London Borough of Islington (202400266)

Decision
Case ID	202400266
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her partner in an upper floor flat, where her balcony forms the roof of the flat below, which is owned by the landlord and occupied by its tenant. Over a number of years, the landlord contacted the resident about a leak affecting the flat below, which it believed may be linked to her property. The resident disputed this, said she had cooperated with inspections, and raised concerns about ongoing tension with the tenant below, and the landlord’s handling of the situation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak alleged to originate from the resident’s flat.
   2. Reports of harassment by the tenant below.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the handling of a leak alleged to originate from the resident’s flat.
   2. Maladministration in the handling of reports of harassment by the tenant below.
   3. No maladministration in the handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of a leak alleged to originate from the resident’s flat

4. The landlord did not communicate clearly or consistently with the resident during its handling of the reported leak. It failed to provide timely updates and share relevant information, which led the resident to seek clarification on several occasions. These shortcomings caused avoidable time and trouble and some inconvenience.

The handling of reports of harassment by the tenant below

5. The landlord failed to act on reports that met the threshold for consideration of antisocial behaviour, including allegations indicating potential risk, and did not carry out a timely or proportionate response. It also took an overly rigid approach within its complaint handling, which meant it did not properly consider the substance or context of the concerns raised. These failures left the resident without support and allowed the situation to continue without appropriate intervention.

The handling of the associated complaint

6. The landlord responded to the complaint within the timescales set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and provided clear stage 1 and stage 2 responses.

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 provided by senior staff member, such as a head of service or director. 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 28 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows:  £100 for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and handling of the leak.  £200 for the distress and anxiety caused by its failure to respond to her reports of antisocial behaviour.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 28 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

We recommend that the landlord considers its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from October 2023 to the present day as a formal complaint. This is because the resident told us that tensions with the tenant below have continued since the conclusion of this complaint and have not improved. While we are not asking the landlord to reinvestigate the reports made during this period, it should review the actions it has taken in response and consider whether its handling has been in line with its policies.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 July 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about repeated contact over a leak in the flat below. She said she had allowed access for inspections, but the tenant below had been told otherwise, causing tension. She said the landlord had not confirmed the source of the leak and believed repairs to the external render were needed. She asked the landlord to clarify this position in writing with the tenant below.
3 August 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it could not investigate matters older than 12 months. It confirmed the resident had not refused access and had been willing to assist. It apologised for the miscommunication but said it could not share this information with the tenant below due to data protection.
15 September 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said it had not resolved the dispute with the tenant below, and she continued to receive harassment and threats about the leak. She referred to an earlier survey, which she said confirmed condensation was the issue in the flat below, but that she was waiting for the landlord to send her a copy of the survey findings. She said the situation was causing her a lot of stress.
13 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said earlier in the year it found a possible link between the resident’s stack pipe and the leak in the flat below. It said as a leaseholder, it was the resident’s responsibility to address the repair. It said it would arrange a further inspection to identify the cause of the leak. It said it held no record of the resident reporting antisocial behaviour since 2022 but was reviewing recent reports and had previously recommended mediation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not made it clear to the tenant below that she was not responsible for the leak. She said this was causing stress and tension within her household. She wanted the landlord to apologise and compensate for the time taken to resolve the matter.

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	A leak alleged to originate from the resident’s flat
Finding	Service failure

What we did not consider

7. The landlord’s investigations into the reported leak continued after the conclusion of its complaints process, including further inspections and additional works. The resident told us she was concerned about the number of inspections and the potential impact on her service charges. These concerns relate to a later period and have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to these matters through its complaints process. If the resident remains dissatisfied after receiving a final response, she may refer those issues to our Service. We have not assessed the landlord’s actions in response to these additional matters.

What we did consider

8. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for maintaining the structure and external fabric of the building. The lease sets out that the resident is responsible for the internal parts of her property, including fixtures, fittings, pipes and drains within the flat. It also requires the resident to provide access on reasonable notice so the landlord can inspect and carry out works. These provisions required clear coordination between all parties to identify responsibility for any reported leak.
9. In 2021 and 2022, the landlord contacted the resident on several occasions. It asked her to investigate potential causes of a leak in the flat below and requested access to carry out its own inspections. The resident cooperated with these requests, including replumbing her washing machine, and the landlord carried out works such as clearing the downpipe and completing repairs to the hopper. There were no evident barriers to access or cooperation at that stage, and overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the issue in line with its obligations.
10. In April 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to request immediate access to investigate a further report of a leak. The resident could not provide access as she was not at home. The lease requires reasonable notice, so it was not appropriate for the landlord to seek immediate access. The landlord later acknowledged this and apologised, which was reasonable. However, it has not shown what action it took following this contact or how it progressed the investigation.
11. This matters because the resident was left unclear about whether her property was considered the source of the leak and what, if anything, she needed to do. This lack of clarity also did not help to manage relations with the tenant below, as it left scope for her to be perceived as responsible – a concern she raised in her formal complaint. As a result, over several months she spent time and effort seeking updates, which caused some inconvenience and uncertainty about her position.
12. At the end of July 2023, the landlord arranged a survey of both properties. The surveyor recorded a wet reading on the boxing below the resident’s stack pipe and recommended further investigation. As this related to the pipework within the resident’s property, the landlord should have informed her of this finding promptly so she could take appropriate action. There is no evidence it did so at the time, and it only relayed this information in its stage 2 complaint response around 2 months later.
13. This was not appropriate, and it delayed the resident’s ability to investigate a potential issue within her own property. As a result, she spent further time seeking updates to understand the outcome of the survey.
14. By the end of the complaints process, the landlord had not identified the source of the leak. It was therefore appropriate for it to arrange a further inspection of both properties in October 2023, at which point no leaks were found. This showed the landlord continued to engage with the issue and take steps to meet its obligations to investigate reports affecting its tenant. While further investigations and repairs took place in 2024, these occurred several months later, and we have not considered this period in this investigation.
15. The landlord did not offer any compensation for its handling of the reported leak. Our investigation has identified communication failures which caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble, and some inconvenience. This warrants compensation to put matters right.
16. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the time and trouble caused by its handling of the reported leak. This amount aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Compensation Guidance, which provides for awards where there have been failures causing inconvenience, but with no lasting impact.

