Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Islington (202403833)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403833

London Borough of Islington

3 October 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 complaint is about how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the noise from a local community centre when in use, and the impact it was having on her health.

Determination (Jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as per paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 1 bedroom first floor flat. The tenancy began on 20 October 2008. The property is located directly above a local community centre. The landlord is a council, and responsible for the community centre in its capacity as a local authority.
  2. The community centre may be hired out by members of the public for private functions and gatherings. For a number of years, the resident has been reporting concerns about the level of noise emanating from the community centre when it has been hired out.
  3. The resident previously approached the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) about the issues she was experiencing. A determination was issued on 23 October 2023. It is unclear what determination was made. However, an order was made for the landlord to consider improvement works in line with the sound proofing survey it was to carry out.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 21 March 2024 regarding her dissatisfaction that concierge workers at the centre were not keeping accurate records of any incidents relating to the hirers of the centre and did not seem to be aware of the start and finish times of each function. The resident wanted the concierge to have more authority to enforce the rules of the community centre while the functions were ongoing and in bringing these to a close.
  5. The local authority issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 May 2024. In its response it apologised for the delay in responding and offered £25 in compensation. It advised the resident that the complaint had not been upheld as they had been in contact previously to explain their stance with regards to the concierge and the centre’s activities.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 9 June 2024. She said she was unhappy about 2 separate incidents where the bookings over ran due to lack of oversight by the team running the centre. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident asked for sessional workers to be in place to oversee any events the centre is booked for and for CCTV to be fitted.
  7. The local authority issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 August 2024. It accepted there had been a failing and the complaint was upheld as both events had overrun and caused a disturbance to the resident. It also advised recruitment had started for new positions which meant staff would be on hand to monitor events in future.
  8. The resident contacted us as she was unhappy with how the complaint had been handled and felt that compensation should have been offered for the detriment caused by the noise nuisance.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42.j states we may not consider complaints which in the opinion of the Ombudsman fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. While the landlord is responsible for the community centre, this is in capacity as a local authority. Our remit extends to considering the actions of local authorities in relation to the provision of housing. The resident’s noise complaints relate to a commercial premises under the management remit of Community Partnerships and not the Housing Management team.
  3. The resident’s previous complaint in relation to the community centre was considered by the LGSCO, as noted above. This is because the LGSCO has the power to investigate individual complaints about councils.
  4. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about how the landlord responded to her concerns about the noise from a local community centre when in use, and the impact it was having on her health is outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may wish to refer her concerns to the LGSCO accordingly.