Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Camden Council (202317709)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317709

Camden Council

30 May 2025

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints about its decisions regarding a universal key system in the resident’s borough.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord in 2019 completed a pilot to test the rollout of a universal key scheme. The aim of this scheme was to change the locks on communal front doors, so that the landlord could access the communal areas of these properties using a universal key. This would allow the landlord access to communal areas to complete safety checks when required, without having to arrange for a resident within the building to give access. Following the pilot, the landlord decided to proceed with implementing this scheme throughout the borough.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 February 2023. He said that it had not consulted with all tenants and leaseholders before implementing the scheme, as required by section 105 of the Housing Act 1985. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 May 2023. It said it had completed meaningful consultation, providing examples of what consultation it had completed.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 May 2023. He disputed that the landlord had completed sufficient consultation. On 27 June 2023, the landlord issued its final complaint response. It confirmed the decision it made at stage 1. It said it did not consider there was a requirement to consult all residents under section 105 of the Housing Act before proceeding with the scheme.
  4. The resident raised a new complaint with the landlord on 1 November 2023 regarding its decision to approve the universal key scheme. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 January 2024. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that it was not required to consult on this programme, and it made an executive decision that does not require an amendment to tenancy conditions.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 24 January 2024. On 30 January 2024, the landlord declined to accept his escalated complaint. It said that it had already provided substantive responses, and it did not consider it reasonable or proportionate to keep investigating variations of the complaint. The resident asked the Service to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and its handling of his complaint.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42.n of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, do not cause significant adverse effect to the resident.
  2. The evidence does not show that the landlord’s decision to implement its universal key scheme has caused the resident significant adverse effect. Its decision does not affect his occupation of the property. The landlord already had the right to access the communal areas to complete safety checks and repairs. It explained the change improves its ability to access communal areas to fulfil its obligations, but no evidence has been seen suggesting it in any other way affects the resident.
  3. The resident has explained that he feels he has been affected because the landlord has not accepted his arguments against the key scheme, and that its actions are counter to the Housing Act 1985. The landlord explained to him its reasons and its understanding of its obligations. Except for the clearest of matters, the Ombudsman is not able to determine which of any one party’s interpretation of legislation is ‘right’. Such a matter would be more appropriately determined by the courts.
  4. Because of that, in accordance with paragraph 42.n of the Scheme, this complaint will not be investigated
  5. The resident also complained about the landlord’s complaint handling. In cases where the substantive issue is not in the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate it follows that the formal complaint about the same issue is also not one the Ombudsman may investigate.
  6. If specific problems arise in connection to the new key system in the future the resident is entitled to raise complaints with the landlord at that time.