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

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202419450)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419450

Kirklees 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
    2. Concerns over staff conduct.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. He occupies a house (the property). The landlord is aware that he has medical vulnerabilities. The resident’s neighbour is an owner-occupier.
  2. The resident made a prior complaint to the landlord in August 2023 about his priority banding for rehousing. His complaint mentioned that he wanted to move away due to him experiencing ASB from his neighbour. The landlord’s final response to the prior complaint, on 14 September 2023, noted that the resident had made no reports of ASB since 2020. It said it would arrange for its housing officer to contact him about the ASB. The resident replied on 17 September 2023 to say that he did not want contact or advice from the landlord about the reported ASB.
  3. On 27 May 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that he had experienced ASB from his neighbour. He said their children had thrown stones and kicked footballs which damaged his windows, knocked on his door, and trespassed into his garden to retrieve their balls. The resident said the neighbour was encouraging this behaviour which distressed his family. He added that he had reported the matter to the police.
  4. On 5 June 2024 the landlord acknowledged a stage 1 complaint from the resident about ASB from his neighbour. It issued its stage 1 complaint response to him on 17 June 2024. The landlord said it would open an ASB case and provide diary sheets to the resident. It also said it would work with the police and other agencies to support him. The landlord acknowledged that the resident wanted to be rehoused. It directed him to its previous complaint response about rehousing and provided information on his options for moving. The landlord upheld the complaint as it had responded late to his report of ASB on 27 May 2024.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 June 2024 as he was unhappy that the landlord had not offered him a move immediately. He said he had been experiencing racist behaviour from his neighbour for 5 years which had affected his health. The resident said the neighbour’s “harassment” prevented him from using the garden and he was unhappy with the “unhelpful advice” from his housing officer.
  6. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 20 June 2024 in response to a report made by his neighbour. On 26 July 2024 he called the landlord to ask for an explanation for this or he would raise a complaint.
  7. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 10 August 2024. It acknowledged that its response was late and offered £25 compensation for this. The landlord said it required the resident’s consent to speak to the neighbour and follow up on his ASB reports. It noted that it had offered victim support to him which he had declined. The landlord said it required evidence to proceed with an ASB investigation.
  8. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about its unannounced visit to the property on 20 June 2024. It explained this was common practice but acknowledged that this caused inconvenience and apologised for this. The landlord said it would ensure it gave prior notice in future. It asked the resident for evidence of the neighbour trespassing into his garden, so it could speak to them about the matter.
  9. On 16 May 2025 the resident told us he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB and wanted to be rehoused to resolve his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  2. The resident told us that he had been experiencing ASB from his neighbour since 2020. We acknowledge that this is a longstanding issue for him. However, in line with paragraph 42.c. above, we are unable to consider the historical events. This investigation will focus on events from June 2023 onwards. This is 12 months prior to the resident making his complaint in June 2024.
  3. As part of his complaint the resident has said that his health has been affected by the ASB and the landlord’s handling of this. We acknowledge the resident’s comments, and we understand this has been a difficult time for him. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine if any action or lack of action by the landlord led to a negative effect on the resident’s health. This is a matter better suited for the courts or a personal injury liability claim to the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue such a claim. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the residents concerns about his health.
  4. The resident has asked for the landlord to rehouse him. This is not a resolution which is within the Ombudsman’s power to order. This is because we do not have the details of the landlord’s available housing stock so we do not know when a suitable property might become available. Nor do we know the priority for rehousing of other residents who may be looking to move. In general, the highest priority is given to those who are homeless or who the police have said need to move immediately due to threats of violence. We can look at whether the landlord followed its allocations policy in response to the resident’s request to move and whether it explained its decisions clearly to the resident.
  5. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that we are unable to investiaget complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. We are therefore unable to assess decisions about banding and medical priority under the local authority’s choice-based lettings system. This is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) which has already considered the resident’s complaint about banding for rehousing. We can only consider rehousing decisions made outside of the local authority’s system.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour

