London Borough of Islington (202450843)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property in 2011. She reported noise by her neighbours to the landlord since 2023 which it treated as antisocial behaviour (ASB). The landlord said it would close the ASB case as it had not received evidence or further reports of ASB from the resident.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of ASB

4. The resident reported ASB by her neighbour and the landlord acted on this. However, when the resident sent in noise diary sheets the landlord closed the ASB case due to no contact from her. It offered the resident £25 compensation at stage 1. The landlord said at stage 1 and 2 it would close the ASB case despite the resident reporting further noise by her neighbour. The compensation it awarded was not proportionate to the failings we found in our investigation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord incorrectly said it would not investigate the resident’s complaint. After our intervention and a delay of around one month it responded at stage 1 and offered £75 compensation in line with its complaints policy.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

6. We investigated a previous complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB until November 2024 (202415128). This report will assess events after this date and any reference to earlier dates is for context only.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s policy says the tools it will use for ASB include action plans, mediation, noise recording equipment, and diary sheets.
8. In September 2024, the landlord put recording equipment in the resident’s property to record the noise she was reporting from her neighbour. On 25 October 2024, the landlord said it assessed the results and found they were not a statutory noise nuisance.
9. On 3 November 2024, the resident said the noise recording equipment was unable to record the ASB as it records after the noise and the noises are sudden and short.
10. The landlord and the resident completed an ASB report form, risk assessment, and action plan on 15 November 2024. On 3 December 2024, the landlord spoke to the resident’s neighbour, and they denied making excessive noise.
11. On 11 December 2024 the landlord told the resident it had interviewed the resident’s neighbour, and they denied the noise. It said her neighbour laid carpet with underlay following the resident’s reports of noise. It said it received the resident’s noise diary sheets and asked her to keep sending them.
12. On 23 January 2025, the landlord asked the resident for noise diary sheets, and she sent these 2 days later. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 12 February 2025.
13. On 25 February 2025, the landlord told the resident it had not received any noise diary sheets for 2 months. It said it visited the neighbour, and they agreed to keep noise from household activity to a minimum. The landlord said it assessed the recordings and did not find a noise nuisance so it would close the ASB case.
14. In March and April 2025, the resident reported noise nuisance by her neighbour to the landlord. She said the noise was affecting her sleep and quality of life.
15. At stage 1 the landlord apologised for its error closing the resident ASB case. The landlord’s compensation policy says at stage 1 it can offer £25 for each month a service is delayed. Although the landlord tried to put things right with an offer of compensation the amount was for one month and it delayed the service for longer. It was therefore not in line with its compensation policy.
16. At stage 2 the landlord said it interviewed the resident’s neighbour, worked with them to have carpet fitted at their property to reduce the noise and offered the resident mediation. These were reasonable actions by the landlord. Although the resident said she was still experiencing noise nuisance the landlord said she had not reported any further incidents so would close the case.
17. When we identify a failure our role is to consider whether the redress the landlord offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. As well as our own guidance on remedies.
18. In summary, the landlord helped the resident’s neighbour understand the impact of their noise and to have carpet and underlay fitted at the property. However, the landlord incorrectly closed the resident’s ASB case. It recognised this failing at stage 1 and tried to put things right with an offer of compensation, but the amount was not in line with its policy. It also failed to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB after she raised her complaint.
19. We have ordered the landlord to pay £300 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its closure of her ASB case and its handling of her reports of ASB. This is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration when a landlord has made an attempt to put things right for the resident, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings in our investigation. It is also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for distress caused to a resident.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. It replied to the resident’s complaint around 12 days after she raised it and said it would not investigate her complaint. However, this was a new issue and after the period we investigated in case 202415128. This error caused the resident inconvenience.
21. The landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed by over a month and was only sent after our intervention. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer £25 for each month a complaint response is delayed. It apologised and offered compensation in line with its policy.
22. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The landlord’s stage 2 response was on time.
23. In summary, the landlord delayed the resident’s stage 1 response as it said it already investigated its handling of the ASB. However, this was incorrect as it was a new issue about the landlord’s closure of the ASB case. It put things right with an apology and offer of compensation at stage 1, in line with its compensation policy. This was reasonable and proportionate. We found the landlord made an offer of redress which resolved the complaint.