London Borough of Islington — case 202438826

Decision Case ID 202438826 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Islington Landlord type Local Authority Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 28 January 2026 Background The resident told the landlord she felt unsafe due to harassment and intimidation by her neighbour. The landlord opened an Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) file but the resident was unhappy with how it was managing her case. She complained that it had not done enough to protect her and her young child. She was not satisfied with its response to her complaint and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord provided reasonable redress to failures in its complaints handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial ASB report in line with its policy.

Although its later response was mostly in line with its policy, there is no evidence it carried out a risk assessment when considering practical measures it could put in place to support her. Complaint handling The landlord delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint but appropriately apologised and compensated her for this. It otherwise issued its complaint responses in line with its policy. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 25 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of her ASB reports. This must be paid directly to the resident and it must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date. This is in addition to the £50 it offered in its complaint responses which it should pay if it has not already done so.

No later than 25 February 2026 3 Case review order The landlord should carry out a risk assessment and review its action plan. It should meet or speak to the resident when doing so. No later than 25 February 2026 4 Communications order The landlord should write to the resident and explain how it has calculated her housing points and reached a decision regarding eligibility for a direct offer, taking into account its risk assessment. No later than 25 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations We recommend that the landlord reviews its policy, as set out in its Allocations Scheme, for awarding risk points. In particular, it should consider the fairness of its policy not to allow maximum risk points to be awarded for each separate source of serious risk. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 3 January 2023 The resident emailed the landlord to report an incident in which her neighbour had intimidated her on the communal stairwell of her building.

She had her newborn baby with her at the time. She said she had video footage and asked to meet with the landlord to discuss it. 6 February 2023 The landlord replied to the resident and told her the neighbour was a trespasser and that it was trying to obtain possession of the flat he was residing in. It advised her to contact the police in future if she felt unsafe. 5 May 2024 to 14 August 2024 The resident reported further incidents of verbal abuse by her neighbour. She said he regularly loitered in the communal area and intimidated her.

She explained she already felt unsafe as she was a domestic abuse victim and her neighbour’s behaviour had left her feeling afraid to leave her flat. She asked the landlord to protect her but asked it not to let the neighbour know she had reported him. She suggested it had done so following her report the previous year and this made the situation worse. The landlord corresponded with the resident about these concerns and on 14 August 2024 it spoke with her and agreed an ASB action plan.

25 August 2024 The resident reported to the police that her neighbour had pinned her against a wall, threatened her and was racially and sexually abusive. 26 August 2024 The resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. She said it had done nothing to protect her and her child and that as a single parent, she was in an “extremely vulnerable position”. She complained that despite her reports, the situation was escalating, as evidenced by the incident the day before.

28 and 29 August 2024 The landlord and resident corresponded about her concerns. The landlord said it would speak to the police about the latest incident and explained it was still trying to evict the neighbour. It asked the resident again if it could speak to him about his behaviour towards her, but she asked it not to as she was concerned of the repercussions. It offered to move her into temporary accommodation, which she declined as it would mean she would have to present as homeless.

It explained she already had the “maximum points for risk” to enable her to bid on other properties through its choice based scheme. It said it would consider making her a direct offer through its management move scheme. 3 September 2024 The resident reported through an online ASB form that her neighbour was in the communal area acting in an intimidating manner by doing kicks and punches in the air and muttering. The landlord’s ASB team attended and recorded they did not witness any ASB.

6 September 2024 The resident reported through an online ASB form that her neighbour was in the communal hallway and was intimidating her by refusing to move out of the way, staring at her and muttering. 10 September 2024 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint of 26 August 2024 and said it would reply by 25 September 2024. 25 September 2024 The landlord told the resident it needed to extend the stage 1 response deadline to 2 October 2024. 2 October 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint.

It said: It was sorry it delayed in acknowledging the complaint. It offered £25 compensation. It was satisfied it had responded to her reports about her neighbour in line with its ASB policy. It provided her with an updated copy of the ASB action plan showing it had considered possible legal interventions and had liaised with the police. It had tried to provide immediate protection by offering her temporary accommodation but she declined this. Her preference was to instead bid for rehousing through its choice based scheme.

It was also exploring whether it could make her a direct offer. The resident should stay away from the neighbour and report any further incidents to the ASB team and the police. It offered to refer her to an ASB support service. 29 October 2024 The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she accepted criminal behaviour was a matter for the police, but there were instances where she had reported non-criminal ASB and the landlord had not responded. She complained it had not taken any practical action to protect her, such as putting up “no loitering” signs or installing CCTV in the communal area.

She said it had not carried out regular welfare checks on her and that by notifying the neighbour in 2023 that she had reported him, the landlord had made the situation worse. 4 November 2024 The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s escalation request. 7 November 2024 The resident reported through an online ASB form that her neighbour was in the stairwell playing loud music and being intimidating. 15 November 2024 to 21 November 2024 The landlord and resident corresponded through a series of emails about the ASB action plan.

