London Borough of Islington (202346403)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346403

Islington Council

30 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The resident has lived in the property since April 2010. The resident’s neighbour (Mr A) lives next door to the resident. The landlord has stated that the resident is vulnerable due to her mental and physical health.
A notice of seeking possession (NOSP) was served on Mr A in October 2023, following historical instances of ASB. The resident was previously given a restraining order against Mr A, but this expired in July 2023.
The resident reported several occasions of ASB to the landlord from October 2023 to May 2024. The resident reported that Mr A was banging on the walls repeatedly, sometimes this would happen during the night which stopped the resident sleeping. The landlord visited the resident on some occasions, but the noise had stopped by the time it arrived or phoned the resident back. On 6 November 2023 and 22 November 2023, the resident showed the landlord CCTV footage where the banging noise could be heard.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 March 2023 and 12 March 2023 to report that the banging noise was still happening and asked the landlord to act. The resident said that the noise was impacting her mental health and that she was struggling to focus on her college course. On 28 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint because she was not happy with its response, the resident sent the landlord more CCTV footage of the banging noises. The resident made 6 more reports of ASB in April 2024.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 8 May 2024. It said:
1. It was sorry it had not responded to the resident’s emails; this was due to staff being on leave.
2. It had met with the resident to talk about her concerns.
3. The resident had not used its noise recording application, so it did not have enough evidence to take further action.
On 21 May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord again to ask for her complaint to be escalated. The resident said she felt she had provided enough evidence for the landlord to act. She stated that she was distressed by the lack of communication from the landlord.
On 19 June 2024, the landlord sent its final complaint response. It said it did not have enough evidence to take legal action against Mr A and that it did not think the issues the resident reported were ASB.
The resident continued to report that Mr A was banging on the walls. She said she was struggling to sleep and had been sleeping at a friend’s house to avoid the noise. The resident explained that she had previously had a restraining order against Mr A, but this had expired, and she could not afford legal help to have this reinstated. On 8 July 2024, the resident complained further to the landlord that she felt harassed by Mr A and provided more CCTV footage of the noise.
On 7 November 2024, the resident’s complaint was escalated to us. The resident explained that the reported behaviour was still happening, and it was impacting her mental health. She felt that the landlord was not taking her complaints seriously.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident has previously had a complaint investigated by us and the decision was issued in August 2023. The investigation covered the resident’s ASB reports about Mr A from 2020 to 2022. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2023 to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response, because this is what was considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “unacceptable activity that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to an individual from another household or to the community, or harm to the environment.” It states it will take appropriate steps to handle reports of ASB and take action. It states it will tackle the root cause of the ASB to minimise the risk and harm caused.
The policy states that it will respond to reports within 2 working days to give general advice or guidance. It will prioritise reports that involve a greater risk of harm. Where further action is needed, it will allocate a case officer who will work with the resident to create a risk assessment and an action plan. It will take appropriate action which can include:
1. Visits to witness the ASB.
2. Providing recording equipment to capture noise levels.
3. Extra patrols.
4. Using its legal powers such as court orders, tenancy interventions, or evictions.
5. Work with other bodies such as the Police and mental health support organisations.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported that Mr A was banging repeatedly on the wall on 6 occasions between 20 October 2023 and 22 November 2023. On 4 of these occasions the landlord either phoned the resident back or visited the same day, but the ASB had stopped by the time it responded. The timeframe of its response was appropriate because it was in line with its policy.
The evidence suggests that the landlord did not conduct a risk assessment until February 2024, and did not create an action plan. This was not in line with its policy. In March 2023, the resident showed the landlord CCTV footage of the reported behaviour but the landlord did not act on this and told the resident to use its noise recording app instead. The landlord did not demonstrate that it was taking her concerns seriously. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord not taking appropriate action which caused distress and impacted the resident’s enjoyment of her home. The landlord missed the opportunity to provide support to the resident and manage her expectations.
When the resident continued to report the same behaviour throughout 2024, the landlord did not take enough action. The records show that Mr A had previously been served a NOSP and that the landlord tried to meet with Mr A but he did not attend. It did not explore alternative approaches it could take to tackle the ASB or take action following the NOSP which was a failure.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was inappropriate. The resident asked the landlord for updates following the NOSP but responses were not provided. In November 2023, the resident told the landlord she had tried to call her case handler “so many times”, she asked that it address the behaviour properly and not give her “false hope.”
