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

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202324759)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324759

Kirklees Council

11 April 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti–social behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident had a secure tenancy with the landlord, which began on 22 May 2023. The landlord is a local authority. The resident lived in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat, which he has since left. The resident suffers with PTSD, anxiety, depression and physical health issues, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 21 July 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about anti-social behaviour. The resident said he:
    1. Felt coerced into ‘moving into a property underneath a drug supplier’.
    2. Was unhappy with his neighbour’s attitude and behaviour towards him.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 July 2023 and issued a stage 1 complaint response on 1 August 2023. In summary, the landlord:
    1. Apologised for the resident’s cause to complain.
    2. Said a medical advisory officer had several discussions with the resident up to agreeing the tenancy.
    3. Included an email sent to the resident on 12 May 2023 in which it said it was not aware of any ASB in the area but that there were small pockets of issues in surrounding areas of the estate. The email said it would leave the decision to move with the resident and explained that it needed an answer as soon as possible with the property ready to let.
    4. Apologised if the resident felt coerced into moving.
    5. Said it had been working with the resident to address ASB issues.
    6. Asked the resident to record ASB on the log sheets it had sent.
    7. Acknowledged that the resident had completed a re-housing application to secure a house move. It asked the resident to provide any supporting information regarding the effects the situation was having on his mental health so it could assess and apply the appropriate banding.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and phoned to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 8 August 2023. In summary, the resident said:
    1. He had to deal with ASB from day 1 of moving into the property and had several confrontations with the neighbour, ‘who is a drug dealer’.
    2. The neighbour tried to flood his property from above.
    3. The neighbour set his dog on him.
    4. He had to move out for personal safety.
    5. ASB had escalated since the landlord sent the neighbour an ASB letter.
    6. The situation was causing serious health issues and safety fears.
    7. He wanted the landlord to move the neighbour who was causing the issues, as it had cost £500 to move in, as well as other repairs that he was left to do on his own.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 9 August 2023 and issued a stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. The landlord responded to each of the resident’s points in turn. In summary, the landlord:
    1. Apologised again for the resident’s cause to complain.
    2. Said its stage 1 response stood.
    3. Said it visited on 2 June 2023 to complete a new tenancy assessment, in which there were no reported ASB issues but noted that the resident wanted it to ‘have a quiet word’ with his neighbour due to noise issues. It said the resident did not want to open an ASB case at the time and it had offered further support.
    4. Confirmed it provided log sheets when the resident reported ‘drug smells/dealing’ on 19 June 2023. It explained that, although he wanted to remain anonymous, the resident needed to contact the police regarding criminality as this was outside its remit. The landlord said it had numerous contacts with the resident and completed a home visit on 28 July 2023.
    5. Said it attended an uncontrollable leak from the property above and made good the repair following a call on 28 June 2023.
    6. Said it was not initially aware of the neighbour setting his dog on the resident and that he would need to report this to the police. The landlord said it would investigate this as part of the ongoing ASB case and contact the resident about his safety concerns.
    7. Confirmed it had set up an ASB case and made a referral to the noise and pollution team (Environmental Health).
    8. Said each service had to inform the other party (neighbour) of any issues raised to give the other party an understanding of the issues they were causing and support them to resolve these, but without naming or discussing any other party. It said Environmental Health was taking the most appropriate action as the resident’s log sheets mainly stated noise from neighbours.
    9. Said the resident must report any criminal activity to the police on 101, or 999 where life was at risk.
    10. Acknowledged that the situation was impacting the resident’s health and advised him to speak to a health professional.
    11. Said it was working with partner services to understand the nature of issues raised. It noted the resident had raised concerns with the police, who would work to support the resident and manage the situation.
    12. Said it needed evidence to proceed with the ASB case, including comprehensive log sheets and crime reference numbers to support the resident’s claims.
    13. Explained it could take a very long time to seek possession of a property due to strict protocols needing ‘unequivocal evidence’.
    14. Said its ASB system showed 3 historic, closed cases relating to where the resident lived. It said it was satisfied there were no active ASB cases linked to the property and street when it offered the resident the property.
    15. Said it had been in regular contact regarding ASB issues and to offer support, in addition to partner services supporting the resident.
    16. Confirmed the resident could contact the Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 19 October 2023. He moved to a new address in mid-December 2023.
  7. On 12 January 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. The complaint became one that we could consider on 9 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the reported ASB itself, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. Rather, it is to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and subsequent complaint with reference to its policies as well as our own assessment of what is fair, given the circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the reported issues on his health and well-being. The Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters that that are better suited to court, such as compensation for injuries sustained due to ASB and being unable to work as a result.
  4. As part of his referral to the Ombudsman, the resident asked that the landlord evicts his former neighbour. Paragraph 42(o) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome that is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters that have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. For this reason, the Ombudsman has not considered the resident’s reports of matters raised after the landlord issued its final response to the complaint in September 2023. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to more recent issues, such as regarding his house move, he can raise this as a new complaint to the landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his new complaint, he may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman to investigate as a separate complaint.

Policies and procedures

  1. The ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 sets out the need for a landlord to put victims at the heart of its response to ASB. When considering the response to a complaint of ASB, a landlord must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the life of the victim.
  2. The tenancy says the landlord will investigate and take whatever action it thinks is practical to sort out any problems if the resident tells it that they are the victim of ASB.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will adopt a victim–centred approach that protects and supports residents, seeks resolutions with urgency and understanding, and stops situations from escalating. It says it will offer a range of interventions and adopt a multi-agency approach in most cases.

Landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. The resident says a ‘drug dealing neighbour’ intimidated and harassed him from the day he moved into the property, subjecting him to violence on a regular basis, resulting in severe deterioration to his physical and mental health and the inability to study or return to work. The resident says he experienced a flooded kitchen, fires outside his front door and intimidation of visitors resulting in social isolation and further vulnerability. He says he also incurred serious cost issues involving equipment to monitor ASB.
  2. The resident visited the landlord’s office to report ASB on 19 June 2023. The landlord provided him with log sheets to record instances of ASB to build a case and a picture of what was going on.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy is silent on the process it will undertake when it receives a report of ASB and, on 2 April 2025, the landlord confirmed it does not have an internal ASB procedure to follow. Therefore, it is difficult for this investigation to determine whether the landlord adhered to its policies.
  4. It is good practice for a landlord to assess the risk of harm to the victim, and any potential vulnerabilities, when it receives an ASB complaint. The welfare, safety and well-being of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. A risk assessment would help identify the effect that the reported ASB is having on the victim, particularly if repeated incidents are having an increasing effect on their mental and/or physical well-being. However, there is no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment at any stage to monitor the ongoing impact of ASB on the resident and support its actions thereafter. This is a failing.
  5. The resident returned to the landlord’s office with completed log sheets on 26 June 2023 and asked about trying to move house based on medical grounds. On 28 June 2023, the landlord provided the resident with details of housing providers to contact to try to gain alternative accommodation. It also confirmed it would visit the resident’s neighbour regarding ASB, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. The resident visited the landlord’s office twice, reported further instances of ASB and raised a complaint before the landlord visited him on 25 July 2023. It then raised an ASB case on 26 July 2023. The landlord has not evidenced why it did not raise an ASB case until more than a month after the resident’s initial report and despite his contacts in the interim. This is a further failing. Without a case in place, the landlord had no way of contacting the resident to follow up his reports of ASB.
  7. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will provide a dedicated point of contact for a resident who reports ASB. The landlord did this once it had raised an ASB case, and the resident kept in regular contact. Therefore, we are satisfied that it complied with its policy.
  8. The resident completed ASB logs covering the period from 28 May 2023 to 18 September 2023 and installed cameras to record instances of ASB at his own expense. The landlord visited the resident on several occasions to discuss his reports of ASB and check on his welfare, which we consider was reasonable in the circumstances.
  9. The landlord liaised with the resident’s neighbour via letters, home visits and phone, to try to resolve the ASB issues reported. The resident expressed concern about the situation escalating after the landlord contacted his neighbour about this. In response, the landlord correctly advised him to contact the police by phoning 999 if he was concerned about his safety, and to report any criminal activity by phoning 111.
  10. The landlord made a referral to Environmental Health on 28 July 2023 due to the resident’s reports about noise. It also worked with the resident and other services, including health professionals and the police, due to concerns about his welfare. We consider these actions appropriate in the circumstances to try to support the resident.
  11. Environmental Health installed audio equipment on 15 September 2023 for the resident to record evidence of the noise issues experienced. A week later, on 22 September 2023, the resident told the landlord that he had returned the equipment due to having ‘no faith in the process’. While we note the resident’s concerns, audio equipment is used to gather evidence that can support landlords investigating reports of noise nuisance.
  12. On 20 September 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident about the possibility of moving house. The resident confirmed the areas he would consider moving to, which led to the landlord offering him a house move. The resident accepted this on 29 September 2023, and the move took place in mid-December 2023. We consider the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances to arrange alternative accommodation for the resident to move away from the ASB reported so this no longer impacted him.
  13. The resident has expressed his dissatisfaction that the landlord moved him to another property rather than his neighbour. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that the eviction process can be complex and lengthy. Therefore, it acted reasonably under the circumstances by offering the resident the option of rehousing.
  14. We consider that the failings identified represent maladministration. The landlord’s failings likely impacted its ability to assess and monitor the impact of ASB to the resident, and a remedy has been made for order.
  15. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its ASB policy with a view to putting a procedure in place for handling reports of ASB, which might include risk assessments for monitoring the impact of ASB.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 21 July 2023.
  2. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 July 2023 and issued its stage 1 response on 1 August 2023, which was in line with its process.
  4. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 9 August 2023.
  5. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the stage 2 escalation request within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 9 August 2023. It then issued its stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. This was 9 working days late. While we acknowledge that the delay likely caused the resident some distress, however, this was of short duration.
  7. When referring his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said the landlord had not explained what ‘target hardening’ in its stage 2 response meant. We consider this a failing, which likely confused the resident due to being unfamiliar with this term. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to explain that it was referring to putting security measures in place for the resident’s safety.
  8. The resident was unhappy that the landlord did not comment on matters handled by the police. We would not expect it to comment on matters outside its remit. However, we consider that the landlord acted appropriately by explaining that it would consider criminality as part of the ASB case.
  9. We consider the landlord’s delayed stage 2 response and failure to explain target hardening in a way the resident could understand represent service failure. Therefore, we have made an order for remedy below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
  2. Provide a written apology for the failings identified.
  3. Pay compensation totalling £150, comprised as follows:
    1. £100 for its failures regarding its handling of reports of ASB
    2. £50 for its complaint handling failures
  4. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord reviews its ASB policy with a view to putting a procedure in place for handling reports of ASB, which might include risk assessments for monitoring the impact of ASB.