London Borough of Islington (202326754)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326754

Islington Council

28 May 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) regarding noise transfer;
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She moved into the 1-bedroom flat in May 2013. The resident is the sole occupant in the property. She is registered as having vulnerabilities including Autism, ADHD and being sensitive to, and disturbed by, certain sounds.
The reports of ASB and noise disturbance relate to the resident’s upstairs neighbour who will be referred to as ‘the neighbour’ or ‘the neighbouring property’ within the report. We are advised that the occupants of the neighbouring property are leaseholders. We do not have a copy of the lease but assume the terms of the lease are the same or similar to those within the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The first report of noise nuisance was made in February 2021. This was originally investigated as part of a separate complaint. The landlord had written to the neighbouring property to advise that the lease forbids the installation of wooden flooring and requested its removal. As part of that letter, they were advised that enforcement action may also be considered for non–compliance. The resident submitted more noise reports in late 2021.
The resident raised the ongoing noise issue on 9 October 2022 via an email to the landlord. She confirmed the issue had never stopped since the first report in 2021. She also advised that her health had deteriorated, she was now disabled, and the ongoing situation was exacerbating her health conditions.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 13 October 2022, with its response being issued on 27 October 2022. In its response, the landlord upheld the complaint and apologised that it had not provided any updates and did not follow through with an action plan as set out in an email of 17 September 2021. It confirmed that a tenancy officer would investigate and update her accordingly and that the appropriate steps would be taken in response to this matter. It stated that no noise reports had been received for several months and as such the original matter was closed.
The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 19 November 2022. She said she did not receive updates regarding actions that were taken, nor a block letter relating to DIY being undertaken in the block.
There is a gap in the records until 3 May 2023. It is not clear if any reports were received by the landlord during this time. The resident, having received no confirmation her request had been actioned, sent a second email on 3 May 2023, requesting escalation to stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 11 May 2023 and apologised for the delay in its response. Its final response was issued on 2 June 2023. It upheld the complaint as it was unable to establish if the wooden flooring had been removed. When the flooring was first identified, the occupants had been given 3 months to replace it with carpet. It advised an officer would now visit the property to establish if this had been done.
The landlord advised that the noise app and diary pages that were emailed to the resident (apparently in December 2022) had not been opened or used which hindered its ability to proceed with legal action. This had also led to the complaint not automatically being progressed to stage 2 of the complaints process, but the resident had not been advised of this. As a result, the landlord awarded compensation of £525 for its failing and the impact of distress, time and trouble (we are aware this payment was made in May 2025). To aid with the use of the noise app, it requested an officer contact the resident.
On 16 December 2023, the resident referred her complaint to this Service, citing that the information and resolutions that were proposed by the landlord had not been followed through on. This resulted in the continuation of noise transfer from the wooden flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her communication with the landlord, the resident referenced how the situation impacted her health. While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The Ombudsman has referenced reports of ASB from late 2021 in this assessment. This is because it was clear the resident sought to address these through the landlord’s complaints process prior to the current complaint made in October 2022.

Policy and Procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy defines anti-social behaviour as conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to their occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The principles that underpin the policy include:
1. To listen carefully and empathetically as we seek to understand the issues holistically.
2. To be responsive and to deliver good customer service at all times.
3. To be honest and transparent about what is and is not possible in terms of enforcement and outcomes.
Its commitments to reports of ASB include providing reporters with a clear plan for addressing the issue, including timescales for action, within 10 working days of the initial report.
When responding to ASB, the landlord’s policy states it will take a trauma-informed and proportionate response that gives due regard to the feelings, wishes and specific circumstances of those affected. It will undertake risk assessments with reporters to ensure that the full range of factors affecting, and affected by, the ASB are understood.

