London Borough of Islington (202343576)

Decision
Case ID	202343576
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	16 April 2026

 

Background

1. The resident has reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord since 2021. He is vulnerable due to mental ill-health. He has appointed a representative to act on his behalf. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to them both as ‘the resident,’ unless it is necessary to distinguish between them. The resident’s complaint to the landlord included concerns about a move from the property; however, this was resolved and did not form part of his referral to us.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports was not in line with its policy. It did not carry out risk assessments or share action and communication plans. It did not keep the resident updated in line with its policy timescale.
6. The landlord’s complaint responses did not identify and acknowledge its service failures or offer a remedy for them.

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, as follows: £200 for its handling of his ASB reports £50 for its handling of his complaint The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 January 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of his ASB reports. He said he reported issues with multiple neighbours. Due to the stress and upset caused, his mental health had significantly deteriorated. He said due to the threats and conflict he was too scared to be in the property or to go out.
18 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and said there was no service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports. It said it sent letters to neighbours about cannabis use but he should report this to the police who had the power to investigate and take legal action. It said it had contacted mental health services to understand his support needs. It said it would continue to liaise with relevant supporting agencies.
24 January 2024	The resident escalated his complaint and said the landlord had not addressed all the issues raised about different neighbours.
20 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and said due to data protection rules it could not disclose information about the ASB but could confirm the correct action had been taken.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy the landlord had not offered compensation. He was unhappy with its overall handling of the matter. He wanted the landlord to do more to resolve the situation.

 

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 ASB
Finding	Maladministration

7. Residents should make complaints to the landlord and us within a reasonable time of first becoming aware of an issue. Our investigation is focused on the 12 months prior to the current complaint logged in January 2024. Therefore, we have not considered the landlord’s earlier handling of the resident’s reports or complaints. However, where relevant, we have taken account of the earlier history as context when reaching our overall findings.
8. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will complete a full risk assessment when receiving reports, particularly when from vulnerable residents. It says where relevant it will open a case and provide an action plan with timescales within 10 working days of the report. It says it works in partnership with agencies, like the police, and where evidence is available of crimes, it will take tenancy enforcement action.
9. The policy lists a community multi-agency risk assessment conference (CMARAC) as a tool for finding solutions. It says the landlord will keep the resident updated, at least monthly, about its actions and seek updates from them. It says it takes evidence-based action that is proportionate to the specific circumstances. It says it will be honest and transparent about the possible remedies, especially where perpetrators are vulnerable and it cannot share confidential information.
10. Evidence shows the landlord has not always handled the resident’s reports in line with its policy. We have not seen evidence of a risk assessment following the resident’s reports of ASB in January and February 2023, or even at a later stage. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the earlier history of ASB, it should have completed a risk assessment. He then chased the landlord before it contacted him to discuss his report. This was not in line with its policy.
11. The landlord then signposted the resident to the police. It asked him to share police references and told him what it needed from him to decide next steps. This was a reasonable response in line with its policy. We have not seen evidence of the resident responding with the requested information. The situation later escalated and the police attended and made an arrest. Given the nature of reports made by the resident and his neighbours, this was rightly a matter for the police to then handle.
12. We have seen evidence that the landlord contacted the police and mental health services, and sought information, support, and advice from them. It attempted home visits to the resident, and arranged meetings, although the resident was unable to attend. It also later conducted a CMARAC to decide a plan to support all parties involved and potential resolutions. These were reasonable actions, in line with its policy.
13. This was a challenging situation for all parties involved as the neighbour was also vulnerable, and there were counter allegations of ASB. The landlord had to balance the needs of all parties and consider the evidence available to it before taking any action. It proved further challenging for the landlord to provide support to the resident due to his request that it not contact him. So, the landlord asked the representative to arrange a meeting once the resident felt able to engage with it and provide the information it needed. This was a reasonable response under the circumstances and in line with its policy.
14. Having said that, we have not seen evidence that the landlord made and shared action and communication plans with the resident at any point. The situation further escalated in September 2023 with multiple reports made by different parties. It became more crucial that a risk assessment was completed and plans made and shared, yet we have not seen evidence of this.
15. The landlord’s ASB policy directs it to manage resident expectations and be clear about what it can or cannot achieve. Prompt and proactive communication in line with its policy may have helped with this and avoided causing further upset and inconvenience. We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided a clear explanation to the resident of its process and the potential outcomes or followed a communication plan in line with its policy.
16. We order the landlord to write to the resident with a sincere apology for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failings. It should provide an explanation in the apology for why these happened and the steps it has taken or will take to learn from it.
17. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord must pay him £200. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance when there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also complied with the Code.
19. The landlord’s complaint responses were issued in line with its policy and the Code. We did not see evidence of its acknowledgement of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2, but its response was provided promptly so there was no adverse effect of this minor oversight.
20. However, the landlord’s complaint responses did not acknowledge the failures found during our investigation. We used the evidence it gave us to reach our findings. Therefore, its own investigation of the complaint should have found and addressed the same failures. As it did not, we find it has failed to investigate and address the complaint adequately and to offer a suitable remedy.
21. It is ordered to write to the resident with a sincere apology. It is also ordered to pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This amount is proportionate and in line with our compensation guidance which recommends awards in this range for when such distress and inconvenience are caused.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord provided us with enough information to conclude our investigation and reach a decision. However, it did not keep or provide us with detailed records of its case management and contact records. We had to evidence actions and outcomes, such as the CMARAC taking place and the follow up actions from it, from internal communications and correspondence exchanged with the local councillor.

Communication

23. The landlord did not always communicate clearly or promptly with the resident. It should make proactive and timely contact with residents to give updates or explain delays, even when these are minor. This approach supports good customer service and helps prevent avoidable trouble and inconvenience for residents.