London Borough of Islington (202413663)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413663

Islington Council

30 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. The resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s decking, noise disturbance, and damage to her property.
2. The resident’s privacy concerns.
3. The resident’s dissatisfaction with it allowing her neighbour to access its van.
4. Communication around previous offers of compensation.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
The resident has previously referred a complaint relating to Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) between February 2023 and August 2023 to this Service (reference number 202202799). The Ombudsman found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB and ordered compensation along with a review of the landlord’s ASB policies.
Following the Ombudsman’s determination, the resident and the landlord had a meeting about next steps on 6 February 2024. It is not evident that the landlord followed up this meeting with an action plan, and do the resident raised a formal complaint on 6 June 2024. The resident told the landlord she had been experiencing issues since 2018. She wanted the landlord to provide an action plan that took into consideration our previous determination.
On 16 June 2024 the resident told the landlord she had attached evidence of her neighbour’s decking damaging her property and the garden fence. The resident said there was an invasion of privacy due to the decking. The resident also said the decking should not have been built or given permission to in 2021. She chased the landlord about this on 3 July 2024.
On 12 July 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord provided her with an action plan and said:
1. It was sorry for meeting cancellations after 6 February 2024. It recognised its service fell short of its standards. It was awarding the resident £100 for the time and trouble expended due to this.
2. In noted that the resident had declined mediation with the neighbour.
3. The noise identified was normal living noise and there was no evidence of ASB. It would provide a noise app and work closely with the neighbours to address noise disruption issues.
4. It would survey the resident’s property and her neighbour’s property. This would include the resident’s concerns of the decking and noise. It had already reviewed video evidence provided by her and concluded that no action was required against her neighbour.
5. It had ensured carpeting with acoustic underlay was installed in the neighbour’s property.
6. It provided its video doorbell policy to the resident.
7. It acknowledged her report that her neighbour was accessing its contractor’s van.
8. It noted that the Ombudsman had ordered £1,100 in compensation to the resident.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked for it be escalated on 18 July 2024. The resident said:
1. The neighbour’s decking damaged her property and invaded her privacy.
2. The neighbour’s furniture is dragging and stomping can be heard.
3. The response at stage 1 did not address her concerns that her neighbour was being allowed to climb into the landlord’s van.
4. That it was irrelevant to include compensation previously awarded by the Ombudsman.
On 16 August 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. It acknowledged that there were communication failings and that the stage 1 complaint response did not provide detail about her concerns to do with moving furniture making noise. The resident had been inconvenienced by meeting cancellations and had spent time and trouble chasing the landlord. It awarded £150 in recognition of this.
2. Its complaint response at stage 1 did not answer all of the resident’s concerns. There were also delays with issuing its stage 1 complaint response. It awarded £25 for this.
3. It committed to surveying the resident’s property and her neighbour’s property in late August 2024 or early September 2024. It should have completed this earlier and was sorry for providing miscommunication around this. The survey would inspect noise, damage to her property, and the neighbour’s decking.
4. It reiterated that acoustic underlay was installed in the neighbour’s property in May 2024 to mitigate noise transmission.
5. In noted that the soft closure on the neighbour’s door that had been previously installed is not mandatory. It could not enforce this but has spoken to the neighbours about it and would do so again during in its survey.
6. In noted that the resident had referred to past determinations by this Service and she asked for a full report of the action plan from 6 February 2024. Therefore, it had considered it appropriate to confirm the compensation award made by us.
7. It had logged her concern about her neighbour being given unauthorised access by staff into its van. It found no fault in the way this was handled and could not share further due to potential breach of General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
8. The resident was responsible for the maintenance of her fence.
9. In terms of privacy, it is not uncommon for domestic properties to overlook a neighbour. Where there is an element of overlook, those affected should take reasonable steps to maintain their privacy, such as closing their blinds or curtains.
The landlord surveyed the resident’s property on 4 September 2024. The landlord did not identify any external damage. The landlord raised internal decorative works for the resident. The landlord also surveyed the neighbour’s property on 9 September 2024 and found no structural issues, or noise.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and confirmed that she wanted us to investigate her concerns on 25 February 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman will not reinvestigate matters which it has already considered.
The resident complained to the landlord previously in 2022 and 2023 about her neighbour’s decking, damage to her property, and noise disturbance. Although we appreciate the resident’s continued dissatisfaction, these issues from this period were already considered as part of our previous determination referred to above. As such, while we appreciate the resident’s continued dissatisfaction, the issues from this period will not form part of this investigation.
This investigation will look at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns raised in her complaint in June 2024 until she exhausted its internal complaints procedure on 16 August 2024. Any commitments it made in its final response will also be commented on.
While we are aware the resident has made other complaints. These complaints were also referred to us at different stages. These complaints relate to different time periods and will be treated separately as the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to respond before our involvement.
Further, it is not our role to establish whether the noise disturbance reported by the resident has taken place or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance was in line with its legal and policy obligations. Including whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
During the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident said the landlord should not have given the neighbour permission to build the decking. The landlord’s planning department is responsible for making decisions regarding planning permission. This action is carried out in the performance of its statutory planning functions, and not as a landlord. We can only look at the actions or inactions of the landlord as a housing provider. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint is not within the scope of this investigation. Should the resident want this element of the complaint potentially investigated, she could make contact with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, if she has not already done so.

