Leicester City Council (202407619)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407619

Leicester City Council

21 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request for a key fob.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Reports of suspected lodgers living at neighbouring properties.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. He has lived in the 1-bedroomed flat that is owned and managed by the landlord, since 2007.
The records show the resident reported loud noise and lodgers to the landlord on 15 May 2023. He referred to the noise coming from neighbours above and claimed they had other family members living with them. The resident said the lodgers were “making life hell” and were breaking the Tenancy Agreement. On 17 May 2023 he told the landlord he wanted to make an official complaint. On 26 May 2023 the landlord told the resident to call the Community Safety Team (CST) who would help him resolve the situation. The CST asked the resident to call to discuss further, but no calls were received.
The resident called the landlord on 13 May 2024 and said his fob for the building had not worked for over a month. The landlord reviewed the system which confirmed the fob was active and in use. The landlord visited the resident on 14 May 2024 when the resident said it was his partner’s fob that was not working. The landlord found the fob had not been registered to anyone. It confirmed this during a visit on 21 May 2024 when it provided the resident with the second fob as a gesture of goodwill, with no charge.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 17 May 2024. He said:
1. on 10 May 2024 he reported his partner’s fob was not working and the landlord told him it would be replaced the next day
2. the landlord visited him on 11 May 2024, but did not deliver a new fob. It asked a lot of questions about his partner which he did not like. He said he had been treated like a criminal, been racially profiled and questioned what the landlord was investigating
3. he had told the landlord his partner needed the fob as soon as possible as she did his shopping and cleaning while he worked long shifts as a lorry driver
4. the landlord had promised to post the fob the following day and took his partner’s fob to program it, but he had not received it yet
5. he had complained previously about lodgers in the flats and the noise coming from these properties, but he had been ignored
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 June 2024. In summary it said:
1. when it received the message regarding the broken fob, it checked the system and found it was working
2. it visited the resident the next day when the resident confirmed it was his partner’s fob that was not working and handed the fob over. It checked the system and found his partner’s fob had not been registered to her, however in good faith, it issued a second fob on 21 May 2024
3. it noted the resident felt he had been discriminated against and racially profiled due to its questions, however it explained when a new fob was requested, it had to decide whether to authorise the request as it did not hand out more unnecessarily in case it compromised security
4. it had investigated the reports of ASB and subletting at neighbouring properties, but it had not been able to locate any reports since 2023, therefore no further action had been taken
5. it had contacted the resident by phone and email for further details so any new concerns could be investigated
6. there was no evidence the landlord had acted in a discriminatory manner and no evidence to support the allegations made
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 22 June 2024. He said:
1. the landlord’s response did not address his complaint, and he had been passed from one department to another
2. the landlord had been discriminatory as it knew him and his partner, yet it took 20 days to receive a new fob
3. he had paid for the replacement fob, so it was not given in good faith
4. neighbours were making noise late at night and it was affecting his rest time in between shifts so he was tired while driving, yet the landlord was not addressing the problem
5. he had written to the landlord but had not received a response
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 2 July 2024. In summary it said:
1. it had visited the resident on 1 July 2024 to discuss his concerns and provided contact details if he had any further concerns
2. it had asked the resident questions regarding his fob due to the introduction of a new procedure for re-issuing or re-enabling key fobs
3. it would be visiting the neighbours regarding the noise reports to remind them of noise levels after 11pm
4. if the noise continued, the resident should contact the noise team so it could consider using NME to record the noise
5. it had discussed the alleged subletting with the resident on 22 May 2024 and emailed him for the addresses, and while he did not respond, it would investigate the concerns
6. there was no evidence to uphold the complaint
The resident referred his complaint to us on 26 August 2024. He said:
1. the landlord discriminated against him when he asked for his partner’s fob to be reactivated, and the delay in providing it meant his partner could not access his flat
2. he believes the noise from neighbours is due to overcrowding and he found it difficult to rest in between shifts
3. he has reported the noise and what he believes is illegal subletting to the landlord, but the landlord had not taken any action

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to events that happened after the final complaint response letter. For example, receiving a warning letter regarding a petrol generator that he had in his flat. These are noted, however, we can only investigate issues that were raised during the complaint process. If the resident wishes to pursue these issues, he may wish to raise a new complaint to the landlord.
The resident has referred to the landlord discriminating against him on the grounds of race. While we can consider complaints that contain reports of a landlord discriminating against a resident, we cannot make the same findings that a court would, and we do not operate in the same way a court does. We do not make binding decisions on matters such as discrimination, and we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. If the resident wishes to pursue this he should seek legal advice.

