London Borough of Islington (202448147)

Decision
Case ID	202448147
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	21 May 2026

Background

The resident has raised concerns about noise disturbance from the neighbouring property over several years. The landlord investigated these reports and assessed that the noise was day‑to‑day domestic activity.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise disturbance.
2. Concerns regarding a warning letter issued to her.
3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord responsible for:
1. No maladministration in its response to reports of noise disturbance.
2. No maladministration in its response to concerns regarding a warning letter issued.
3. Reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of noise disturbance

The landlord investigated the resident’s reports of noise disturbance, reviewed her recordings, and concluded that the noise was everyday household noise rather than antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Concerns about a warning letter issued

The landlord set out the concerns raised by the neighbouring household, considered the resident’s response, and decided to issue a warning. This was a reasonable step to take.

Complaint Response

The landlord delayed its acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint to a third party and offered £25 to recognise that delay. It also offered £100 to recognise the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the matter. This offer put things right.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £125 it offered in its stage 2 response. Our finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling was based on this offer.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 February 2025	The resident submitted a formal complaint raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of noise reports, the issuing of a warning letter, lack of evidence disclosure, and officer conduct.
4 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
17 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint. It explained that the reported noise was considered daily‑living noise and that the warning letter had been issued in line with its procedures.
11 April 2025	The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She said the landlord had failed to address the impact of ongoing noise and had not properly assessed her concerns about the warning letter she received.
15 April 2025	Further complaint from the resident. She reported continuing noise disturbance and garden related concerns.
16 April 2025	Landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation to stage 2.
1 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint dated 15 April 2025. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and maintained the evidence it had reviewed concluded the noise was daily living noise rather than ASB.
2 May 2025	The resident disagreed with the landlord’s response and requested escalation to stage 2.
19 May 2025	The landlord issues one combined stage 2 response addressing both escalations. It did not uphold the substantive complaints, but it offered £100 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing her complaint and for the communication shortcoming in the 1 May 2025 response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise disturbance. She also raised concerns regarding the warning letter received from the landlord.

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.

Complaint	Reports of noise disturbance.
Finding	No maladministration

This investigation considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance between 17 August 2024 and 19 May 2025. The landlord issued its final complaint response on this date. We have not considered events after this date because they did not form part of the complaints process.
The resident has reported ASB by her neighbour since 2018. The landlord has also received counter allegations of ASB against the resident. Cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage expectations. In such instances, closely following its ASB policy ensures that a landlord is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the issues being raised, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has 2 main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the antisocial behaviour. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. Our role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
The resident reported ongoing noise from the neighbouring property throughout the period under investigation, including footsteps, banging, loud television, and children moving around the home. She said the noise was frequent and affected her wellbeing. We have considered the impact described. However, we are not medical experts and cannot determine whether the noise caused harm to her health. She may wish to seek independent advice on this. We have instead considered whether the landlord responded appropriately to her reports.
The landlord reviewed video and audio evidence provided by the resident in August 2024. It confirmed that noise could be heard between the properties, but it did not identify behaviour that amounted to antisocial behaviour. This was reasonable because the evidence showed general movement within the property rather than deliberate or targeted behaviour.
The resident continued to provide recordings and raise concerns about persistent noise. However, the landlord’s assessments of January 2025 and April 2025 again concluded that the noise described reflected everyday domestic activity. The noise included children moving about the property and general household noise. The landlord applied its policy correctly here. The policy requires it to assess the nature of the behaviour, not just the level of disturbance experienced.
The resident has emphasised the duration and frequency of the noise. However, frequency alone does not determine ASB where the underlying activity is everyday domestic living. The landlord recognised that the noise was ongoing but assessed that it did not meet the relevant threshold. We have not seen evidence that it ignored or dismissed the resident’s reports. Instead, it reviewed the evidence on more than one occasion and maintained a consistent position.
The landlord’s policy says that where behaviour does not meet the threshold for ASB, it may take proportionate steps. This was appropriate. From November 2024 onwards, it made the neighbour aware that the noise was affecting the resident and encouraged them to be mindful. It also offered mediation, noise monitoring, and rehousing options. These were appropriate steps in circumstances where formal enforcement action was not available.
It was appropriate for the landlord to not take further action against the neighbour. The evidence did not show behaviour that breached tenancy conditions. The landlord cannot require a household to stop normal daily activity, even where that activity causes disturbance. It was therefore reasonable for it to limit its response to good neighbourhood management measures.
The resident is recorded as vulnerable. The landlord acknowledged the impact the situation was having on her and offered options to support her, including rehousing. This was appropriate. However, vulnerability does not change the threshold for antisocial behaviour or extend the landlord’s enforcement powers. The landlord was not required to reclassify everyday noise as antisocial behaviour because of the resident’s circumstances.
Overall, the landlord considered the resident’s reports, assessed the evidence at multiple points, and applied its policy consistently. While the resident experienced ongoing disturbance, the landlord’s response was limited by the nature of the noise and the powers available to it.
For these reasons, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of noise disturbance.

