We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Camden Council (202439436)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439436

London Borough of Camden Council

30 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. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A repair to the kitchen light.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord, who is a local authority. The property is a flat. The resident lives with her 2 dependent children.
  2. The resident sent a formal complaint to the landlord on 10 December 2024 as she had found difficulty reporting a repair of her enclosed kitchen light fitting. She was unhappy there was inadequate lighting after 4pm. The resident reported she had been unable to raise the service request since 9 December 2024. She complained the landlord had told her it would not take her service request over the telephone and that the online system said due to an upgrade it was only dealing with emergency jobs.
  3. The landlord told the resident an appointment had been made for 13 December 2024 however it did not attend on the day. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 17 December 2024.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 December 2024. It apologised for the delays and acknowledged there had been issues implementing its new computer system. It explained this resulted in the appointment for 13 December 2024 being re-booked for 17 December 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered her £25 compensation for the missed appointment and £20 for the delayed repair.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 December 2024 as she believed the response was premature as the repair had not yet been completed or an update provided when the landlord would attend. The landlord told the resident that day it had to reschedule the repair appointment to 2 January 2025 as it had been delayed on a previous job.
  6. The landlord contacted the resident again on 18 December 2024 and said it would attend the following day and offered an additional £25 compensation for the missed appointment from 17 December and £50 as a gesture of goodwill.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 January 2025. It explained it was common to close a complaint before the repair was complete if a plan of works had been made. It upheld its stage 1 response and confirmed its £45 offer of compensation from stage 1.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to us as she was unhappy the landlord did not act professionally and answer all points in its complaint responses.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a repair to a kitchen light