On 7 March 2024, the resident expressed frustration that she had tried to contact the case handler on several occasions but had not heard back, the resident tried to visit the landlord’s office but the case worker was unavailable. The resident was distressed by the lack of updates from the landlord and this led to the complaint being escalated.
The resident was evidently distressed by Mr A’s reported behaviour. She told the landlord that the ASB was impacting her mental health and she could not sleep, which was effecting her physical health. The landlord’s records show it was aware of the resident’s disabilities. The landlord did not take steps to provide support or advice to the resident which was inappropriate. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider the needs of vulnerable residents when providing its services.
Our spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights published in January 2024, refers to the need for landlords to recognise, adjust and respond to their residents’ individual circumstances and recommends that close attention must be given to the particular circumstances of the individual.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that it did not have enough evidence to take legal action against Mr A and it did not consider that the reported behaviour to be ASB because it was “normal daytime noise.” This was inappropriate because the resident had told the landlord the noise also happened at night and was causing distress. The resident was reporting behaviour that fell within the landlord’s definition of ASB. Given that there was a previous NOSP issued against Mr A, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained why the behaviour no longer met the evidence threshold and what evidence the resident could provide in order for it to take further action.
The landlord offered the resident compensation for its poor communication (£100) and for the resident’s time and trouble (£50). It did not acknowledge or reflect on the additional failings identified in this report. We do not think the landlord has gone far enough to put right the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s reports of ASB amounts to maladministration. This is because:
1. It did not always follow its ASB policy.
2. It did not show that it was taking the resident’s evidence seriously.
3. It did not consider other approaches it could take when the ASB continued.
4. It did not communicate effectively with the resident to provide updates and assurances it was taking the matter seriously.
5. It did not provide support to the resident who had expressed that she was vulnerable.
6. It did not explain its decision to the resident or what the resident could do to meet the evidence threshold.
When deciding what remedies are most appropriate, we have considered our remedies guidance which is available on our website. The distress and inconvenience caused the resident, the landlord’s repeated failure to address the resident’s concerns, and the resident’s vulnerability are aggravating factors. Having this in mind, we award £600 compensation for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
We understand that the reported ASB is ongoing. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns and provide an update on the enforcement action it is taking against Mr A.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord.” The word ‘complaint’ does not have to be used.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days responded to within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
On 28 March 2024, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord. She stated that she was unhappy with the lack of communication and action since her previous complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord recorded this as a complaint in order to respond appropriately. This was a failure.
The resident complained again on 8 April 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this on 22 April 2024 and said it would respond by 1 May 2024. It later extended this deadline to 8 May 2024. The complaint was acknowledged outside of the landlord’s policy time frames which was inappropriate. The landlord has not provided details of the resident’s complaint which was inappropriate and a record keeping failure. The landlord responded to the complaint on 8 May 2024.
The resident escalated the complaint on 21 May 2024, the landlord acknowledged this on 22 May 2024. The landlord responded on 19 June 2024 which was within its policy time frames.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, because it did not recognise the resident’s March 2024 expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint. This caused inconvenience to the resident who was delayed in having her complaint responded to. There was also a record keeping failure by the landlord because it has not provided details of the resident’s April 2024 complaint.
As a result of the service failure identified, we consider that £50 compensation should be paid to the resident to recognise the inconvenience caused. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping practices and consider the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failures noted in this determination.
2. Paid the resident a total compensation of £650. £150 of the landlord’s previous offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as:
  1. £600 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the handling of the reported ASB.
  2. £50 in recognition of the complaint handling service failure.
3. Contacted the resident to discuss the ongoing ASB and provide an update on what action it is taking.

Recommendations

The landlord should conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were. The landlord should also consider the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.