Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Islington (202326274)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326274

Islington Council

19 June 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The landlord’s management of the resident’s internal transfer request.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since October 2013. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1 bedroom, second floor flat within a block. The resident lives with his wife and 2 children. His son is asthmatic.
  2. The resident first reported ASB caused by his upstairs neighbour (Ms A) and visitors to her flat on 10 September 2022. His initial report focused on noise nuisance; caused by her dog barking and the use of a washing machine late at night (after 11pm). On 28 October 2022 he reported that someone had tried to force entry to his flat, when looking for Ms A. He raised his concern about safety within the block of flats. On 10 November 2022 the resident confirmed to the landlord that he had downloaded the noise app at its request. He made further reports about the behaviour of Ms A and her visitors in January, February, March and April 2023. These related to noisy disturbances, people trying to access his property, together with the use of drink and drugs in the communal area of the block.
  3. On 21 June 2023 the landlord’s community safety officer recorded that the resident had given a statement to the police about the behaviour of Ms A. This included a report of racial abuse directed at him and his family. On 11 July 2023 the resident reported that his wife, who was pregnant at the time, had found individuals drunk and urinating in the communal area as she was taking their son to nursery. The individuals had been verbally abusive towards her. She had found this extremely distressing.
  4. The landlord obtained a partial closure order of Ms A’s property on 12 July 2023. It got a full closure order on 26 July 2023. This stopped anyone, including Ms A, entering the property over the following 3 months.
  5. The resident raised an enquiry with the landlord through his local MP on 26 July 2023. He provided details of the ASB that had been ongoing over the preceding 8 months. He said that he had continued to report issues to both the landlord and the police. While he understood that this was a lengthy process, he wanted help with rehousing. He said that the various incidents included in his witness statement to the police had affected his family’s mental health and wellbeing. The landlord has not shared its final response to the resident’s MP.
  6. The landlord recorded that it secured Ms A’s property on 2 August 2023 and that she had moved. It updated the resident about the closure order on 9 August 2023. He expressed his unhappiness that it had not supported him and his family.
  7. The resident raised a formal complaint on 16 August 2023. He said that he and his family had been the subject of incidents of hate crime and intimidation. Furthermore, in July 2023, Ms A’s visitors had assaulted and threatened him. He said that the landlord had made promises to call him but had failed to do so. He had given a statement to the police but remained concerned about safeguarding and the wellbeing of his family. He felt that the landlord had ignored his request for a management move. Moving out his neighbour through the closure order was “too little too late”. He said that he felt that the landlord had made a poor decision in housing Ms A among families.
  8. On 30 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the ASB that the resident and his family had to endure. It noted the detail of his complaint and his request for extra transfer points. It set out a summary of the actions it had taken to deal with the reported ASB. This included the closure order gained by the police and its community safety team. Further to this it set out details of recent incidents that had occurred on 6 and 14 July 2023. On the later occasion the police had attended an altercation outside the property. The police had no record of an assault taking place. The landlord:
    1. apologised for its failure to contact him directly to discuss a management transfer. It had focused its actions on obtaining the closure order to stop the ASB that had been affecting him and his family. As it had resolved the ASB through the closure order he was no longer “subject to a high risk move”.
    2. directed him to its rehousing team to address his concern about the letting of the upstairs property to someone who had caused ASB in the block. It was unable to respond to his statement that the landlord’s tenants should not have “to bear the consequences of a bad decision…”. It said that “the procedure for applying for a high risk move and considerations via temporary accommodation would be dependent on presenting as homeless”. It could not award management transfer points to his rehousing application as the closure of the flat had removed the risk to him and his family. He had points for overcrowding.
    3. partially upheld his complaint as its officers had failed to respond to him.
  9. On 7 September 2023 the resident asked his landlord to escalate his complaint as he was unhappy with its response. He commented on specific points made within its stage 1 response and raised direct questions around these. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 20 September 2023 and said that it would respond within 20 working days.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 October 2023. It reviewed the issues raised by the resident and responded to each point. It said:
    1. that during the period of the temporary closure between 12 and 26 July 2023 Ms A was allowed to enter her flat. The police were patrolling the area, although they were unable to stay there all the time. The police were able to respond to reports of nuisance. The landlord had also installed 3 temporary CCTV cameras which were still in place.
    2. its specialist ASB officer, having spoken with the resident, did not follow up the conversation in writing as the landlord was to provide a response through the resident’s MP. The officer felt that multiple replies were unnecessary. It apologised that it had not responded more promptly and directly to the resident.
    3. it had attached a copy of its leaflet on high risk moves and apologised for not providing this earlier. It said that its focus had been on resolving the nuisance.
    4. it acknowledged that it should have told the resident that it would have refused his request for a managed move. It said that it would normally refer to reports from the police and action taken as part of its investigation. It had little evidence that he and his family had been the “target of violence or harassment”. It had resolved the ASB caused by Ms A by getting the closure order. It apologised that it had not been clear about this.
    5. that it was sorry that he felt let down by the landlord. It said that ASB “can sometimes be long and complex” and difficult on the person in the middle. It had focused on dealing with the source of the ASB.
    6. it had partially upheld his complaint as it had failed to keep him “informed in certain areas such as the management transfer and a failure to provide the relevant leaflet”. It had worked diligently to resolve the ASB.
    7. it offered him £250 compensation for the “inconvenience, time, effort to complain and service failure”.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied with his landlord’s response. On 11 December 2023 he confirmed that he wished this service to investigate his complaint. He said that he had not accepted the compensation offered.
  12. In contact with us on 5 June 2025 the resident explained the impact on his family of living with ongoing ASB over several months. This had caused them extreme distress, and this continues to affect the family’s wellbeing. While his landlord did act to resolve the ASB, he felt that it showed a lack of care towards his family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This Service acknowledges this was a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the issues reported to the landlord have caused him and his family significant distress. In cases of ASB it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. The Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint. We can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  2. As a result of the ASB experienced by the resident and his family, he has said that this has had a long term impact on their health and wellbeing. While we understand the resident’s concerns, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.

