London Borough of Camden Council (202346577)

Decision
Case ID	202346577
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Camden Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	31 March 2026

Background

The resident has been the leaseholder of the property since October 2019. The property is arranged over the first and second floors of a four‑storey terraced building. In January 2024, he complained about how the landlord had dealt with his reports that lime trees in the front and back gardens had caused damage to the property. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and brought the complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that lime trees in the front and back gardens had caused damage to the property.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that lime trees in the front and back gardens had caused damage to the property.
2. Service failure 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 that lime trees in the front and back gardens had caused damage to

the property

The landlord delayed both the structural monitoring and the required tree works and did not use the resident’s repeated contacts as opportunities to review or progress the case. Its communication contained gaps, with no clear information about when repairs would be completed, and internal coordination issues contributed to further delays. These shortcomings caused uncertainty and avoidable distress for the resident, and the landlord did not demonstrate effective oversight of the works or complete the required actions within a reasonable timeframe.

The complaint handling

The landlord did not follow its complaints policy or the requirements of the Complaint Handling Code, as it did not provide its complaint responses within the expected timescales. It did not demonstrate learning from the shortcomings it acknowledged, and it did not offer compensation that reflected the avoidable inconvenience caused by its complaint‑handling failures.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 30 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200, made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports that lime trees in the front and back gardens had caused damage to the property. £50 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint–handling failings. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 30 April 2026
3	Works schedule order The landlord is ordered to confirm completion of the agreed works programme arising from the insurer’s Preliminary Report of 28 February 2026 and the confirmed schedule of works of 3 March 2026. The landlord must: Provide written confirmation to both the Ombudsman and the resident that the works programme has been fully completed, or provide an updated timetable if any elements remain outstanding. Set out any ongoing monitoring or inspection measures it has put in place to ensure the effectiveness of the works and to prevent recurrence of the issues identified. Share this information with the Ombudsman and the resident, if it has not already done so.	No later than 30 April 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord consider making an additional compensation payment directly to the resident, in recognition of the delays from 12 March 2024 onwards in progressing the tree‑related works and achieving a clear and lasting resolution to the associated damage to the property.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 January 2024	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The resident stated that: There had been significant structural damage to their home and the neighbouring property since early 2022. Four professional assessments had indicated that nearby lime trees were causing subsidence, but they felt the landlord had not acted on this. The landlord had not met its responsibilities to maintain and repair the external and internal walls, they had experienced poor communication, delays, inconsistent responses, and difficulty contacting the Tree Team. Temporary repairs to a leaking roof and window had not been completed despite repeated requests, the landlord’s delays and lack of coordination between teams had caused distress. additional time and effort, and a reduction in property value. They wanted a single point of contact, a clear timeline for works, immediate temporary repairs, removal or reduction of the lime trees, and repairs to the property once the cause had been addressed.
3 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint.
18 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. Within it the landlord said that: The property was an 1880 four‑storey terraced house converted into two flats, with the rear bay showing movement and evidence of previous repairs. Significant cracking had been present in both flats, including a 3 mm vertical crack to the rear bay and internal cracking in Flats A and B, with water ingress affecting Flat B. The damage was assessed as consistent with subsidence linked to clay shrinkage during hot summers and contributing tree‑root activity. Recommended actions had included 12‑month structural monitoring, a trial pit and borehole, a CCTV drainage survey, an arboriculture report, and a structural repair scheme. On 7 February 2023, the resident had been advised that the building insurer (loss adjuster) was investigating the subsidence, with limited information available until its report was completed. The resident had been told to notify their own insurer. Other works had included gutter clearance in March 2023 and crown reductions to the lime trees in October and November 2023, with monitoring continuing. Further steps would depend on the insurer’s final report, which would be shared with the resident once available. A January 2024 roof repair appointment had been cancelled in error, and the landlord had advised the resident to re‑report the repair if it was still required.
25 January 2024	The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. The resident said that: The stage 1 response had not reflected the seriousness of the structural damage or the landlord’s responsibilities. Multiple assessments indicating that the lime trees were causing subsidence had not been properly considered. No clear plan or timescale had been provided for tree works or repairs, and monitoring had been extended without justification. The response had included inaccuracies and had not addressed worsening cracks, safety concerns, or the emotional impact. They had wanted the lime trees removed, repairs completed promptly, a single point of contact, a clear timeline, and explanations for ongoing monitoring and the previous gaps in tree maintenance.
25 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint.
12 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. Within it the landlord said: It had apologised for delays in providing the stage 2 response and had upheld the complaint regarding poor communication and delay. It had acknowledged that the resident had first raised concerns in summer 2022, and that limited communication had led the resident to commission independent assessments. It had accepted that the trees might be contributing to subsidence but noted that pollarding in 2020 and 2023 appeared to have helped. It had confirmed that further monitoring was due to finish in April 2024. It had apologised for the incorrect cancellation of the January 2024 repair appointment and had arranged an urgent inspection. It had stated that the main structural repairs remained with the loss adjusters, who would continue providing updates. It had said that communication would continue through the loss adjusters until responsibility transferred back to Major/Planned Works, at which point a named officer would be allocated. It had confirmed that once monitoring ended and works began (expected July 2024), repairs to the external and internal structural walls would be completed in line with its responsibilities.
Post 12 March 2024	Events following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
17 March 2024	The resident contacted this Service and advised that, as cracks had also appeared at the front of the property, they wanted all three lime trees removed immediately and replaced with trees of an appropriate size.
2 March 2026	On 2 March 2026, the resident told this Service that: The landlord had decided not to remove the trees after issuing its stage 2 response, stating that regular pollarding would be sufficient. The landlord had repaired the cracks in the walls and other damage to the property around early 2025. During the hot summer of 2025, cracks had reappeared. In October 2025, the landlord had agreed to remove the trees, and they were removed around Christmas 2025. The new cracks still needed to be repaired and there was currently no plan from the landlord to address the further repairs.
3 March 2026	On 3 March 2026, the landlord told this Service that: On 24 December 2025, it informed the resident’s partner that the relevant tree was scheduled to be removed by the end of January 2026. On 9 January 2026, it agreed further remedial works to the exterior of the property with the insurer. On 21 January 2026, the insurer provided a quote, and this was approved on 28 January 2026. On 28 February 2026, the insurer submitted its Preliminary Report and requested instructions to proceed with its proposed schedule of works. On 3 March 2026, it confirmed its agreement to the schedule of works.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that lime trees in the front and back gardens had caused damage to the property.
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate and why

