London Borough of Camden Council (202329817)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329817

Camden Council

13 May 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a 2nd floor flat in a 4 storey block. The landlord is a local authority. The lease began on 28 June 2021. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident’s son reported ASB, including dog nuisance and drug dealing, from a neighbour on 16 July 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2022 and 12 September 2022 to report that the ASB was ongoing and the landlord had not responded to her son’s report from July. The landlord responded on 13 September 2022 and said it had tried to speak to the alleged perpetrator but was unsuccessful. It said it would carry out a home visit.
The resident reported multiple further instances of ASB from her neighbour throughout 2022, including damage to the communal doors, drug dealing, dog nuisance, and youths loitering in communal areas. During this time, the landlord arranged 2 weeks of security patrols around the block but said the patrollers did not witness any ASB. The landlord encouraged the resident to report criminal activity to the police.
The resident requested a Community Trigger review on 11 January 2023. She said the landlord had not responded to any of her ASB reports since July 2022, other than to say it was planning a home visit and to inform her that she had a new housing officer. She included a timeline of the reports she made to the landlord between July 2022 and December 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on 24 January 2023 and said the Community Trigger had met the threshold and been accepted.
The landlord emailed the resident to provide an update on her Community Trigger review on 10 March 2023. The landlord apologised for not responding to all of the resident’s reports and said it had identified communication as an area for improvement. It asked the resident to continue reporting criminal activity to the police and offered to complete a community safety risk assessment. The landlord also outlined the actions it had taken towards the ASB so far, including:
1. making a referral to an organisation that could assist with dog related behaviour issues.
2. planning for a community safety officer and neighbourhood housing officer to conduct a joint site visit.
3. planning to interview the alleged perpetrator’s household.
4. continuation of multi-agency work
The resident made several further reports that the same ASB issues were ongoing between March 2023 and October 2023. During this time, she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of response on multiple occasions. On 11 May 2023, the landlord emailed to the resident and explained that it was limited in the details it could provide about its ASB investigation due to confidentiality. The resident asked for intervention from local councillors following this.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 16 July 2023. She said:
1. her household had been reporting ASB from a neighbour to the landlord and police since July 2022.
2. a Community Trigger panel found that the ASB was happening and that the landlord would investigate and keep the resident informed.
3. she had not received a response from the housing officer for over 1 year despite being promised a report.
4. her household would like to know that their ASB reports were being taken seriously and investigated by the landlord, and to be kept informed of progress.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 October 2023. It apologised to the resident for the delay in responding to her complaint. It said it had upheld the complaint and offered the resident compensation of £350 due to:
1. its failure to update the resident following the Community Trigger on 10 March 2023.
2. its failure to keep in contact with the resident about the ASB and offer her the necessary assurances that the ASB investigation remained live and active.
3. its failure to take proactive steps to manage communication between the partner agencies it was working with, and the residents impacted by the ASB.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 20 November 2023. She said she was unhappy with the stage 1 response as the landlord had failed to explain why it had not been updating or responding to her household’s ASB reports. She said she would like the housing teams to effectively deal with the ASB and for the landlord to provide an explanation regarding its lack of action.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 December 2023. It said:
1. it had upheld the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
2. it did not know why the stage 1 response was delayed but the stage 1 complaint handler had acknowledged and apologised for the delay.
3. it would ask the stage 1 handler to respond to the questions the resident had about the complaint investigation.
The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 6 February 2024 that she wished us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had not answered her questions around the action it had taken in response to her ASB complaints and she would like the landlord to clarify its approach. In recent correspondence with this Service, the resident said she felt let down by the landlord and would like an explanation as to the landlord’s lack of communication throughout the case. She would like to be reassured that the landlord is still investigating the ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has said the incidents she reported caused her and her household significant distress. It is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible for it. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it has followed proper procedure and good practice, taking account of all circumstances of the case.

