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

London Borough of Islington (202331959)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331959

Islington Council

18 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. She has lived at the property, which is a ground floor flat since 2008.
  2. The resident made an Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) report to the landlord on 30 March 2023. Her report related to ongoing noise disturbance from the upstairs flat. She said this had been ongoing since around July 2022.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 April 2023 about the ongoing noise disturbance. She said she had spoken to her neighbour about the noise from slamming doors and their wooding flooring, but this had not resolved the issue.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 12 May 2023. It said it would look into arranging mediation to find a solution to the issue. It also said it would inspect the neighbour’s flooring. It requested that she continue to document and report any further occurrences of noise nuisance.
  5. The resident reported further incidents of noise nuisance during the period June 2023 to October 2023. The landlord investigated her reports and advised her on 13 October 2023 that it could take no further action. It explained that the noise disturbance was caused by everyday living noise and there was no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance. The resident requested her complaint escalated on 17 October 2023. She said she was unhappy with the ongoing noise and that it had not inspected the neighbour flooring. The landlord treated this as a new complaint due to the time passed since its previous stage 1 response.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 November 2023. It said that its investigations had found the noise to be caused by day to day living. It said it had inspected the floor, and it was appropriate. It explained that the neighbour had provided evidence showing they had installed sound proofing to reduce noise transference. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 November 2023. She said the landlord had not checked the noise levels in her flat.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 December 2023. It said it had listened to the recording she had previously provided but considered these were day to day sounds and not excessive. It explained it was satisfied from its site visit and the evidence provided that her neighbour had installed appropriate soundproofing, and the sound tests done in both flats on 30 November 2023 had found no excessive noise. It explained further steps it would take to address the resident’s concerns and offered compensation of £75 for the delay in completing the sound test.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint to us, the resident has raised new and ongoing issues she has with ASB and noise nuisance. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given an opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the Service’s involvement. Any new or ongoing issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to her new complaint, she can ask the Ombudsman to investigate.
  2. Accordingly, this investigation centres on the events that took place between March 2023 and 8 December 2023.
  3. The resident requested as part of the resolution to her complaint that the landlord rehouse her and her son. The Ombudsman will not order a landlord to rehouse a resident. Nonetheless, the resident should discuss with the landlord the options she has for moving and how it may be able to support her in doing so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that sometimes neighbours behave in a way which one party feels is unacceptable, but which does not constitute ASB. It states that services such as mediation and managing the tenants’ expectations are the best way to resolve some problems. It provides examples of normal living noises, including the use of cleaning appliances and children playing.
  2. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has committed ASB but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own internal policies and industry practice.
  3. The landlord in its stage 1 complaint response in May 2023 stated it would explore the option of mediation and inspecting the neighbours flooring. It also said it would speak to the neighbour about noise disturbance and investigate further reports.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord attempted to arrange mediation with the neighbour. It also attended their property to inspect the flooring and to discuss the resident’s reports. The resident reported further incidents of noise disturbance, which the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate. For example, following reports on 22 September 2023 and 30 October 2023, it completed site visits the same day to try to witness the disturbance. It also listened to recordings the resident provided and completed sound tests in both properties on 30 November 2023. These were all appropriate and reasonable steps to take, in line with the landlord’s policies and basic good practice.
  5. The landlord’s investigations concluded the resident’s reports of noise disturbance were caused by everyday living noises, which it did not consider excessive. It also concluded the flooring in the neighbour’s property was satisfactory following its inspection and after reviewing evidence the neighbour had installed sound proofing within the floor. Its sound test identified no noise nuisance, and it explained the outcome of its investigations in its complaint responses. Its records show that its conclusion was supported by its investigation into the reports.
  6. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay arranging and completing a sound test. It apologised, and offered compensation of £75 for the inconvenience the delay had caused. These remedies were in line with the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The level of compensation was proportionate to the scale of the delay when considered against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  7. In its final complaint response, the landlord agreed to arrange a noise recorder to record over a set period of time. However, it said there could be a long wait due to limited availability of the machine and high demand. It also said that it would arrange to install a door closer to the main front door and speak to the neighbour to see if their doors required closers.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord installed a noise recorder at the resident’s property between 13 May and 20 May 2024. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord installed a door closer on the main front door or that it discussed this with the neighbour as agreed. It is a failing that the landlord has not demonstrated it took this action promised in its final response, and it undermined its otherwise sound handling of the resident’s reports.
  9. Overall, the landlord has acted in line with its ASB policy. It investigated the resident’s reports and discussed them with the neighbour. It made appropriate and relevant attempts to obtain evidence of noise nuisance. It provided the outcome of its investigations to the resident, along with an explanation as to why it did not consider the noise disturbance to be unreasonable. The landlord acknowledged a delay in it completing a sound test and offered compensation of £75. This would have been a reasonable resolution to the complaint. However, no evidence has been provided showing the landlord followed up on its promise to install door closers. That omission meant the complaint was left not fully resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £150. This is comprised of:
    1. £75 already offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
    2. £75 for the failure identified in this report.
  2. Within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must confirm it has inspected and installed the door closer on the main front door and discussed door closers on the neighbour’s doors, as it said it would. If it has decided on a different course of action, it must explain why and how it reached that decision.
  3. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service within their respective deadlines.