London Borough of Camden Council (202522015)

Decision
Case ID	202522015
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Camden Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

1. In April 2025, the resident complained to the landlord that he had been trying to get help with his property for years. He referred to his home being taken over by people who broke in and that the landlord had not helped him. He asked it for help to deal with the issue and to move.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for help with his property and a move.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for help with his property and a move.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Request for help with his property and a move

4. The landlord did not show that it explored whether a transfer was viable before offering it as a solution. It did not respond to the wider repair issue. It failed to show that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Complaint

5. The landlord did not fully adhere to its complaint handling policy. While it recognised some failure and apologised, it missed others and failed to consider any redress.

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 provided by a senior member of staff 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 February 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a property inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the property to identify necessary repairs including an Electrical Installations Condition Report (EICR) and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of any fault identified whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair/resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 27 February 2026
4	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to help with him with his property and a move. £50 for its complaint handling failings.	No later than 27 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 4 May and December 2023	The landlord investigated the resident’s report that his property had been taken over by intruders (known as cuckooing) and the condition of his property. On finding a disused cannabis factory, it inspected for electrical safety and cleared rubbish from the garden and upper floors. It advised him to make a claim for the damage to its insurers. It reported the matter to the police and made safeguarding referrals. It also said it may consider budgeting for his request for assistance to restore the property.
28 April 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. He said he had tried for years to get its help with his property. He said his health problems prevented him from doing anything himself. He said the house had been taken over by people who broke into it and despite making it aware it had not done anything to assist. He asked it for help and said he would like to move.
7 May 2025	The landlord emailed, apologising for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint. As he had raised concerns about the security of his home, it agreed to allocate the complaint promptly.
20 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised that it had been unable to contact him to discuss the complaint. It acknowledged his complaint concerned ongoing difficulties with his property. It noted that his medical condition had made it hard to manage and confirmed he was requesting assistance. It advised that an officer would help him to register for rehousing.
22 May 2025	The landlord’s final response stated it had received a request from the resident to escalate his complaint on this date.
9 June 2025	On receiving no escalation acknowledgement, the resident made a follow-up called to the landlord. He said he was unhappy because there were lots of repairs still outstanding that had been ongoing for several years.
26 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said the complaint outcome the resident requested was a home move. Its stage 1 response explained that a housing officer would contact him to help register for rehousing. It acknowledged that he disagreed with its stage 1 decision not to uphold his complaint. However, it was satisfied that its original decision was correct.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and asked us to investigate. He said he had not complained about a move. His concern was that his property was uninhabitable and he wanted it to complete the repairs. He also wants to move.

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	Request for help with his property and a move
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. The resident’s complaint refers to the landlord not assisting him with his property since an incident of cuckooing in 2023. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. We have not seen evidence that he raised a complaint during this time or that he was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. Our investigation will therefore focus on the events leading up to his complaint of 28 April 2025 and the related responses. Any mention of events prior to this are for context only.

What we did investigate

7. The resident’s complaint mentioned needing help with his property, medical condition, and having to leave the property because he was unable to cope. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must ask for clarification if any part of a complaint is unclear. We note that the landlord tried several times to discuss the complaint with the resident but was unsuccessful. It understood his complaint to be about his health conditions and struggle with the property. This was understandable given he was not specific that concerns about his property related to the repair and condition of the same and it could not speak to him to clarify.
8. The landlord responded at stage 1.In response to the resident’s request for help, the landlord agreed to support him with a transfer application. This action was reasonable, given its interpretation of the complaint. However, its focus was limited to his suggested outcome, which was a move. We saw no evidence it assessed his eligibility for a move prior to suggesting this as an option. It has since transpired that he does not meet the eligibility criteria, which likely raised his expectations.
9. The resident escalated his complaint because he felt the landlord had not addressed the main issue. During a follow‑up call in June 2025, he said he was unhappy because it had not completed repairs which had been outstanding for years. As it had already issued its stage 1 response, it should have considered opening a new complaint about the repairs, in line with the Code. It was not evident that it did this. Having clarified his complaint, it would have been reasonable to address the repair issues in its stage 2 response, but it did not.
10. Furthermore, during the investigation period on 10 June 2025 adult social care also raised concerns about the habitability of the resident’s property. This added weight to the fact his complaint was about repair. The landlord did not take action in response to these concerns or address them in its complaint response.
11. The landlord’s tenancy conditions commit to meeting its repairing obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This requires it to repair and maintain the structure, fixtures, and fittings within a reasonable time.
12. Photographs of the resident’s property showed rooms with internal doors removed, remnants of foil insulation board, and expanding foam around the woodwork. Given this and that the landlord was aware of the cuckooing incident it did not demonstrate that it carried out a thorough investigation into his complaint. Had it done so, it would have identified that it only completed a visual electrical inspection in 2023 and had committed to seeking a budget to restore the property. There was no evidence of any further assessment of his home between the incident and his complaint.
13. The landlord’s final response repeated its stage 1 outcome to assist with a transfer. However, it did not acknowledge that it had not progressed this. Neither had it taken this further opportunity to consider the resident’s eligibility.
14. The landlord’s housing vulnerability policy says it has a responsibility to support vulnerable tenants and promote their safety and well-being. Its policy also references working in partnership with other agencies to make safeguarding and support referrals.
15. The resident complained about his health conditions and difficulty coping in his home. On receipt of this information it would have been good practice for it to complete a risk assessment. It should have considered its case notes as outlined in its vulnerable person policy. This would have provided a history of any vulnerabilities and informed the need to make any further referrals. It did not demonstrate completing a thorough review of his complaint or vulnerabilities.
16. In October 2025, after the landlord issued its final response, adult social care again raised concerns about potential disrepair at the property. This prompted it to review the resident’s case. However, it confirmed that it had still not inspected the property or completed a risk assessment.
17. The landlord did not assess the property conditions despite ASC’s concerns. Consequently it did not fully understand the issues affecting the resident. It also failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or the possible detriment he experienced. These factors have led us to a failure finding. We have ordered the landlord to inspect the property and to pay compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Service failure

18. The Code requires landlords to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy meets these requirements.
19. The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement was 1 working day late. It apologised, saying the delay did not meet its service standard. However, it did not consider offering £25 compensation for service failure as outlined in its policy.
20. The landlord said it received the resident’s escalation request on 22 May 2025 but provided no evidence that it issued an acknowledgement as required. It did not recognise this failing, apologise or again consider any redress as its policy allows.
21. We have therefore made a failure finding and ordered the landlord to pay compensation.

Learning

22. The landlord did not routinely consider its repairing obligations in its handling of this case. It cannot always rely on resident’s reporting repairs especially if they are vulnerable. It must, therefore, ensure staff take these touchpoint opportunities to satisfy itself properties are in adequate repair.
23. There were significant shortcomings in the landlord’s stage 2 review. It was not evident it had reviewed the resident’s case notes in line with its vulnerability policy. It failed to identify and address several aspects of the complaint. It must ensure this is not a wider problem in its complaint handling process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. There were no record-keeping issues. Records were clear and detailed, giving this investigation a clear understanding of both recent and historic events.

Communication

25. We found no communication issues from the landlord.