Response to reports of antisocial behaviour.

  1. We understand that the landlord is not directly responsible for the ASB. However, it has a duty, under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to respond to ASB affecting its residents and communities, with a victim centred approach.
  2. The landlord’s ASB procedure sets out its commitment to working in a “trauma informed way” with both reporters and perpetrators of ASB. It says that where it receives reports of ASB it will complete a risk assessment and action plan with the reporter. This is to be a live document that it would review and update as the case progressed. The resident first reported ASB by Ms A in September 2022. He made further reports of noise and the behaviour of visitors to Ms A’s home in the following months. The tenancy officer contacted him about his reports in November 2022 and at their request he downloaded the noise app. The landlord has provided no evidence that the resident used the app to record future incidents. The landlord has said that it has no incident diaries completed by the resident. It is not clear if it asked the resident to complete these. He did however provide photographic evidence and videos of individuals approaching his home. This included a report in February 2023 of someone trying to open his flat door.
  3. The landlord has said that it did not complete a risk assessment with the resident. It has also provided little detail of its contact with the resident and its discussions with him around the actions that it would take in response to the reports he made. Conducting a risk assessment would have allowed the landlord to identify and evaluate any specific risks faced by the resident in relation to the ASB reported. By understanding the risks, the landlord is in a better position to decide the actions needed to address the issue and support both the resident and the alleged perpetrator. That it did not do so was a failure by the landlord to follow its own procedure and established good practice.
  4. Following a report by the resident on 5 January 2023 the landlord wrote to him. It said that it was investigating the issues reported and that it would “take the appropriate action”. Following an incident in February 2023 it encouraged the resident to report the incident to the police. In internal communication sent in June 2023, the landlord’s community safety officer wrote that they and the police had been in contact with the resident over the previous 6 months. They said that he had been the victim of several incidents of ASB. Further, this had recently involved racial abuse, and that the family did not feel safe. It said that the resident had provided a witness statement to the police which would support its action to obtain a closure order. His tenancy officer recorded contact with him, saying that its specialist ASB team was to call him. There is no evidence that the ASB team made this call.
  5. On 5 July 2023 the landlord’s community safety officer wrote to its specialist ASB team. It said that the resident and his family had “been subjected to a number of hate crimes in the last 2 weeks, involving people visiting one of his neighbours”. It asked that it contact him. On 11 July 2023 the resident wrote directly to the ASB team about the issues he and his family faced. This included a report that his son had been admitted to hospital following an asthma attack. He believed that this was due to exposure to smoke in the communal areas and lift of his block. The landlord responded to the resident on 12 July 2023 to say that it was going to court to get a closure order for Ms A’s flat. It further gave him advice about applying for a transfer on medical grounds and directed him to its website.
  6. In its response to the resident’s escalated complaint the landlord said that it had installed 3 temporary CCTV cameras. The resident said in his complaint that the landlord had told residents that it would be installing CCTV cameras on 17 July 2023. He said that it had installed these after that date. The landlord did not give the exact date on which it installed these. It said that these “were installed as soon as possible”. These were not in place until after the landlord had secured a closure order on Ms A’s property. As the reported ASB focused on the behaviour of Ms A and her visitors in the communal areas, the landlord could have installed CCTV at an earlier stage of its investigations. This would have provided reassurance to the resident, both on added security and in the landlord’s intensions to resolve the issues he was reporting. This was a failure by the landlord in its handling of the reported ASB and a missed opportunity to provide reassurance to residents. 
  7. The evidence provided shows limited contact with the resident in response to the reported ASB. His reporting of hate incidents was noted by the landlord, but it did not capture the detail of these or evidence that it contacted him to discuss these further, offer its support or provide reassurance about the action it would take. The landlord’s ASB procedure says that it should complete an action plan with the reporter of ASB. In doing so the landlord should explain to the reporter the actions it will take, including speaking with other agencies and the timescales involved. This should also be used to agree the frequency of updates with the reporter and to discuss the need for any extra support. That the landlord did not complete such a document or maintain clear records of its actions was a failure by the landlord to follow its own procedure. There was also a failure in its record keeping.
  8. The landlord obtained a partial closure order of Ms A’s flat on 12 July 2023. This was extended to a full closure order on 26 July 2023. This was obtained through joint working between the landlord and the police, along with the support of statements given by the resident. This was a successful outcome in bringing an end to the ASB that the resident had experienced over the preceding months. However, the evidence presented by the landlord fails to show its engagement with the resident and any support or reassurance given to him through the process. There was also a failure by its officers to follow up on requests to contact him.
  9. The landlord’s actions in getting the closure order worked to resolve the ASB that had affected the resident and his family for several months. While it successfully dealt with the ASB, there were failures in its handling of the resident’s reports and its level of engagement with him. Further it did not follow its own procedure. This amounted to maladministration by the landlord.
  10. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer, made in its stage 2 response of £250 compensation for the inconvenience, time and effort to complaint and its service failure. The landlord acknowledged its failure to contact the resident when it said it would do so, but it did not consider its wider failure to follow its ASB procedure. There was no risk assessment or action plan in place and a lack of recorded engagement with the resident. The landlord’s offer was not proportionate in the circumstances. An order has been made, in line with the Services guidance on remedies for an additional amount of compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Management of the resident’s internal transfer request.

