London Borough of Islington (202328765)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328765

Islington Council

23 December 2024


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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) reports.
    2. Request for a management transfer.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and moved into the property in 2018 via a management transfer. The property is a flat in a converted house which was previously managed by a managing agent under a Private Finance Initiative, and came back under the landlord’s management in April 2022.
  2. In August 2021, January 2022, and February 2022, the resident made reports to the managing agent about his neighbour. He said they used a washing machine in early hours, repeatedly rang his buzzer, banged on his front door and floor/ceiling, and put refuse in his bin. In March 2022, the managing agent said the neighbour denied the allegations but they would be issued with a warning letter.
  3. In July 2022, the resident applied to join the landlord’s housing register. He referred to historical harassment as well as his current neighbour receiving the warning. He was subsequently awarded 100 points based on the information he provided, but was unable to bid for rehousing as only applicants awarded 120 points or more can bid.
  4. In October 2022, the landlord contacted the resident about a recent management transfer request from him due to harassment, and requested details of recent harassment. In October 2022, January 2023 and February 2023, the resident referred to the issues in March 2022, 4 flytipping reports between 2019 and 2021, an August 2022 flytipping report, and a recent report of animal fouling on his doorstep.
  5. In March 2023, the resident complained about a lack of response and delay dealing with his transfer request. The landlord subsequently issued a stage 1 response, not seen by this investigation, and a May 2023 stage 2. It said that he would not qualify for a management transfer as his reports did not amount to harassment or a threat to life. It awarded £300 for acknowledged delays and distress and inconvenience, and said that to put things right staff would also contact the resident to look at things afresh.
  6. In May 2023, the landlord asked the resident to provide information about the harassment he had suffered since the July 2022 transfer application. The same month, the resident referenced previous reports about rubbish linked to his neighbour, and reports in January 2022 and May 2023 that his neighbour had banged on the ceiling/floor. He said that this and ongoing harassment was witnessed by a neighbour.
  7. In July 2023, the resident chased a decision. On 11 July 2023, the landlord provided a decision that said that the current situation was not high risk enough to award a management transfer. It detailed options to move, an ASB action plan, and how to request a review of its decision. On 23 July 2023, the resident requested a review and the same month, he reported an incident of his neighbour banging on the ceiling/floor.
  8. On 18 August 2023, the resident made a further complaint, about lack of acknowledgement of his request for a review of the management transfer decision and his report about his neighbour. On 25 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged his review request.
  9. On 7 September 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said it had been unable to address some aspects, but a manager had been asked to contact the resident. It apologised for service the resident had received and awarded £25 for delays. The resident requested escalation of the complaint. He was unhappy with the lack of information in the response about the decision and harassment, and the delays and handling since the May 2023 stage 2 response.
  10. On 18 September 2023, the landlord provided a management transfer review decision. It said it upheld the previous decision as there was no evidence that there was a risk of serious harm. It said that the reports were of low level ASB which could be addressed through its ASB policies and procedures. It noted reports of animal fouling and fly tipping but said action could not be taken without sufficient evidence. It detailed an ASB action plan. It said that the resident could challenge the decision in the county court.
  11. On 18 October 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It acknowledged issues with a delayed assessment of the management transfer application after the May 2023 stage 2 response, but it did not consider this to have caused significant delay. It said that the decision and review had said how it proposed to deal with ASB. It said it was unable to comment on the review decision, but it acknowledged that the service the resident received after the previous stage 2 response could have been improved and avoided further inconvenience and frustration for the resident. It increased its compensation award to £125, which comprised £25 for the stage 1 response delay, and £100 for poor communication and delays.
  12. The resident says that he is unhappy about the handling of his management transfer request based on harassment by his neighbour since 2018, and the landlord’s lack of action for the ASB reports about his neighbour. He says that the issues had impacted his and his family’s mental health. He raised dissatisfaction that the landlord said there was no significant delay, when the housing transfer had been in limbo since July 2022 and there had been loss of points from the housing register. He said he wanted a management transfer to be granted, for the housing transfer status to be updated with points he would have had since July 2022, and to be adequately compensated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) since 2018. Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out how we investigate complaints, says we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This means that this investigation mainly focuses on the most recent ASB reports before the resident’s complaint, up until the landlord’s final response in October 2023. The resident has the option to ask his landlord to raise a further complaint if he is unhappy with how it has handled ASB reports after its October 2023 response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships, and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  2. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s situation and recognises that he reports there have been ongoing issues for a long period of time, which have affected and caused distress to him and his family. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred, who is responsible, and whether enforcement action should be taken. The Ombudsman assesses how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of the complaint, and assesses whether the landlord has responded reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  3. Following ASB reports, it is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies, such as assess risks, discuss cases with those involved, use available tools to encourage parties against ASB, and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner considering its obligation as landlord to treat allegations from all of its customers in a consistent and evidence-led way.
