London Borough of Islington (202306007)

Background

1. The resident lives in a second floor flat. He has been reporting noise nuisance about his upstairs neighbour. The resident has told the landlord that this is impacting his mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. The association complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of ASB reports

4. The landlord failed to thoroughly investigate the reports of ASB, in line with its ASB policy. There were significant delays in it responding to the resident’s reports. The landlord did not complete a risk assessment that considered the collective impact on the resident.
5. The landlord failed to provide a noise recording device or any alternative, despite repeated requests since December 2021. The landlord did not attend the property to review recordings the resident had made on his phone.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord initially addressed its stage 1 response to the Ombudsman rather than the resident. There were delays in acknowledging and responding to the complaint at stage 1.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The landlord provided call notes showing the resident contacted it many times between October 2021 and May 2024. The reports were largely the same: loud banging and vibrations when the upstairs neighbour used a coffee machine.
8. The landlord visited the property in December 2021 or January 2022 but provided no details of the visit beyond later call notes. There is no evidence of what actions it took to investigate. The resident says staff visited both properties, switched on appliances, and assessed for noise. He says the coffee machine was not used as his neighbour normally does, so the noise did not occur.
9. There is no evidence of further visits, despite the resident reporting noise for 28 months. The landlord referenced the initial visit in its stage 2 response. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have investigated the issue thoroughly. The landlord has not shown it thoroughly investigated the reports. This is a failure.
10. The resident repeatedly requested a noise recording device since December 2021 and offered phone recordings. There is no evidence the landlord reviewed these. This is another failure.
11. The resident could not use the Noise app due to phone compatibility. The landlord said only two devices were available in the borough, causing delays. However, the resident requested a device for over two years, and there is no evidence the landlord offered alternatives such as a Dictaphone. This is a failure.
12. The landlord’s ASB policy commits to a trauma-informed, preventative, holistic approach. It defines nuisance behaviour as excessive or ongoing noise but excludes normal living noise. The policy promises responsive, high-quality service and support for vulnerable individuals.
13. Call notes show the resident repeatedly reported noise. The landlord often failed to return calls, forcing the resident to chase updates, sometimes for months. This lack of support is concerning. There is no evidence the landlord applied its trauma-informed approach.
14. The resident repeatedly said the issue affected his mental health and made him feel unsafe at home. The landlord completed some risk assessments on individual reports, often categorising them as low risk, but did not assess the cumulative impact. This is a failure. A proper risk assessment would have enabled better support.
15. The landlord failed to respond to many contacts, leaving the resident feeling ignored. Despite advising him to keep reporting, the landlord did not provide the high-quality service its policy requires.
16. The resident reported the issue to the police several times. The landlord’s policy says it will collaborate with partners and identify frequent callers to resolve issues. There is no evidence it contacted the police or other agencies.
17. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not uphold the complaint, stating it found no nuisance. It said it visited the property, sent a noise letter, and offered mediation. Offering mediation was positive, but the landlord failed to acknowledge its shortcomings or the impact on the resident. This suggests it did not thoroughly investigate the complaint.
18. It is positive to see the landlord offered mediation to the resident. However, the landlord failed to identify or acknowledge its failings in its complaint responses. It also did not consider the detriment to the resident. This is a failing, which gives the impression that the landlord did not complete a thorough investigation of the complaint.
19. The stage 2 response said the Targeted Tenancy Team would stop managing the issue and advised the resident to avoid his neighbour. This contradicts the ASB policy, which promotes restorative practices and relationship building.
20. Poor record-keeping makes it unclear what actions the landlord took. Call notes show it failed to investigate properly or communicate effectively. These long-standing issues left the resident feeling unsupported and unsafe. The landlord did not complete a risk assessment or consider the impact on the resident’s mental health.
21. We find there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Our guidance suggests compensation of £100–£600 for this type of failure when it hasn’t caused permanent harm. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by not thoroughly investigating the ASB reports. The landlord must also send a letter of apology.
22. The resident has repeatedly asked for a recording device. We have ordered the landlord to provide one and help the resident record the noise. The landlord said there are only two devices in the borough, so we have not specified the type of device. It can consider alternatives, such as a Dictaphone or a device that works with the Noise app.
23. The resident has asked the landlord to visit and listen to his recordings. We have ordered the landlord to arrange a meeting with the resident to review any recordings he has.
24. The landlord has not completed risk assessments or set out a plan to resolve the ASB reports. We have ordered it to complete a risk assessment based on the resident’s reports and outline its plan to investigate and resolve the issue.
25. The landlord has repeatedly failed to investigate the ASB reports. We have ordered it to review how it managed these reports and produce a report with its findings and any improvements it will make.

26. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it should acknowledge within 3 working days and respond within 20 working days.
27. We asked the landlord for its stage 1 response on 18 May 2023. It sent the response on 5 June 2023 but addressed it to us instead of the resident. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or respond within 10 working days. This is a failure.
28. The landlord should be aware of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). When we asked for the response, we told the landlord to send it to the resident. It should have done this under the Code and its own procedure.
29. The resident contacted us several times between June and October 2023, saying he asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. There is no evidence to confirm this, so we cannot say if the landlord failed to escalate properly.
30. We asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 14 February 2024. It did not respond or acknowledge this until 13 March 2024. This is outside the timescales of its complaints policy.
31. The landlord sent a new stage 1 response on 15 March 2024, this time to the resident. It explained the previous response was sent to us by mistake. Given the time gap, it was reasonable to start a new stage 1 complaint.
32. Emails show the resident asked to escalate on 2 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged this the next day and sent its stage 2 response on 16 May 2024. This meets the timescales of its policy and the Code.
33. There were issues with how the landlord managed the complaint. It failed to send the first stage 1 response to the resident and delayed acknowledging and responding.
34. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay £75 compensation and send an apology letter.

Learning

35. The landlord first sent its stage one response to our caseworker instead of the resident. It should follow the Complaint Handling Code and its own procedure.
36. The landlord did not thoroughly investigate the resident’s repeated reports of noise. It relied on an old visit in its complaint responses and did not investigate more recent reports from the resident. It also failed to try other ways to record the noise or offer support, even after the resident said the issue was affecting his mental health.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. We asked the landlord for documents and evidence about how it managed the reports. It did not provide details of the actions it took. For example, call notes mention a visit, but there is no record of what happened during that visit.

Communication

38. The landlord’s communication was poor. It often failed to respond to the resident’s reports, which made him feel ignored. The landlord should review how it managed communication in this case and look for ways to improve.