London Borough of Islington (202436669)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first-floor flat in a converted building. She reported odours from a neighbouring property, noise, and concerns about the condition of communal areas. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response and the actions it took to address these issues. She said the issues continued after the complaint process and caused distress and affected her enjoyment of her home.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlords handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports about the behaviour of her neighbour
   2. the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the behaviour of her neighbour.
4. We found reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about behaviour of neighbour

5. The landlord took some steps in response to the resident’s reports. However, it did not take a structured or proactive approach, did not adequately consider the reported impact, and failed to communicate clearly how it was managing the concerns.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord acknowledged delays in its complaint handling and offered £100 compensation, which was proportionate to the time and trouble caused to the resident.

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 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 have not looked at

7. The resident told us that the situation had a detrimental impact on their health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident 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 injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from around 12 months before her complaint in November 2024, to the end of the complaint process. Although there is a longer history of reports, we have taken this approach, so the landlord had a reasonable opportunity to address the issues while they were recent and evidence was available. We have referred to earlier events for context but have not made findings on them. We have also only considered the landlord’s response to this resident’s reports. We have not investigated reports made by or about other residents.

What we have looked at

9. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will assess reports and take appropriate action where behaviour may cause nuisance or annoyance. Where a report does not meet the threshold for ASB, the policy says the landlord will explain its decision and consider alternative ways to address the issue.
10. The reports in this case related to odours from a neighbouring property, door banging, and the condition of communal areas, including litter. The landlord did not treat these reports as ASB, as it considered they did not meet the threshold for formal ASB action. There is no evidence the landlord explained this decision to the resident or set out what its ASB threshold was. It also did not explain how it would manage the issues outside of its ASB process. This lack of clarity left the resident uncertain about the steps it was taking and how it was addressing her concerns.
11. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider if the reports met the threshold for formal ASB action. However, this did not remove its responsibility to respond to the issues. It was required to take a proportionate approach and consider how it would manage the concerns through its wider housing management responsibilities.
12. The landlord’s position, as set out in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, was that it had considered the reports but had not been able to substantiate the issues during its visits. It said relevant services had been involved but could not provide further detail due to data protection requirements. It also confirmed it had focused its investigation on reports within the previous 12 months. Its responses indicate it did not consider the reports met the threshold for ASB and, in any event, it said it had been unable to substantiate the reported issues during its visits.
13. The evidence shows the resident made repeated reports about these issues over a prolonged period, from at least 2022. She said they were ongoing and affected her use and enjoyment of her home. The landlord carried out visits and contacted the neighbouring property at various points but maintained that it was unable to identify evidence of the reported issues.
14. While it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its own observations, this approach had limitations. The reports were consistent and ongoing, yet there is limited evidence the landlord carried out a structured assessment of the frequency, duration, and impact of the issues, or that it reviewed whether its approach was effective over time.
15. The landlord took steps to respond to the reports, including attending the building and liaising with relevant services. However, its approach remained reactive, responding to individual reports rather than setting out a clear and consistent approach to managing the ongoing concerns.
16. In addition, the landlord relied on data protection requirements as a reason for limiting the information it shared. While it was appropriate not to disclose personal information about another resident, this did not prevent it from providing clear explanations about the actions it had taken, the steps it was considering, or how it intended to manage the situation. Its communication focused on what it could not share, rather than giving assurance about how the reports were being addressed. This reduced transparency and undermined the resident’s confidence in its handling of the matter.
17. Where the landlord considered the reports did not meet the threshold for ASB, it did not clearly set out how it would manage the issues under its Good Neighbourhood Management Policy. That policy commits the landlord to managing neighbour disputes, communicating clearly, and taking proportionate steps to support residents where issues fall below the ASB threshold. The landlord did not demonstrate how this approach was applied, which was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and provide clarity about how the issues would be addressed.
18. The resident also raised the impact of the issues on her health and wellbeing. The landlord’s policy requires it to consider the impact of reported issues when assessing and responding to them. While the landlord acknowledged the situation may be distressing, there is limited evidence it explicitly considered the reported impact when determining how it would investigate or support the resident. This was a missed opportunity to tailor its response.
19. Overall, there were failings in how the landlord managed the resident’s reports. In particular, it did not take a structured and ongoing approach, did not make full use of opportunities to support the resident, and did not communicate clearly about its actions and decisions. These failings contributed to ongoing uncertainty, inconvenience, and distress for the resident. In line with our compensation guidance, an award of £200 is proportionate to recognise this impact.

20. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Under its policy, it should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. These timescales may be extended for complex cases, but the landlord must explain the reason for the delay and provide a clear revised date, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
21. In this case, the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response within the required timescale. It acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation. This was an appropriate step to recognise the impact of the delay.
22. The resident asked to escalate her complaint in January 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge this request at that time, and the resident had to make further contact in March 2025 before the escalation was progressed. This was not in line with the Code, which requires escalation requests to be handled promptly.
23. There was also a delay in issuing the stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged this and offered a further £50 compensation.
24. The landlord identified the failings with its complaint handling and offered £100 compensation in total. This was proportionate to the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

25. Taking a structured approach to ongoing reports would improve the landlord’s ability to manage cases effectively, provide clarity to residents, and demonstrate how concerns are being addressed.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. Maintaining clear and accurate records would improve the landlord’s ability to evidence the actions it has taken, the decisions made, and the reasons for those decisions.

Communication

27. Providing clear and meaningful communication would improve transparency, help manage resident expectations, and give assurance about how reports are being investigated and addressed, even where information is limited.