London Borough of Islington — case 202412905

Decision Case ID 202412905 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Islington Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 13 February 2026 Background A Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) managed the resident’s property on the landlord’s behalf. The resident had mental health conditions at the time of his complaint which he felt were impacted by the landlord’s handling of his reports. He raised concerns about the condition of the property when it was let to him, how the subsequent repairs were then handled, the conduct of a TMO staff member when raising the issues, and his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

He wanted a move as a resolution to his complaint. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The condition of the property when it was let and repairs that followed. Concerns about staff conduct. Reports of ASB. The complaint. Our decision (determination) We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of: The condition of the property when it was let and repairs that followed. Concerns about staff conduct. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of: Reports of ASB.

The complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The condition of the property when it was let and repairs that followed The landlord and TMO did not show any evidence of checks before letting the property and it did not always follow its repairs policy. Although it recognised some failings, it did not identify them all. Staff conduct A reasonable investigation was carried out in most areas, but one concern was not fully considered.

Therefore, part of the response appeared dismissive and did not show learning. ASB The landlord did not handle the ASB reports in line with its policy. This led to avoidable delays and likely caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. The complaint The landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s earlier complaint which caused further delays in reaching a resolution. It also did not address all the issues raised which was not 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 13 March 2026 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,100 made up as follows: £150 it previously offered for its failures related to the condition of the property and repairs. £100 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the additional failures related to the condition of the property and repairs.

£100 it previously offered for its failures related to staff conduct. £100 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the additional concerns identified in relation to staff conduct. £500 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the ASB. £150 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 13 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should review its voids process and lettable standard. If it identifies any changes required, it should ensure they are also communicated to the TMO. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 27 June 2024 The resident raised a complaint about the issues he faced upon moving into the property and the subsequent repairs.

He also complained about a specific officer within the TMO and felt they were unprofessional and obstructive. He said this caused him unnecessary stress, provoked ASB, and caused his mental health to suffer. He said the ASB was unresolved and he would like a management transfer. 10 July 2024 The TMO provided its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint around communication to him and acknowledged it could have done more to progress the repairs. There were complaints which it did not uphold and it provided the reasons why.

It clarified that it was not responsible for the tenancy or ASB issues and he should direct those to the landlord. It offered £100 in recognition of its failures and the resident’s distress. 9 August 2024 The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said he did not understand some of the explanations given and provided his response to each one. He felt the TMO was blaming the landlord for repairs which it should have completed when the property was vacant. He also did not consider the compensation sufficient for the impact caused to him.

He said he wanted support with a management transfer. 6 September 2024 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said the stage 1 response was thorough and addressed each issue, it did not uphold the complaint. Although, it did agree the compensation was not reflective of the inconvenience suffered by the resident and increased it to £250. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident moved to a new home in March 2025. He is now seeking an apology and further compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him.

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 condition of the property upon letting and the subsequent repairs. Finding Service failure The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete emergency repairs in 2 hours, urgent repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 20 working days.

In his formal complaint, the resident said upon collecting the keys he was informed the balcony door was broken and there was no electricity. He said the TMO failed to inform him that there was also no heating, a broken kitchen window, mould under the bathtub, no plumbing for a washing machine, a broken intercom, and frosted balcony windows. He said all the jobs took months to repair, despite being pre-existing prior to moving in. We have not been provided with a voids policy or procedure for either the TMO or the landlord.

However, it would be reasonable to assume there would be a suitable void inspection process and management of identified repairs post void. The landlord’s repairs policy states that for the first 8 weeks after a tenant has moved into their new home its voids team will retain responsibility for completing any outstanding works or repairs. The TMO and the landlord have not disputed that there were failures in the handling of the condition of the property upon letting and the subsequent repairs.

Where there are admitted failings by the landlord, our role is to assess whether the landlord’s handling of the matter was in line with its policies and procedures. We also consider our own dispute resolution principles which are be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. For fairness and clarity, we will consider each issue raised by the resident individually. Balcony doors The landlord’s repairs policy is silent on the issue of balcony doors, not clarifying whether an unlockable balcony door should be treated as an emergency in the same way as a front entrance door.

Regardless, the onus is on the landlord to consider how best to respond to repairs, carrying out an assessment of safety and security risks as necessary. In its stage 1 response, the TMO said it advised the resident upon viewing the property that the balcony door was not locking and it had been reported to the landlord’s repairs service. It said the property had “addition windows on the balcony” which provided additional security. It said once the tenancy agreement was signed, the repairs became the responsibility of the landlord.

