From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Camden Council (202412754)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412754

London Borough of Camden Council

19 September 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by the ingress of the smell of cannabis into her flat.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a flat owned by the landlord. The landlord is aware she has autism, depression, and significant sensory challenges.
  2. In August 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about cannabis smoke from a neighbour’s flat seeping into her home through the vents. She said she had reported this regularly to it, yet it had not done anything. She explained the smell of second-hand smoke was making her unwell.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 September 2024. It said its housing officer had contacted the police to request any information they may have about the reported issue. It encouraged the resident to report occurrences to the police and its community safety enforcement team. It arranged a home visit for 18 September 2024 to see if it could take any steps such as sealing holes or gaps that may be allowing the smell of smoke to enter her home.
  4. The resident raised another complaint in November 2024. She explained the issue was still occurring regularly and a home visit had not taken place. She was concerned about the lack of communication from the landlord.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 3 March 2025. It said while there had been efforts to verify the nuisance, it did not have sufficient evidence to undertake enforcement action against any neighbour. It accepted it could have done more to follow-up on her reports. It upheld the complaint and said it would contact her within 10 days to discuss the next steps.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord several times about further instances of the smell of cannabis in her flat and the lack of resolution. As the complaint responses provided thus far to this Service contained different reference numbers, we asked the landlord to issue a final stage 2 complaint response to conclude its position on the matter.
  7. The landlord issued another stage 2 response on 21 May 2025. It said the home visit initially agreed for 18 September 2024 did not take place as the resident was unavailable. It explained officers had spoken to other occupants of the block who had not reported any issues, and it had received no evidence of the source of the ASB. It identified delays in responding to the resident’s emails and apologised.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. She referred her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the way the landlord managed the issues caused significant stress and impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with her. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
  2. On 27 February 2025 we issued determination 202308720 to the parties. This considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between August 2021 and October 2023. She has complained about some of the same issues within her correspondence. In accordance with the Scheme, we may not investigate matters which we have already decided upon. This report considers events from 30 October 2023 until 21 May 2025, when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.
  3. Within the resident’s communication with us, she said she had raised a separate complaint to the landlord about how it managed vent repairs. She described its stage 1 response and said she had not yet escalated it to the final stage of its internal complaint procedure. As such, we have not considered her complaint about vent repairs within this determination. If she remains dissatisfied once she has received a stage 2 complaint response, it is open to her to make a separate referral to this Service.

