London Borough of Camden Council (202347137)

Background

1. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property since February 2022. The property is a sixth-floor studio flat. The resident has not reported any additional communication needs. In November 2022, she informed the landlord that smoke and fumes were entering her home. In September 2023, we issued a determination under case reference 202204295 about that matter. In March 2024, the resident reported further odours entering her property and made a new complaint. As she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses, she brought the matter to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of smells and fumes entering her property from a neighbouring property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of smells and fumes entering her property from a neighbouring property.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of smells and fumes entering her property from a neighbouring property.

5. The landlord did not adequately consider or act on evidence from its own operatives, which showed that fumes and odours were travelling through shared voids, and instead relied on a position that was not fully supported by the available information. It also failed to carry out the further investigations it had identified as necessary or provide the update it committed to. These shortcomings resulted in avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident, and the landlord did not offer appropriate redress for the impact caused.

The complaint handling.

6. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code, as it did not recognise or register the resident’s complaint despite multiple contacts and issued a stage 1 response only after this Service intervened. It did not complete an adequate investigation or review the evidence available to it, which meant it did not reassess its position or consider compensation during the complaint process. These shortcomings delayed resolution and caused avoidable time and trouble for the resident, and the landlord did not demonstrate any commitment to learning from the failings identified.

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.

What we did not investigate and why

7. The resident reported smoke and fumes were entering her property in November 2022, and in September 2023 this Service determined that the landlord’s handling of the issue amounted to maladministration. This report considers only events that occurred after that determination. References to earlier or later events are included for context only.
8. This Service does not typically consider complaints that have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This Service has not seen evidence that events after 24 September 2024 exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
9. The resident raised concerns about the potential impact on her physical and mental health, and we understand those concerns. However, unlike a court, we cannot determine the cause of any health issues or establish liability and award damages. Such matters are usually addressed through legal action or a personal injury claim.

What we found

10. It is not in dispute that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the building. When the resident reported that smells and fumes were entering her home from an external source, the landlord was required to carry out a reasonable inspection and determine whether any repair was its responsibility under the lease.
11. The landlord’s operatives attended the property on 20 October 2023, 15 December 2023 and 8 January 2024. The landlord said that on 20 October 2023 it completed repairs, including moving ducting, installing pipework so that extractor fans vent externally or to the loft, and sealing the associated pipework. The landlord said the repairs operations manager was aware of the resident’s concerns that the extractor fan in flat 80 might have been installed in the wrong place, and that the repair teams took this into account during their inspections. It also said that on 8 January 2024 its officers visited the resident’s home while the occupant of flat 80 was frying fish, and they reported that they did not detect any odour entering the resident’s property. The landlord informed the resident that the repairs team had tested the extractor fan in flat 80 and were satisfied that it was operating and venting correctly, either outside the building or into the communal loft space.
12. Internal records, however, showed concerns that conflicted with this position. An internal email dated 15 December 2023 showed that a smoke test had been carried out on the ducting, which demonstrated “smoke travelling through the flats”. This prompted a request for an inspection of the compartmentation. A later email dated 13 March 2024 asked whether a compartmentation survey could be carried out, as the ducting between flats remained a concern.
13. Further internal correspondence dated 13 March 2024 recorded that, “during a recent visit” to the resident’s property, a landlord officer inspected the kitchen service shaft. Based on the “limited access available”, the officer noted that most services from the flat below appeared to have been sealed or fire stopped. The internal communications also stated that additional investigations were required in the properties below to determine whether there were issues within the lower service shafts. The landlord believed there might be a void in the shaft below the resident, in flat 84, running from the ceiling to the floorboards, which could allow fumes or smells to travel upwards and enter the resident’s home. It noted that access to the properties below, including a void property where a more intrusive inspection could take place, would be necessary to confirm this.
14. Throughout 2024, both the resident and a neighbouring household continued to report cooking fumes, steam and odours entering their homes. Their reports support the possibility that the smells were still passing through a shared void or service cupboard between the properties. An internal email dated 5 April 2024 reiterated that additional investigation was still required, including access to the flat below and a more intrusive inspection of the service shaft.
15. The landlord’s evidence about the ventilation and fire‑stopping arrangements was inconsistent, including in its most recent update to this Service. Although the landlord referred to a compartmentation inspection carried out in May 2024 in the loft void above flat 88, it did not explain whether this inspection covered the resident’s flat or the voids between the flats below, nor how this limited check was sufficient to support its position. The landlord also failed to clearly describe the scope or relevance of this inspection in its complaint responses to the resident.
16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it upheld the part of the complaint relating to the fire break in the ventilation system, noting that it did not have sufficient information about the works or any records showing that repair orders had been raised. It stated that it was making further enquiries and committed to providing an update by 6 September 2024. No evidence has been seen by this service that the landlord provided this update.
17. The landlord’s internal evidence showed that smells and fumes were travelling through the shared void space, which contradicted its position that the “ventilation system works in the way it should” and that no further action was required. The issue remained unresolved and clearly caused a nuisance to the resident. In reaching its final view, the landlord did not fully consider the weight of all the evidence available to it, including all of its own internal findings. As a result, its position was not sufficiently robust to demonstrate that it had fully explored all reasonable avenues or that its conclusions were sufficiently robust.
18. The Ombudsman finds maladministration because the landlord did not fully consider or act upon the evidence available to it, including information from its own operatives, did not provide the update it committed to, and showed no evidence of adequate learning to prevent similar failings. These shortcomings caused an adverse impact on the resident, and under the Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance, reasonable redress cannot be achieved in such circumstances.
19. To reflect the distress and inconvenience caused, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £200 to the resident. This order replaces the compensation previously offered by the landlord in its response dated 5 July 2024.