The resident signed the tenancy agreement on 23 March 2023. He contacted the landlord on 1 April 2023 to say he had been contacting the TMO and landlord since moving in as he could not open the balcony door. While we have not seen evidence of the resident reporting the issues prior to 1 April 2023, the TMO has not disputed that it was already aware of it prior to the resident moving in. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to see it raising the repair either with its own contractor or the landlord.

A repair was not raised with the landlord until after the resident complained which was not appropriate. The landlord’s repair records show that a repair to the balcony door lock was raised on 2 April 2023 and attended the same day. The contractor temporarily secured the door and ordered a new locking mechanism. An appointment for 3 April 2023 did not go ahead because another operative was required. A further appointment was set for 15 April 2023, but the resident reported that no one attended.

On that day, he also stated the door would not close and was letting in cold air. The repair was eventually completed on 20 April 2023. The response to the resident’s reports was not appropriate. The reference to “addition windows” did not clearly explain how security was maintained. Although the contractor noted on 2 April that the door was temporarily secured, the resident later confirmed it still would not close. Given this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to attend within 24 hours to ensure the door was safe and secure.

The landlord and TMO upheld the complaint and offered compensation for the delay and impact caused. However, it did not acknowledge the failings at the time of letting the property. In its stage 1 response, the TMO said it offered to remove the frosted glass on the balcony doors prior to the resident moving in and it said the resident refused the offer. We have not seen evidence of this correspondence. However, the resident did not dispute this or escalate the issue to stage 2.

Therefore, we have not identified any failing in the landlord’s handling of the frosted glass. Kitchen window The TMO accepted it missed the broken window lock during the void works/inspections, it said it was repaired once reported. The records show the resident first reported that his windows could not open on 1 April 2023. A repair to overhaul the windows was raised on 24 April 2023 and completed on 2 May 2023. While it is unclear why there was a delay in raising the repair following the resident’s report, it was appropriate that the landlord still completed the repairs in line with its timescales for routine repairs.

The TMO and landlord should reflect on why this was missed during the void period and what changes could be made to its current practices and record keeping. Electricity The resident said there was no electricity upon moving in. The records do not show if or when the resident reported this to the TMO. In its stage 1 response, the TMO said the electricity was on when the resident moved in but charged with a key. It said it was the resident’s responsibility to contact the previous supplier, transfer the account, and top up the key.

It is unclear if the TMO sufficiently communicated this to the resident at the time. However, its position was in line with the tenancy agreement which stated that services of electricity are the responsibility of the resident and their chosen electricity supplier. Heating The landlord’s repairs policy and the Right to Repair regulations outline that a report of no heating should be attended to within 24 hours. It is unclear when the resident first reported issues with the heating.

His communication suggests the first report was on 1 April 2023, but the earliest record provided by the landlord is from 12 April 2023. On that date, the resident said he had been without heating for 3 days. He explained that the landlord had promised to attend within 24 hours but had not done so. He said he was cold, had arthritis, and had received no apology. An emergency repair was then raised. The out‑of‑hours contractor attended at 1am but could not gain access, and the job was passed to the day team.

On 15 April 2023, the resident reported that he still had no heating. After this point, there are no records from the landlord until 20 April 2023, which was not appropriate. Repairs were carried out on 20 and 23 April and 2 May 2023 to address issues with the communal heating system. However, the notes do not clearly describe the fault or the steps taken to resolve it, making it difficult to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably. In an email on 18 May 2023, the resident said it took a month for the landlord to fully resolve the heating issues and that missed appointments and poor communication resulted in numerous calls and emails from him.

The length of time taken to fix the heating was not appropriate. The landlord has not shown that it responded in line with its policy. The resident informed the landlord that he had arthritis and was cold yet we cannot see that it took expedited action to resolve the issue from the point it was aware of the resident’s condition. This likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord upheld the complaint and offered compensation which was in line with the Right to Repair guidance.

We acknowledge there were other reports from the resident related to the communal heating over the course of the timeframe we have investigated, however, it is unclear whether these reports were linked to the initial issues. The records show the further repairs were all attended to in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. Broken intercom The records show the resident reported a broken intercom system on 14 April 2023. He said he was unable to speak and let people in.

