London Borough of Islington (202447718)

Decision
Case ID	202447718
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	25 June 2026

Background

1. The resident lived in the upper flat of a converted maisonette with her daughter. Her neighbour lived in the ground floor flat, and they shared a communal entrance. From October 2024, the resident reported ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) by the neighbour and complained that the landlord did not respond appropriately. She said the situation caused her significant distress and affected her sense of safety in her home. In May 2026, the resident surrendered her tenancy and moved into privately rented accommodation. She said she could no longer continue living in the property while the situation remained unresolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB

4. The landlord did not demonstrate a coordinated or proactive approach to managing a serious and long-running ASB case, despite having multiple opportunities, powers and support options available to it. Although it eventually recognised the severity of the situation and approved a high-risk move, this followed several missed opportunities to escalate its response and provide longer-term support at an earlier stage. These failings prolonged the resident’s exposure to the ASB and caused significant distress to her and her daughter, who felt unsafe in their home, fearful of leaving the property and unsupported.

The landlord’s response to the associated complaint

5. The landlord delayed acknowledging the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaints process, which meant its overall handling of the complaint did not meet the expectations set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Although it acknowledged those shortcomings, it delayed a further 9 months before paying compensation to put matters right. It also failed to use the complaints process as an opportunity to critically review its handling of the ASB, identify wider service failures, take meaningful steps to put matters right or demonstrate learning. These failings undermined the effectiveness of the complaints process and prolonged the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

 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 person to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a member of its executive team. 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 23 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £3,250 made up as follows: £3,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its response to her ASB reports. This includes the £200 it offered during the complaints process for failing to respond to some of her ASB reports. £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its response to her formal complaint. This includes the £75 it offered during the complaints process for its complaint handlings delays. 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 23 July 2026
3	Case review order The landlord must conduct an internal review into the key issues highlighted in this report. The review should include, but not limited to: Its processes for receiving, recording and responding to ASB reports, including how it monitors cases where residents make repeated reports over an extended period. Its escalation arrangements for serious and persistent ASB, including when officers should move beyond routine case management and involve partner agencies. Whether its current processes adequately support residents who remain exposed to ongoing risks while waiting for rehousing through the housing allocations scheme. A review of whether the resident would have been eligible for alternative housing options, including a management transfer or any other available rehousing route, at an earlier stage of the case. A staff training exercise that is based on the resident’s ASB case. The case details should be anonymised so that none of the involved parties can be identified. During the exercise, relevant members of the landlord’s staff should attempt to handle the resident’s ASB case (from her initial report onwards) using the landlord’s ASB policy. If this is too onerous, the landlord’s chosen executive could complete the exercise on their own instead. They must share any learnings or improvements with the landlord’s relevant staff afterwards.   The landlord must present its findings to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman with a report summarising its identified improvements.   The landlord must also write to the resident with the outcome of its consideration regarding alternative housing options and explain any further support or action it can offer.	No later than 20 August 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had reported ASB from a neighbour since October 2024, including urinating in the communal area, shouting, swearing, pouring an unknown liquid outside her front door, opening her post and throwing rubbish into her garden. She said the landlord had not responded to her reports. She also said the neighbour had mental health vulnerabilities and that she felt scared, intimidated and harassed.
18 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that it had not responded to the resident’s ASB reports but said she had sent them to an unmonitored mailbox. It said an ASB officer had visited earlier that month and learned from the resident that the neighbour was in hospital. It said the resident should contact the officer when the neighbour returned home. It offered £75 compensation for failing to respond to the resident’s ASB reports and delaying acknowledging the complaint.
9 April 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said the issue remained unresolved because the neighbour had returned from the hospital and resumed the behaviour. She said the situation was worsening, including the neighbour exposing himself in the communal area, banging on her front door and blocking her from leaving her flat. She said the landlord had not kept in contact with her and asked it to increase its compensation to reflect the length of time she had been reporting the issue.
29 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for not responding to some of the ASB reports since its stage 1 complaint response. It said it was taking the situation seriously and would continue working with relevant services to address her concerns. It encouraged her to continue reporting ASB and to report criminal activity to the police. It increased its compensation offer to £275 for failing to respond to her ASB reports, complaint handling delays, and the time and effort she had spent pursuing the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. She wanted the landlord to move her neighbour and increase its compensation to reflect the impact of the situation and the length of time it had been ongoing.

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 response to reports of ASB
Finding	Severe maladministration

6. The complaints process concluded in May 2025. However, our investigation has considered events up to May 2026, when the resident surrendered her tenancy. We have done this because the ASB remained ongoing at the end of the complaints process and the landlord continued to manage the case after issuing its final response. Considering these events helps us to assess whether the landlord learned from the failings it had already identified and whether its subsequent actions were appropriate.