20. The resident raised a new complaint on 18 March 2024 concerning events and actions that took place after our previous determination in September 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied with the action taken by the landlord following our previous determination and reported that the issue remained. Given this it was not appropriate to close the complaint as a “duplicate”. As these were new issues, it was not appropriate for the landlord to close the complaint as a duplicate. This was a missed opportunity for earlier resolution, and the landlord only issued a stage 1 response following this Service’s intervention, which also delayed the resident’s access to our investigation.
21. The resident contacted the landlord seven times between 18 March 2024 and 12 August 2024. Despite these repeated contacts, the landlord did not recognise or register the complaint or progress it through its internal procedure. This was a failure in complaint handling.
22. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 124 working days after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction and 18 working days after this Service requested a written response. This did not comply with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code.
23. There were also shortcomings in the landlord’s investigation during its complaint handling. It did not sufficiently review all the available evidence, which was a missed opportunity to explore inconsistencies, identify contradictions, and reassess its position. As a result, it did not refresh its overall view at either complaint stage or reconsider its position on compensation. This indicates the landlord did not carry out an adequate examination of the complaint, and the resident reported that she continued to experience the impacts of the unresolved issues.
24. The landlord’s remedies policy provides for redress where failures in its service have adversely affected a resident, but no redress was offered despite the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions. There was also no evidence of learning from the failings identified. Consequently, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
25. To reflect this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation, in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. This case demonstrates the importance of fully considering all available evidence, including internal findings, to ensure that decisions are robust, well‑reasoned, and supported by a thorough exploration of all reasonable avenues.
27. The case highlights the need for prompt action and clear oversight when potential fire safety risks are identified, so that these are investigated and addressed without delay. It also underscores the importance of keeping accurate and complete records of all inspections and findings to support consistent decision‑making.
28. The landlord should consistently apply its remedies policy where delays, missed timescales, or poor communication affect a resident. It should recognise the inconvenience caused, consider discretionary redress where appropriate, and demonstrate learning from identified shortcomings to prevent similar issues in future.