The TMO said the intercom was working at the time the property was void but the system was old and prone to failing. We do not have records from when the property was void. However, in the absence of any earlier reports from the resident, it is reasonable to consider that the fault did occur after the resident moved into the property. The landlord raised a repair on 14 April 2023. The notes said an operative initially attended on 19 April 2023 but there was no access, it then attended on 21 April 2023 but the operative could only partly repair it at the time.

It said all functions were now working except for calls, and it needed to re-attend to repair/replace a cable. This repair was completed on 22 May 2023. The landlord’s response to the broken intercom was reasonable and in line with the timescales set out in its policy. Plumbing for the washing machine The resident stated that upon moving in he did not have plumbing for the washing machine and he fixed it himself. In its stage 1 response, the TMO said it was unaware of the missing connector for the washing machine and would have installed it if reported.

The TMO’s response was reasonable. We have not seen evidence that the resident reported it at the time and as such, neither the TMO nor the landlord had the opportunity to address the issue. Mould under the bath The resident said there was mould under his bath which was resolved during his wet room installation. The TMO said that it did not detect any damp and mould prior to the resident moving in and neither the previous resident nor the resident reported such issues to it.

Again, we have not seen evidence of the resident reporting this at the time, therefore neither the landlord nor the TMO had the opportunity to respond and address the issue. The landlord’s response was reasonable. Summary It is clear the resident reported a number of issues in his property within the first few weeks of moving in. This likely caused him time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. Both the TMO and the landlord accepted more could have been done to progress some of the repairs at the time.

In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the £100 previously offered was not reflective of the inconvenience suffered in regard to the repair issues. It revised the amount to £150. While the amount went some way to putting right the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, we do not consider it was proportionate to all the failings. We have not seen any evidence related to checks carried out while the property was in void or what was communicated to the resident at the time of letting.

It has also not shown that it utilised its voids team within the first 8 weeks of the tenancy. This may have allowed the landlord to have oversight of all the repairs and prevented the resident from having to chase multiple teams. Our order of an additional £100 is in line with our remedies guidance. The amount is appropriate for where a landlord has acknowledged its failings but the offer was not proportionate to all the failings identified by our investigation. Complaint Staff conduct Finding Service failure The landlord’s Code of Conduct states its staff must always show respect for the public and colleagues and behave in a way which cannot reasonably cause offence to anyone.

The TMO has its own complaints investigation procedure which confirms it will investigate complaints about the behaviour or performance of an employee of the TMO. In his complaints, the resident raised a number of concerns regarding the conduct of his TMO officer. The TMO and landlord have not disputed that there were some failings in the officer’s conduct which likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. These were namely the officer’s oversight of the repairs, communication, and a lack of sensitivity at times.

It apologised and offered compensation. We will not address each report as our role is not to determine whether the alleged poor conduct took place, rather that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports fairly and reasonably. It was positive to see in its complaint responses that the TMO spoke with the staff member in question to obtain their version of events and to reach a position on the matters raised. It also liaised with other witnesses such as the estate caretaker and referred to information it had seen such as texts and emails.

This indicated it took the resident’s reports seriously and sought to reach a resolution for the resident. The landlord then provided its position on each allegation and whether it was upheld, partly upheld, or did not uphold the complaint. On the whole, it provided a reasonable explanation for why it had reached its findings. However, we found that the landlord could have been clearer with the complaints it only partly upheld and the reasons why. There were some aspects of the complaint which we feel require further consideration and we have addressed them below.

In discussing his complaint with us, the resident said when he received a letter from the TMO officer about his own behaviour, he said he asked to speak to the officer about it but he was advised to contact the landlord. He said that showed favouritism towards the neighbour as the TMO officer must have agreed to speak with the neighbour to then issue a letter to him. He could not understand why the officer would not agree to speak with him too. In its response the TMO explained a letter was sent to all residents of the block at the time, not just the resident.

It said he was advised to contact the landlord as they were better placed to deal with the issues. It acknowledged it could have explained this better. In reviewing the information from that time, we have found the TMO’s account to be accurate and reasonable. We can see where it liaised with the landlord about the action to take and that it sent letters to the neighbours as well as the resident. We agree that it could have been clearer regarding its roles and responsibilities as it had taken some action and how this would not have managed his expectations.

The resident also referred to the TMO officer’s handling of his more recent ASB reports, we will consider that later in the report. The resident said the TMO officer implied via text that he was directly responsible for an incident involving another neighbour. The TMO said it did not uphold the complaint as the officer denied the accusation. It would have been reasonable for the TMO to have shown it reviewed the text message, as it had done with his other reports. The resident referred to the message in his stage 2 escalation, he said the officer said, “Is this what you were doing to your neighbour?

