London Borough of Islington (202500535)

Background

1. The resident lives with her children in a house owned by the landlord. Her daughter has autism which the landlord is aware of, and her sons have additional needs. She reported ongoing antisocial behaviour from a neighbour and complained about its handling of her reports.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

4. The landlord did not respond to or action the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour in line with its policy. Its complaint responses lacked empathy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. There was a delay by the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint. However, it acknowledged this, apologised and offered redress in line with its policy.

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.

What we did not look at

6. The resident previously brought a complaint to us about the same neighbour causing ASB. This was determined on 15 July 2024 and was subsequently closed following the landlord’s compliance with our orders. We are unable to reconsider the same timeframe. Our investigation has therefore focussed on events following the previous determination up to its final response in April 2025.
7. The resident told us that the situation has had a negative impact on her and her daughter’s health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident’s reports of ASB related to discrimination. We are unable to make findings about discrimination as this falls outside our expertise. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation. She can also speak to the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance. We can, however, consider how the landlord responded to her concerns.

What we did look at

9. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will support neighbours to understand each other and will take an empathetic approach to all parties involved. It also says enforcement will be a key tool where the nature of the behaviour has a significant impact. It will be honest and transparent about what enforcement is possible and will promote partnership working where appropriate.
10. The policy says the landlord will complete a risk assessment with the reporter and signpost them to supportive services for high-risk cases. It will also provide reporters with a clear action plan within 10 working days of the report. In lower risk cases, it will provide noise recording tools and recommend the reporter speaks directly to the perpetrator. It will keep reporters updated at least monthly.
11. Due to ongoing ASB, the landlord served a notice of seeking possession on the neighbour in October 2024. In the weeks after this, the resident made several further reports of ASB caused by the neighbour including damage to her vehicle and artificial grass. We have seen no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about this in line with its policy timescale of 10 working days.
12. The resident continued to chase the landlord for responses to her reports. On 3 December 2024, it told her its legal team were reviewing the case to explore options for managing the ASB. It did not give any timescales for how long this might take which likely added to her distress.
13. In late December 2024, the resident reported a serious incident to the police. She called the landlord on 6 January 2025 asking for a call back to discuss the incident. There is no evidence it contacted her about this in line with its high-risk case policy despite her clear distress.
14. On 23 January 2025, the landlord told the resident it had insufficient evidence to take enforcement action against the neighbour. It told her she could contact it about a move if she wished to consider this. It said it would monitor her case for 3 months before deciding whether to close the ASB case.
15. It is our understanding that there is a high threshold of evidence needed to pursue legal action regarding ASB. While it may not have had sufficient evidence to progress legal action at the time, it failed to demonstrate how it would manage further reports of ASB or monitor the case. It also failed to consider that the resident said she did not want to move due to her daughter’s vulnerabilities.
16. In late January 2025, the resident asked the landlord if she could install a pergola. She also asked for information about fencing in the front garden. There is no evidence it responded to her within the complaint period. This was not reasonable as she was trying to improve her living conditions and make the situation comfortable for her and her children.
17. The resident’s complaint focused on the landlord’s lack of contact and ASB management. She reported that her neighbour racially abused and spat at her. We have seen no evidence of what action it took in relation to these reports.
18. The landlord’s stage 1 response of March 2025 was brief and lacked empathy. It said it was waiting for its legal team to complete a case review and would update her with the outcome. While it had done this on 23 January 2025, it sent a further update on 24 March 2025. It repeated that it had insufficient evidence to take enforcement action. It said it decided to issue both parties with acceptable behaviour contracts. It repeated its earlier offer to help her move.
19. The resident escalated her complaint after receiving the landlord’s update. She said it had not acted on her reports or communicated well with her. She was unhappy with its decision to issue an acceptable behaviour contract and asked why it felt this necessary.
20. In April 2025, the landlord received inappropriate email communication from the neighbour. The content and tone of the emails supported the resident’s reports of ASB. We have seen no evidence of it responding to these emails or taking any action such as warnings or contacting the police. This does not demonstrate that it considered these as evidence of the neighbour’s behaviour.
21. The landlord’s final complaint response of April 2025 was brief and again lacked empathy. It did not explain to the resident why it was issuing her with an acceptable behaviour contract. It failed to acknowledge the impact of the ongoing issues on the resident and her family. It also failed to identify any shortcomings in its lack of communication. We also saw no evidence that it completed a risk assessment or action plan in line with its policy.
22. The resident told us that issues have worsened since November 2025. She said she has not reported this as she had no faith it would be dealt with. It is evident that the landlord and resident relationship has broken down. We have made an order for the landlord to address her concerns in line with its ASB policy.

23. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt and respond at stage 1 within a further 10 working days. It will reply to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
24. The landlord took 12 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. This was 7 working days later than the timescale set out in its policy. However, it apologised for its delay and offered £25 compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy which says it will award £25 per month for any delay. It was also within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance. We therefore find that it offered reasonable redress.

Learning

25. The evidence in this case shows the landlord did not fully consider the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household when responding to her reports of ASB.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. We found no concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

27. The landlord’s communication was poor, and it did not respond to the resident on several occasions. While there was a high level of incoming reports at times, it did not treat the resident fairly by not acknowledging them.