Complaint	Reports of harassment by the tenant below
Finding	Maladministration

17. The landlord said in its complaint responses that it would not investigate matters older than 12 months and that it held no record of the resident reporting antisocial behaviour (ASB) since October 2022. This was not accurate. In June 2023, the resident’s partner reported ongoing harassment from the tenant below, including verbal abuse, intimidating behaviour, threatening messages and concerns that the behaviour may have been racially motivated.
18. These reports were capable of meeting the landlord’s definition of ASB. Its policy defines ASB as conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, including verbal abuse and harassment directed at a specific person. The behaviour described by the resident’s partner therefore met the threshold for the landlord to consider action under its ASB procedures.
19. There is no evidence the landlord responded to or addressed this report. This was a failing, particularly as the resident’s partner asked for a meeting to discuss the issues and find a resolution. The landlord’s ASB policy commits it to listening to reports, taking a holistic and empathetic approach, and working with both parties to resolve issues and repair relationships. The landlord did not demonstrate that it took these steps. This left the resident and her partner without support and allowed tensions between neighbours to continue without intervention.
20. The reports of threatening behaviour and that the behaviour may have been racially motivated indicated a higher level of risk. The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to assess the seriousness of reports and consider appropriate intervention. As it did not respond to the reports, it did not carry out a risk assessment or consider whether the situation required a more urgent or robust response. This meant the landlord did not properly assess the potential impact on the resident and her partner.
21. Investigations into the leak affecting the tenant below were ongoing around this time, and the resident made clear in her stage 1 complaint that this situation was causing tension between her and the tenant. She asked the landlord to write to the tenant below to clarify the current position and confirm that she had not been refusing access. This was a reasonable request.
22. The landlord declined, relying on data protection. This response was not appropriate. The resident was asking the landlord to share limited information about her own actions, specifically whether she had provided access. The landlord could have agreed the parameters of consent with the resident and clarified what information she was willing for it to share. Instead, it took a narrow approach, which meant it missed an opportunity to manage expectations and reduce tension between neighbours, leaving the resident feeling unfairly perceived and without support to resolve the situation.
23. The landlord also took an overly rigid approach when relying on its 12-month timescale. Its complaints policy says that it may not accept complaints about matters known to a resident that were not reported within 12 months. However, this did not remove the need to consider relevant history. By applying a blanket 12-month cut off, the landlord did not engage with the substance of the complaint. It also missed an opportunity to assess whether there was a pattern of behaviour, as required by its ASB policy.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said it would review the resident’s recent reports of ASB. Its records show that it took initial steps to do this, as a few days later it discussed the incidents raised. It said it would speak to the tenant below, advise both households not to engage with each other, and confirm that the resident was not responsible for the reported leaks. These were appropriate early actions and were in line with its ASB policy. However, this did not address the earlier failure to respond to the resident’s reports when they were first made, or the impact this had already caused.
25. We have included a recommendation for the landlord to consider its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from October 2023 to the present day as a formal complaint. This is because the resident told us that tensions with the tenant below have continued since the conclusion of this complaint and have not improved.
26. We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the failings identified in this section of the report. There was a period of around 4 months, between June and October 2023, where the landlord did not consider the resident’s reports of ASB or take actions to address them. This was a significant failing given the nature of the reports. The lack of response left the resident feeling dismissed and unsupported during a time she reported ongoing issues, and caused distress and anxiety. This amount is consistent with our Compensation Guidance, which recommends awards of up to £600 where a resident has been adversely affected by service failure.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

27. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code ‘the Code’ sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. At the time of the complaint, the Code was not a statutory requirement. However, the landlord’s complaints policy broadly reflected the Code’s timescales.
    2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within 1 working day and issued its stage 1 response 10 working days later. This met the Code’s requirement to acknowledge within 5 working days and issue a full response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    3. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within 3 working days and issued its stage 2 complaint response 20 working days later. This met the Code’s requirement to acknowledge within 5 working days and issue a full response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
    4. The complaint responses clearly set out the landlord’s position and addressed the majority of the issues raised. While there were some minor issues in the handling of the substantive matters, the complaint responses themselves were clear and issued in line with the landlord’s policy and the principles of the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord maintained generally adequate records, which supported this investigation. It should continue to ensure records consistently capture key actions and outcomes to support future case handling.

Communication

29. The landlord should reflect on the communication issues identified in this report to improve how it provides timely updates, shares relevant information, and manages residents’ expectations during ongoing investigations.