Islington Council (202316141)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316141

Islington Council

18 March 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise.
2. Request for property improvements.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 9 April 2014. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the sixth floor. The landlord has not confirmed if the resident has any vulnerabilities.
Between March to May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report issues with noise from her neighbour’s property. The landlord issued a warning letter to her neighbour on 24 April.
Having received complaints from the resident’s neighbour about her own conduct it also issued the resident with a warning letter on 24 April 2023.
During the period in question the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service on 3 occasions. They attended but there was no evidence for them to take further action for breach of tenancy. The landlord signposted the resident to the noise app to record evidence of noise nuisance.
On 19 May 2023 the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint, as follows:
1. She wished to report noise from her neighbour and the quality of the property. Her neighbour was noisy almost every day and night. Their children were running, banging and throwing things. They were also cleaning after 9.00pm. She found it difficult to sleep through the constant noise which also disturbed her son.
2. She received a written warning from the landlord because she had made reports about her neighbour online. When she replied on 2 May the landlord did not respond.
3. The property was 65 years old but no improvements had been done. There was no insulation in the walls or ceilings.
4. There was no privacy and residents could all hear each other, including when they used the toilet and while having conversations.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2023, the main points being:
1. It set out events regarding the resident’s reports of noise.
2. The out of hours team had attended 3 times but there were no grounds for further action.
3. It had issued a first warning letter to the resident’s neighbour however, it noted that cleaning after 9.00pm was not a breach of tenancy so it was unable to take further action.
4. It encouraged the resident to continue to report antisocial behaviour (ASB) while it was happening to be able to try to evidence the problem. It signposted her to the noise app.
5. It had tried to contact her following her phone calls on 12 May after she received her warning letter. Where it was not able to reach her it left voicemails.
6. Her warning was issued because her neighbour had made a report about her and not because of the reports she had made about her neighbour. Its purpose was not to prejudge guilt but to notify the resident that a report had been made. It sent out notices when it received a report and all residents were entitled to report ASB as she had done herself.
7. Living where she did, in densely populated housing, she may experience more day to day noise then others living elsewhere. The block was last assessed in 2015 and it was next due to see if any capital investment was required in 2024-25.
8. It did not uphold the complaint.
On 15 August 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to set out her ongoing dissatisfaction, as follows:
1. She set out details of her noise reports and her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s inaction.
2. When she contacted the out of hours team they arrived 30 minutes later and had an “arrogant attitude.” She said they lacked empathy and would not let her talk. Noise was not usually happening when they arrived.
3. She struggled to get in contact with the housing team. For example she had called on 31 July and was told housing would call back.
4. The landlord was not reviewing her noise app recordings.
5. The property was not in good condition, the inside was “terrible.” It had high energy consumption and was not eco-friendly. She requested a grant to make improvements.
On 7 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being:
1. In response to the resident’s reports of noise it issued her neighbour with a written warning.
2. The resident contacted the out of hours team on 6 May at 5.14pm. This was investigated but no action was required.
3. The resident called on 31 July at 12.49pm to report children running up and down.
4. It apologised for the delay in it contacting the resident which was due to staff absence. It assured her the situation was being monitored and apologised if this had not been communicated to her. It offered £50 for the delay.
5. It had not received any further reports from the resident.
6. It was unaware that the neighbour had wooden floors. It said it would arrange to visit to inspect and remind them of their obligations.
7. In understood the resident’s concerns about its out of hours service and signposted her again to the noise app.
8. It set out the circumstances in which it could act for breach of tenancy.
9. It referred to the resident to its stage 1 response with regards to the capital investment assessment. It also confirmed there were no grants given to residents for sound insulation to purpose built council flats. However, it signposted the resident to wall insulation grants.
10. It did not uphold the complaint.
On 17 October 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman to request that we investigate her complaint. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not enforced the tenancy agreement. She also felt the landlord should take action to improve the quality of the floor and renovate the building. The complaint became one we could investigate on 9 May 2024.

Events post internal complaints process.

In its email to us dated 14 March 2025 the landlord confirmed that an external survey of the block had been carried out and works scheduled for 2028-29. Internal surveys had also been carried out with a kitchen and bathroom survey due pending a response from the resident.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior of its properties, as well as to installations such as boilers, pipes and electrics.
The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Policy says:
1. Normal living noise including children playing and the use of vacuum cleaners and washing machines does not constitute ASB.
2. It requires all residents above ground floor to use carpets and not laminate or wooden flooring.
3. It will give residents access to noise recording tools if noise problems persist.
Its Conditions of Tenancy state that residents must not install laminate, wooden, tiled or other similar flooring.
Its Compensation Guidance says it will consider compensating residents for time and trouble in pursuing a complaint. It will also consider distress caused to the resident by the complaint as part of its complaint resolution process.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise.