  1. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB reasonably in the circumstances. We also consider whether the landlord acted in line with its obligations in its polices, the law and industry best practice.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it considers “behaviour which causes ‘harassment, alarm or distress’ to individuals and communities” as ASB. It goes on to say that this includes “behaviour… deliberately targeted at an individual or group and has an impact on them”. The policy says that it will use early intervention approaches to resolve ASB, such as mediation and warnings to residents. When these are not successful, the policy sets out other legal enforcement actions it may take including injunctions and eviction.
  3. The landlord’s housing allocations policy has provision for management lets, where properties are allocated outside of the local authority’s housing allocation system. The policy says this option is used “on an exceptions basis”. It provides an example of this as when a resident needs to be moved into specialist accommodation to meet their needs, such as supported housing or extra care schemes.
  4. Overall, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of ASB. The behaviour the resident reported fell within the definition in the landlord’s ASB policy above and it acted appropriately in treating the reports as ASB. It offered to open an ASB case for the resident in its previous final stage complaint response on 14 September 2023, which the resident declined. It contacted the resident to open an ASB case on 12 June 2024 and provided diary sheets to gain evidence of the reported ASB. Although it delayed in doing this, taking over 2 weeks from the resident’s report on 27 May 2024 before contacting him. While any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, this was not an excessive delay and it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this. The landlord offered mediation to the resident on 17 and 18 June 2024. This was in line with the early intervention approach in its policy above. On 18 June 2024 the landlord offered to speak to the neighbour about the behaviour the resident reported. This was again in line with its policy above.
  5. When an alleged perpetrator of ASB is a private owner-occupier of a property, the landlord has limited options to intervene. The owner-occupier has no tenancy agreement with the landlord which it can enforce. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to tell the resident that it needed to compile a body of evidence to assess what action it could take.
  6. The resident’s allegations of ASB involved reports of criminal activity such as hate crime and criminal damage. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm it would work with the police concerning the allegations of criminal behaviour.
  7. The resident reported that the neighbour trespassed on his garden. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask him to provide evidence of this. Trespassing onto the resident’s property may be considered a civil wrong, which the landlord may be able to act upon, but it would need evidence to support any action it might take.
  8. For a landlord to be successful in resolving ASB, it relies on the resident to engage with its procedures. We have seen evidence of the resident providing completed diary sheets to the landlord dating from 2020, which is outside the scope of this investigation. However, there is no evidence of him providing completed diary sheets to support his recent reports from 27 May 2024.
  9. The resident declined to discuss the ASB with the landlord on 18 September 2023. He then declined to take part in mediation and did not want the landlord to speak to the neighbour. The Ombudsman appreciates that experiencing ASB is distressing, and the resident may have been concerned about retaliatory behaviour from the neighbour. However, the landlord could not take further action without speaking to the neighbour.
  10. It was reasonable that the landlord did not se the provision in its housing allocations policy for a management let for the resident. When ASB is involved, such moves are generally reserved for only the most severe cases when residents are in immediate danger of harm by remaining in their property. The landlord would often rely on the police to confirm that there was a danger before agreeing a move. There was no evidence that this was the case and it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to first investigate the ASB to determine its severity and attempt to resolve it before agreeing a move.
  11. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over staff conduct

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord must provide at least 24 hours’ notice in gain to access the property except in an emergency, and this must be at a reasonable time of day.
  2. While the landlord must provide notice to enter the property, this does not prevent it from visiting unannounced and speaking to a resident on the doorstep. It is also reasonable for a landlord to visit unannounced and ask permission to be allowed entry, which the resident has the right to decline.
  3. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord’s officer to visit the resident on 20 July 2024 to attempt to discuss a report it had received about him. Its final stage complaint response reasonably acknowledged that this may have been inconvenient for him and apologised for this. It also responded reasonably by assuring that it would provide notice of such visits in future. There is no evidence of maladministration by the landlord in this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s homes and neighbourhood’s complaints policy sets out a 2-stage internal complaint procedure. At both stages of this procedure, the policy says the landlord will acknowledge complaints and complaint escalations within 5 working days. The policy goes on to say that at stage 1 the landlord should provide a written response within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and at the final stage it should provide its final written complaint response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which all landlords who are members must comply with.
  2. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. However, the resident’s initial ASB report was on 27 May 2024, and it acknowledged the stage 1 complaint about ASB on 5 June 2024. Therefore, any delay in acknowledging the complaint was not likely to be significantly long. The landlord then provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 17 June 2024 which was in line with the timeframe in its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 20 June 2024 promptly on 26 June 2024. However, it then took 37 working days to issue its final complaint response to him. This was 17 working days more than the timeframe stated in the landlord’s policy and the Code. However, the landlord reasonably acknowledged and apologised for this delay and offered £25 compensation to recognise this.
  4. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view on our website, sets out that awards of compensation between £50 and £100 are appropriate for minor failures in the landlord’s service. The landlord’s offer of £25 was below this lower threshold. However, there was no evidence that its delay had a significant effect on the overall outcome, and the delay was not excessively long. Therefore, the offer of £25 compensation, coupled with its apology, represents a reasonable offer of redress for its error in complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of ASB by a neighbour.
    2. Concerns over staff conduct.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £25 compensation it offered him in its final complaint response, if it has not done so already. Our determination of ‘reasonable redress’ is dependent on it paying this compensation to the resident.