London Borough of Islington (202408770)

Decision
Case ID	202408770
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	1 December 2025

Background

1. The landlord has told us that the resident declined to discuss her vulnerabilities with it, so it had not been able to accurately update its records.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB

6. There were some positive elements to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. However, once its stage 1 investigation informed its ASB team of the issue, there is no record that it fully followed its ASB policy or procedure in its response.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not identify the failures we found in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. However, we consider the compensation it offered her at stage 1 for its complaint handling failure adequately reflects the detriment 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.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £150 it offered in its stage 1 complaint response. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 08 January 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss any current ASB concerns she has: If she is reporting further ASB, the landlord is to agree a time specific action plan. Explain what evidence it would need, how the resident can provide such evidence and any action it could take. Offer the resident with support through internal and external agencies.	No later than 08 January 2026

 

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow this.

Our recommendation
It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff focussing on following proposed remedies through to completion.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 May 2024	The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said: She could smell cannabis that she thought was coming from a neighbour’s property. There was noise nuisance from other neighbour’s properties. She had reported the issues to the police and provided a reference number of her report.
3 June 2024	We contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked it to raise a complaint about her reports of cannabis use by her neighbours.
18 June 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: Its ASB team had not received any reports about her neighbour’s using cannabis, so it was not investigating the issue. Drug use was a criminal matter, and she should report this to the police. Its records show that she had reported cannabis use to its complaints team on 8 May 2024 and provided it with a crime reference number. Its ASB team would contact the police about this. If the police had found her neighbour to be using cannabis and had acted on this, it would also take action against her neighbour. It would keep her updated on what action it could take after speaking with the police. She should report further incidents to its ASB team. It upheld her complaint as it had filed her complaint on 8 May 2024 incorrectly. It apologised for this and the delay it had caused. It would offer her £100 compensation for its administrative error, £25 for the delay and £25 for her time and effort.
18 June 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said: She felt it was not taking her seriously. She believed her neighbours were “showing aggression” towards her. The police had said cannabis use was a matter for the landlord to investigate. It had not taken action about another neighbour causing a noise nuisance.
15 July 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: It had written to the leaseholder, whose tenant she had reported was using cannabis. The leaseholder had told it the tenant had moved out of the property on 1 July 2024. This had resolved the reported ASB. It upheld her complaint and the compensation its stage 1 response offered her was fair and reflective of the inconvenience she experienced. It was satisfied that it had followed its ASB procedure in handling the matter and hoped the issue had now been resolved.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her complaint to us on 24 August 2024. She said that just because her neighbour had moved out did not mean the cannabis issue was resolved, as the landlord never dealt with the issue. She also said that her neighbours were provoking and intimidating her.

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	Antisocial behaviour
Finding	Service failure

