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

Leeds City Council (202101194)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101194

Leeds City Council

10 March 2022


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 reports of:
    1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property.
    2. An unauthorised occupant at a neighbouring property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom bungalow. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a local authority. The resident is vulnerable and suffers from a number of mental health issues.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 15 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a review of the decision and it aims to provide a response within 15 working days.
  3. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that ASB is any conduct that causes or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress to any person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person. The policy highlights that possible remedies for ASB include letter drops, mediation, warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts, and working with other external agencies. Where the behaviour persists, the landlord can apply for legal notices, ASB orders, injunctions and possession (eviction) proceedings.

Summary of events

  1. It is acknowledged that there have been a number of issues of anti-social behaviour reported by the resident over the last few years. It should also be stated that the resident has made several different complaints to the Ombudsman, this investigation report will only focus on the most recent incidences of ASB at the property.
  2. On 20 January 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about his neighbour’s nephew using the bathroom with the blind up (which is eye level to the resident’s front door) causing the resident distress as he can see the silhouette of the neighbour’s nephew. He also advised that the neighbour’s nephew regularly listened to the radio in his car at a loud volume.
  3. On 26 January 2021, the landlord attended the neighbour’s property and took pictures and confirmed that the blind in the bathroom had fallen and that the blind had been reinstated. The landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed this and stated that it would investigate the alleged fraud and noise. It advised that it would perform a letter drop and perform door to door enquiries to investigate the issues.
  4. On 10 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and raised historic instances of ASB at the property. He stated the neighbour had not put up the blind but instead hung a towel and that the majority of the window was uncovered. He advised that the neighbour’s nephew was still living at the property full time and the neighbour has not been seen at the property since 5 April 2020 and thanked the landlord for passing the matter on to its fraud team.
  5. On 23 March 2021, the resident made a disability hate crime report to the police against the neighbour’s nephew about the blind being up at the property whilst using the bathroom and listening to the radio in his car at a loud volume. The resident advised that the neighbour’s nephew was doing this deliberately to cause distress. No action was taken by police in relation to the resident’s reports.
  6. On 19 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that the neighbour’s nephew sat in his car and listened to the stereo loudly on five separate occasions from 31 March and 18 April 2021 between the hours of 17:45 and 20:15 for approximately an hour each time. He also advised that the neighbour’s blind had been in the upward position since 17 March 2021.
  7. On 13 May 2021, the landlord attended the neighbour’s property and confirmed that the blind in the bathroom was in place. It spoke with the resident’s neighbours and none reported issues with noise from the neighbour’s nephew.
  8. On 15 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked that the following issues be treated as a formal stage one complaint:
    1. That a neighbour has had his adult nephew living at the property since 2014 as an unlawful resident and this had been witnessed by the landlord on several occasions this year.
    2. That he has had to view his neighbour’s adult nephew carrying out private acts in the bathroom such as undressing and using the toilet which has caused distress even though there is frosted glass. He stated that the nephew is aware that the behaviour caused distress and continued to leave the blind up.
    3. He also advised that the neighbour’s nephew regularly listened to the radio in his car at a loud volume.
  9. On 16 June 2021, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and addressed the following:
    1. That the potential tenancy fraud was being investigated and it was dealing with the issue. It advised that there had been delays in the process due to Covid19 restrictions and stated that due to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) I would be unable to confirm the outcome of the investigation.
    2. It confirmed that it visited the neighbouring property and discussed the issue in relation to the blind in the bathroom. It stated that the neighbour had complied with its requests and put the blind back into place. This was confirmed on a visit to the property on 13 May 2021. It also stated that the window itself had privacy glass to obscure any view and therefore there was no further action it could take as the occupier has complied with its request.
    3. It advised that residents have the right to listen to the radio in their car and if the music was at an unacceptable level then the resident could report this to its out of hours noise nuisance team. Additionally, it had spoken to the residents of other neighbouring properties and confirmed that the neighbours have not witnessed any noise nuisance.
  10. On 17 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process and advised the following:
    1. That the neighbour’s nephew had been living at the property since 2014 and was living there unlawfully. He advised that the resident had not been seen at the property since November 2020.
    2. He raised concerns that the neighbour was wrongfully receiving a single person discount on their council tax as the nephew had lived at the property since 2014 and that the landlord needed to investigate the matter.
    3. He stated the blind in the bathroom at the neighbouring property was continuously left up and the neighbour’s nephew was not respecting the landlord’s request to keep the blind down.
    4. He advised that the adult nephew was still sitting in his car with the stereo echoing throughout his property for long periods of time which caused distress and was against his neighbour’s tenancy agreement.
  11. On 8 July 2021, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two response and addressed the following:
    1. It confirmed that the tenancy fraud allegation had been investigated and that the outcome of the investigation had been forwarded to its legal team. It advised that under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Act, that it would not be commenting any further on the case due to confidentiality.
    2. It advised that it was aware of the occupant at the property and was working to find a resolution of the case in line with its policies and procedures. It advised that there was not sufficient evidence to take further action and encouraged the resident to report any new incidents of ASB to its antisocial behaviour team and provided the appropriate contact information.
  12. On 4 August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and advised that the blind at the neighbours’ property had been fully closed since 28 July 2021. 
  13. On 21 August 2021, the resident made further complaints in relation to the resident’s nephew listening to his car radio and having loud telephone conversations. He also reported that the blind in the bathroom at the neighbour’s property was left up between 12th and 15th August 2021. This caused the resident distress.
  14. The landlord provided evidence that it had been working in conjunction with the local police, ASB team and mental health services in an attempt to resolve the ongoing ASB issues at the property. 

