London Borough of Islington (202334261)

Decision
Case ID	202334261
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	13 March 2026

Background

1. The resident and his wife have a joint tenancy with the landlord. They live in a ground-floor flat. They have a number of vulnerabilities. These include anxiety and a chronic pain condition. Their complaint relates to intrusive noise from a neighbour’s home. The neighbour lives in a flat above the property. During the period in question, the resident and his wife both contacted the landlord about noise issues. For readability, this report has referred to them as ‘the resident’ throughout.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about intrusive noise.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and concerns about intrusive noise.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports and concerns about intrusive noise

4. The landlord consistently departed from its ASB policy. As a result, it missed various opportunities to improve the resident’s situation. Its delays and failures added to his distress. The landlord did not identify its key failures or make a meaningful attempt to put things right.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord was responsible for significant delays and failures throughout its complaints process. It did not recognise the full extent of these or the related adverse impact to the resident. As a result, it did not do enough to put things right.

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 a relevant 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 16 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,250 made up as follows: £1,050 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by its response to his reports and concerns about intrusive noise. £150 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by its complaint handling. £50 which it awarded the resident during its internal complaints process. 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 made.	No later than 16 April 2026
3	Update order The landlord must update the resident in writing about his ASB case and any previous commitment to arrange a move for him. The update must confirm if the landlord has an open ASB case and detail any outstanding actions. It must also include a specific and time limited plan to resolve these. The landlord must share a copy of its update with us.	No later than 16 April 2026
4	New complaint order If the resident requests this and it has not done so already, the landlord must raise a new complaint to address his concerns about unfair treatment/the neighbour’s housing allocation. It may need to contact the resident to clarify these. It must evidence its actions to us.	No later than 16 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

If the resident requests a further complaint following the update we have ordered, we recommend that the landlord raises a new complaint. This is to address any concerns he may have about its ASB case handling after 9 January 2024. The landlord has not responded to any issues which may have occurred subsequently. For efficiency, this action could be combined with the new complaint that we have ordered above.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 August 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. In summary, he said that he had he reported noise several times. He also said the landlord had not responded to his reports about the neighbour. Similarly, he said it had not responded to his request for a meeting. His other key points were: The landlord repeatedly said its ASB team would call him back. The landlord had not fulfilled its commitments to call back. Its approach was “very unprofessional”. He wanted a face-to-face meeting about the noise.
Between 10 September and 17 October 2023	The resident complained again. He said the landlord had not replied to his initial complaint. He also said it had not taken his situation seriously. He referenced “horrendous noise” that occurred daily. He subsequently approached a local MP for help. The MP then contacted the landlord.
1 November 2023	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It accepted that it did not respond to the resident’s previous request for a meeting. It also identified some complaint handling issues. It upheld the complaint and awarded the resident £50 in compensation. The landlord’s other key points were: It was working to resolve the reported issues. The noise the resident had reported was not ASB. It would comply with his request for a meeting. The neighbour’s flooring adhered to its tenancy terms.
Between 1 and 23 of November 2023	The resident expressed further dissatisfaction over several emails. He eventually made a formal escalation request. He said the landlord had overlooked part of his complaint and there were quality issues with its response. The resident’s other key points during this period were: The landlord had minimised his concerns about noise. Related distress was impacting his family’s medical conditions. It had moved a problem neighbour into the flat above him. Its actions had favoured the neighbour. It should fulfil its commitment to arrange a meeting.
21 December 2023	The landlord issued a brief stage 2 response. It focused on the resident’s request for a meeting. It referenced its previous findings and confirmed it had arranged a meeting. It upheld the resident’s complaint. This was based on a lack of communication around the meeting. The landlord did not award the resident any additional compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In January 2024, the resident told us he wanted the landlord to move him and pay compensation. He said there were times when he stayed away from the property to escape the noise. He broadly reiterated these points in March 2026. He also cited a lack of updates from the landlord.