The landlord provided advice on where the resident should report out of hours ASB. It offered to meet with her and to refer her to an ASB support service. It explained it was liaising with the police and was still trying to evict the neighbour. It asked if the resident would be prepared to make statements as it could speed up the eviction process, but she explained she remained too afraid to do so. 29 November 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint. It said: It had obtained a possession order and was in the process of trying to evict the neighbour.

It would not install CCTV or “no loitering” signs in communal areas where there was no high community impact. The resident was the sole reporter in this case so such action was therefore not justified. It did not notify the neighbour that the resident had reported him in early 2023. It took no further action following her report. It was sorry it did not respond to the resident’s report of ASB on 7 November 2024. It offered £25 compensation. The resident should report all ASB which is unrelated to noise nuisance to the police.

It had been in regular contact with her to respond to her concerns and provide support. It could send monthly catch-up emails as a welfare check and was happy to arrange a home visit or in-person meeting at its offices, if the resident wished. It was aware the resident had been bidding on properties but was unsuccessful. It provided a table showing she had 310 housing points across 5 points categories and said she had the maximum points available for each category, which included “risk points”.

It offered her temporary accommodation but understood why she did wish to avail of this offer. It encouraged her to reconsider this as a short-term option with a view to moving again permanently through mutual exchange. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident told us that the landlord had not done enough to protect her and her child. She recently told us that the neighbour remains living next to her and his behaviour towards her has escalated to physical violence and threats to kill which the police are currently dealing with.

The main outcome she seeks is to be rehoused as she feels that even if the landlord succeeds in evicting the neighbour, her safety is still at risk as he knows where she lives. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB Finding Maladministration When the resident first reported ASB in January 2023, it took the landlord over a month to respond. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy which states it will aim to respond to all reports of ASB within 2 working days. It also failed to provide the resident with an ASB reference number which is a requirement of its policy. Within her report the resident outlined an incident in which the neighbour blocked her path on the stairwell.

She explained that on other occasions she had found his behaviour “unusual and unsettling”. She said she had video footage and asked to meet with the landlord to discuss it. The landlord failed to acknowledge this in its response a month later and made no offer to meet or speak with the resident. It simply advised her to contact the police in future if she felt unsafe. While that was correct advice, it should have also spoken with her itself to better understand her concerns.

Had it done so it could have considered if there was any practical or signposting support it could offer, pending its ongoing attempts to evict the neighbour. Its limited response to the resident’s report was not in keeping with its ASB policy and was particularly unreasonable given she had disclosed vulnerability due to having a newborn baby and “severe anxiety”. Within her formal complaint, the resident suggested the landlord spoke to the neighbour about her January 2023 ASB report without her permission and this had aggravated the situation.

The landlord said in its stage 2 response it took no further action in response to her January 2023 report and did not speak to the neighbour about it. The landlord has provided us with no records from this time other than the resident’s initial report email and its response email. This may support its position that it took no further action or it may indicate a failure to keep, or provide us with, full records. We are unable to say either way. However, had it spoken with the resident as it should have done when it received her report, it would have discussed options with her for raising, or not raising, her concerns with the neighbour.

This would have meant both parties had a clear understanding of what further action the landlord would, or would not take, and may have avoided this later dispute. When the resident reported further ASB by the neighbour in May 2024, she explained the situation had become worse and her neighbour had been verbally abusive towards her. The landlord appropriately assigned a principal tenancy officer who spoke with the resident and, in line with the ASB policy, developed an ASB action plan.

When the situation deteriorated further in August 2024 and the resident reported assault, sexual and racial abuse, the landlord appropriately liaised with the police. It offered the resident temporary accommodation in order to provide her with immediate safety. This was an appropriate response to her reports and was in keeping with its ASB policy. The resident did not want the landlord to let the neighbour know she had reported him. This was understandable, however, it limited the action the landlord could take.

For example, while it considered legal remedies such as seeking a behavioural injunction, it could only take such action if the behaviour the injunction sought to prevent was revealed to the perpetrator. It explained this to the resident and encouraged her to reconsider her position. However, she maintained she did not want it to speak with the neighbour about her reports and it respected her wishes, which was reasonable. The resident suggested the landlord could take other practical action, such as installing a CCTV camera and placing “no loitering” signs in the building.

CCTV and signage in communal areas impacts the right to privacy and the right to assemble of others within the building. As a public authority that is bound by the Human Rights Act 1998, if the landlord is considering curbing the rights of a group of people in order to protect the rights of an individual, it has to carry out a balancing exercise. The landlord explained within its stage 2 response that it made its decision not to install CCTV or signage based on whether there was a “high community impact”.

While community impact is a relevant consideration in any balancing exercise, the landlord should also consider the risk to individuals. Based on the explanation it gave in its stage 2 response, it adopted a rigid stance that it could not implement measures such as CCTV or signage as only one person had made a report. There is no evidence it factored risk into this decision and we have seen no evidence that it any stage carried out a risk assessment. We acknowledge that if the landlord had considered the risk to the resident in making its decision about CCTV and signage in 2024, this may not have changed its decision.