This Service may not consider the landlord’s actions in relation to historic tree maintenance, as the matter was not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the issue arising. In the interests of fairness, and given the passage of time, this investigation focuses on events from January 2023 onwards, when the resident reported damage to the property. References to any other events are included for context only.
The Ombudsman does not comment on the outcome of any claim made to an external insurer, as insurers are separate organisations from landlords. Our role is limited to considering the actions of landlords.
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 12 March 2024 exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The resident has told this Service that further damage to the property re‑appeared during the summer of 2025. The landlord removed the trees in January 2026.

What we found

The landlord’s Repairs Policy explains that programmed repairs require more planning than standard repairs. These works usually involve specialist tasks that cannot be completed immediately. The landlord’s Tree Policy says that trees will only be felled where there are sound arboricultural reasons for doing so.
It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for repairing any structural damage to the property that is shown to have been caused by the trees in the garden.
On 6 December 2022, the resident reported cracks to the external and internal rear walls of the property. During its inspection on 8 January 2023, the landlord assessed the damage as consistent with subsidence and identified tree roots as a contributing factor. It was recommended that the landlord carry out 12 months of structural monitoring, undertake ground investigations in the rear garden, and complete any necessary tree works.
On 7 February 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it had referred the matter to its insurers’ loss adjusters for review. On 4 May 2023, the landlord raised a work order to pollard the two lime trees in the resident’s rear garden. Internal emails dated 17 May 2023 recorded that a target timescale of eight weeks had been set for completing the works.
The landlord carried out the initial structural monitoring and took the first readings on 7 August 2023, eight months after its inspection had recommended it do so.
Internal emails on 8 September 2023 showed that the work order to pollard the trees had been allocated to the wrong operative. The landlord completed the crown reductions to the two lime trees in the rear garden in October 2023, and to the lime tree in the front garden in November 2023. There was no evidence seen of any purposeful reason that prevented the works from being carried out sooner. This was over 10 months after the landlord’s inspection recommended that it complete the necessary tree works, and more than five months after it raised the work order to pollard the trees. This delay cannot but have contributed to the impact of the trees on the property. During this period, the evidence shows that the resident chased progress on six occasions.
In its stage 2 response dated 12 March 2024, the landlord explained that structural monitoring needed to take place for a full year before any major repairs could begin, so that it could understand whether structural movement was ongoing. It said that the trees would only be removed if the monitoring showed that movement continued. We note that identifying the impact of the trees was a slow process, and that time was required to assess whether the pollarding had reduced movement. Monitoring subsidence involves obtaining repeated movement readings over an extended period. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s understandable concerns about the lack of progress but said the investigations could not be accelerated without affecting the accuracy of the findings. It also confirmed that the monitoring and assessment would continue beyond its final response. Given the nature of subsidence investigations, this position was reasonable.
In summary, there were avoidable delays in both the structural monitoring and the tree works, with extended periods in 2023 where no meaningful progress was made. The landlord did not use the resident’s repeated contacts as an opportunity to review the status of the works. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident during this period. The records also show shortcomings in planning and coordination that contributed to the delays. This caused additional uncertainty for the resident, who did not know when the landlord would take action to repair the damage to the walls. Overall, the landlord did not demonstrate a reasonable standard of service in its oversight of the monitoring and tree reduction works, nor did it progress the required actions within a reasonable timeframe.
In its final complaint response, the landlord did not offer redress for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused. The landlord showed no evidence of specific learning to prevent similar failings. Under the Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance, reasonable redress cannot be achieved in such circumstances.
Taking into account the delay, the uncertainty caused, and the inconvenience to the resident, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure. The landlord is ordered to pay £150 to the resident to reflect the inconvenience, and the time and trouble caused by its delays.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a two-stage complaint process.
It is not disputed that the landlord did not meet the timeframes in its complaint policy or in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the escalation had only been allocated to an officer “a few days before the original deadline”, meaning it was unable to complete its investigation on time. As a result, the resident waited longer than necessary for a resolution and had to invest avoidable time and trouble in seeking updates.
The landlord’s remedies policy provides for financial redress where a service failure has had an adverse impact on a resident. In this case, the landlord did not make a payment despite the shortcomings in its complaint handling.
In addition, the landlord’s final response did not demonstrate any significant learning from the acknowledged failures, nor did it explain how it intended to improve its complaint‑service processes as a result.
Consequently, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 to the resident, in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Learning

In this case, the landlord did not manage the complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaint policy or the Complaint Handling Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

In this case, the landlord did not keep track of known repair recommendations and did not keep the resident regularly updated on progress, instead relying on the resident to chase it for information.
The landlord should apply its remedies policy when delays, missed timescales or poor communication affect a resident. It should recognise the inconvenience caused, consider discretionary redress where appropriate, and demonstrate learning from the shortcomings identified to prevent similar issues in future.