”, and he asked what they were implying. While the stage 2 response said it was sorry if the resident was made to feel that way, it did not clarify what the intention of the message was or whether it was a breach of its code of conduct given it did reasonably cause offence to the resident. We do not consider the landlord appropriately investigated this concern. As stated, we found the TMO’s response was mostly thorough and showed an attempt to address the issues raised by the resident.

It offered £100 for distress and inconvenience related to lack of sensitivity. While this goes some way to acknowledging the impact to the resident, it does not put right the concerns raised about the text message. We cannot make orders related to specific staff members, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to show how it had considered any learning or additional training it could take from the complaints. Our additional order of £100 is in line with our remedies guidance.

The amount is appropriate for where a landlord made an offer of compensation but it is not quite proportionate to the failings identified. Complaint ASB Finding Maladministration The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will open a triage form and complete an ASB “mini risk assessment” to establish the nature and severity of the issue, who is involved and affected, any safety planning, and any third party involvement. The resident reported several ASB issues since he moved into his property.

This investigation can only investigate the issues which were raised during his formal complaint. In his formal complaint he said he was still dealing with anti-social noise and banging from the neighbour above and it was unresolved. He said he was waiting for his TMO officer and the landlord to contact the leaseholder of the property to discuss the issue. He said he wanted the matter to be investigated further and he was seeking a management transfer. The resident first made a report of noise nuisance to the landlord on 5 March 2024.

He said he had a new neighbour and he felt the wood flooring in the property should be replaced with carpet. The internal emails at the time show it was passed on to the housing management team. On 6 March 2024, the resident also contacted the TMO and asked them to liaise with the leaseholder for the flat above as he said there was excessive noise coming from it. He said he approached the tenant about this but they swore at him. He said he had also notified the landlord and suggested it advise all neighbours about noise and wood floorings.

The TMO said it would forward his email to the landlord and try to contact the leaseholder. We have seen evidence of the TMO advising the leaseholder that if they have laminate flooring, they should cover the flooring with rugs to help dull the noise. The TMO received counter allegations about the resident on 7 and 8 March 2024, which included police involvement. We have seen evidence of the TMO updating the landlord on the events which had taken place. It informed the resident on 28 March 2024 of the action it had taken and that it was for the landlord to take further action.

The actions taken by the TMO at the time were reasonable and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. The resident made further reports on 15 March 2024. The landlord arranged a meeting with him for 26 March 2024, and the resident said he was told at that meeting that the TMO was responsible for sending letters about noise. On 28 March 2024 he chased the landlord for an update and confirmed the noise continued. He said the noise was affecting his mental health and he had been in hospital.

It appears the resident received conflicting information about who was responsible for investigating the ASB. Under the landlord’s ASB policy, tenancy staff should respond to ASB reports and take action. The advice given at the 26 March 2024 meeting was therefore incorrect and likely caused the resident time and trouble in contacting different teams. On 2 April 2024 the resident said he had spoken with the neighbour and wanted to take back his complaint as they had resolved their issues.

He said he was still seeking support with re-housing and asked to meet with the landlord. The landlord arranged a meeting with the resident on 17 April 2024 and provided the resident with the forms he would need to complete in relation to re-housing. Although the resident no longer wished to pursue the complaint, prior to not taking any further action it would be reasonable to see evidence of the landlord considering if the counter allegations were still live and if it had carried out the appropriate action to ensure there were no disputes in future.

This could have included correspondence with the leaseholder regarding the flooring and their concerns, as well as the outcome of the police investigation. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would also have been appropriate for it to consider the support in place for him. The resident reported issues with his neighbour again on 15 May 2024. He said it was in relation to noise and them putting drugs through his window. He said he had borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder and he was trying to heal himself.

He provided a picture of the drugs with a handwritten apology note which had the neighbour’s name at the end. On 18 May 2024, the resident reported that the neighbour shouted at him, spat at him, called him a homophobic slur, and kicked his windows and doors. He said it should be captured on the estate’s CCTV and he had reported it to the police. We have not seen evidence that the landlord followed its ASB procedure when responding to the resident’s concerning reports. On 24 May 2024 the landlord said the criminal activity would need to be reported to the police and provided the resident with links to support services and how to make a safeguarding referral.

