London Borough of Camden Council — case 202335792

Decision Case ID 202335792 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Camden Council Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 18 December 2025 Background The resident has been reporting antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour in the flat above and other people in the neighbourhood for several years. The behaviours she reported included loud noise and a barking dog, racial harassment, and drug taking. Some of the reports of racial harassment were made to the police but it did not take any further action.

The resident was unhappy with how the landlord responded to her ASB reports and that it has not moved her. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s: Response to the ASB reports. Handling of the complaint. Our decision (determination) We found service failure in the landlord’s response to the ASB reports. We have found that there was reasonable redress in its handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right for the ASB aspect.

Summary of reasons ASB reports The landlord took some actions that were proportionate to the evidence available to it and in keeping with its ASB policy. However, its records do not show it completed an investigation into the neighbour’s flooring or confirmed an outcome to this. This will have contributed to the resident feeling as though the landlord did not act on her reports. Complaint handling At stage 1, the response was significantly delayed and no updates were provided by the landlord.

It though took reasonable actions to put right the impact of the delay. 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 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to update her about its investigations. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and the landlord must provide documentary evidence. No later than 16 January 2026 2 Inspection order The landlord must inspect the neighbour’s flooring, unless it can provide evidence it has already completed an inspection.

It must write to the resident confirming its position and any follow-on actions, including possible timescales. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts no later than the due date. No later than 23 January 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should reoffer the compensation it awarded of £120 for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response, as our decision was based on this offer having been made.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 21 December 2023 The resident complained that she had been reporting racial harassment for 10 years. She said the landlord had not done anything, so she no longer reported it to the police. She said there were noises from the neighbour above, including dropping heavy objects and a dog barking. She asked to be moved. 25 June 2024 In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it apologised that it had not responded sooner. It said: it had assessed her recent reports and the lack of specific details of incidents were a hinderance.

it needed “substantial evidence” of ASB to consider moving her and encouraged her to report incidents to the police the resident should explore other options for moving, such as a mutual exchange. it would inspect the flooring of the flat above and would confirm the outcome. 5 July 2024 The resident escalated her complaint because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said it had not considered the history of her case and that she had delivered supporting evidence in person to the landlord’s office.

1 August 2024 In the stage 2 review response, the landlord did not alter its position on the ASB reports. It did though award compensation of £120 for the initial delay in responding to the complaint and advised an officer would follow up with her about the neighbour’s flooring and her supporting evidence. After the complaints process ended The resident reported incidents to the police, including a toy being thrown at her window and someone flashing a light into her flat. The landlord liaised with the police about these reports but no further action was taken because it said there was no evidence these were incidents of harassment.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because she remains unhappy with how the landlord has responded to her ASB reports. She advised she has been caused distress and wants to be moved on an urgent basis. 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 ASB reports Finding Service failure The resident told us she has been reporting ASB for 10 years. We expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable time. This is usually within 12 months from the date a resident became aware of a problem. Not only does this ensure that evidence to investigate the complaint is available, but also so that effective steps can be taken to put things right. Our investigation focuses on events from May 2022.

This is because at this time, the resident reported a recurrence of the problems. We have also noted that there was an absence of consistent and continuous reporting prior to this. The evidence shows that the landlord took some appropriate actions, in line with its ASB policy, such as: Completing a risk assessment after a report of the same/similar problems in April 2023, which noted the resident had a mental health condition, but found the impact to be low. It is also undisputed that the landlord completed a risk assessment in 2024, but we have not seen this ourselves.

Liaising with partner agencies, such as the police, to gather and share information about the resident’s reports. Explaining why the threshold for ASB had not been met and the importance of her reporting incidents, such as hate crimes, to the police and that this was needed to consider moving her. While we have not seen the landlord’s managed move policy, the threshold for such a move is high, and supporting evidence from the police is often necessary before a decision can be approve.

Considering the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour above as a neighbourhood management issue, rather than ASB, and agreeing to investigate if it was caused by inappropriate flooring. Agreeing to put posters up in the building about drug taking. Additionally, the landlord provided advice and signposting to the resident to options she could apply to move, including through a mutual exchange. This was appropriate given the threshold for a managed move had not been met.

The reason we made a finding of service failure is because there is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord investigated the neighbour’s flooring and/or shared the results of its findings. It is not known if this is because no inspection took place or the landlord’s record keeping fell short. Either way, it is a failing that it cannot demonstrate it completed the inspection or communicated an outcome. It is a deviation from the landlord’s complaints policy, which states it commits to doing what it says it will.

This also likely contributed to the resident’s continued view that her reports are not being acted on. Given the above, we have ordered the landlord to take some actions to put things right. We have not though seen evidence of a serious or lasting impact to link to this failure. The resident’s opinion that the landlord has not taken appropriate action is clearly a longstanding one. We have also seen that the landlord has been continuing to liaise with the police and resident about her reports after the complaints process ended and has not, to date, seen sufficient evidence of harassment.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s complaint timescales align with those set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It must then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. At both stages the landlord acknowledged the complaint within the required timescale of 5 working days from receipt. However, it took 126 working days from receiving the resident’s complaint on 21 December 2023 for it to respond on 25 June 2024.

During this time, we have seen no record of the landlord updating the resident or informing her about any delays with its complaints. This was inappropriate and a significant departure from what its policy says should have happened. It was therefore right for the landlord to recognise its failure and take actions to put things right. It apologised and gave compensation toward the top of the range our remedies guidance recommends of between £50-£150 for low level impacts. This was a reasonable amount to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident.

It took the landlord 18 working days from the resident escalating her complaint on 5 July 2024 to respond at stage 2 on 1 August 2024. This was appropriate because it was within its timescale. Considering the above, we find the landlord has reasonably redressed the impact of the delay in its initial response. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) There were gaps in the records provided which meant the landlord could not demonstrate, for example, that it completed the risk assessment referred to in the stage 2 response.

It was also not apparent that the landlord has a specific case management system to record ASB matters on. We recommend it considers reviewing its ASB record keeping in this case for possible learnings. Communication There were no apparent communications or updates informing the resident of the delay at stage 1 or giving a revised timescale. This finding is consistent with one of the themes highlighted in our November 2024 special report on the landlord. It responded positively to recommendations for improvements.

The landlord may still wish to consider if there is any further learning that it can take from its communication failings in this case.