Request for a key fob

The landlord’s Issue of Fob/Estate Key Procedure states:
1. it will aim to provide a replacement fob within 1-working day of the request being received
2. if a resident wishes to purchase an additional fob, it must first be authorised by the landlord before the fee of £10 is paid
The landlord’s records confirm the resident called on 13 May 2024 and said his fob had not worked for over a month. A request to contact the resident was made the same day. On 14 May 2024, the landlord’s review of the fob system confirmed the fob was active, therefore it visited the resident the same day to discuss the issue further. This was reasonable and took place in an appropriate timescale as per its policy.
During the visit, the resident confirmed it was his partner’s fob that was not working. The landlord took the fob away to check but found it had not been registered to the resident’s partner. The landlord asked additional questions before deciding to authorise the second fob. It visited the resident again on 21 May 2024, 7 working days later, when it gave the resident a fob for his partner. This was reasonable.
The resident complained about the time taken and the questions asked by the landlord before it provided the fob. In both complaint responses the landlord confirmed this was due to introduction of a new process and was to ensure security was not compromised. This was reasonable. However, the landlord’s procedure does not include the steps it will take before deciding to authorise a second fob, or how long the request may take. Further, there is no evidence this was explained to the resident. This would have been helpful as it would have supported the landlord’s actions and set the resident’s expectations, particularly when he informed the landlord his partner needed access to the flat while he worked away. This would have allowed the resident to make alternative arrangements until the decision had been made, and the fob delivered. A recommendation has been made to this effect.
In summary, we find no maladministration in relation to the resident’s request for a key fob. This is because the landlord:
1. responded to the resident’s report that his fob was not working in a timely manner and confirmed the fob was working
2. established it was the resident’s partner’s fob that was not working
3. confirmed the fob had not been registered and made the necessary enquiries before deciding to provide the fob
4. delivered the second fob in a reasonable timeframe