Neighbour’s decking, noise disturbance, and damage to property

Under the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for maintaining her garden. The landlord can re-possess its properties if a resident has broken the tenancy conditions.
The landlord’s Housing Repairs and Maintenance Policy states it aims to complete routine repairs in 20 working days. Urgent repairs are to be made safe within 24 hours.
The evidence shows the resident expected the landlord to provide a plan of action and subsequent appointments from 6 February 2024. This did not happen until after the resident complained on 6 June 2024. It would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to have proactively communicated its next steps with the resident. By not managing her expectations, she experienced 4 months without clear communication or action by the landlord. This was unreasonable and caused the resident inconvenience. It was appropriate, therefore, that on 12 July 2024 the landlord provided the action plan to the resident and acknowledged its communication failings.
Further, the evidence shows that on 6 February 2024 the landlord committed to inspecting both the resident’s and neighbour’s garden, including the decking. In the landlord’s final response, it acknowledged miscommunication provided by it at stage 1. Ultimately, the landlord committed to inspecting the properties again in September 2024. The landlord should have surveyed the properties by 5 March 2024, in accordance with its 20-working day timescale in its policy. The resident’s property was surveyed on 4 September 2024 and the neighbours on 9 September 2024. This meant the landlord was 6 months overdue inspecting the properties. This was not appropriate, and it is clear the resident spent time and trouble chasing the landlord.
The inspection of the resident’s property found no external works were required, the garden and fence were in good condition. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on professional opinion of its surveyors. The landlord also clearly advised the resident in its final response that the resident was responsible for the maintenance of her fence. Therefore, while there was a significant delay to its inspection, it was reasonable for the landlord to not take further action with the neighbour’s decking, the resident’s fence, and garden.
Additionally, in the landlord’s final response it told the resident that from the records it held, there was no evidence her neighbour had breached their tenancy. Therefore, it would not take enforcement action against them. This was in line with its policy, and it was appropriate that the landlord explained its position to the resident at that stage.
After the inspection of 4 September 2024, the landlord did raise decorative works to the resident’s bathroom ceiling and living room ceiling. Despite not identifying a leak from either the resident’s property or the neighbour’s property, this was arranged with her for 16 September 2024. This was appropriate and in line with its policy timescales. It also demonstrated it was resolution focused.
The landlord has not provided us with a neighbourhood management policy. However, the landlord’s website states that everyday living noises such as moving furniture, doors opening and closing, people talking, and children moving around is not ASB and therefore not something it would investigate.
It is evident that the landlord investigated the video evidence provided by the resident. In its stage 1 response, the landlord also advised the resident that in May 2024 it had installed an acoustic underlay in her neighbour’s property. The landlord said this was to minimise sound transmission. It also offered the use of a noise app and to install noise monitoring equipment to provide additional evidence. Finally, it offered mediation. These steps amounted to an appropriate investigation of the resident’s concerns, in line with its ASB policy and with best practice. Given its findings, it was also reasonable that it did not pursue any enforcement action against the neighbour.
The landlord acknowledged in its final response that its stage 1 response did not consider movement of furniture, for which it apologised. It was also fair for the landlord to arrange an inspection to assess the structure and noise level due to movement of furniture from the neighbour’s property. This showed that it was attempting to resolve the issue. This was reasonable action by the landlord.
The landlord found no structural defects when it surveyed the neighbour’s property on 9 September 2024. It had spoken to the neighbour about the resident’s dissatisfaction with removal of their soft door closure. It had previously advised the resident in its final response that the soft door closure was not an enforceable feature of the tenancy. However, in speaking to the neighbours about these concerns, it showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. It also tested for noise and did not consider any further action was required, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
Under our Guidance on Remedies, consideration is given for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to a resident by service failures. The guidance also considers the length of time the resident experienced detriment. In the landlord’s final response, it offered the resident £150. The landlord attributed this to its failings with its communication, delays inspecting the properties, and cancellation of meetings with the resident. The resident experienced 6 months of detriment from 6 February 2024. While there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, the amount offered is in line with our guidance and the length of time she experienced issues.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged its failings with its communication, delays inspecting the properties, and cancellation of meetings with the resident. It is clear the landlord attempted to put things right by apologising for its errors and with its offer of £150 compensation. The compensation offer considered the resident’s time and trouble, as well as inconvenience. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of her neighbour’s decking, noise disturbance, and damage to her property. The finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that the financial remedy offered is paid to the resident, if not already done so.

