London Borough of Islington (202516094)

Decision
Case ID	202516094
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Islington
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	18 December 2025

Background

The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord between 2021 and 2025. This involved 2 different neighbours and included reports of violence, intimidation, racial abuse, attempts at animal poisoning, noise, and vehicle vandalism. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to these reports. She wanted the landlord to allow her to reinstall a CCTV video doorbell that she previously had. The resident told the landlord in her complaint she experienced pain and depression. While the ASB is ongoing we understand the resident has reinstalled her video doorbell.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. The resident’s request to reinstall a CCTV video doorbell.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install a CCTV video doorbell.
3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB

The landlord’s compliance with its ASB policy and its ASB case management procedure was inconsistent. It did not show it responded to some reports of ASB, and it did not provide a risk assessment or clear plan to address the ASB. While it acknowledged there were failures in its stage 2 complaint response it did not offer the resident proportionate redress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to reinstall a CCTV video doorbell

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request to reinstall a CCTV video doorbell was in line with its guidance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 1 complaint response, made an apology, and offered proportionate compensation for the failure.

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 senior person. 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 22 January 2026
2	ASB case review The landlord must review the last 3 months of ASB reports from the resident and decide if they amount to ASB. If so, the landlord must open an ASB case, complete a risk assessment, and provide a clear plan to address the ASB, and share this with the resident. The plan must include the frequency of updates it will offer. If the landlord decides the reports do not amount to ASB it must provide the resident and us with reasons and explain how it will deal with the reports. The landlord must provide evidence it has done this no later than the due date.	No later than 22 January 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £ 200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to 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 22 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 as agreed in the stage 1 complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its response to her reports of ASB and said she felt the landlord had not listened to her and she felt victimised. The resident also complained that a neighbour had asked her to remove her CCTV video doorbell.
01 April 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process.
15 April 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response and said: It was actively managing 2 ASB cases following concerns the resident had raised over the past 18 months It had offered the resident mediation, but she declined this The police had not acted due to insufficient evidence It acknowledged the resident had reported a third incident of vehicle vandalism It agreed to monitor the ASB and respond to all new incidents It agreed that its principal tenancy officer would review the situation and contact the resident to address her concerns, and to explain the next steps The resident could install a ring doorbell or similar video door entry system, provided she followed the relevant privacy and data protection regulations It encouraged the resident to report incidents and to stay connected with its tenancy team It was acting and apologised that the process was taking longer than the resident would like, but it had to follow the correct procedures It did not uphold the resident’s complaint It offered the resident £50 for the delayed complaint response.
14 May 2025	The resident escalated her complaint.
10 June 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response and said: It acknowledged it failed to contact the resident following its stage 1 complaint response It had discussed this failure with the management of its intensive tenancy team and emphasised the importance of efficient communication It encouraged the resident to report any suspicious or threatening behaviour to the police, but said the resident could also report this to it It offered the resident housing options advice and reiterated its position in its stage 1 complaint response regarding the video doorbell It upheld the resident’s complaint because it failed to offer her the level of support and communication it hoped to It agreed to ask a new tenancy officer to contact her, and it agreed to stay connected with the resident It had shared learning from the complaint with the relevant teams.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that she has experienced ongoing ASB and although she had reinstated her video doorbell camera, she could not connect it. The resident would like the landlord to act on her ASB reports, reconnect the doorbell camera, offer an apology and compensation. It is unclear if the resident received the £50 the landlord offered in its stage 1 complaint response.