Reports of ASB

The landlord defines ASB in accordance with that of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998: “Acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the perpetrator”. The landlord’s ASB Policy in place at the time states:
1. it takes reported cases of ASB seriously, recording and investigating incidents, and keeping victims of ASB informed of action taken
2. it provides regular information to residents, victims and witnesses on what actions are being taken and offers support and practical help to victims of ASB
3. it prioritises noise as “serious” and prevention can include advice and support, interviews with both parties, mediation if appropriate, working with partners, advice letters and use of the incremental approach
4. for noise reports it will contact the resident within 3 days and provide an overall response within 28 days
The landlord’s ASB operating procedure in place at the time states:
1. when a report or enquiry is received, it is assessed for risk and a decision is made as to how it should be managed, if not, further contact is to be made with the complainant
2. if there is enough information for a risk assessment, a case should be created and a risk assessment completed before being allocated to the appropriate officer
3. once an investigation has been completed an assessment should be made as to whether there is an identified perpetrator and if so, the next steps would be to issue an appropriate sanction
4. during your investigation, it should aim to keep the complainant updated weekly, or agree a time frame with the complainant
5. it should be clear in its expectations of the complainant for evidence gathering, and what the complainant can expect from the landlord
6. every time the landlord speaks to a complainant, a risk assessment should be considered for updating or renewing, with rationale
7. the actions that can be taken include interviews and warning letters to the perpetrators depending on the level of noise and stage of the process
It is not within our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
The landlord’s evidence confirms the resident first raised the issue of noise from neighbouring flats on 15 May 2023. He said he was struggling to sleep because of the noise, and, as a lorry driver, by law he had to have appointed rest. He told the landlord the “lodgers” were “making life hell” and they were breaking the Tenancy Agreement.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 May 2023 to confirm it had referred the matter to the noise team and asked him to contact the team directly so it could work with him to resolve the situation. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident for more information, or that it completed a risk assessment. As such, despite the resident stating the noise was “making life hell”, the landlord did not demonstrate a proactive approach to investigating the report. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its procedure.
There is no evidence of any further contact from the resident about the noise until 17 May 2024 when he raised a further complaint. He said he had reported the noise previously, but the landlord had not taken any action. The landlord called the resident on 22 May 2024 to discuss the reported noise and asked him for the addresses involved so it could carry out investigations. While the landlord contacted the resident within an appropriate timeframe, there is no evidence it completed a risk assessment with him, set expectations about the next steps, or asked him to keep a diary of when the noise occurred. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with procedure.
The resident responded on 28 May 2024. He referred to 2 neighbours and confirmed he had reported incidents of loud noise to the police. He said the police had asked the neighbours to swap numbers as a way of communicating amicably, but the resident said the neighbours blocked his number. On 30 May 2024, the landlord told the resident it had passed his email to the CST to respond directly. The landlord’s procedure is not clear as to the involvement of the CST and there is no evidence the landlord explained this to the resident. It therefore makes it difficult to determine if the landlord followed the correct process and if its actions were appropriate.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 5 June 2024 the landlord confirmed a noise report had been made in 2023 but said the resident had not contacted the noise team as requested so no investigation had taken place. The landlord confirmed it had contacted the resident by phone and email to ask for more information so the new concerns could be investigated. This was appropriate as it was in line with procedure.
The resident reiterated his concerns in his escalation request on 22 June 2024, again confirming the noise was affecting his sleep and he was tired when driving. The landlord visited the resident on 1 July 2024 to discuss his complaint. This allowed the landlord to obtain more information about the noise, however, there is no evidence it completed a risk assessment, therefore there is no evidence that it understood the impact the matter was having on the resident. This was a failure by the landlord as it did not follow its own procedure.
In the landlord’s final complaint response on 2 July 2024, it informed the resident it would visit the neighbours to discuss the noise levels. It asked the resident to make further contact if the noise was still too loud and it would look at installing NME. The response was reasonable, however it would have been helpful if it had provided the resident with more information as to what he could expect from the landlord in terms of follow up and communication. This would have set the resident’s expectations, would have provided reassurance that it was addressing his concerns and would have meant it was working in line with its procedure. There is no evidence it did this. This left the resident unclear as to what would happen next.
Following the final complaint response, there is no evidence to confirm the landlord followed up on the resident’s reports or updated the resident. This was unreasonable as the landlord has not evidenced that it took the appropriate action to try to resolve the concerns raised by the resident.
In summary, we find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. This is because the landlord:
1. missed an opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns in May 2023 and resolve the issue sooner than it did to reduce the impact on the resident
2. did not respond to the resident in line with its timescales set out in its procedure
3. missed opportunities to complete a risk assessment therefore did not follow its own procedure
4. did not demonstrate an understanding of how the noise was affecting the resident and his ability to rest when not at work
5. did not communicate effectively with the resident or set expectations in terms of the next steps and the action it could take following its investigations
6. did not offer any redress for its failure to address the resident’s concerns
The resident explained the impact the noise was having on him and his ability to rest while not at work to the landlord on numerous occasions, yet the landlord did not demonstrate an understanding of this. To reflect the distress and inconvenience on the resident caused by the landlord’s lack of action, an order has been made to pay the resident £200 in compensation. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings, did not try to put things right and did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence. The compensation order is in line with our remedies guidance,