Privacy concerns

The resident told the landlord she felt the neighbour’s decking was infringing her privacy and her neighbours could see into her bedroom. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for a landlord to conduct a proportionate investigation and provide its position accordingly.
As noted above, the decision to provide planning permission to the neighbour is outside of the scope of this investigation. It is evident in the landlord’s final response that it explained its position to the resident about her privacy concerns. It also provided appropriate advice about closing her blinds or curtains. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, we understand the resident remains concerned about her level of privacy. A recommendation has been made due to this. The landlord should contact the resident and discuss ways she can improve the level of privacy in her home. This may include frosted glass, or privacy blinds.
Overall, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s privacy concerns.

Neighbour’s access to landlord’s van

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged the resident had reported dissatisfaction that her neighbour accessed its staff’s van. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for a landlord to carry out a proportionate investigation and provide its position to the resident. However, in this case, the landlord failed to demonstrate it did so. This would have been frustrating for the resident.
The landlord recognised this omission in its stage 2 complaint response of 16 August 2024, for which it apologised. It explained that it had raised this with the relevant team for further inspection and noted it could not provide further details due to its GDPR responsibilities. This response was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it had understood the resident’s concerns and was taking relevant action.
As the landlord had taken reasonable steps and taken action in line with what we would expect, we have found no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s dissatisfaction with it allowing her neighbour to access its van.

Communication around previous compensation

When the resident escalated her complaint, she was dissatisfied that the landlord mentioned previous compensation awarded by us in its stage 1 complaint response.
In its final response, the landlord noted that the resident had asked for the action plan. We have seen evidence that the action plan documented previous communication offered. As such, the landlord’s inclusion of this point in its formal response was reasonable. We have not identified any service failings with the landlord’s reference to past compensation in its action plan.
As the landlord’s communication about previous compensation was clear, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication around previous compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Corporate Complaints Policy states that at stage 1 it will acknowledge complaints in 5-working days. The landlord would then respond in 10-working days. The policy also states the landlord will acknowledge complaint escalations in 5-working days and respond in 20-working days.
The resident first submitted her complaint on 6 June 2024. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint by 13 June 2024. It did not do so, which was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says extensions can be made. Specifically:
1. At stage 1 landlords must decide then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10–working days without good reason, and the reasons must be clearly explained to the resident.
2. At stage 2 any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and be clearly explained to the resident.
The landlord did not send its stage 1 complaint response to the resident until 12 July 2024. Had the landlord sent the complaint acknowledgement appropriately, in accordance with its policy timescales it should have responded by 27 June 2024. This meant the stage 1 complaint response was 11-working days overdue. There is also no evidence it explained to the resident that it was extending the complaint. Its timeliness to respond at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure was inappropriate. The resident experienced time and trouble chasing the landlord as evidence in her communication of 3 July 2024.
The Code also states a full record must be kept of the complaint, and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint, and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties, and any relevant supporting documentation such as reports or surveys.
The landlord has not provided us evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation either. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s inability to provide these documents demonstrates that its not adhering to the Code, which is inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent in 21-working days after the resident complaint escalation of 18 July 2024. This would have been inside the timescales set had the landlord evidenced it acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation. The landlord made no reference in its final response to acknowledging the resident’s escalation either. Therefore, we conclude its timeliness at stage 2 was not in line with its policy.
In the landlord’s final response, it acknowledged that it had not acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1. The landlord awarded £25 in recognition of the delays to respond. Further, the landlord identified that it did not respond to all the concerns raised by the resident in her subsequent communications in June 2024. While this went some way in putting things right, acknowledgement errors were still being repeated and not recognised by the landlord in its final response.
Ultimately, the £25 offered was not proportionate to the resident’s complaint journey. The resident experienced an 11-working day delay at stage 1 and no acknowledgement. There is no evidence the resident’s complaint escalation was acknowledged by the landlord and its stage 2 response was in line with its policy. The landlord’s poor records and communication hampered the resident’ complaint journey. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made to increase the compensation offered to £100. This reflects the above complaint handling failings, including the time and trouble expended by the resident. This amount is also reflective of our Guidance on Remedies for shorter duration service failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the resident’s concerns of her neighbour’s decking, noise disturbance, and damage to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s privacy concerns.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s dissatisfaction with it allowing her neighbour to access its van.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communication around previous compensation.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £100 for its complaint handling failings and time and trouble caused to the resident. This amount replaces the £25 offered in the landlord’s final response of 16 August 2024.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order to us.

Recommendations

If it has not done so, the landlord is recommended to re-offer the £150 in compensation to the resident as stated in its final response for its handling of the neighbour’s decking, noise disturbance, and damage to the resident’s property.
As above, the landlord is recommended to contact the resident and discuss any options which could improve the level of privacy in her home. This may include frosted glass, or privacy blinds.