We also note that when matters escalated further in 2025, it reconsidered its position and has since installed CCTV. We have, however, ordered it to conduct a risk assessment of the resident’s current situation and review its ASB action plan to ensure it is managing risk appropriately. As part of her complaint the resident said she had made out of hours reports to the landlord’s ASB team and it had not responded. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it did not respond to a report on 7 November 2024.

It appropriately apologised and offered the resident £25 in line with its compensation policy. Based on its records, there also appears to be a further occasion on 6 September 2024 when the resident reported ASB and it did not respond. Although it did not acknowledge this occasion within its complaint response, it reasonably suggested that if the resident provided details of any further unanswered contact with the ASB team, it would investigate. She did not subsequently provide specific dates, meaning the landlord was unable to probe this aspect of her complaint further.

Through its correspondence and complaint responses, the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the type of ASB it could deal with. It explained that in relation to the issues the resident was reporting, the out of hours ASB team would only respond to reports of noise, not harassment or intimidation. Such matters are criminal and should be reported to the police. This is in line with its ASB policy and it was appropriate for the landlord to explain that it was not the role of the ASB team to deal with such behaviours.

The resident also queried whether the caretaker in the building could increase his presence. The landlord appropriately explained that it was not the caretaker’s role to deal with ASB. The main outcome the resident sought to her complaint, and which she continues to seek, is to be rehoused. At the date of writing this report, the neighbour remains living next to the resident and the landlord’s case to evict him remains ongoing. However, the resident told us that even if the landlord were to succeed in evicting him, she would remain concerned for her safety as he knows where she lives.

In its complaint responses the landlord outlined the main options the resident had for moving which were: That she moved into temporary accommodation. It acknowledged her reasons for declining this suggestion and reasonably encouraged her to reconsider it as it would address her immediate safety concerns. That it would consider making her a direct rehousing offer through its management move scheme. It subsequently told her she was not eligible for this as she had been successful in bidding in properties but turned them down due to suitability.

This was in line with its policy. It recently advised us recently the position remains the same. That she could continue to bid for properties through its choice based lettings scheme. We are satisfied that the landlord provided appropriate advice and support to the resident in relation to her moving options. In relation to the choice based scheme, it explained in its stage 2 response that it had already awarded her the maximum amount of points it could for “risk”. The resident queried this numerous times and remains unhappy with the explanation the landlord provided.

She had previously been awarded points due to being a domestic abuse victim but did not understand why her points did not increase once she reported she was being harassed by her neighbour. We therefore queried this further with the landlord and asked it to provide an explanation of the points it had awarded her. The landlord has clarified that the resident has 180 risk related points as follows: 30 points due to her being a domestic violence victim. 150 for violence and harassment.

The landlord’s allocations policy explains that 30 points may be awarded to residents fleeing domestic violence. The landlord suggested in its stage 2 response that it awarded the 150 points under the “management transfer” category of its allocations policy. This enables the landlord to award up to 150 points to residents for a range of reasons. This includes circumstances where a resident is at risk of serious harm by a third party, or where there are long running neighbour disputes and a move could resolve the issues.

The landlord has since clarified that the 150 points were awarded under the “welfare” category of its policy. This enables it to award up to 150 points to residents “experiencing a threat of violence, abuse or harassment”. Regardless of whether the landlord awarded the 150 points under the management transfer or welfare categories, it is only able to award 150 points for one or the other. Its allocations policy states that 150 points for violence and harassment under the welfare category cannot be awarded to residents who have received 150 management transfer points.

It also states that only one award of 150 points can be made per household. In other words, even though the resident felt at risk from 2 unconnected sources (her former partner and her neighbour), the policy prevents the landlord from awarding maximum risk points for each separate source. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord’s position that it has awarded the resident the maximum points for risk is in line with its allocations policy. However, we have recommended that it reviews its policy and considers the fairness of its stance in cases where there is more than one source of serious risk.

Complaint The landlord’s handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress In line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days. It took 10 working days to do so. It appropriately apologised for this in its stage 1 response and offered the resident £25 compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy which states it will pay £25 compensation for each month of a complaint handling delay.

We are satisfied there were no other failures by the landlord to comply with timescales. Once it acknowledged the complaint, it should have issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. However, it told the resident on the deadline date that its investigation was taking longer than it expected and it was extending the response date by a week. It responded by the new deadline. This was in keeping with the extension provisions in its policy and the Code.

It also acknowledged the escalation request and issued its stage 2 response within the correct policy and Code timeframes. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The resident complained that she made numerous reports to the landlord’s out of hours ASB team during 2024 but it did not respond. We have only seen records of 3 reports she made during 2024. We are unable to verify either way whether this reflects all her out of hours reports or whether records were missing, but based on the resident’s account the latter is true.

We remind the landlord of the importance of ensuring its ASB team keeps clear records of all reports received and that this information is readily available to its housing and tenancy management teams.