London Borough of Islington (202557219)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202557219

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

London Borough of Islington

Landlord type

Local Authority / ALMO or TMO

Occupancy

Secure Tenancy

Date

29 May 2026

Background

  1. The resident has reported anti‑social behaviour (ASB) from her downstairs neighbour over a significant period. On 23 February 2022 the neighbour signed an undertaking. The neighbour agreed not to harass, abuse, intimidate, or insult the resident. They also agreed not to use cannabis in the property. The resident told us and the landlord that the ASB has had a significant impact on her and her child’s welfare.

What the complaint is about

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of ASB between February 2022 to June 2023.
  2. We will also consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB between February 2022 and June 2023.
  2. We found the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

  1. Overall the landlord took some appropriate steps, but there were failings in how it progressed and evidenced its investigation. It did not consistently act on information that it said could support the case, such as police incident numbers. It also closed the resident’s ASB case while an action was outstanding. Gaps in the landlord’s records mean it could not show that it carried out all of the actions it said it did. The landlord’s failures left the resident feeling it had not investigated her concerns and caused her avoidable distress.
  2. The landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable and proportionate to the complaint handling failures identified.

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

26 June 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of ASB between February 2022 to June 2023.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than 26 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should remind relevant staff of the need to:

  • maintain clear and accurate records of all ASB actions, including visits.
  • ensure cases are not closed until all reasonable action has been taken.
  • provide clear and consistent advice to residents about what evidence is required and how it will be used.

If not already paid, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation it offered in its complaint response for its complaint handling failures.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

1 October 2022

The resident and landlord discussed the resident’s concerns about ASB between July and September 2022.

The landlord treated the resident’s email dated 1 October 2022 as a complaint. The resident:

  • Requested copies of the landlord’s policies. She said she felt these favoured her neighbour.
  • Reported further alleged drug use by her neighbour. She said the landlord had not taken action and asked how it applies and enforces its policy on drug use.
  • Reported that her neighbour had tampered with vents. She said the landlord had not fully investigated and had provided inaccurate information about its actions.

14 October 2022

The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said:

  • It had visited the neighbour on three occasions and there was no evidence that the vents had been blocked.
  • It had taken action against her neighbour and an undertaking was granted on 23 February 2022.
  • Its solicitor had consistently said there was insufficient evidence of a breach of the undertaking.
  • Its ASB team had an open investigation. The resident should provide evidence of a breach of the undertaking to them.

15 October 2022

The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not addressed the points of her complaint.

13 February 2024

The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:

  • The landlord had visited the neighbours property multiple times. It did not have evidence they had breached the undertaking.
  • A surveyor inspected the neighbour’s vents and did not identify any defects.
  • The evidence indicated that the neighbour was complying with the undertaking. It told the resident it would review any new evidence and act accordingly.
  • It had not identified any service failings in its handling of ASB.

Referral to the Ombudsman

In summary the resident brought their complaint to us as she did not understand how the landlord had come to the conclusion that failings had not occurred.

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

The landlord’s handling of ASB between February 2022 to June 2023

Finding

Maladministration

 

 

What we did not investigate

  1. We previously investigated the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord dated 1 October 2022 under case reference 202303706. In this investigation, we will only consider the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of ASB between February 2022 and June 2023
  2. We investigated the landlord’s handling of ASB between July 2023 and July 2024 under case reference 202400600. We will not reinvestigate this period. This investigation does not consider the landlord’s actions after June 2023.