Complaint	Concerns regarding a warning letter issued to the resident.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord issued a warning letter to the resident on 27 November 2024 following ongoing concerns raised by the neighbouring household. These included allegations that the resident was filming them, making comments about them, and reporting them to external agencies. The resident disputed these allegations and said the warning letter was unfair and should be withdrawn. We have considered whether the landlord acted reasonably in issuing the warning and in responding to her concerns.
The landlord’s policy says it will investigate reports of antisocial behaviour and consider proportionate action. It also says it should assess the available evidence and take steps to prevent escalation where neighbour disputes arise. The policy allows the landlord to issue a warning letter where it considers this appropriate.
The evidence shows that the landlord had engaged with the resident about these concerns before the warning letter was sent. In August 2024, it raised issues about the resident recording her neighbours and asked her to stop doing so. It also addressed concerns about her interactions with the neighbours and reports made to external agencies. This was appropriate because the landlord tried to resolve the issue informally before escalating its response.
The concerns raised by the neighbour continued after this engagement. The landlord therefore escalated its response by issuing the warning letter in November 2024. This was a reasonable step. It reflected a progression in its approach rather than a disproportionate first response.
The landlord also gave the resident the opportunity to respond to the allegations at the time the letter was issued. She denied the allegations and explained her position. This was appropriate. It shows the landlord considered her account rather than reaching a conclusion without her input.
The resident has said the landlord should withdraw the warning because the allegations are not true. However, the landlord is not required to determine which account is correct before issuing a warning. Its role is to respond to reported concerns and take steps to prevent further conflict. The evidence shows it had a reasonable basis to act, given the reports received and the history of the dispute.
The resident also raised concerns about not being provided with evidence. The landlord explained during the complaint process that it could not disclose all information due to data protection obligations. It did, however, explain the nature of the allegations and the purpose of the warning. This was appropriate. The landlord must balance transparency with its responsibility to protect third‑party information.
We have also considered whether the landlord acted proportionately. It issued a warning letter rather than taking enforcement action. This was proportionate. The landlord responded to ongoing concerns by escalating its intervention without taking steps that would require a higher evidential threshold.
While the resident found the warning letter distressing, the evidence shows that the landlord followed a reasonable and proportionate process. It engaged with the concerns raised, attempted informal resolution, and escalated its response only when those concerns continued.
For these reasons, we find that the landlord acted reasonably in issuing the warning letter and in responding to the resident’s concerns about it.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy provides for a two‑stage complaints process. The policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. It also states that it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 2 February 2025 about the landlord’s handling of noise reports, the warning letter, and the conduct of officers. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 February 2025 and issued its stage 1 response on 17 February 2025. The landlord’s policy requires complaints to be acknowledged and responded to within set timescales. In this case, it acknowledged and responded within its policy timescales, which was appropriate.
The stage 1 response of 17 February 2025 addressed the landlord’s position on the noise reports and the warning letter. It explained that the reported noise amounted to everyday household noise and that the warning letter had been issued in line with its procedures. This demonstrated that the landlord investigated the main issues raised and provided a reasoned response, as required by its policy.
The resident requested escalation on 11 April 2025, stating that the landlord had not recognised the impact of the ongoing noise and had not properly addressed her concerns about the warning letter. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 request on 16 April 2025. This was within its policy timescales and was appropriate.
The resident submitted a further complaint on 15 April 2025, raising continued concerns about noise disturbance and new concerns regarding her garden. The landlord treated this as a new complaint and issued a stage 1 response on 1 May 2025. This was within the timeframe it had set under its policy and demonstrates that it responded within a reasonable period.
However, we identified some shortcomings in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident reported garden spillages on 9 April 2025, but the stage 1 response of 1 May 2025 did not fully address this issue. The landlord’s policy requires it to investigate all complaint points. By not addressing this issue at stage 1, it did not fully meet its policy requirements.
We also note that the complaint concerning residential environmental health, raised in early February 2025, was not acknowledged until 26 March 2025. This was outside the landlord’s policy timescales for acknowledging complaints. The landlord recognised this delay, apologised, and issued a response on 8 April 2025, awarding £25 compensation to reflect the delay. This was appropriate and shows that the landlord identified and addressed the failure.
The landlord issued its final combined stage 2 response on 19 May 2025, following escalation of both complaint strands. In this response, it acknowledged the lack of clarity in earlier responses and the omission of the garden issue at stage 1. The policy requires the landlord to identify failings and put things right. The landlord did so by apologising and offering £100 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. This sits within the higher end of our Complaint Handling Code and in line with the landlord’s complaint policy.
The failures identified were procedural and related to delays and completeness of responses. They did not affect the outcome of the complaint about noise or the warning letter. The resident was still able to progress her complaint through both stages, and the landlord provided full responses at escalation.
For these reasons, we find that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

Learning

Communication

Our Complaint Handling Code highlights the importance of clear communication and addressing all issues raised by a resident at the earliest stage of the complaint process. This helps ensure that complaints are resolved promptly and reduces the need for escalation.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged that some of its earlier responses lacked clarity, particularly when explaining its assessment of the evidence. It also did not address one aspect of the resident’s complaint at stage 1, which led to the matter being raised again at escalation. The complaint process may have been more effective if the landlord had provided clearer explanations and ensured that all complaint points were addressed in its initial response.

Record-Keeping

Effective record keeping is essential for landlords to demonstrate compliance with their policies, support decision-making, and provide clear and accurate responses to residents.
In this case, while the landlord reviewed evidence on multiple occasions, its complaint responses did not always clearly demonstrate how that evidence informed its decisions. Maintaining clear records of assessments, including what evidence was considered and the rationale for decisions, would support more transparent communication and strengthen complaint responses.
This case highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible, and well-documented records of reports, evidence assessment, and actions taken. Strong record-keeping practices support effective service delivery, improve the quality of complaint handling, and help prevent repeated issues by ensuring learning is captured and applied.