Reports of anti-social behaviour regarding noise transfer

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict and improve the experience of its residents. ASB cases are often challenging as options available to, or chosen by, a landlord to resolve a case may not be the resident’s preferred outcome. It can become difficult to manage expectations.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. The Ombudsman can assess how a landlord dealt with reports it received in the timeframe of a complaint. We can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
It is not disputed by the landlord that following a visit to the neighbouring property in September 2021, it confirmed that wooden flooring was installed without consent. During the visit, the landlord’s position on flooring was explained to the neighbour and they were advised that this needed to be removed, or enforcement action could be taken. It noted that the neighbour’s property is leasehold, and this action could be more difficult.
Following this visit, the resident submitted a further 2 emails to the landlord in October and December 2021, highlighting the continual noise from the neighbouring property. She also included recordings of the noise and expressed her frustration that no one had contacted her.
The landlord has acknowledged in its complaint responses that it did not follow through on an action plan from September 2021 and failed to provide appropriate updates to the resident. This in part was due to the resident not providing any further reports of noise from December 2021 until October 2022. Nevertheless, the landlord did not act upon the further reports the resident made in late 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 October 2022 to request an update on the action plan from September 2021. She said the noise had not stopped and she was never contacted by the landlord. She also stated she had become ill and was now disabled, and the situation was exacerbating her condition. It falls within the landlord’s policy and good practice within the sector to conduct a risk assessment and review this regularly. The landlord has not evidenced any changes to its investigation or action taken once the resident highlighted her vulnerabilities.
The landlord acknowledged the email on 13 October 2022 and advised that a new complaint was opened. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord upheld the complaint and acknowledged that correspondence from the resident was not responded to. It further confirmed that a block letter (detailing times DIY could take place) had not been re–issued in line with an email of 17 September 2021.
It advised that, to resolve these concerns, a tenancy officer would investigate and update the resident accordingly. While the Ombudsman recognises the steps the landlord took to put things right, it failed to act on the information the resident provided regarding her disability or conduct a risk assessment in line with its own policies.
This action could have highlighted the resident’s need for alternative noise monitoring options to be explored which may have brought the matter to an appropriate conclusion. It is unreasonable that the landlord missed an opportunity to support the resident and potentially find an alternative way that she could provide evidence.
The resident stated that, following the October 2022 stage 1 resolution, she did not receive any updates or receive a block letter. Due to this, she requested her complaint be escalated. She advised that she was still subject to constant noise transfer and expressed her frustration about the landlord’s delays.
In the landlord’s June 2023 stage 2 response, it upheld the complaint on the basis that it could not confirm the wooden flooring was removed as agreed in September 2021. To resolve this, an officer from the targeted tenancy team was asked to visit the neighbouring property and provide an update within 10 working days. There is no evidence to suggest that this update was provided.
It is acknowledged that the landlord arranged the visit to the neighbouring property to establish whether the flooring was removed. It did not gain access, and the neighbour provided pictures in July 2023 showing rugs were laid. The landlord failed to seek an update from the resident to confirm if this had resolved the noise transfer.
To evidence the resident’s reports, the landlord provided access to a noise monitoring app and diary pages to be completed by her. It also said a member of its targeted tenancy team would contact her and discuss the use of these. There is no evidence to show it made this contact, albeit there is also no evidence that the resident attempted to contact the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. We also consider if the landlord considered our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord acknowledged that it failed to progress the matter in line with its policies. As a result, it awarded £525 compensation, £400 of which was in recognition of the impact on the resident. This was broken into 2 elements:
1. £300 – Distress
2. £100 – Time and trouble
The £400 compensation was within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there was a service failure that had an adverse effect on a resident. Given the impact of the failings in this case, this was proportionate.
Although the compensation was sufficient, the landlord did not follow through on assurances and actions it proposed in June 2023. As such, the landlord did not put things right or show it had learnt from the complaint. Therefore, we cannot find reasonable redress.

The associated complaint

Given the lack of updates regarding an initial complaint from February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord for an update on 9 October 2022. The landlord closed the original complaint and took this email as a new complaint request and, as such, acknowledged this on 13 October 2022. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 27 October 2022 in line with its complaints policy.
On 19 November 2022, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2. There is no further communication recorded from either party until 3 May 2023 when she sent a further email. In the email, the resident expressed her frustration with the delay in escalating the complaint and noted the noise transfer continued.
The landlord acknowledged the request on 11 May 2023 and apologised for the delay in responding to the original request. It advised a full response would follow within 20 working days. The landlord provided its stage 2 resolution on 2 June 2023.
The landlord recognised that, under the Housing Ombudsman Code and its own self-assessment, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2. It decided not to escalate this case due to the lack of evidence provided by the resident but did not communicate this decision.
In the Ombudsman’s view, these delays contributed to not only maladministration, but increased distress and inconvenience for the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord reviewed the actions set out in its stage 1 response or provided a reasonable explanation for the 6-month delay in acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord had also not discussed the elements of dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response or the preferred remedy, as per its escalation process.
To compensate for this, the landlord awarded £125 compensation. Although there was no permanent impact caused, the landlord did not recognise the full impact of its failings on the resident and did not provide appropriate redress. Given the delay and impact on the resident was across a period of 6 months, the £125 compensation was not sufficient. As such, we have ordered additional compensation below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour regarding noise transfer.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide an apology from a senior member of staff for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an additional £125 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
3. Conduct an interview and risk assessment with the resident to understand the cause of the ongoing noise transfer and agree an appropriate way for incidents to be reported.
4. Conduct an inspection of the neighbouring property to establish the cause of the noise transfer and current flooring situation and provide an action plan and timescales to both parties of how this will be addressed.
The landlord is to reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders in line with the above timescale.