  4. The evidence shows that in October 2022, the landlord requested details of harassment that the resident reported, and in the following months the resident referred to issues in March 2022, 5 flytipping reports between 2019 and 2022, and a recent report of animal fouling on his doorstep.
  5. The evidence then shows that in May 2023, the landlord asked the resident to provide information about harassment he had experienced since July 2022. The same month, the resident referred to previous flytipping reports, and reports in January 2022 and May 2023 that his neighbour had banged on the ceiling/floor. He said ongoing harassment was witnessed by a neighbour. The landlord internally queried what actions had been taken and whether the neigbour had been spoken to and warning letters had been sent, and it was noted that there was no action to be taken as there was no new ASB.
  6. The landlord’s July 2023 transfer decision subsequently detailed an action plan for the resident to consider mediation, continue to record and report ASB, download a noise app to make noise recordings, and contact it and/or police if risks change or increase.
  7. The landlord’s September 2023 review of its decision then set out a position that reports were of low level ASB which could be addressed through its ASB policies and procedures. It noted reports of issues such as flytipping and explained that actions could not be taken unless a perpetrator could be identified. It said there were no noise reports via a noise app to allow these to be evidenced or investigated. It detailed an action plan which added that staff would write to residents about waste and address his concerns with his neighbour.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to communicate with the resident in a timely way and that he experienced delays for periods, such as between October 2022 and March 2023, and May and July 2023. The landlord seems to have reasonably acknowledged and remedied this, as it awarded a total of £425 for delays and communication issues in its responses to the resident’s 2 complaints, which is proportionate to amounts considered applicable for such issues in our remedies guidance.
  9. The landlord also seems to have had a generally reasonable approach to the ASB issues, and been reasonable to consider it low level ASB. In order to consider action for ASB, a landlord understandably requires information about who the perpetrator is, what is experienced, when, and how frequently. It is evident that the landlord invited such information in various correspondence, including the action plans in the July and September 2023 transfer decisions, although it could have been clearer in its advice earlier than July 2023.
  10. Given a number of reports referred to historical events and flytipping issues where there appears limited evidence about perpetrators, it is understandable if the landlord felt there was limited evidence for ASB and consequent action against individuals in the timeframe of the complaint. It is also reasonable that it sought to encourage the resident to document ASB he experienced by way of reports and noise recordings. This would help the landlord to build a clear picture of issues, and help it to form a clear basis for any action in the future.
  11. The landlord was also reasonable to recommend for the resident to participate in mediation, as it is in accordance with its policy and good ASB practice to exhaust available intervention tools such as mediation. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s reluctance to participate in mediation with individuals he says have harassed him for a long period, but this is a normal recommendation for issues between neighbours and will have limited the landlord’s ability to help and exhaust reasonable intervention tools available.
  12. There is concern however about the response to reports about the neighbour banging on the door and ceiling/floor with an implement, which the resident reported in May and July 2023 and says a neighbour witnessed. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident provided limited information about frequency of the issue, but he said it is a recurrent issue, and alleges that the neighbour intentionally bangs on the door and ceiling/floor potentially in retaliation to noise caused by his children. This seems sufficiently concerning to have merited more action than is evident.
  13. The neighbour was sent a warning letter in 2022 by the managing agent, which shows reasonable action was taken at that time. However, the landlord does not show it gave specific regard to this issue in a satisfactory way, in the timeframe of the complaint and after the reports in May and July 2023. In low level ASB issues such as noise, the landlord’s policy confirms there is scope for it to try to “nip an issue in the bud” and seek an amicable resolution. There is also background to the resident’s case that the landlord could have been more sensitive to in line with its aim to have a trauma-informed approach, as he is clearly concerned about issues at another property happening again.
  14. The landlord could therefore have spoken to the witness the resident mentioned and spoken to the alleged perpetrator, particularly if the witness supported the allegations. This would have been helpful and customer focused, and reassured the resident that it was taking some action about the allegations. The landlord later said in September 2023 that staff would address the concerns with the neighbour, but no evidence is provided about whether this happened and what this entailed, which is also not satisfactory.
  15. Overall, while the Ombudsman recognises that the resident reports that there have been ongoing issues for a long period of time, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports was generally reasonable. However, the landlord’s response to recent reports about the neighbour banging on the door and ceiling/floor was not satisfactory, and this will have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer

  1. The resident has expressed various dissatisfaction. He is unhappy with delays responding to his July 2022 management transfer application. He is unhappy that his management transfer application was not assessed in the context of harassment he experienced in 2022. He says that his request for a management transfer should be granted, and that his management transfer application should be updated with points he will have accrued since 2022.
  2. In cases in relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to make definitive decisions about whether a tenant should be rehoused. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and correctly applied its policy and procedure when reaching decisions.
  3. The Ombudsman understands that after the resident applied for a transfer in July 2022, he was informed that he had been awarded 100 points based on the information he provided. This meant that he was unable to bid for rehousing, as only applicants awarded 120 points or more can bid. We understand that this is to ensure that only those in the most need for rehousing can bid, due to high housing demand. The evidence indicates that the resident received a reasonable response when he applied for a transfer in July 2022, as he was provided a timely outcome based on information he provided at that time.
  4. The evidence then shows that the resident made a management transfer request due to harassment around October 2022, and he emailed information to the landlord in October 2022, January 2023 and February 2023. However, it is not evident that he was told that his reports would not qualify for a management transfer until around March 2023. This was 5 months later, which is not reasonable. The landlord also took 2 months to provide a management transfer decision after its commitment in its first stage 2 response. This does not seem reasonable, as the landlord’s allocations policy says that 28 days is a normal timeframe for decisions. However, the landlord reasonably acknowledged and remedied these, as it awarded a total of £425 for delays and communication issues in its responses to the resident’s 2 complaints, which is proportionate to amounts considered applicable for such issues in our remedies guidance.
  5. The resident says he should be moved because of evidence from 2022 and the timeframe of the complaint. In correspondence about the management transfer, the landlord initially explained that this would only be considered if there was a “threat to life,” and that he would not qualify as his reports did not amount to harassment and also referred to historical events at another address. It then said in its management transfer decision that while there were historic reports, there had not been significant events in the current year to consider a management transfer due to his being placed at high risk. It upheld this decision at review, saying that there was no evidence that he was at risk of serious harm if he remained at the property, and that reports were low level ASB that could be addressed through its ASB process.
  6. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s situation and his desire to remove him and his family from their current environment. However, the landlord’s decision about his management transfer request seems reasonable. The landlord shows it considered the evidence and set out its position to the resident, and reached a reasonable decision on the evidence seen. The resident is clearly distressed by issues he experiences, but the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff when reaching decisions.
  7. The landlord’s policies say that applicants may be awarded further housing points. This includes an additional 60 or 120 points for a management transfer, where there is considered to be a risk of serious harm from issues such as violence and harassment. The risk is identified via means such as reports by the tenant, police and panels, and staff are only expected to refer applications for additional housing points if they feel criteria are met. The risk needs to be current and if additional points are awarded this is reviewed every 6 months.
  8. The landlord’s policy says it may also consider supporting a transfer where there is no high risk but where there are other serious enough risks to jeapordise the sustainment of the tenancy and a move would alleviate the risks. This includes long running neighbour disputes where there is a clearly evidenced high level of distress, but issues are not serious enough to warrant strong enforcement action. In such circumstances, the landlord will need to be satisfied that all other routes to resolve the issue (such as mediation and warning letters) have been exhausted and a move is the only way to resolve the situation amicably.
  9. The landlord takes an evidence and risk-based approach to consider eligibility for management transfers, and it is evident that it sought to obtain and review information to assess the situation and current risk. The resident has referred to a relatively small number of communal waste related issues, and a relatively small number of specific incidents about his neighbour. While the Ombudsman understands these may have caused distress, these do not seem linked to a perpetrator in the case of the waste related issues, or seem serious enough to meet the criteria for a management transfer in the case of both. It is also not evident that other parties such as the police have recommended a management transfer, to show that the resident’s opinion that he should be granted a management transfer is supported by relevant independent parties.
  10. The resident has raised dissatisfaction that the management transfer application was not assessed in the context of 2022 events, and says his application should be updated with points that will have been accrued since 2022. It is not evident that any significant detriment was caused by how matters were considered, as it is not evident that reports in 2022 or 2023 may have met criteria for a management transfer. The landlord’s policy also says that risk must be current and where additional points are awarded, this is reviewed on a 6 monthly basis. This means that awarded points will not have accrued in a cumulative way, and the situation will have been subject to review at intervals the resident experienced.
  11. The Ombudsman does note that the landlord’s policy provides scope for a management transfer to be considered where there is a long running neighbour dispute and less risk. However, the basis for the resident’s request for a management move was harassment, and it is not evident that the circumstances may have met this criteria. The landlord would also need to be satisfied that other routes to resolve issues have been exhausted which it was evidently not, given it suggested mediation and said the issues are ones which can be addressed through its ASB processes.
  12. Overall, while the resident experienced delays and communication issues in the course of events which will have caused frustration, the landlord appropriately acknowledged these and provided a suitable remedy in line with our remedies guidance. The landlord’s decision about the resident’s request for a management transfer was also reasonable on the evidence available and relevant policies. This leads the Ombudsman to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response about the management transfer

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified with its response to ASB.
  2. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, take steps to speak to the resident’s neighbour who he says has witnessed issues at the block. It should then consider appropriate action in accordance with its ASB policy, and write to the resident about the outcome.
  3. The landlord is recommended to, if it has not already, pay the previous compensation it offered to the resident, given the reasonable redress finding is on the basis of this being paid.
  4. The landlord is recommended to, if it has not already, liaise with the resident to review recent ASB reports, and update him about the outcome and the current action plan for his ASB reports.