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 and concerns about intrusive noise
Finding	Severe maladministration

6. The resident says he experienced prolonged distress and inconvenience due to noise from the neighbour. In his complaint to the landlord, he said it should have listened to him and ultimately tackled the issue. He also said the landlord had showed a lack of care and professionalism. The evidence we have seen supports some of his concerns.
7. Between 24 May and 17 July 2023, the resident made 4 separate reports to the landlord. These referenced his family’s vulnerabilities, slamming doors, a child jumping, shouting and screaming, threats, and abuse in the street. In an initial record, the landlord said it had given him “low risk ASB advice”. We note the record did not detail this advice.
8. In one of his initial reports, the resident requested a meeting with the landlord’s ASB officer. He later explained (in his escalation request) why a meeting was important to him. He said he was facing serious issues and wanted the landlord to have “a proper understanding and assessment of his situation”. This was understandable.
9. The landlord’s relevant ASB policy says it will take a preventative approach to ASB. It will also listen with empathy to understand issues and deliver good customer service. The landlord considers excessive and ongoing noise to be actionable ASB. It deems daily living noise (such as children playing) to be unwanted behaviour. The policy shows the landlord will:
   1. Open an ASB case where the reported behaviour appears to be serious.
   2. Use mediation to address low risk cases (deemed to be unwanted behaviour).
   3. Give reporting residents access to noise recording tools if a problem persists.
   4. Use information about vulnerabilities and risk to guide its approach.
   5. Signpost vulnerable residents to external support services where appropriate.
10. There is no indication that the landlord took any of these steps during the above referenced period. Similarly, it did not respond to the resident’s request for a meeting. The request was consistent with the landlord’s policy aims. Its approach was inadequate. It missed several opportunities to improve the resident’s situation. Its failures added to his distress.
11. The landlord’s policy required a proactive and empathetic approach. If it believed the resident’s reports involved unwanted behaviour, the landlord should have offered mediation and tools to help him evidence the severity of the noise. It is widely accepted that mediation is more likely to be successful if it is used early in a neighbour dispute.
12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to the resident’s request for a meeting. It also apologised for this. It did not identify any wider ASB handling failures. It said the resident’s reports did not meet its ASB threshold. There is no indication the landlord had evidenced the severity of any noise at that point. Its approach was unreasonable. From the resident’s perspective, it was also dismissive.
13. Records show the landlord opened an ASB case for the resident on 14 November 2023. This was about 6 months after his initial report. Case notes referenced a child jumping. These said the jumping was severe, occurred daily, and caused the property’s windows to rattle. The notes point to ongoing noise issues that were distressing for the resident.
14. Around 2 weeks later, the landlord offered mediation and signposted the resident to a noise recording app. These were reasonable actions in line with its ASB policy. However, the above referenced timescales are evidence of unreasonable delays by the landlord. The records and correspondence we have seen point to subsequent delays and failures.
15. For example, on 14 December 2023 the resident sent the landlord a doctor’s letter. It said that excessive noise was having a significant impact on his health and wellbeing. Again, we have not seen evidence that the landlord signposted the resident to relevant support services at this point. It has not shown that it adhered to a key aspect of its policy.
16. Soon afterwards, the resident reported that he was struggling to set up the noise app. He asked the landlord for help. We note that he is elderly and noise apps are a crucial tool in cases of this type. In line with the proactive and sensitive approach required by its policy, the landlord should have swiftly helped the resident. There is no indication it did this.
17. There were similar problems with the landlord’s subsequent stage 2 response. In it, the landlord apologised for a further failure to arrange a meeting for the resident. It did not acknowledge that it had consistently departed from its ASB policy. Ultimately, it did not recognise the full extent of its failures or make a meaningful attempt to put things right for the resident. Arguably, its unreasonable approach trivialised his concerns again.
18. There is no indication that the landlord attempted to learn from the limited ASB handling failures that it identified. The evidence suggests these were repeated. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy says it will use complaints as a learning opportunity to prevent similar mistakes recurring. The landlord departed from a key policy objective. It also missed an opportunity to show the resident it had taken positive action to address his experience.
19. On 9 January 2024, the landlord met the resident at the property. This was consistent with a commitment in its stage 2 response. It was appropriate for the landlord to fulfil this. We have seen limited information about the meeting. It is not clear if the landlord made other commitments during the discussion. The lack of clarity points to further issues with its record keeping.
20. Between 12 March 2024 and 9 March 2026 the resident updated us several times. In his initial update, he said that the landlord wrote to the neighbour and this prompted a significant reduction in the noise. He later said that he had experienced “10-12 months” of continuous noise. We note the period between 24 May 2023 and 12 March 2024 was about 10 months. In summary, other key points from the resident’s updates were:
    1. The landlord had visited the resident again in September 2024.
    2. At that point, it said it would arrange a management transfer (urgent internal move).
    3. Since then, it had not updated the resident about the transfer or his ASB case.
    4. He still heard noise from the neighbour’s home.
    5. This usually occurred at weekends or during school holidays.
    6. Ongoing noise was having a significant adverse impact on his family’s wellbeing.
21. The above points to issues with the landlord’s handling after the meeting on 9 January 2024. We have seen limited information about the landlord’s handling from that point onwards. Since there is evidence of ongoing delays, we have made an order for the landlord to address these.
22. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord consistently departed from its ASB policy during the period in question. As a result, it missed various opportunities to improve the resident’s situation. Its delays and failures added to his distress. The landlord did not identify its key failures. As a result, it did not make a meaningful attempt to put things right.
23. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s relevant compensation guidance, and our own guidance on remedies.
24. We previously completed a special investigation into the landlord. We published our findings in October 2023. Subsequently, we were working with the landlord to improve its performance. We have not made any orders or recommendations that would duplicate this previous work.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

25. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 version (effective April 2022). The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (updated May 2023) says it complies with the Code.
26. There were various problems with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, the landlord promptly confirmed that it had received the resident’s complaints in August and September 2023. Its acknowledgements did not say that handling delays were likely. Ultimately, it took an MP’s intervention to prompt a stage 1 response from the landlord.
27. Under the Code, the landlord had a maximum of 15 working days to issue a stage 1 response. More time was available if it kept the resident informed. In this case, it took the landlord 48 working days to issue a response. There is no indication that it updated the resident during the interim period. The landlord departed from its policy and the Code.
28. There was a related delay that lasted for about 7 weeks. During the interim period the resident submitted a second complaint and approached a third party for help. This should not have been necessary at that stage. The landlord’s approach caused him avoidable distress and/or inconvenience. The landlord rightly acknowledged this in its response.
29. There were quality issues with the response. For example, it said the resident had complained on 18 October 2023. This was incorrect information. It is not clear that the landlord identified the full extent of the delay or the related adverse impact to the resident. If it had, it could have reasonably awarded him more than £50 in compensation.
30. The response also focused on the resident’s request for a meeting. Given the contents of his complaint, the landlord should have considered whether it had handled his reports in line with its ASB policy. There is no indication it did this. It took a narrow view of his concerns. It showed a lack of engagement and an unreasonable lack of thoroughness.
31. In its response, the landlord assured the resident that it would fulfil his request for a meeting. The records and correspondence we have seen show its relevant officer subsequently declined to meet the resident. The landlord did not adhere to an agreed complaint resolution. The resident’s replies show its approach added to his distress.
32. Events followed a similar pattern at stage 2. For example, around 11 November 2023 the resident told the landlord he was unhappy with its response. He sent it a similar email on 16 November 2023. The landlord did not escalate his complaint at that stage. Given his comments, it should have at least offered to do this. Its approach was unreasonable. The resident repeated his concerns several times. This may have been avoidable.
33. The resident raised further issues in his escalation correspondence. For example, he claimed that the landlord had knowingly moved a problematic family into the flat above his. He said it had prioritised their needs and treated his family like “second class citizens”. These were serious allegations that warranted a response from the landlord.
34. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy says it services must be “relevant, responsive and sensitive”. Similarly, that these must be perceived as “fair and equitable”. In this case, the landlord did not mention the resident’s allegations in its stage 2 response. Its approach was not consistent with its policy. It was also unreasonable.
35. We checked the case evidence for information to support the resident’s allegations. We have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord favoured the neighbour. However, there is no indication it has addressed the resident’s related concerns to date. If he felt these were ignored, this may have added to his view that he was being treated unfairly. We have made an order for the landlord to address this matter.
36. Based on the period between 11 November and 21 December 2023, it took the landlord 28 working days to issue a stage 2 response. In line with the Code, it should have responded within 20 working days. The evidence points to a short delay. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its response, which repeated some of the previous issues around a lack of engagement and thoroughness. The landlord’s approach was inadequate.
37. In summary, the landlord was responsible for significant delays and failures throughout its complaints process. It did not recognise the full extent of these or the related adverse impact to the resident. As a result, it did not do enough to put things right. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation.

Learning

General learning

38. Our investigations consider whether a landlord has identified its failures and taken reasonable steps to put things right. We encourage the landlord to follow a similar process. If it had done so in this case, it may have avoided a severe finding from our Service. The landlord could provide related feedback to its relevant staff.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

39. There were problems with the landlord’s records. Good record keeping will allow the landlord to evidence its adherence to policies. It could provide related feedback to its staff.

Communication

40. Aspects of the landlord’s communication added to the resident’s distress. The landlord should avoid making claims that it has not evidenced. It could provide related feedback to its staff.