London Borough of Islington (202400925)

Decision
Case ID	202400925
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 March 2026

Background

The resident complained that the landlord failed to respond effectively to her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB by a neighbour.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB by a neighbour.
2. Complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour

The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy.

The handling of the complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 and 14 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord as she was unhappy with its response to her reports of ASB. These related to noise from a neighbouring property and an ongoing dispute. She said it had not responded to her fairly.
28 August 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said reports that the resident recently provided did not document ASB. It offered mediation and discussed guidance around CCTV recording. It said it had responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns.
2 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response and said it was ‘dismissive’ of her concerns.
3 October 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It explained its process in investigating allegations of ASB. It also re-iterated privacy laws on CCTV recordings. It expressed regret for the distress the resident reported experiencing. It said it had not identified any service failures in its handling of the matter.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred her case to us. She wants the landlord to take tenancy enforcement action against her neighbour to resolve the ASB.

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 the resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident previously referred a complaint to us relating to the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. This complaint addressed the resident’s concerns about privacy, noise disturbance, her neighbour’s decking and property damage. It covered events which took place from February 2024 up to the landlord’s final response on 16 August 2024.
We are unable to investigate matters which we have previously determined. This investigation has therefore focussed on events following our previous determination. We have considered the period from August 2024 up to the landlord’s final response on 3 October 2024. Any mention of events prior to this are for context purposes only.

What we have investigated

The resident has reported ASB by her neighbour since 2018. The landlord has also received counter allegations of ASB against the resident. Cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage expectations. In such instances, closely following its ASB policy ensures that a landlord is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the issues being raised, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has 2 main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the antisocial behaviour. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. Our role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
In July 2024, the resident sent the landlord video recordings that she said showed her neighbour invading her privacy. The landlord reviewed them and said they did not show any ASB. Due to this it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that recording everyday activities that do not constitute ASB can harm neighbour relationships.
The landlord was aware both neighbours involved in the dispute were using CCTV. It was appropriate that it provided guidance on the usage of CCTV to both parties. The guidance explained how to use surveillance lawfully while respecting privacy. It also worked with the police to confirm the cameras were being used legally. This was in line with its ASB policy that states it will liaise with partner agencies to seek a resolution to issues. Its actions showed it had considered both parties’ concerns about recording and privacy.
The resident told the landlord she felt it was dismissive of her reports and was biased towards her neighbour. The evidence shows that it took reasonable steps to investigate reports made by both parties. It managed her expectations by explaining that her reports did not meet the ASB threshold. As a result, it offered mediation as a possible way to resolve the issues. Although the resident chose not to participate, the landlord’s offer complied with its policy.
That said, given the landlord’s knowledge of the longstanding issue, it could have considered the matter under its strategy for promoting good neighbour relations. It could have explored alternatives such as drafting good neighbour agreements. The fact it did not do so does not change the overall outcome. However, this is something it could consider in its future responses.
The resident raised concerns about the conduct of staff responding to her ASB reports. It was appropriate that the landlord responded to this by demonstrating it had reviewed the correspondence involved in the case. It found no evidence of misconduct but explained that any evidence that indicated this would be dealt with in line with its policies.
We recognise that the resident reports experiencing distress regarding the ongoing situation. However, it is our understanding that there is a high threshold of evidence required to pursue legal action regarding ASB or in enforcing tenancy conditions. The landlord is limited in the actions it can take where there is not sufficient evidence to support taking further action.
In summary the landlord’s overall approach was proportionate in the circumstances and in line with its ASB policy. Its complaint responses were empathetic and showed a consideration of the resident’s circumstances. It took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns and manage her expectations.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at both stages within its published timescales. Its responses were thorough and addressed all points raised by the resident.

Learning

The landlord should refer to its good neighbourhood management policy when it decides the ASB threshold has not been met. It may also consult relevant guidance on our Learning Hub.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping in this case was adequate.

Communication

The landlord’s communication throughout the case was timely and appropriate.