  1. The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge the distress experienced by the resident in living in proximity to ongoing ASB. The resident has said that they asked the landlord to considered him and his family for a management transfer and to be awarded extra points under the landlord’s high risk moves/management transfer policy. There is however a lack of clarity within the evidence when this was submitted and the action taken by the landlord to respond to this. His local MP highlighted his wish to be move in their enquiry to the landlord. Further, the community safety officer provided reports of the ASB and racial abuse that had affected the resident and his family.
  2. The Service is unable to make decisions that cover the allocation of a landlord’s properties or determine that an offer of accommodation should be made. The landlord’s properties can only be allocated through the application of the relevant policy and procedure.
  3. The landlord’s high risk/management transfer policy is aimed at supporting those residents at risk of serious harm. This references harassment by third parties. The landlord is to assess the level of risk with the resident and work in collaboration with other agencies, such as the police, to manage the risk. It says that it certain circumstances it may support the resident with an application for a high risk move, this includes the use of temporary accommodation. This policy links to the landlord’s commitment through its ASB policy and tenancy service standards to complete a risk assessment with the resident and make referrals for additional support. In line with this policy, it would have been right for the landlord to have met with and discussed the ASB from Ms A and obtained evidence of these and the hate incidents reported. This would have provided an opportunity for the landlord to discuss with the resident the action it planned to take to address his reported concerns and explain why it did not consider that he met the criteria for a high risk/management transfer. That it did not do so was a failure by the landlord.
  4. It explained within its stage 2 complaint response that it should have written to him to say that it would refuse his request for a high risk move. This was because of a lack of “sufficient information you were at risk to justify a management transfer for violence and harassment”. It noted that the ASB concerned activities at Ms A’s flat and it had focused its actions on resolving the ASB. It apologised that it had not been clear with the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have further acknowledged that it had not followed its procedure and explaining the resident’s right to appeal its decision. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident request.
  5. As the ASB has stopped and Ms A removed from the block, this policy may no longer apply. The landlord should meet with the resident to discuss his housing options. This is an opportunity to discuss with him the impact that the ASB and support him with a further transfer application, including an application on medical grounds.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s management of the resident’s internal transfer request.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident through the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB procedure.
    3. This is in addition to the landlord’s offer of £250 as an outcome at stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord should provide evidence that it has paid the resident a total of £500 in compensation.
    4. The landlord should arrange to meet with the resident. This is to discuss his housing options with him. He should, as appropriate, be supported in making a further application for a transfer based on his family’s current circumstance.