8. The resident contacted the landlord’s complaints department on 13 February 2024. She said that her neighbours were intimidating her and reported ASB due to noise nuisance and cannabis use. She said that this had affected her health, but she did not want it to take any action for fear it could lead to problems for her or for it to send the information to another department. It was reasonable that the landlord did not take any formal action under its ASB policy at this point in line with the resident’s request.
9. There is no record that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the issue or offered her advice and assistance or to confirm that she did not want it to act. This was not reasonable. It should have considered doing this and explained to the resident what it could do to resolve the situation under its ASB policy, should she have wanted it to act on her reports.
10. The resident contacted us on 14 April 2024. She said she did not know what the landlord had done regarding her complaint she made to it on 4 March 2024. There is no record that the landlord received a complaint from the resident on this date. The resident’s evidence shows an email by her on 5 March 2024, titled “complaint” about the ASB issues she had reported. However, this was sent to her own email address. It was reasonable that the landlord did not take any action at this point, as the evidence shows it had no knowledge the resident wanted to raise a complaint.
11. The landlord contacted the resident on 21 May 2024. It said it had sent her emails from 17 May and 20 May 2024 to its housing feedback team. However, there is no record of either of these emails in its evidence, so it is unclear what these were about. This was a record keeping failure.
12. After we asked the landlord to raise a complaint on behalf of the resident, there is no record that it contacted her to see if she still did not want it to act in response to her reports of ASB. This was not reasonable. It should have considered doing this and explained what it could and could not do to resolve the issues if the resident wanted its ASB team to become involved.
13. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 June 2024 and told it she had reported cannabis use to the police on 15 June 2024. On 26 June 2024 she provided it with police reference numbers of 2 further reports of cannabis use she made on 23 June and 26 June 2024. The landlord’s stage 1 response told the resident that her reports of drug use was a criminal matter, which she should report to the police. It also said it had passed her reports onto its ASB team. There is no record that the resident objected to its ASB team’s involvement. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have confirmed this with her. This demonstrates poor communication from the landlord and was a record keeping failure.
14. There is no record that the landlord contacted the police or kept the resident informed of what actions it could take about her reports of ASB. This was despite its stage 1 response saying it would do so. This was a failure by it to follow its ASB policy which says it will work in partnership with other agencies to resolve ASB.
15. There is no record that the landlord contacted the resident or completed a risk assessment after its ASB team became involved. This was a failure by it to follow its ASB procedure. Contacting the resident would have allowed it to explain what it could and could not do to resolve the issue and to manage her expectations. Conducting a risk assessment would have allowed it to identify and evaluate any specific risks faced by the resident in relation to the reported ASB. It would have also enabled the landlord to discuss any relevant support referrals it could make on her behalf.
16. When the resident escalated her complaint, she told the landlord that her neighbour was being aggressive towards her. Although there is no evidence that supports this, the landlord’s records do not show that it investigated this matter. This was not reasonable and is likely to have caused her confusion and distress. It should have considered contacting the resident to discuss this further with her. This was a failure to follow its ASB policy.
17. Although there is no record that the landlord acted under its ASB policy, its evidence shows that it did contact the leaseholder, whose tenant was causing the alleged nuisance as reported by the resident. This was reasonable. The leaseholder confirmed that the tenant had moved out of the property. While the landlord considered this had resolved the resident’s immediate concerns, she was unhappy it had not taken further action to address cannabis use across the wider neighbourhood. However, social landlords have limited resources which they need to use for the benefit of all their residents. As there was no evidence that the issue was not isolated to her neighbour, it was reasonable that the landlord considered it had resolved the issue.
18. There is no record that the landlord acted to investigate the resident’s reports of noise nuisance or contacted her to discuss her report further. Although there is no evidence to show that this issue was severe or prolonged, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not act on her reports. This was a failure by it to follow its ASB policy which says it is committed to working with residents who report ASB.
19. With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident a further £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises minor failures that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any current ASB concerns she has and clearly explain what it can and cannot do to resolve any issues she may have.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

20. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will respond to complaints within 10 working days of sending its acknowledgement at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
21. The landlord’s evidence includes a delivery receipt of an email it sent to the resident that it had received her complaint at stage 1. However, there is no record of the email itself, so it is unclear whether it sent a formal acknowledgement of her complaint and explained how long it had to respond. This was a record keeping failure.
22. The landlord sent an acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 within its published timeframe. It responded to the resident’s complaint at both stages within the published timeframe of its complaints policy. This was reasonable.
23. The landlord’s evidence shows that the resident contacted it on 8 May 2024. She asked it to raise a complaint about the ASB she had reported and included the police reports she had made in her email. There is no record that it logged her complaint or responded to her. This was a complaint handling failure. However, its stage 1 response acknowledged its error that had delayed its response to the issue. It offered the resident a total of £150 compensation for this, the delay it caused and the time and effort she spent in raising a complaint with it. This was reasonable and the compensation offered is in line with our remedies guidance.
24. There is no record that the landlord made sure the remedy its stage 1 response provided to the resident was followed through to completion, as mentioned at paragraph 14. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and shows a complaint handling failure.
25. When the resident escalated her complaint, she told the landlord that she had sent it recordings of the ASB she had reported. However, there is no record of recordings in the evidence, so it is unclear whether the landlord received them or what the content of these was. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address this issue. It would have been reasonable for it to have confirmed its position on the recordings or told her that it had not received these. This was a failure by it to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that says landlords must address all points raised by a resident.
26. It was positive that the landlord’s stage 2 response provided the resident with a remedy for the ASB she had reported about cannabis use. It said it was satisfied that it had followed its ASB procedures correctly. It could have considered explaining why it believed this was the case. However, the evidence shows that it did not correctly follow its ASB procedures once its ASB team became involved, to contact the resident, complete a risk assessment and offer her advice and support to manage the issue. That it did not identify or apologise for this in its complaint response was not reasonable and a complaint handling failure.
27. With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £150 compensation which its stage 1 complaint response offered her, if it has not already done so. 
28. We have also made a recommendation that the landlord completes training with its complaint handling staff focussing on the failures we have found in this investigation to assist it with effectively handling any future complaints.

Learning

29. The landlord’s stage 1 response was overall of a good standard. However, we note that it failed to follow up on the remedies it offered the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. It was positive that the landlord identified its record keeping failure after it incorrectly logged the resident’s complaint. However, its complaint responses refer to communication with the resident which it did not include in the evidence it provided to us.

Communication

31. The landlord’s communication with the resident could have been more effective. For example, there is no record that it told her of its ASB procedure or how it could help her to resolve the ASB she reported to it.