Responding to reports

7. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s ASB reports over a prolonged period. From October 2024 to February 2025, the resident reported more than 14 incidents of ASB and described behaviour that was occurring daily. While the landlord acknowledged its failure to respond and offered compensation, it partly undermined its acceptance of responsibility by saying the resident had sent reports to an unmonitored mailbox. This focused on how she had submitted the reports rather than the landlord’s failure to manage them. As the resident had used the website to report ASB, responsibility for monitoring and acting on those reports remained with the landlord. Its explanation therefore left the resident feeling partly blamed for the reports being missed, which added to her frustration and sense of being unsupported.
8. In addition, the landlord did not take effective action to prevent the same issue from recurring. Its stage 2 response acknowledged that it had missed further ASB reports after the stage 1 response, and our investigation identified at least 15 additionalreports made during this period that also went unanswered. The persistence and frequency of the reports should have alerted the landlord to the seriousness and ongoing nature of the situation. Instead, it continued to overlook reports, which demonstrated that its earlier acknowledgment had not translated into meaningful action.

Case management

9. The landlord adopted a reactive approach and did not take ownership of the case. Its first meaningful engagement with the resident was a visit in March 2025, around 5 months after she first began reporting ASB. Although the neighbour was in hospital at the time and the behaviour had temporarily stopped, the resident’s reports and supporting evidence up to that point had already given the landlord enough information to begin planning its response. It should have engaged with relevant services to identify what support or interventions may be needed once the neighbour returned home. This was important given the indications that other agencies were already involved in supporting the neighbour. This would also have been consistent with the early intervention and partnership working commitments set out in the landlord’s ASB policy.
10. Instead, ittold the resident to get in touch when the neighbour returned home. This delayed a coordinated response and reinforced a pattern in which the resident was left to drive progress herself despite repeatedly asking for help.
11. The resident’s ASB reports continued throughout the following months, but it was not until August 2025, around 10 months after she first reported ASB, that the landlord developed an action plan. While this was an appropriate step, the delay undermined the effectiveness as a tool for responding to and managing the case. For a significant period, the resident had no clear understanding of what actions would be taken, what actions the landlord could realistically pursue, who was responsible for them, or when she could expect updates. As a result, the landlord failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations or provide clear communication about how it was handling the case.

Use of evidence and intervention

12. The landlord did not demonstrate how it used the evidence the resident provided to inform its response. For around 10 months, she submitted photographs, police reference numbers, and video footage showing the neighbour running to her front door, shouting abuse, banging aggressively on it, exposing himself and acting inappropriately in communal areas. We have not seen evidence that the landlord reviewed this information, followed up on the police involvement or explained what action it had taken as a result.
13. This was significant because the landlord’s ASB policy says evidence is essential to support interventions and enforcement action, including warning letters, tenancy interventions, legal action and multi-agency working. However, we have seen little evidence that the landlord used the information available to determine whether any of these measures were appropriate.
14. Even when it developed the action plan and told the resident that it would put the allegations and evidence to the neighbour, we have not seen evidence that this happened. While the landlord later met with the neighbour’s advocate, there is no record that it discussed the allegations, shared the evidence, or recorded any outcomes relevant to its proposed actions. This undermined confidence in the landlord’s response, as it did not demonstrate that it was progressing the actions it had committed to.
15. Overall, there was a prolonged failure to analyse and act on the information available, which delayed meaningful intervention and left the resident feeling increasingly unsafe and unsupported in her own home. In one of her emails to the landlord, the resident said she felt the landlord’s lack of action had emboldened the neighbour’s behaviour and left her feeling intimidated and unheard. She said this contributed to her fear of leaving or returning home.

Risk assessment

16. The landlord significantly delayed assessing and managing the risks associated with the resident’s ASB reports. The nature of her reports included harassment and intimidation, along with other behaviour that had potential criminal elements. Despite these reports, the landlord did not complete its first risk assessment until August 2025, around 10 months after she first raised concerns.
17. The Housing Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning on ASB (available on our website) highlights that risk assessments play an important role in helping landlords understand the impact of ASB on residents. The landlord’s own ASB policy also says it prioritises cases where behaviour presents a risk of serious harm or where previous incidents indicate that risks are developing. By not capturing this information for such a significant period, the landlord could not have fully understood the risks facing the resident or whether additional support and interventions were needed.
18. This was particularly concerning because, when risk assessments were eventually completed, they identified that the resident was extremely scared and worried for her daughter. By October 2025, the landlord had concluded that a high-risk move was necessary due to the severity and persistence of the ASB, as well as the risk of further escalation. This suggests the seriousness of the situation could and should have been identified much earlier, which may have enabled the landlord to take more effective action to reduce the impact on the household.

