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

Leeds City Council (202345512)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345512

Leeds City Council

3 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Request for rehousing.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, which is a one bedroom, ground floor, flat in a block. The resident has physical and mental health conditions which the landlord has recorded. During the time of this complaint the resident was pregnant and then had a newborn baby. The resident and her partner will both be referred to as the resident in this report for ease of reading.
  2. The resident’s tenancy started on 1 November 2023. Over the year prior to this, other residents of the estate had made multiple allegations of ASB against another resident (the neighbour) and the landlord had issued the neighbour with a warning.
  3. On 20 November 2023 the resident reported the neighbour had been screaming, throwing things, arguing with her boyfriend, and had come to the property covered in cuts. The resident said she thought the neighbour was mentally ill, and she was concerned for her own safety and her unborn baby. The landlord completed a risk assessment and assessed the ASB as medium risk. It called her to discuss the situation on 30 November 2023 and she said she wanted an urgent temporary move to flee the ASB. The landlord advised her to contact the council’s housing department.
  4. Between 17 December 2023 and 19 February 2024, other residents continued to report frequent ASB to the landlord. The landlord called the resident on 20 February 2024. During the call, the resident said she had been staying away from the property at family members’ homes. The landlord tried to arrange a meeting, and asked the resident to keep an ASB diary, but she declined.
  5. Other residents continued to report ASB to the landlord between 23 February 2024 and 25 April 2024, when the landlord gave the neighbour a breach of tenancy warning. The council also issued a noise abatement notice. The resident reported that she had received a threatening letter from the neighbour on 23 April 2024. She said she wanted to move, and the landlord explained that this was handled by the council’s housing department, but it said it would supply a letter in support.
  6. On 2 May 2024 the resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a stage 1 complaint, which it acknowledged the following day. The complaint was about:
    1. The neighbour having caused ASB since she moved in and the landlord not doing anything about this.
    2. The landlord having told the neighbour that she had reported the ASB to it.
    3. She had been forced to leave the property, was fearful for her health and her unborn baby.
  7. The resident’s support worker emailed the landlord on 13 May 2024 about the ASB. She said the resident had suffered from verbal abuse, death threats, and noise nuisance. She said it had not offered a safeguarding referral or ‘sanctuary’ target hardening measures, the resident was not living at the property and asked it to move her. The following day the landlord called the resident and noted it was considering applying for an injunction against the neighbour. It also said it had served a warning. It provided diary sheets and said it would support her application to the council to move.
  8. On 22 May 2024 the landlord posted its stage 1 response letter to the resident in which it:
    1. Did not uphold the complaint as it had issued a warning notice, and the council had served an abatement notice on the neighbour. It said it had taken appropriate action to resolve the ASB.
    2. Said the council had awarded her a band A and direct offer priority status to move.
    3. Explained that it had spoken to the neighbour following reports of ASB, but it had not named her as the complainant.
    4. Said how she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord to chase her complaint response, and the landlord explained it had posted this to her. It provided a copy by email on 31 May 2024. The same day she asked to escalate her complaint, and the landlord acknowledged this on 5 June 2024. During this time the landlord continued to receive reports of ASB from other residents which included noise, threats of arson and other ASB with the police having attended several times.
  10. Between 11 and 17 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update on the ASB case. She provided a crime reference number but said the police were not taking any action. She told the landlord her son had been born but she was still living away from the property in cramped conditions with family members. The landlord replied on 25 June 2024 and said it would check on her rehousing application with the council. The same day it provided it stage 2 response in which it:
    1. Said it had been investigating the ASB case. It had asked other residents to come forward and report ASB, which had increased the evidence it had.
    2. Repeated it had served a warning, and the council had served an abatement notice.
    3. Repeated the council had given her priority banding to move.
    4. Did not uphold the complaint and said how the resident could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident reported further ASB between 24 and 30 July 2024. She said every time she visited the property the neighbour shouts at her and had previously waved a kitchen knife around threatening her. The landlord and police visited the neighbour on 5 August 2024 and said they were working together to pursue an injunction.
  2. The landlord prepared a witness statement for the resident to sign. The resident said on 26 August 2024 she would not co-operate with its court action as this would not help her to be moved. The landlord said it would apply for the injunction using evidence supplied by other residents.
  3. At the date of this report, it is not known whether the landlord has successfully obtained an injunction. The resident has told this Service that she is still living away from the property in cramped conditions and is awaiting a move via the council’s housing department.


Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Under paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters in respect of a Local Housing Authority in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. As the landlord is a council, its housing assessment, banding, allocations and lettings functions are those of it as a public authority and are not part of its role as a landlord. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for rehousing is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as she is likely to have reasonable preference. The resident may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for assistance with this element of her complaint.
  3. References to rehousing have been included in this report to provide context, however, this report will solely consider the landlord’s handling of ASB. Although the resident’s desired outcome is to be rehoused, the Ombudsman is not able to offer this as a remedy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord prohibits residents from causing ASB of any type and sets out how it will handle reports of ASB within its policy.
  2. When the resident reported ASB in November 2023 the landlord opened a case and completed a risk assessment. However, it did not arrange to meet with the resident as per its policy which was a failing. When she asked for a move, it did contact her again and signposted her towards the council’s housing department which was positive. However, there is no evidence it created an action plan, kept in regular contact, or managed the resident’s expectations. These were breaches of its ASB policy.
  3. Not until February 2024 did the landlord attempt to arrange a meeting or ask the resident to keep an ASB diary, which it should have done much sooner. The landlord finally visited the neighbour on 25 April 2024, regarding noise nuisance reported by other residents, and served a warning. It did not visit within its 10-working day policy timeframe after the resident had first reported ASB. While it was positive that it served a warning, and the council served an abatement notice, it had been far too slow to act.
  4. The resident raised in her stage 1 complaint that the landlord had not done anything to resolve the ASB. This was echoed by her support worker, who raised that it had not offered any safeguarding or sanctuary measures. The landlord relied on its warning and the council’s abatement notice as evidence it was taking action in its stage 1 and 2 responses. While it is correct that the landlord had taken some action, it was clear it had not communicated with the resident about its approach and what its next steps were.
  5. The landlord has explained that the local housing team were advised by Adult Social Care that the resident did not require their involvement. A safeguarding referral was not completed as the resident already had support in place, and she advised staff she did not require support from the landlord.  Her only request, in connection with support, was with rehousing. The case officer liaised with the Local Authority Options on several occasions supporting her application for rehousing. The Ombudsman notes within its policy the landlord says that it cannot provide target hardening or sanctuary measures, such as CCTV or extra locks. The landlord should have considered what actions it could have taken to make the resident feel more safe in her property.
  6. It is positive that the landlord did contact other residents of the estate and ask them to report any ASB. However, by this point it had already received multiple reports by multiple different residents. In addition, it had been told that the police had been regularly attending the neighbour’s property and on occasion she had been arrested. The landlord did work with the police and carried out joint visits in line with its policy. However, it has failed to provide evidence that it completed information disclosure requests or was in regular contact with the police, which was a failing. There is also no evidence it considered the use of CCTV or a professional witness to help gather evidence.
  7. While the landlord had to take a proportionate approach and take into account all the circumstances, including the neighbour’s, it took until August 2024 for it to start to pursue an injunction which was an unnecessary delay. It had received reports of ASB since at least November 2022 from other residents of the estate. With the number of detailed reports it had received, and the evidence which would have been available from the police, it should have taken this action much sooner. It also should have been clear with the resident about its intentions. While it would have been helpful if the resident had agreed to support the landlord’s application, it is also understandable why she did not wish to do so. If a landlord is slow to act, and residents fail to see results, it is not surprising when they do not believe that the situation will change.
  8. Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord had failed to follow its policy, communicate clearly and regularly with the resident, or follow an action plan. It did not take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities or genuine fears for her and her unborn baby, and later baby’s, safety. It was slow to escalate its actions in trying to resolve the ASB and left the resident with no confidence in its approach. This led the resident to leave the property in February 2024 and she has yet to return.
  9. To reflect the significant distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for rehousing is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

  1. By 7 February 2025, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the maladministration detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £1,000 for the distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its maladministration.
    3. Provide an update to the resident and this Service on the status of the ASB case, including whether it has obtained an injunction, and what its next steps are if the neighbour breaches this. If it has not yet obtained an injunction, it is to explain what its next steps are.
    4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.
  2. No later than 28 February 2025, the landlord is ordered to review its ASB policy approach to target hardening and justify it or change its position to allow it to provide these measures when appropriate. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a written report setting out the outcome of its review and whether any changes will be made.