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 7 June 2023 confirmed that on 6 March it contacted the resident to discuss her reports of noise caused by her neighbour. It advised the resident to make reports to its out of hours team and in the meantime it would contact her neighbour. The letter confirms that it appropriately contacted the neighbour on 7 March. However, we have not seen a file note of the discussion which is a record keeping failure.
On 24 April 2023 the landlord issued a written warning to the resident’s neighbour regarding reports of noise nuisance late at night. It is unclear what caused the landlord to issue the warning because it has not provided evidence of its correspondence with the resident which is inappropriate.
The landlord’s file note of 24 April 2023 sets out that the resident’s neighbour attended its offices to report that she was causing nuisance. It wrote to the resident that day to warn her that it had received a complaint that she was “harassing her neighbours by continuously knocking on their door, shouting profanities” and “using threatening behaviour” towards them. It set out the resident’s obligations under the terms of her tenancy agreement.
In her stage 1 complaint of 19 May 2023 the resident reported that she had received a warning from the landlord because she had reported her neighbour for causing noise nuisance. The landlord’s reasons for issuing the warning were clearly set out in the letter. Furthermore, its stage 1 complaint response of 7 June appropriately clarified the circumstances of the written warning.
In her stage 1 complaint of 19 May 2023 the resident said she had tried to contact the landlord on 2 and 12 May to discuss the matter but did not receive a response. In its complaint response of 7 June it said it had tried to contact her and had left voicemails when it was unable to reach her. While its response was reasonable, it is noted that the landlord has not provided ‘live’ file notes of its contact with the resident which is inappropriate.
The resident set out the nature of her noise complaints and the impact it had on her and her son. The landlord’s complaint response broadly set out its out of hours service response. However, it failed to provide details such as when reports were made, when it attended and what it found. The landlord has been unable to provide us with live file notes from the out of hours service. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude this was the reason for the brevity of its response which was inappropriate.
Its response advised that the neighbour cleaning after 9.00pm was not considered to be ASB. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
It signposted the resident to use the noise app to capture the noise nuisance. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. However, it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the impact the situation was having on her and her son. Its response lacked empathy and there is no evidence that it considered whether it could provide any other form of support or advice to support the resident. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
On 24 June 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that she had submitted recordings via the noise app but it had not listened to them. She was frustrated that no one had spoken to her either face to face, virtually or over the phone. Furthermore, she asserted that it would be helpful if the landlord could witness the noise itself. She advised that the installation of a wooden floor in the property above was making the sound transference worse.
The landlord failed to respond which was inappropriate, demonstrating a lack of a customer centric approach. Furthermore, the resident was caused distress and inconvenience because she wrote to the landlord again on 15 August 2023 to raise a further complaint.
In her letter to the landlord the resident set out her ongoing concerns about its out of hours service. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 7 September 2023 failed again to provide a meaningful response on this point. Furthermore, it signposted the resident to the noise app without addressing her concerns about its inaction regarding recordings she had already submitted. This was inappropriate, further eroding the landlord/resident relationship.
It acknowledged that it had delayed in contacting her following her call of 31 July for which it offered £50 compensation.
In its response it said it was not aware that the neighbour above had installed laminate flooring. Its intention to inspect was appropriate. However, its response was inaccurate because the resident had mentioned it almost 2 months earlier in her letter to the landlord of 24 June 2023.
In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on live documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
On 26 February 2025 we made a request for further information including live file notes relating to the resident’s reports of noise including but not limited to telephone calls, emails, visits by the out of hours team. In its reply dated 14 March the landlord confirmed that it was unable to locate any correspondence with the resident regarding noise nuisance. This is a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.
Following our special investigation into the landlord on 24 October 2023 the landlord has put in place procedures to improve its record keeping. This is to ensure that records are complete, accurate and stored in the correct place. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make a further order on this matter.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for property improvements.

Landlords have a legal obligation to carry out repairs to maintain their properties. While it may be desirable, they are not required to carry out improvements such as sound proofing and insulation works.
In her stage 1 complaint of 19 May 2023 the resident raised concerns about the level of sound transference in the block. The landlord’s response dated 7 June was appropriate.
In her letter to the landlord dated 15 August 2023 the resident set out her concerns regarding the energy efficiency of the property. The landlord’s response dated 7 September was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for property improvements.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £150 for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of noise. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.
3. Contact the resident to establish if the noise is ongoing and if so write to her to set out its action plan. If this includes use of the noise app the landlord should satisfy itself and the resident that any recordings will be captured and reviewed as part of the case.
4. If it has not already done so, it should inspect the flooring in the property above. It should write to the resident to confirm the result of its inspection and its response.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.