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines ASB as:
1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation or residential premises, or.
3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the landlord’s approach to investigating reports of ASB. In accordance with its policy, the landlord:
1. considers unreasonable noise, intimidation and threatening behaviour, drug or substance misuse and dealing, and damaging the landlord’s properties to be examples of ASB.
2. adopts a victim-centred approach to cases of ASB.
3. will acknowledge all ASB reports within 2 working days and contact the complainant with further case details within 7 working days.
4. carry out a risk assessment at the start of an ASB case to inform an action plan, which it will then create and share with the complainant.
5. keep complainants and witnesses updated in line with action plans.
6. will take reasonable and proportionate action which may include verbal or written warnings, mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs), and police disclosure.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2022 and 12 September 2022 to report ongoing ASB from her neighbour and request a response to her son’s contact from July 2022. The landlord responded on 13 September 2022 explaining that it would have to carry out a home visit due to issues getting hold of the alleged perpetrator. While the landlord apologised for the delayed response, it is unclear why the delay in responding to the resident occurred. This delay was not in line with response timescales set out in the landlord’s ASB policy and caused time and effort to the resident. This was unreasonable.
The landlord contacted the police to share the resident’s ASB reports on 14 September 2022. The landlord continued to liaise with the police throughout the duration of the case. It was appropriate for the landlord to take a multi-agency approach to the ASB given the nature of the reports.
This Service recognises that multi-agency involvement placed restrictions on the landlord with regards to the action it could take and the information it could share with the resident and her son. Whilst this was a mitigating factor in tackling the root causes of the ASB, it does not explain the reasons for the landlord’s failures to appropriately communicate with the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord to report ongoing ASB from her neighbour, and request an update on the landlord’s investigation, on 5 occasions between September 2022 and December 2022. The evidence shows that during this time, the landlord contacted the resident twice to provide an update on its investigation. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy, which says it will provide ASB complainants with regular updates. This was unreasonable.
On 17 November 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and told her that a third party patrolling the area for 2 weeks had not witnessed any ASB. It asked the resident to confirm if the ASB was still happening so it could submit another request for patrols. The resident responded on 25 November 2022 and confirmed that the ASB was ongoing. On 30 November 2022, the landlord contacted the police to request that the area be added to daily patrols. It also confirmed it had requested a third party to patrol in the evening for the next 2 weeks. This was an appropriate action in line with the landlord’s ongoing multi-agency approach.
The resident emailed the landlord to request a Community Trigger review of the ASB case on 11 January 2023. She said that the landlord’s housing department had only contacted her twice since July 2022. The landlord responded on 24 January 2023 to confirm that the review was accepted as the case met the threshold. It said it would be in contact in due course. The landlord invited numerous third parties, including the police, to a multi-agency meeting on 25 January 2023, which was timely and appropriate.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 February 2023 saying she was “dismayed” by the amount of time it was taking the landlord to conduct the Community Trigger review. In its response dated 10 March 2023, the landlord apologised for its communication failures and said it had identified communication as an area for improvement. The landlord failed to improve its communication with the resident following the review, which led to the resident making a formal complaint on 16 July 2023. This showed a failure to learn from the Community Trigger review, which was inappropriate.
The landlord also offered to complete a community safety risk assessment with the resident following the Community Trigger review. While it was reasonable in line with its ASB policy provisions for the landlord to offer wellbeing support to the resident, it is unclear why it took 8 months from the resident’s initial ASB reports for it to offer to complete a risk assessment. There is also no evidence that this risk assessment was completed. This was inappropriate.
The resident and her son contacted the landlord to report ongoing ASB and ask for an update on several occasions during April 2023. In an email dated 19 April 2023, the resident’s son expressed that they were feeling unsafe in their home. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 April 2023 apologising for its communication failures and explained that it was limited in the information it could provide due to confidentiality.
While this Service understands the restrictions placed on the landlord’s information sharing, the landlord’s policy outlines a victim-centred approach. Given that the residents expressed feeling unsafe, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider what further action it could take to further support the resident’s household.
The resident made several further reports of ongoing ASB from her neighbour between May and July 2023 and repeatedly asked for an update on the landlord’s investigation. The landlord contacted the resident once in May 2023 to say it could not share any additional details due to confidentiality, and once in July 2023 to share that it had logged 2 reports from May. This was unreasonable as the lack of contact is outside of the landlord’s ASB policy, which states that the landlord will provide regular updates to complainants.
In both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord recognised that there had been failures in its communication with the resident about the ASB and apologised for these failures. The landlord offered the resident £350 total compensation at stage 1 for both complaint handling delays and ASB handling failures. It is reasonable to conclude that half of this amount, £175, was for the ASB handling. This was reasonable and showed that the landlord made some attempt to “put things right.”
The resident and her son continued to report ongoing ASB, including drug dealing and dog nuisance, throughout 2024. The landlord took several reasonable intervention measures during this time in line with its ASB policy, including:
1. home visits to speak with the alleged perpetrator’s household.
2. ongoing multi-agency work.
3. 2 police disclosure requests.
4. further third party patrols of the area.
5. internal work to request an injunction on the alleged perpetrator.
Throughout the period of the resident’s reports in 2024, the landlord informed the resident on 3 separate occasions that it was limited on the information it could share but wanted to reassure her that the case was progressing.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to take the measures that it did during 2024, it failed on several occasions to provide responses to the resident’s reports or update her on the actions it was taking. The landlord did not improve its communication with the resident following its acknowledgement of its communication failures in its complaint responses. This shows a failure to learn from the complaint. This was inappropriate.
Given that the resident had expressed distress at the landlord’s lack of contact on several occasions, the resident’s formal complaint, and the findings of the Community Trigger review, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess how it could maintain communication with the resident without jeopardising the multi-agency investigation.
The evidence shows that the landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident on 1 August 2024. This was more than 2 years after the resident’s initial reports of ASB in July 2022, which was unreasonable against the landlord’s policy which says it will conduct a risk assessment at the start of an ASB case. Given the nature of the reports and the fact that the resident’s household expressed feeling unsafe in their home, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct a risk assessment at the start of the case and at relevant milestones throughout.
The ASB Tool Kit for Social Landlords sets out that when opening an ASB case, landlords should agree an action plan with the complainant to manage expectations and tailor individual support. There is no evidence that the landlord created an action plan with the resident at any point throughout the duration of the case, which was unreasonable.
Furthermore, it is evident in this case that the landlord failed to appropriately consider what support it could offer the resident or signpost her to relevant third party organisations. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s handling of the case showed a lack of understanding of its role in a long-term multi-agency approach. According to its ASB policy, it is the landlord’s role to provide support to victims of ASB and take reasonable and proportionate action. The resident expressed feeling that the landlord was not supporting her household on multiple occasions, but there is no evidence that the landlord made improvements to its approach in response. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of contingency plan for when restrictions on the action the landlord can take are imposed by multi-agency investigations.
Overall, the service recognises the restrictions imposed on the landlord by the multi-agency approach as a mitigating factor in the case. However, there were several failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB which amounted to maladministration. This is because:
1. there is no evidence that the landlord completed any risk assessments until 2 years after the initial reports of ASB from the resident, which was not in line with its ASB policy.
2. the landlord failed to consider any individually tailored support for the resident and her family and failed to appropriately consider the impact of the ASB on the resident’s wellbeing. This was not in line with the victim-centred approach set out in its ASB policy.
3. the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations via an action plan setting out the steps it would take to support the resident and her family.
4. the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s ASB reports and concerns frequently throughout the case. It failed to consider how to maintain regular contact in line with its ASB policy whilst the multi-agency approach was ongoing. This caused time and effort to the resident who contacted the landlord on numerous occasions to request updates.
5. the resident expressed to the landlord on multiple occasions throughout the case that the nature of the ASB and the lack of clear action from the landlord caused significant fear and distress to her household.
6. having to repeatedly contact the landlord to request updates on the ASB caused inconvenience, time and effort to the resident.
To acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the above failures, an apology and compensation of £600has been ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord may deduct the £175 it has already offered from this amount if it has already been paid.