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	Maladministration

The resident’s complaint about ASB which she referred to us to investigate involved reports of neighbours involved in:
1. An attack on the resident and the vandalism of her car.
2. Racial abuse directed at the resident and noise.
3. Driving past the resident in an intimidating manner.
4. Staring at the resident’s video doorbell camera in an intimidating manner.
5. Sweeping dust to the bottom of the resident’s stairs.
6. Disruptive knocking of the resident’s front door.
7. The attempted poisoning of the resident’s dog.
8. Leaving faeces on the internal stairs.
We have not considered the landlord’s response to reports of mice and foxes exploiting rubbish the neighbours left, as the resident did not refer this to us for investigation.
The landlord told the resident on 9 September 2023 that the report she made about her neighbour using a bubble making machine was not ASB. This was reasonable as this behaviour did not amount to ASB under the landlord’s ASB policy. It was also reasonable of the landlord to explain on 15 March 2024 that it could not act on her report that her neighbour had allegedly lied to the police about the resident filming children. This is because it did not have evidence the neighbour lied and its ASB policy required it to act on evidence.
The resident’s daughter reported on 1 May 2024 both noise from her mother’s neighbour and her mother’s neighbour sweeping dust onto her stairs. It was clear from the report that the resident had no evidence of this, and the landlord offered the resident mediation. This was a reasonable response under the circumstances as the landlord’s ASB policy required evidence to act and allowed for the landlord to offer mediation. It was also reasonable of the landlord to ask the resident to contact the police when she disclosed to it threats to her life from a neighbour on 1 July 2024. This was in line with its ASB case management procedure.
When the resident’s daughter told the landlord on 20 May 2024 that a neighbour had racially abused her mother the previous week the landlord asked for details of this, including if there were any witnesses or police action. It also agreed to interview the neighbour with the resident’s agreement, and asked the resident if she needed a support liaison officer. These were reasonable steps to take in line with its ASB policy and its ASB case management procedure.
When the resident reported on 27 June 2024 that a neighbour had attempted to poison her dog by allegedly using lavender, the landlord acted reasonably in attempting to call the resident on 5 July 2024 and telling her that this did not amount to ASB. The landlord also acted reasonably in explaining her rehousing options in detail in its stage 2 complaint response.
In contrast we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB, which include record keeping:
1. The landlord acknowledged a report that a neighbour attacked the resident in 2021. However, it has provided no contemporaneous records to allow us to assess if its response complied with its ASB policy.
2. The landlord said it assessed a report of a neighbour driving past the resident, glaring, and laughing in June 2022, and gave the neighbour a verbal warning. This may have been an appropriate response under its ASB case management procedure. However, the landlord has not provided contemporaneous evidence to allow us to assess or verify this.
3. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on the following reports:
  1. On 27 January 2024 that a neighbour had knocked on her door to trigger the resident’s dog to bark.
  2. On 1 May 2024 that a neighbour’s husband and a neighbour’s visitor looked at her CCTV video doorbell in an intimidating way, a neighbour made a threat, and that there was an attack on the resident in the hallway.
  3. On 6 June 2024 that a neighbour was “hurling abuse and shouting” at the resident.
  4. On 2 October 2024 that faeces were left on the resident’s staircase.
  5. Of the resident’s vehicle being vandalised multiple times, referred to in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response.
The resident disclosed that a neighbour had assaulted, threatened, and subjected her to racial abuse. However, the landlord did not complete a full risk assessment, or offer a clear plan for addressing the reported incidents, which was not in line with its ASB policy. While it said it arranged a meeting with the resident on 12 August 2024 and 15 August 2024, we have not seen evidence to show what these related to or the outcomes. In the absence of such evidence we cannot be satisfied the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy.
While the landlord told the resident in its stage 2 complaint response it had failed to support and communicate with her, it offered no redress for the likely distress and inconvenience this caused her. It said its tenancy officer would contact her and promised to keep her updated. In these circumstances it would have been reasonable of the landlord to provide the resident with a plan, explaining its frequency of communication, and what steps it would take to address any ASB. It also told the resident in its stage 2 response that she should not report criminal activity, like intimidation, harassment, or vandalism, as ASB. This was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which stated some ASB can also amount to criminal acts and included violence, threats, criminal damage(vandalism), and harassment as ASB.
The policy required the landlord to work in partnership with the police to “proactively address issues of crime and ASB”, including the development of an action plan. The landlord’s account is that the police found insufficient evidence to pursue matters. However, we have not seen the landlord worked with the police to develop a plan to effectively manage the reported ASB.
We have made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her compensation of £200. This is in line with our remedies guidance where we have identified failures that have adversely affected a resident, and considers the likely impact on a vulnerable resident. As the resident has told us the ASB continues we have made an order for the landlord to review her ASB case.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to reinstall a CCTV video doorbell
Finding	No maladministration

The resident expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s response to her request to reinstall a CCTV video doorbell. This was following the landlord’s request on 11 September 2024 that she remove it. It was not until 26 February 2025 that the resident complained that a neighbour had asked her to remove this and the resident asked the reason why. The landlord had already provided this in its email to the resident on 11 September 2024. The landlord’s explanation was in line with its guidance and the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord told the resident that she could reinstall a video doorbell camera. It further explained the need for the resident to respect the privacy and data protection of others where the coverage extended to beyond the property boundary. This was reasonable and in line with its guidance. While the resident told us the video doorbell was not working, this was not the landlord’s responsibility.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2024), “the Code”. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
It took the landlord 24 working days to acknowledge the complaint (on 1 April 2025) from the date the resident complained (26 February 2025), against a target of 5 working days. This delay likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It was appropriate of the landlord to have acknowledged this in its stage 1 complaint response.
It apologised, awarded the resident £50 for this failure, and it explained it had fed back to the relevant teams on its failures. In doing so it sought to act in line with our dispute resolution principles: to act fairly, to put things right, and to learn from outcomes. The compensation it offered in its stage 1 complaint response was in line with our remedies guidance. This allows for compensation of this amount where there was a service failure that adversely affected a resident. We have recommended that the landlord pay the compensation as a condition of our finding as it is unclear if it paid this.

Learning

Overall, the landlord failed to show it managed the resident’s ASB reports effectively and in line with its ASB policy. There were significant record keeping gaps which meant we were unable to either assess the landlord’s actions, or be satisfied it acted in line with its ASB policy. It is important for landlords to keep robust records, of all contacts with residents, risk assessments, and action plans. Our report on learning from severe maladministration decisions (published July 2025) contains key lessons and good practice for landlords in dealing with ASB.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping, as identified in several places in this report, was poor. This meant the landlord was unable to show it had an effective or fair approach to the reports of ASB on occasions.

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communication was lacking. It told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response it would contact her but acknowledged it failed to, and it has not demonstrated regular communication following its stage 2 complaint response.