West Lancashire Borough Council (202422281)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422281

West Lancashire Borough Council

26 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Transfer request.

Background

The resident has held a secured tenancy agreement with the landlord since 25 November 2022, for a 4 bed, mid-terrace house. The resident lives in the property with her 3 children. The landlord is aware that the children have medical conditions and a number of adaptions have been made at the property to accommodate their needs. The landlord is also aware that the resident has mental health conditions.
The resident first reported issues of ASB with her neighbour on 30 January 2024. The reports were that her neighbour and his friends had been aggressive and shouted abuse at the resident, and the neighbour’s dog jumps at his window trying to escape.
On 6 August 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that:
1. it had not taken her reports seriously.
2. she was a single parent to 3 children with additional needs and had her own mental health conditions. She did not feel safe in her home and the garden was not big enough for the children to play in.
3. she wanted help moving to a more suitable place for her children.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 August 2024 and issued its stage 1 response on 15 August 2024. In this it said:
1. Regarding the ASB reports:
  1. it had opened an ASB case in January 2024, and written to the neighbour, but as no diary sheets were returned this was closed in February 2024.
  2. it had reopened the ASB case in April 2024, it was due to speak with the neighbour the following week and it would update the resident after that.
2. Regarding the dog barking and animal welfare:
  1. there were no open cases as diary sheets had not been returned by the resident, and these were essential to proceed with an investigation. If the resident still had concerns about this, it encouraged her to submit a new noise complaint to the environmental health team.
  2. the neighbour’s property was a council property, and the environmental health team would work with housing services to coordinate an investigation.
  3. it had reported her concerns to the RSPCA on 13 August 2024.
3. Regarding the police action:
  1. it had contacted the police on the 13 August 2024 and were told there had been no recent reports made by the resident. It encouraged her to report incidents of criminality to the police.
4. Regarding moving to a more suitable property:
  1. the resident would need to complete a new homefinder application and to increase her prospects she could consider exchanging her home with another social housing tenant.
On the same day, the resident escalated her complaint, which the landlord acknowledged immediately. In this she said:
1. the issues had not been resolved.
2. she needed her banding looked at as she had been targeted, had sexual comments made to her and that it was a safe–guarding issue for her and her children.
3. her children could not play safely, the garden was too small, and the dog would get out of the window and attack someone.
4. she could not do a mutual exchange as that would just be passing the problem on to an incoming family.
5. the landlord had been given log sheets.
6. she had given her dog away for its safety because the neighbour had tried to set his dog on it, and the situation was triggering her mental health.
The landlord issued its final response on 6 September 2024. In this it said:
1. Regarding the review banding:
  1. once it had received medical evidence it would review her banding in accordance with the council’s allocations policy.
  2. in cases of anti-social behaviour, further priority for rehousing was only considered where all legal remedies had failed to resolve the situation, and where it is recommended that the resident should be moved for her own safety by the police.
2. Regarding the alleged sexual comments and safeguarding:
  1. the ASB officer had contacted the police, and they would be offering words of advice to the neighbour about this.
  2. it would be writing to the neighbour with its intention to serve a notice of possession due to the issues and his breach of tenancy.
3. Regarding the neighbour’s dog:
  1. the ASB officer reported this to RSPCA on 13 August 2024, and the neighbourhood team leader chased this up on 3 September 2024 and were advised the case was still being investigated.
  2. it had reviewed the video footage of the dog jumping at the window but there was no action it could take.
  3. it was aware that the resident had emailed the environmental protection team, but it had no powers to remove the dog but if she could send any other footage directly to the environmental enforcement team it could see if the RSPCA or Police could assist.
4. General:
  1. the neighbourhood team leader had discussed the importance of reporting all instances of verbal abuse/harassment to the police, which the resident had agreed to do.
  2. an ASB officer would contact other neighbours to understand what was happening and any details provided may be used as evidence.
  3. it reassured the resident that despite the complaints process being complete, her ASB case was still open and the ASB officer would agree with her how often she wanted to be kept updated on the case.