The associated complaint

In accordance with the Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”), landlords must ensure they:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the days of the acknowledgment at stage 1.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions of the code.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 October 2023, which was 75 working days after the resident made her complaint. This was significantly outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy and was not appropriate.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response and to consider this in the compensation it offered to the resident, the landlord did not provide any explanation for the delay. Section 6.3 of the Code recommends that landlords contact residents if an extension is required to issue a full stage 1 response, with reasons for the extension clearly explained. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to clearly explain the reasons for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response to the resident. That it did not was unreasonable.
While she was waiting for the landlord to issue its stage 1 response, the resident contacted the landlord to request an update on 3 occasions. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s update requests or acknowledged the delay in service. This was not appropriate and caused time and effort to the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 December 2023, which was 12 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This was appropriate in line with the timescales established in the landlord’s complaints policy.
In her escalation request, the resident highlighted the lack of explanation from the landlord regarding the delayed stage 1 response. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it did not know the reason for the delay but the landlord had apologised for it at stage 1. This response failed to appropriately address the resident’s concerns.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it upheld the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord did not apologise for any of the failings it identified or take any further remedial action to put things right. The landlord said it would ask the relevant team to respond to the resident’s questions around her ASB case, but there is no evidence that this took place. This was not appropriate.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is due to:
1. the delay in the landlord providing its stage 1 response to the resident, and its failure to explain the delay when asked by the resident.
2. the landlord’s failure to apologise or provide any remedy for the failings it identified at stage 2. This was not in line with section 7 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, “Putting things right”.
If the landlord had not addressed some of its complaint handling failures a finding of maladministration would have been found.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, a fair amount of compensation for the further failures identified in this report is £75. The total compensation payable is therefore £250, inclusive of the £175 offered by the landlord at stage 2. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £850, comprised of:
  1. £600 for the distress, time and effort caused to the resident by the failures in its ASB handling. The landlord may deduct the £175 it offered in its stage 1 response if this has already been paid.
  2. £250 for inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the failures in its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct the £175 it offered in its stage 1 response if this has already been paid.
3. Meet with the resident and set out an action plan to address any ongoing ASB. The action plan should include:
  1. individually tailored support for the resident and her family.
  2. dates of when the landlord will provide updates to the resident on the progress of the ASB case.
  3. what support tools have been considered and why they have or have not been implemented.
  4. when the action plan will next be reviewed.

The action plan should be updated until the ASB case has been closed.

The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this determination.