London Borough of Camden Council (202435085)

Background

1. The resident moved to the property in 2019 and began reporting anti-social behaviour (ASB) by the neighbours from this time. The resident moved out in February 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. The associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord took action following the ASB reports but not all in accordance with policy.
6. The landlord issued meaningful complaint responses within reasonable timescales.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The resident said that, when she was offered the property, the landlord should have informed her about the neighbour’s previous ASB. The landlord explained it has data protection obligations so cannot volunteer information about existing tenants to new residents. The resident said she would not have accepted the property if she had known. While the resident is entitled to be given information relevant to a prospective property, there is no guidance that states a landlord must disclose anything about the neighbours. The resident’s frustration and disappointment is understandable, but the landlord did not breach any policy or guidance regarding this.
8. Upon moving into the property, the resident made reports about the neighbour’s ASB. This included noise, fights and rubbish in communal areas. The resident said she was threatened, whereas the landlord said there was no evidence of her being targeted or harassed. We have not seen evidence of this. The resident was advised to contact police with such concerns, which was appropriate.
9. The resident felt vulnerable and intimidated as a lone women living next to disruptive neighbours. She said it affected her mental health. The landlord took appropriate action on an occasion where the resident voiced suicidal thoughts, by making contact with the relevant services.
10. According to its policy the landlord should complete a risk assessment when a resident reports ASB. It should also create and share an action plan. There is no evidence of either being done in this case, which amounts to service failure. The action taken by the landlord was not communicated to the resident until the complaint responses. If it was, we have not been provided with the records.
11. The landlord took some reasonable action regarding the ASB reports. It increased security patrols and clean ups of the communal area and sent formal warning letters to the neighbours. In its complaint responses the landlord empathised with the resident but said there was little enforcement action it could take. It admitted that, while it could threaten perpetrators with eviction, the Courts would only do so in the most serious circumstances. While this position was understandable, it was not particularly helpful to the resident.
12. The resident requested rehousing and the landlord informed her of her options and the process. This was fair and reasonable.
13. The landlord took steps to address the ASB. However, there is little evidence of communication with the resident about this until the formal complaint. This, along with the lack of risk assessment and action plan results in there being service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB. As the resident has moved out of the property, there are no orders for specific action to be taken to address the substantive issue. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for this level of failure and impact.

14. The stage 1 and 2 responses were issued within the landlord’s target timescale. They addressed the complaint and answered the resident’s concerns appropriately. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

15. If a risk assessment and action plan was completed, it was not shared with us.

Communication

16. There is little evidence of communication between the landlord and resident before the complaints process.