the planning stage. It said it would update him on issues it considered would have an impact on residents.
It is our view that this response was dismissive of the resident’s concerns about drugs. It was reasonable for the landlord to signpost him to support, but instead of saying it did not understand his concerns, it could have arranged a visit or call to discuss these. The landlord also said it would update him on issues it considered important. It is clear from the resident’s communications that he considered information about the timeline for the work to be important.
We have seen an internal email, on 21 August 2024, which said the landlord was now able to progress the work. It referred to organising a date to deliver a generator to provide power while it did work on the mains electricity. We have not seen evidence that the landlord shared this information with the resident.
On 3 September 2024 a site meeting took place with a contractor to agree work on the electrics under the steps. The landlord noted it could not agree a start date as it needed to coordinate the work with the power network. The landlord said the contractor would arrange this, but it expected it would take several weeks to complete. It noted the start date for all work would depend on the power network. We have not seen evidence that the landlord shared this information with the resident.
Between 21 October and 11 November 2024, the resident asked the landlord 4 times for a site visit to discuss the work. He said there had been scaffold steps in place for 4 months without any work happening. We have seen no evidence the landlord arranged a visit.
The resident told the landlord on 21 November 2024 that he returned home and found access cordoned off. He asked for an update and said the situation was causing him stress. We have seen no evidence of a response.
On 20 January 2025 the resident asked the landlord why it had demolished the brick structure for the electrics that it had recently built. The landlord responded the same day and said the specifications had changed to meet the requirements of the power network.
A landlord internal communication on 28 January 2025 accepted that since the start of the project, it had faced logistical challenges relating to compliance with electrical requirements. It said it had not expected these when it started the project and had been “hampered by a limited understanding of requirements”. It said it was now clear the project was more extensive than initially thought. It said challenges communicating with third parties had caused delays and inconvenience to residents. It said because of this, it had agreed that it would not charge the costs of the first phase to residents. We have seen no evidence the landlord communicated this to the resident.
The resident complained on 14 March 2025 that it was over 10 months since the landlord erected the scaffold steps, and there had been little progress. He said its contractors broke a gate and fence, and left waste in the front garden. He said the landlord had not told him when it would complete the work. He said his pregnant partner had tripped on the steps as they were not secure. He wanted the garden cleaned up, and the damage fixed. He wanted to know when the work would start and how long it would take.
In its complaint response on 1 April 2024, the landlord said it had cleared the waste and apologised for the delay in doing this. On the gate, it said it did not cause the damage and was not liable for any repairs. It did not mention the fence. On the timeline for the work, it said due to “significant involvement of third parties”, it was not possible to give a “precise timeline”. It said it was waiting for information from the power network. On communication, it said there had been multiple email exchanges with the resident, which showed it had been in regular contact. It did not mention the resident’s concerns about the safety of the scaffold steps. It apologised and upheld the complaint because of the delays on waiting to hear when it would do the work.
It is our view that this response did not fully deal with the issues raised by the resident in his complaint. The landlord confirmed it had cleared up the waste and apologised for the delay, which was reasonable. On damage caused, we have seen no evidence the landlord investigated the cause of the damage. It also did not mention the fence or give reassurances about the safety of the scaffold steps. On the timeline, even though 10 months had lapsed since it installed the scaffold steps, it was unable to provide any kind of timeline. It apologised for the delay but did not offer any compensation for the inconvenience caused. It is our view that this was not a reasonable response.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 2 April 2025. He said its response did not address his concerns about communication, damage, and delays.In its final response on 21 May 2025, the landlord said on the damage to the gate and fence, there was a conflict in the resident’s and manager’s position. It said it could not resolve this as it had no means of independently verifying either claim. It said if the resident thought the landlord was liable for the damage, he could make a claim.
The landlord said it had emails showing regular communication since 2024. However, it said it appreciated the resident was dissatisfied with the time it took to reply. It said it was unaware of a service agreement setting out the timescale on which project officers should respond to emails. Because of this, it said it could not find there was a procedural failing. It said it would refer his dissatisfaction to management for consideration.
On the timeline for repairs, the landlord said it had explained in its stage 1 complaint response that it was difficult to provide a timeline because of the involvement of third parties. It said it could only repeat this explanation. However, it accepted it should have given regular updates to affected residents and said it would ask the major works team to ensure it gave these.
It is unclear from the information provided by the landlord when it completed the work to repair the steps. However, in December 2025, the resident told us that the landlord removed the temporary steps in December 2025, which was 18 months after it put them up. He said the landlord erected the steps in June 2024 and the site was “idle” until May 2025. He said the landlord had told him it would not charge him for the work as he had “not been treated fairly”, but he wanted this confirmed in writing. It is our view that this was an appropriate offer that has prevented a finding of severe maladministration.
The resident told us the delays and lack of communication caused him stress and inconvenience. He said he runs a small business and spent time sending emails and chasing a response. He said the landlord knew about the situation with his pregnant partner and baby. He said on the day they brought their baby home, contractors were drilling into a fuse board, which ruined what should have been a special time. He said the scaffold steps affected his partner’s independence and wellbeing as she could not easily leave the flat because of them.
Overall, we have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with works to the external steps. We accept that this was a complex project and that the landlord was reliant to some extent on the cooperation of third parties. However, there were significant failures by the landlord, which were within its own ability to manage.
It is clear from the internal documents that it had not planned the project effectively, as it did not expect its reliance on the third party. This led to the scaffold steps being in place for many months when they were not needed, which caused significant inconvenience and distress for the resident and his pregnant partner.
We have also found that there were significant failings in the landlord’s communication, which at times was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. In its final response, the landlord said it was unaware of a service agreement for the time a project officer should respond to emails. It said because of this it could not find failure. We accept that a landlord may not be able to apply the same standard to an individual officer’s email responses as it would to a team inbox. However, we would expect the landlord to respond in a reasonable time and use ‘out of office’ messages in a situation when an officer was unavailable. In this case, the landlord responded quickly to some issues raised, but at other times there were lengthy delays or no evidence of a response. The landlord also did not give regular updates on the project, which it accepted was a failure in its final complaint response.
These failures caused significant inconvenience for the resident, who had to chase the landlord for updates. This was at a time when his partner was pregnant and then when they had a baby. The resident made it clear to the landlord the effect the scaffold steps were having on him and his partner.
Because of these failings the landlord must pay the resident £900 compensation as follows:
1. £600 for inconvenience caused by the scaffold steps being in place longer than necessary.
2. £200 for distress caused.
3. £100 for communication failures.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident complained on 14 March 2025. We have not seen evidence of an acknowledgement. However, the landlord believed it sent its stage 1 complaint response on 1 April 2025, which was outside its timescale.
On 2 April 2025 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He referred to a phone call and email from the landlord, which he said did not deal with his complaint. We have not seen an acknowledgement from the landlord.
The landlord sent its final complaint response on 21 May 2025, which was over 30 working days after the escalation request. In its response, the landlord apologised that it did not send its stage 1 response with the email on 1 April 2025. It said because of this it upheld his complaint. However, it did not offer any compensation or show learning.
Overall, we have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint. There were delays at both stages of the complaints process, we have seen no evidence of acknowledgements, and the landlord did not send a copy of the stage 1 response. These failures caused inconvenience to the resident, and because of this the landlord must pay him £100 compensation.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it addresses all points raised by the resident when responding to a complaint.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

When the resident complained about damage caused by its contractors, the landlord did not investigate and so did not have records it could objectively consider. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help the landlord with this.

Communication

There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord on progress with the project. The landlord accepted this in its final response and said it would ask its major works team to ensure it gave regular updates going forward.