On 21 July 2023, the Regulator of Social Housing published findings that the London Borough of Camden had breached the consumer standards then in force. The notice concerned the council’s responsibilities as a registered provider of social housing. This article records that historical regulatory finding and does not describe the council’s current compliance position.
The regulator said Camden had completed fire risk assessments for the 3,200 blocks requiring them, but more than 9,000 resulting fire remedial actions were overdue. Around 1,500 had been overdue since 2020, and just under 400 overdue actions were classified as high risk. The notice distinguished having assessed a risk from carrying out the work needed to address it.
The investigation also identified gaps in alarm provision: more than 9,000 properties lacked a hard-wired smoke alarm, while just under 4,000 lacked a carbon monoxide detector. The regulator concluded that the council did not have an effective system for meeting its statutory fire-safety responsibilities.
Progress and unresolved work
The notice did not suggest that no remedial work had taken place. It acknowledged improvements in reporting, new governance arrangements including a resident fire-safety panel, and completion of more than 40,000 actions arising from current assessments. Nevertheless, the outstanding risks and history of delay supported the breach finding.
Camden had a plan for completing overdue actions and programmes for installing alarms. The regulator said it would work with the council as it sought to return to compliance and consider further action if progress was insufficient. Those statements describe the response recorded at the time, rather than a subsequent assessment of the plan’s success.
A property-management lesson
Our reading of the notice is that reporting needs to show both the work completed and the work still outstanding. A large number of finished tasks can coexist with important unresolved risks. Priority, age, responsibility and evidence of completion each need attention.
The case should therefore be read as a dated account of regulatory oversight, with careful attribution to the regulator. It is not evidence for an undated allegation about a particular employee or proof that every social landlord has the same failings.