It asked for the resident to provide any details of his support worker if he had one. While this may have been helpful, a more proactive response would have been to complete a risk assessment to further understand any action it needed to take to safeguard the resident. On 29 May 2024, the resident was told that his tenancy officer was on leave and that they had contacted the police. However, the landlord did not explain what further action it would take in the meantime. Although liaising with the police was appropriate for alleged criminal behaviour, the landlord still had responsibilities under its own ASB policy.

When the resident asked about a move, the landlord said it would need to complete its investigations first, but it was unclear what those investigations involved. The resident reported further noise on 27 June 2024 and submitted a diary log. The landlord said it was still investigating and asked him to use the noise app. On 9 July 2024, the landlord contacted the neighbour about their ASB case and provided an action plan. It is disappointing that a similar action plan was not created for the resident’s reports.

This would have shown that his reports were being taken seriously and would have helped manage expectations. On 12 August 2024, the resident asked for temporary accommodation. He said he was feeling suicidal, was staying in hospital, and could not cope with noise from the property above. He also said he felt unsupported by the landlord. His GP, support services, and local MP submitted letters in mid‑August explaining the impact of the situation. The landlord referred the resident to its intensive team on 14 August.

It was only at this point that we have seen a case and ASB action plan was created for the resident. The team said it would request the leaseholder install carpets and it would complete a high‑risk move application. The landlord did not interview the neighbour about the harassment reported on 16 May 2024 until 5 September 2024. A risk assessment was not completed for the resident until 23 September 2024. These actions were appropriate, but they should have been taken much sooner.

In its stage 2 response dated 6 September 2024, the landlord did not address the complaint around the ASB and therefore it did not put right the failures identified or show any learning from the outcomes. It said the resident must make a request for a management transfer via the rehousing team. However, at that stage the management transfer request had already been actioned. This suggested the landlord had not fully investigated the concerns or had a sufficient overview of the matter.

We will address this further in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We acknowledge that cases such as this, where there are multiple stakeholders involved and counter allegations, can be difficult for landlord’s to manage. However, the landlord had a policy which if followed correctly would have enabled it to evidence it took the appropriate action and prevented any unnecessary delays in resolving the reports made. The landlord failed to follow its policy which likely resulted in significant distress and inconvenience to the resident in chasing the landlord and living with the ongoing issues.

The landlord missed opportunities to gather evidence such as the CCTV and it failed to appropriately support the resident, despite being aware of his vulnerabilities and the significant impact of the issues. We would have found severe maladministration if not for the eventual steps taken to address the issues. Our order of £500 is in line with our remedies guidance. This amount is appropriate for complaints where the circumstances for maladministration apply and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration Both the landlord and the TMO has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s and TMO’s definition of a complaint and timescales set out in their complaints policies are in line with our Complaint Handling Code. The complaint responses were provided within the timescales outlined above which was appropriate.

While the TMO has a 2-stage complaint process, in this case the stage 2 response was provided by the landlord. While this was not in line with the policies, we cannot see that this decision impacted the resident and we consider this was a reasonable approach given the overlap in the complaints. We can see the resident made previous complaints in April 2023 regarding the issues he experienced upon moving into the property. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 17 May 2023 but the resident was not satisfied as he did not feel the landlord had completed a thorough investigation.

We have not seen a copy of the stage 1 response, however, the resident chased the landlord for a stage 2 response on more than one occasion in June 2023. He said he wanted to resolve his complaints and discuss compensation. We cannot see that the landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident, which is a failing. This likely caused the resident time and trouble in having to re-raise the issues a year later. As already identified, the landlord failed to sufficiently address the ASB issues raised by the resident in his complaint and it failed to fully consider all the information provided in relation to staff conduct.

The landlord’s complaints procedure was an opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident and show how it has learnt from the outcomes. It is not appropriate that it did not do so in this case. Our order of £150 is in line with our remedies guidance. This amount is appropriate for were the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and has not put them right. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) We expect landlords to keep complete records of their housing services, including those managed through TMOs.

When repairs or property condition are in dispute, the landlord must show how it followed its procedures and met its responsibilities. In this case, key information was missing relating to the void process and actions taken before letting the property. These gaps suggest weaknesses in the landlord’s record‑keeping systems. Communication Communication with the resident was also poor at several points. This included confusion over who was responsible for progressing repairs and who should handle ASB reports.

The landlord should review how roles and responsibilities are communicated in properties managed by TMOs. It may also wish to consider when appointing a single point of contact for a number of reported issues would better support residents.