  1. The resident said in an email to the landlord on 18 December 2024 that she was without an adequate kitchen light from 5 December 2024. Although we do not dispute the resident’s statement, we have seen no evidence of any communication before 9 December 2024, when the resident attempted to report the issue online, but was unable to do so.  As such we have assessed the landlord’s actions from that date.
  2. The resident further contacted the landlord through its online portal on 10 December 2024 to raise a repair to her “nonstandard kitchen light fitting” and complain that she was unable to do so the previous day. The landlord was responsive and booked an appointment for 13 October 2024 which is within the landlord’s repair policy of 5 working days for an urgent repair. It is positive that the landlord identified the repair as urgent. This was in line with its policy which states a repair is urgent where if it was not completed quickly, would cause a significant nuisance to the resident. Although initially responsive it failed to attend on 13 and 17 December 2024 as promised.
  3. There is no evidence the landlord updated the resident on either occasion which was unreasonable. The resident found necessary to chase the repair each time to be told it had been rescheduled which was not a reasonable and customer focused response. When delays happen, it is reasonable for landlords to regularly communicate with and update residents accordingly. This did not happen in this case.
  4. The landlord originally rebooked (17 December 2024) the repair appointment for 2 January 2025 however the resident was unhappy and said if the repair was not completed by 22 December 2024 she would have it repaired herself and reclaimed the money from the landlord. We have seen the landlord tried to improve its service and had the appointment brought forward to 19 December 2024 which was a positive and customer focused approach. It attended and replaced the whole light fitting which meant it had taken 2 working days (a total of 7 days from when it became aware of the issue on 10 December 2024) more than what it allows in its repairs policy.
  5. The resident also complained about her difficulties in raising a service request online on 9 December 2024. The resident provided a copy of the landlord’s online system message that states due to planned works its system was down from 5 to 10 December 2024. The message provided a telephone number for residents to call during office hours and during an emergency when out of hours. The message also said a service request could be made online, which the resident did on 10 December 2024. The resident also said she called the landlord on 10 December 2024 and it told her it was only accepting emergency service requests.
  6. Although we do not dispute the resident’s statement, we have seen no evidence of a call on this date as such we cannot verify and assess whether the landlord provided such an advice and whether this was reasonable. However, we have seen evidence that the landlord acted on her online request and arranged repairs, which was appropriate.
  7. We have however listened to calls on 13 December 2024 where the resident made 2 calls to the landlord and asked to speak to a manager to progress the repair appointment. The landlord’s agent explained the line was for emergencies only and to report the issue online.  The resident was unhappy as she had already done so. She asked for the landlords call agent and their managers full names and requested to speak to a manager. She was unhappy at being told managers do not come to the phone and staff do not provide their second name.
  8. The landlord has confirmed to us that if there is a service failure or issue with how the call was handled, the call does not need to be passed over to a manager. It would instead go through the complaints procedure, so that a full investigation can occur. It also stated a call handling agent does not need to provide their surname for privacy and safety reasons. The landlord’s call agent therefore acted reasonably and within its internal procedures to explain this to the resident.
  9. The landlord’s call agent explained further that the managers were not part of the customer service team. It advised her of the ways to raise a repair and make a complaint about the call agent. The resident however said she felt the landlord had lied to her about the managers not coming to the phone which caused her distress. While we appreciate that this caused the resident distress in the situation, we have seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord has acted inappropriately. Furthermore, it provided her with advice on how to make a complaint (which she had submitted prior to these phone calls, and on 10 December 2024).
  10. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 17 December 2024 it explained there had been an issue with its new system and that the appointment (13 December 2024) had been moved to 17 December 2024. Although the landlord upheld her complaint and offered £45 compensation it did not fully acknowledge the resident’s frustration and distress caused by its system failures.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 23 January 2025 upholding its stage 1 response and appropriately explained it was common for it to close a complaint prior to the work being completed where there was a plan of works made. Although it highlighted the compensation offered was £45 as per its stage 1 response, it previously offered as part of stage 1 follow up on 18 December 2025 a further £75 (£25 for the missed appointment from 17 December and £50 as a goodwill gesture). This is in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy of £25 for a missed appointment.
  12. The landlord did not confirm this amount at stage 2 and did not manage the resident’s expectations. However, this will be further explored in its complaint handling. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not acknowledge the missed appointment from 17 December 2024 and as such did not appropriately review its further failures.
  13. While the landlord did not confirm this at stage 2 it addressed all the failure we identified during this investigation. It offered during its process £120 for the failures and an apology. This is sufficient to recognise the impact on the resident of not having kitchen light after 4 pm for 7 days and 2 missed appointments. This is also in line with its own compensation policy and our remedies’ guidance for service failure with no lasting impact.
  14. In summary, the landlord acknowledged the 2 missed appointments, the delay and provided proportionate compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The sum of all actions the landlord had taken provided reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the repair to a kitchen light.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days at both stages of its complaints procedure. It further states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days with a possible 10-day extension at either stage. This policy is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 December 2024 as she was unhappy the landlord closed the complaint prior to carrying out the repairs. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 19 December 2024 and sent its stage 2 response 23 working days later (23 January 2025). The landlord’s response was 4 working days over the time frames permitted in its complaints policy and the Code. This caused the resident to have to chase the landlord’s response on 20 January 2025 and complain to us. Although we understand further delays can be experienced over the festive period it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have requested an extension as set out in its complaints policy or acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response. Nevertheless, the overall the delay was minor and did not affect the landlord’s handling of the repair.
  3. The resident was also dissatisfied that the stage 2 complaint officer did not discuss the complaint with her. While there is no such requirement in the landlord’s complaint policy, this would have been a reasonable step. The Code sets out that the landlord must have a good understanding of the complaint and the action taken during the previous stages. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response did not account for the further failures after stage 1 related to the missed appointment from 17 December 2025. It did not also include the additional compensation of £75 offered for these failures as part of the stage 1 follow up (on 18 December 2025). 
  4. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clearly offered the total compensation of £120 within its final response. Its failure to do so has caused confusion. The landlord also missed an opportunity to fully put things right for the resident during its complaints process despite making reasonable attempts prior to its stage 2 response.
  5. Additionally, while the landlord set out in its stage 2 response its understanding of the complaint being about some misinformation provided to the resident, it did not fully address this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained its internal processes to reassure the resident she had not been lied to.
  6. The landlord’s failure to manage the complaint outcomes properly and put things right for the resident has resulted in the finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for minor failures by the landlord in the service it provided, omission to acknowledge these and to fully put things right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress, which resolves the landlord’s handling of a repair to the kitchen light.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should confirm to us compliance with the above order.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident and pays £120 compensation which is the full amount previously offered within its complaints process, if not paid already.