Assessment and findings

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property.

  1. The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. It is not disputed that the resident began to raise concerns about ASB at the property in January 2021. The landlord demonstrated that within a week it had opened an ASB case file, inspected the alleged perpetrator’s property and ensured that the blind was reinstated in line with its ASB policy. The landlord appropriately kept in contact with the resident which was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  3. The resident made further reports of noise nuisance and the neighbour’s blind being up in April 2021. The landlord took appropriate action and attended the neighbour’s property again and confirmed that the blind in the bathroom was in place and that the window itself had privacy glass to obscure any view. It spoke with the resident’s neighbours and no issues in relation to noise from the neighbour’s nephew were reported. The landlord informed the resident that the neighbour was able to listen to his car radio and if there was an issue with the volume the resident could report it to its afterhours noise team. These were appropriate actions for the landlord to take to investigate reports of anti-social behaviour and were in line with its ASB policy.
  4. It is evident and not disputed that the ASB issues at the property had an acknowledged impact and caused the resident significant distress. The landlord acted appropriately and took reasonable steps to investigate the reports and acted where appropriate. The landlord had a number of informal actions available to it which are set out in its policies and procedures, namely letter drops, interviews with neighbours and the alleged perpetrator. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the landlord attended the neighbour’s property and interviewed the alleged perpetrator on several occasions and worked with external agencies including police to investigate the matter. It appropriately advised the neighbour to reattach the broken blind which it complied with and spoke with neighbouring properties in an attempt to corroborate the resident’s noise complaint. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its obligations in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB at the property.

An unauthorised occupant at a neighbouring property.

  1. The resident raised that his neighbour’s nephew had been living at the neighbouring property since 2014. The landlord appropriately confirmed that the potential tenancy fraud allegation had been investigated and that the outcome of the investigation had been forwarded to its legal team. The landlord appropriately advised the resident that under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Act, that it would not be commenting any further on the case due to confidentiality.  The actions taken by the landlord were appropriate and in line with its statutory obligations.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the property.
    2. An unauthorised occupant at a neighbouring property.

Reasons

  1. The range of actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s ASB reports were appropriate and in accordance with its obligations and policies. It has evidenced that it took proportionate steps to investigate and address ASB while offering support to the resident.
  2. The landlord investigated the complaint and informed the resident that due to the General Data Protection Regulation Act it would not be commenting any further on the matter.