Reports of suspected lodgers living at neighbouring properties

The landlord has not provided any information or guidance on how it manages reports of subletting or suspected lodgers.
The resident identified a neighbouring property within his block of flats when he reported suspected lodgers to the landlord. It could therefore be assumed that the neighbours share the same terms and conditions of the Tenancy Agreement as the resident. This states:
1. secure residents can take in lodgers however permission must be given before taking in a lodger
2. a resident must obtain the landlord’s permission before subletting part of the property to another person
3. if a resident sublets part of the property without the landlord’s prior agreement, it may take action to end the tenancy
It is not within our role to determine if there was, or was not, any lodgers or subletting at the neighbouring property. We can consider how the landlord responded to the reports made by the resident, and the impact this has had on his occupation of his property.
The landlord’s evidence confirms the resident first reported suspected lodgers on 15 May 2023. The resident told the landlord there was a lot of activity and loud noise coming from the flat and he believed other family members lived there. As referred to above, the resident told the landlord the “lodgers” were “making life hell”. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident at this time. It did not demonstrate it had reacted to the resident’s report, understood the impact it was having on him, or that it investigated potential breaches of the Tenancy Agreement. This was unreasonable.
The resident raised his concerns again on 17 May 2024 in his complaint. He said the landlord had not responded to his previous reports of lodgers living in the neighbouring flats. The landlord spoke to the resident on 22 May 2024 and asked him for the addresses of the neighbours so it could investigate the allegations. This was reasonable, however, as there is a difference between lodgers and subletting in terms of the Tenancy Agreement, it would have been helpful if the landlord had set the resident’s expectations by discussing the matter in more detail, along with any potential action it could take.
The resident responded on 28 May 2024. He said the landlord should use the CCTV as evidence that the neighbours were “breaking the rules.” He said they had 10 visitors at 2am and he could not sleep because of the noise. He referred to 2 properties which he believed to have lodgers.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 5 June 2024 the landlord confirmed it would contact the resident to discuss his concerns. This was a reasonable response. However, while the landlord said it could not locate any evidence the issue had been reported before, the evidence it provided to us contradicts this response. With clear evidence the resident raised the issue in May 2023, this indicates the landlord did not complete a thorough investigation into its systems and historical data. As a result, the landlord did not identify any service failure or lessons as to how it could prevent a recurrence. This was unreasonable.
The resident continued to raise the issue in his complaint escalation on 22 June 2024. The landlord visited him on 1 July 2024 to obtain more details, and in its final complaint response on 2 July 2024, it reassured the resident it would investigate his concerns. The landlord did not inform the resident of what the investigate would involve, how long it would need to complete its investigation, or how and when it would provide feedback to the resident. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the investigations it completed, nor has it provided evidence to confirm it communicated any findings with the resident. This was unreasonable as the landlord has not demonstrated that it did what it said it would.
Considering the above, we find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of suspected subletting. This is because the landlord:
1. failed to act on the resident’s report when it was raised in May 2023 and did not utilise its systems to locate this information
2. did not address its failure to act on this report in either of its complaint responses or offer any redress in recognition of this
3. did not set the resident’s expectations regarding the outcome of any investigation or potential action that could be taken
4. did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding the investigation process and follow up
5. did not provide any evidence to confirm it did what it said it would in terms of investigating the resident’s allegations
6. did not demonstrate an understanding of the impact the issue was having on the resident in terms of his home life and work
In line with our remedies guidance, an order has been made to pay the resident £100. The compensation is to recognise the distress and inconvenience to the resident due to the landlord’s failure to investigate the reports made.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s Complaint Policy states:
1. it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5-working days and respond within 10-working days of receipt
2. it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 3–working days and respond within 20-working days of the escalation request
3. during either stage, it may need to extend the response deadline, where there is good cause to do so, therefore it will inform the resident of any extension to manage expectations and the time it will be able to respond
The resident reported ASB and suspected lodgers on 15 May 2023. On 17 May 2023, he confirmed he wanted to raise the matter as a formal complaint. There is no evidence the landlord logged a complaint as requested. This was not appropriate and was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint sooner than it did. It also meant it delayed the resident from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaint procedure so that he could refer the matter to us for an independent investigation.
The resident raised a complaint on 17 May 2024, and the landlord acknowledged receipt on 21 May 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 5 June 2024, 12-working days from receipt. While this was outside of the landlord’s policy timescales, it was unlikely to have caused any serious detriment to the resident or the outcome of the complaint. However, the landlord should have communicated with the resident to explain and apologise for the delay in its response. There is no evidence it did, which was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
In its complaint response, the landlord did not address its failure to log the resident’s complaint in May 2023. This meant it did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence, nor did it provide an apology or offer any redress in recognition of its failure to follow the complaint process.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 22 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged receipt on 24 June 2024 and provided its final complaint response on 2 July 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. The landlord addressed the issues raised by the resident and provided the outcome to its investigations, and its commitment to investigate the outstanding issues further. While this was reasonable, it would have been helpful for the landlord to confirm how it would communicate its findings and next steps to the resident in attempt to keep him updated and reassured that it had investigated his concerns.
Considering the above, we find service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint. This is because the landlord did not address its failure to log the complaint when it was made in 2023, identify any learning, or offer any redress for this. Furthermore, the landlord did not respond to the stage 1 complaint in line with policy and failed to communicate or apologise to the resident. In line with our remedies guidance, an order has been made to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a key fob.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of suspected subletting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has:
1. written a letter of apology to resident for the failures identified in this report
2. paid the resident a total of £400 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s delays in responding to reports of ASB.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s delays in addressing reports of lodgers and the impact on him
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s delays in logging the complaint when requested
3. contacted the resident to provide him with an update into its investigations in terms of the ASB and alleged lodgers living in neighbouring flats
4. reviewed its handling of the ASB, suspected lodgers, and the resident’s initial complaint and identified ways in which it could improve its service to prevent a recurrence of such a complaint

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing its Issue of Fob/Estate Key Procedure. It should include the steps the landlord needs to take and refer to the potential questions that may be asked before authorising a second fob. To set expectations, the landlord should also consider adding in some timescales around the process.