What we did investigate

  1. The landlord provided records showing its response to the resident’s ASB reports. There was frequent communication between the parties. While the resident’s dissatisfaction is noted, this report does not assess each individual incident. It instead considers the landlord’s overall handling of the case based on the available evidence.
  2. This investigation focuses on the period from 23 February 2022 when the neighbour signed an undertaking. We have considered the landlord’s handling of ASB reports from that date until June 2023.
  3. The landlord’s ASB procedure says any decision to take legal action must be proportionate. It says it will close an ASB case when there is insufficient evidence or all reasonable action have been taken.
  4. On 5 April 2022 the resident reported indirect threats and alleged that the neighbour’s vents were covered so they could smoke drugs. The landlord sought legal advice, which found insufficient evidence of a breach. We consider its decision not to take further action here to be reasonable and proportionate as it acted on legal advice. It told the resident it had inspected the neighbour’s property and found no covered vents. It advised the resident to report drug concerns to the police and provide the landlord with the reference numbers as evidence. The landlord’s response shows it took the report seriously, sought professional advice, and took reasonable steps to try to gather evidence.
  5. The resident continued to report the smell of cannabis. On 28 April 2022 she provided police incident numbers to the landlord, two of which were reported after the undertaking was in place. She provided the landlord with a further police incident number on 12 June 2022. In communication with the resident, the landlord set clear expectations, asking for specific details of incidents and information about any possible witnesses. These were reasonable requests to support its investigation. However, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the police at that time, despite previously stating the reference numbers could support the case. This inconsistency undermined the resident’s understanding of what evidence was required. While this may not have led to further action, it was a missed opportunity to investigate the resident’s allegations.
  6. The landlord visited the resident on 10 October 2022. It followed up the visit with a letter to the resident. It was good practice to set out what had been agreed so the resident understood the actions the landlord would or would not take. The landlord said:
    1. It would carry out unannounced visits to the neighbour.
    2. Evidence provided by the resident would be passed to its legal team.
    3. It had shared a picture of the neighbour’s vents with a surveyor for advice.
    4. It could not just evict her neighbour.
  7. The landlord sent the resident an ASB case closure letter on 12 January 2023. It said it could not evidence a breach of the neighbour’s undertaking and had no further action available. It confirmed the undertaking remained in place until August 2023 and that the case could be reopened. The landlord said it had carried out several unannounced visits and found no evidence of drug use or issues with the vents. It also got advice from a surveyor about the vents and no issues were identified. However, the evidence provided to us shows only one visit and vent inspection in August 2022. The absence of complete records weakens the landlord’s account. It should maintain clear and dated records of all actions to support its case management decision making.
  8. In the ASB case closure letter, the landlord said it required detailed evidence, including dates, times, and police references of incidents. The resident did not always provide the full details of incidents required however she had supplied some police incident numbers. On the same date, the landlord said it had asked for information from the police and was awaiting a response. It would have been reasonable to keep the case open pending this information. Closing the case at that stage was inconsistent with its procedure, as not all reasonable steps had been completed. The landlord did, however, continue to engage with the resident after the case was closed.
  9. The resident believed she had provided sufficient evidence and believed the neighbour should complete a hair strand test. The landlord’s refusal to progress this was reasonable, as it had no authority to require it from a resident.
  10. In March 2023 the resident submitted witness statements from her daughter and a neighbour. The landlord raised concerns about her daughter giving evidence in court. It could have considered whether the daughter’s statement could be used as hearsay evidence. Following the landlord asking to meet the witnesses, the resident felt the landlord did not believe the statements and wanted to take further legal advice. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns, in our view it was reasonable for the landlord to request this as it would need to consider their evidence and suitability for any potential legal action.
  11. In May 2023 the resident continued to report the smell of cannabis and was dissatisfied that the landlord did not attend to witness it. The landlord explained it lacked the resources to attend on the occasion she requested but it had carried out two unannounced visits. This was in response to the resident’s reports that the smell of cannabis was daily. It said it found no evidence of drug use. This shows the landlord was committed to investigating the resident’s concerns. However, no records of these visits has been provided as part of our investigation. As discussed, the landlord should ensure it has a clear audit trail of any actions taken.
  12. Overall the landlord took some appropriate steps. It had regular communication with the resident, sought legal advice, set her expectations and took some action regarding her concerns of the neighbour’s vents. There were failings in how it progressed and evidenced its investigation. It did not consistently act on information that it said could support the case, such as police incident numbers. It also closed the resident’s ASB case while an action was outstanding. Gaps in the landlord’s records mean it could not show that it carried out all of the actions it said it did. The landlord’s failures left the resident feeling it had not investigated her concerns and caused her avoidable distress.
  13. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was considered under case reference 202303706. This investigation only considers the quality of the landlord’s stage 2 response, in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The Code requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for their decisions.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address all elements of the resident’s complaint, including her request for policy information. We acknowledge there was a significant delay between the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to clarify the resident’s complaint with her if it was not clear on the points of her complaint. By not doing so, the resident did not receive a complete response.
  4. The landlord offered £150 compensation for its delay in providing its stage 2 response. This offer is within our compensation guidance where there has been a complaint handling failure which had a significant impact on the resident. We consider the landlord’s offer was fair and reasonable. This is because it reflected the detriment to the resident and was proportionate to the complaint handling failings identified.
  5. We have not made any further recommendations relating to the landlord’s handling of complaints. This is because under case reference 202303706 we made an order relating to the landlord’s adherence with the Code.

 Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. There is learning for the landlord to take from this case in its record keeping. The landlord should ensure it keeps full accurate records of all actions taken. Records should be sufficiently detailed to evidence decisions, support case management, and demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been taken.

Communication

  1. The landlord communicated with the resident regularly, clearly explaining its position.