Escalation and coordinated working

19. The landlord’s decision to support a high-risk move was a positive step and demonstrated that it had recognised the severity and persistence of the ASB. Its high risk/management transfer policy is aimed at supporting residents at risk of serious harm, including harassment. It was therefore appropriate that it considered the resident for this process and ultimately approved the application.
20. However, the information recorded in the application suggests the landlord was not maintaining an accurate overview of the ongoing reports. It stated that there had been no ASB incidents since June 2025. This was incorrect. Our investigation identified at least 8 further reports in July 2025, additional reports in August 2025, and 2 further reports in September 2025.
21. Additionally, much of the evidence used to support the high-risk move decision had been available for several months. The application relied on evidence dating back to May, June and July 2025, much of which had already been available to the landlord for several months. The police also contacted the landlord in May 2025 to explain the impact the situation was having on the resident and asked it to provide longer-term support. Despite this, we have not seen evidence that the landlord proactively used this information to escalate its response before October 2025. This was another missed opportunity to coordinate with partner agencies and moved beyond routine case management at an earlier stage.
22. Lastly, while supporting a high-risk move was positive, this required the resident to bid for properties through the landlord’s housing allocations scheme and did not provide an immediate solution. We have not seen evidence that the landlord developed a clear interim plan to manage the ongoing risks while she remained in the property. This was particularly important because incidents continued after the high-risk move was approved and the resident remained exposed to the behaviour for several more months.
23. The landlord’s policies refer to several options that may be available to support residents who can no longer safely sustain their tenancy, including temporary accommodation and management transfers in certain circumstances. We are not assessing whether an alternative rehousing route would have been more appropriate, as housing allocation decisions fall outside our jurisdiction. However, given the seriousness and persistence of the ASB, the police recommendations, and the resident’s own questions about why she had not been offered a direct move, we would reasonably expect to see evidence that the landlord considered whether these options were appropriate and, if not, explained why.

Impact

24. The impact on the resident was significant. She repeatedly described feeling vulnerable and unsafe in her home while living with her young daughter in an enclosed setting, where opportunities for others to intervene were limited. She explained that she felt scared to leave her home and experienced daily distress over a prolonged period. The landlord’s failings also meant she repeatedly had to chase for updates, make further reports and seek support from external agencies, despite consistently explaining the effect the situation was having on her and her family. The cumulative impact of these failings was considerable and went beyond the unavoidable distress associated with experiencing ASB itself.
25. In response to our enquiries the landlord told us the case was complex because it involved counter-allegations. However, we have not seen evidence that it identified this as a barrier during its handling of the case, communicated this to the resident, or demonstrated how this affected its approach. It therefore cannot reasonably rely on this explanation to account for the delays and lack of progress we have identified, and this does not alter our overall findings.

Conclusion

26. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £3,000 compensation, inclusive of the £200 it previously offered for failing to respond to some of her ASB reports. While the landlord’s initial compensation offer demonstrated some recognition that things had gone wrong, the amount was not proportionate to the severity, duration and cumulative impact of the failings identified during this investigation. It also sat at the lower end of the landlord’s own compensation policy.
27. We recognise that the landlord was not directly responsible for the neighbour’s behaviour. However, its policies gave it several tools and powers to manage ASB, support residents and reduce the risks associated with ongoing incidents. The evidence shows that it did not use those tools proactively or consistently. As a result, the landlord contributed to the resident’s prolonged exposure to the ASB and the significant impact this had on her daily life. The compensation ordered reflects that impact and is in line with our compensation guidance for severe maladministration, which suggests awards of over £1,000 where a resident has experienced severe long-term impact.
28. We have also ordered the landlord to arrange for a relevant member of its executive team to apologise to the resident in person. It must also review whether the resident would have been eligible for alternative housing options, including a management transfer or any other available housing route, at an earlier stage of the case.
29. The landlord is also ordered to conduct an internal review into the key issues that are highlighted in this report and arrange a staff training exercise, which is based on the resident’s ASB case.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the associated complaint
Finding	Severe maladministration

30. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code’s timescales.
    2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint outside of the Code’s 5 working day expectation. While it issued its stage 1 response 10 working days later, which met the Code’s requirement, the delayed acknowledgement meant the overall stage 1 process exceeded the Code’s expected timescales.
    3. The landlord repeated its failing by delaying its acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint. While it issued the stage 2 response in 19 working days of the acknowledgment, which met the Code’s requirement, the delayed acknowledgement also caused an overall delay to the stage 2 process.
    4. Both complaint responses did not demonstrate that the landlord had carried out a meaningful review of its handling of the ASB case. Neither response considered the adequacy of its overall management of the case, despite several indicators that it had departed from its ASB policy, as highlighted in this investigation. The complaints process should have provided an opportunity to critically review these shortcomings and take steps to put matters right. Instead, the responses focused narrowly on individual reports and did not recognise the wider service failures that had contributed to the resident’s prolonged exposure to the ASB.
    5. Although the landlord accepted some shortcomings and offered £75 compensation for its complaint handling delays, it did not demonstrate any meaningful reflection or learning. We have not seen evidence that it identified the underlying causes of the failings or considered what changes were required to prevent similar issues arising in future cases. This limited the effectiveness of the complaints process as a mechanism for service improvement and was inconsistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which expect landlords to learn from outcomes.
    6. The landlord also delayed implementing the remedy it had agreed through its complaints process. While the process concluded in May 2025, it did not make payment until February 2026, around 9 months later. The resident had to chase the landlord and seek assistance from this Service before the matter was resolved. This undermined confidence in the effectiveness of the complaints process, as landlords should implement agreed remedies without residents having to pursue them further.
31. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. This includes the £75 already offered during the complaints process. The amount awarded is proportionate to the impact identified and aligns with our compensation guidance for findings of severe maladministration in complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) / Communication

32. The landlord should reflect on the record keeping and communication issues identified in this report to improve how it captures and maintains repair information.