ASB

  1. It is not the purpose of this determination to investigate the incidents or to assess the credibility of the resident’s reports of ASB. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received and decide whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances, in accordance with its policies and any relevant legislation.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as per the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. This is conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person, is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  3. Within the landlord’s ASB policy, it states that it would not normally consider some kinds of behaviour under said policy, such as cases of illegal drug use when there is no associated ASB. It says it will advise residents to report such issues to the police.
  4. The ASB policy states that residents can report ASB via an online form, by telephone Monday to Friday, 9am – 5pm, or for those living on an estate, by calling a security patrol, available from 4pm to 4am daily. It encourages residents to report incidents of ASB via the methods above and to the police if appropriate. Upon receipt of a report, it will take various actions which include conducting a risk assessment and creating an action plan.
  5. The landlord’s tenancy guide sets out what a resident should do if they are suffering nuisance or ASB. The guide states that a resident should make a report to a housing officer, who would treat the case sympathetically.
  6. The landlord’s tenancy conditions document states that residents or anyone else living or visiting their home, must not do, cause, encourage or allow, anything which causes or is likely to cause nuisance, or may cause harassment or annoyance to anyone else.
  7. The resident made most of her reports to the landlord about the smell of cannabis by email. Copies of these emails have been provided to this Service. They show she made reports in March, August, and September 2024. The landlord has not demonstrated that it responded to all her reports promptly or managed her expectations about what actions it might be able to take. It recognised the shortcomings in its communication within its complaint responses and apologised for this. However, it did not offer any redress to recognise the impact of its failings. This was unreasonable in the circumstances and not in line with our remedies guidance.
  8. The landlord has not provided comprehensive evidence to show how it responded to the resident’s reports of ASB. We have seen no evidence of a victim risk assessment, internal assessment of her reports, updates or case closure letters or discussions with the resident. Clear record keeping is a core function in an ASB investigation. This is not only so that landlords can provide evidence of events and actions when requested by the Ombudsman. It is because this assists it in monitoring the case, determining required actions, and providing accurate information to the resident. If there is a lack of evidence and a limited audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that it acted fairly and in line with its policies.
  9. The messages from the resident regularly explained the distress she was experiencing and the impact on her wellbeing. The purpose of a risk assessment is to identify any specific needs or circumstances which require further attention, action, or support from the landlord. It is usually a crucial element of handling ASB and reducing the impact on the victim. While we have not seen a risk assessment in this case, we are aware that the landlord consulted with Adult Social Care who completed a Specialist Sensory Needs assessment and shared its findings with it. They also commented on the challenges experienced with housing in view of her medical conditions. This enabled it to have a greater understanding of her vulnerabilities and needs. Therefore, we have not identified significant detriment caused to the resident by a lack of a risk assessment.
  10. The landlord demonstrated that it had contacted the police in September 2024 for it to disclose information about reports of cannabis use within the block. Within its stage 1 response of 12 September 2024, it arranged a home visit to assess the condition of the resident’s property to see if it could seal any gaps which may allow the smell of smoke to enter her home. Furthermore, it acted properly by asking her to report her concerns to the police and provided her with the details of how to report further instances of ASB. It also gave her the details for its security patrol who were available between 4pm and 4am daily. These actions were appropriate in the circumstances.
  11. The resident informed the landlord that she had not allowed the police to visit her as she had previously experienced harassment over the issues. She also did not consent to it informing the neighbour about her concerns. She subsequently cancelled the home visit, and we have not seen any evidence that she responded when it offered to reschedule the visit. While the landlord is not responsible for the delays caused here, we find it ought to have been more proactive in arranging another home visit.
  12. In September 2024, the police informed the landlord that they visited the block in June, July, and September 2024. It also explained that it met with the resident, who said she did not want the police to contact her neighbour, nor did she want them to visit again in person. It told the landlord that they did not smell cannabis at the time. They arranged a joint visit with the landlord to the block for the following month. Records from this visit also show that no signs of cannabis use were detected.
  13. The resident continued to report the smell of cannabis to the landlord in November and December 2024. It explained it had been collaborating with the police but could not act without evidence. It asked her to report further occurrences to the police and offered a home visit on 14 January 2025.
  14. On 25 February 2025, the resident notified the landlord about a person smoking cannabis near the gated entrance. She asked it to check its CCTV from 18:00. We find it responded promptly and took her concerns seriously. It later updated her to explain that it had reviewed 2 cameras but did not identify an incident of her description.
  15. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 3 March 2025. It said it could have taken a more proactive stance to follow-up the resident’s reports of cannabis smoke within her property. It explained it does not have sufficient evidence to take enforcement action against any neighbour for causing nuisance via smoke fumes, but it would make further efforts to gather such. It said it would contact her within 10 working days to advise on what steps it intended to take. In our view, it was inappropriate of it to uphold her complaint yet fail to provide details of a fair and suitable remedy. This was not in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  16. In March 2025, an internal email from the landlord stated it had encountered a strong cannabis smell on the landing outside of the resident’s home, with no detectable smells of the substance on other floors. Additionally, another party in the building had reported cannabis odours, and they suspected it occurred through the vents. The landlord reported the issues to its repair team and the safer neighbourhood police team. This was a reasonable course of action.
  17. While we have seen some email correspondence between the landlord and resident in March 2025, it is not clear whether it contacted her as promised within its stage 2 response to discuss the situation and agree next steps. It did arrange for another building inspection with the police which took place on 3 April 2025. During this inspection, it identified the smell of cannabis in a hallway. It subsequently arranged another joint inspection for 23 April 2025, in which it found no cannabis odours. Records show it kept the resident updated and encouraged her to report further incidents to the police.
  18. It is noted that we have not seen evidence that the resident reported each incident via the most appropriate channel at the time it happened. This was a mitigating factor.
  19. The resident raised a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of the smell of cannabis in May 2025. During the same month, the police advised her that they had spoken with the resident’s neighbour who denied smoking in the flat. Furthermore, the landlord completed a home visit with the resident in May 2025 in which it noted the smell of weed in a communal area that required further monitoring.
  20. As the resident had raised various complaints about similar issues, we asked the landlord to issue a stage 2 final complaint response. It did so on 21 May 2025 and set out that it did not find failings in its overall handling of her reports of ASB. It said it had made efforts to witness the alleged incidents, but they could not substantiate the allegations made. It recognised it could have taken a more proactive stance and observed there were delays responding to her communications. Despite recognising these repeated shortcomings 2 months after its previous stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not offer redress or set out an action plan. This was unreasonable.
  21. Under the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. A landlord ought to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised some failings, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint responses to improve its complaint handling.
  22. We are aware the resident has significant sensory challenges and is vulnerable. We also understand that without sufficient evidence, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take. It is unfeasible for it to take enforcement action against a resident without direct evidence of a breach of tenancy. Therefore, while we have identified shortcomings, we appreciate it did liaise with the police, visit the block on several occasions, speak to other neighbours, and offer home visits to the resident. We are minded that the failings are unlikely to have a bearing on the overall outcome of the substantive issue.
  23. In November 2024, we published a report following a special investigation into this landlord. We made 13 recommendations to the landlord for it to improve its service provision across complaint handling, information management, repairs, and approach to vulnerable residents. As such, we have not made any recommendations within this report relating to these areas.
  24. After considering the evidence available, we find the landlord’s actions were more reactive than proactive in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The absence of an action plan combined with delays in its communication contributed to a vulnerable resident feeling distressed, frustrated, and unheard. We therefore conclude there were failings in its handling of the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by the ingress of the smell of cannabis into her flat.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failures identified.
    2. Contact the resident to agree an action plan. This must include:
      1. How it will investigate her concerns.
      2. The frequency of updates.
      3. Where she should report further occurrences and the timeframe in which she should do so.
      4. What, if any, alternative support it can offer to help reduce the impact of the smells experienced.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord reviews its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the vents in her property. It should set out its position in writing to her if it has not yet done so.