The resident told us that her neighbour has since been arrested in 2025 and is on bail until December 2025. She said legal action had been taken against the neighbour by the landlord. As an outcome, the resident said she wanted to move home. The landlord told us it offered the resident a fence and doorbell and there was a court hearing due to go ahead on 4 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Housing Ombudsman only has the power to investigate councils in respect of their provision and management of social housing or long leases. We have no power to investigate complaints about how it allocates and nominates where a person has ‘reasonable preference’ under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. That means we cannot look at how the landlord considered the resident’s rehousing or banding request, so far as the resident had reasonable preference. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints regarding applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints regarding the applicant’s banding, or priority. We can consider the provision of temporary accommodation or a management transfer.
We are aware that following the landlord’s internal complaint procedure the level of ASB experienced by the resident increased. However, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB by her neighbour between 30 January 2024 and its final response to her complaint on 6 September 2024. This is because we cannot consider matters that have not yet exhausted a landlord’s formal complaints process. Should the resident wish to raise a new complaint in relation to matters after this date she can, and if she remains dissatisfied once the landlord has investigated her concerns and has issued its stage 2 response, she may also be able to refer that complaint to us.
It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the reported ASB incidents, 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 reports and to the resident’s subsequent complaint with reference to its own policies, as well as our own assessment of what is fair, given all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy commits to tackling all forms of anti-social behaviour. This notes various interventions, such as:
1. interviewing the reporter (the resident in this case) and the subject (the neighbour in this case)
2. carrying out risk assessments to determine the level of support required for the reporter
3. considering mediation, acceptable behaviour agreements, warning letters, and where appropriate taking legal action such as civil injunctions, and possession proceedings
ASB cases are often challenging as options available to, or chosen by, a landlord to resolve a case may not be the resident’s preferred outcome. Poor handling of ASB can impact victims significantly and lead to a break down in the landlord and tenant relationship.
On 30 January 2024 the resident reported that on 14 January 2024 her neighbour had verbally abused her by threatening her with a hammer and threatening to break her windows. She explained the police were aware of the incident. The landlord responded to this report on the same day and sent the resident a letter asking her to make contact to arrange a meeting to discuss the report. It included diary sheets for the resident to record any further incidents with the neighbour. The landlord also wrote a letter to the neighbour drawing their attention to their tenancy agreement and asking them to get in touch to discuss the allegation.
Whilst the timing of the landlord’s response to the resident was in line with its policy of 1 working day for urgent cases, there is no record to show that it conducted an interview with the resident or agreed an ‘action plan’ with her as set out in its ASB policy. This failure to follow its process set out in the ASB policy.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the next update on 27 February 2024 was the landlord writing to the resident advising it was closing the ASB case as it had “received no further complaints or evidence that problems are continuing”. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that, before closing the case, it contacted the police to understand the allegation and its response. There is also no evidence that it made further attempts to engage with the neighbour in relation to the allegation. Given the seriousness of the allegation, it was inappropriate that the landlord failed to complete any further actions prior to closing the case.
The landlord’s evidence notes that it spoke with the resident on 22 April 2024. The resident told the landlord she had sent diary sheets via royal mail, but the landlord said it had not received them. The resident agreed that, going forward, she would submit these by email or arrange for the ASB officer to collect them. The landlord reopened the ASB case and sent more diary sheets the next day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 May 2024 to report a new incident of verbal abuse and indicated that she had attached a diary sheet. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it assessed this email or that it was responded to in accordance with its policy within 5 working days for non-urgent cases.
The resident contacted her local MP, who raised her concerns with the landlord on 21 May 2025. We can see from the internal records provided that various members of staff were involved in gathering the response for the MP. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it contacted the resident about this until 18 June 2025, when its case notes state that it called her and requested, in the absence of the ASB officer dealing with the resident’s case, that she sends the diary reports again. The notes state the diary sheets were sent to another ASB officer for review, however, there is no further update in the evidence provided to show what action, if any, was taken on receipt of these. This was not appropriate.
On the 2 July 2024 the landlord left a voicemail for the resident and spoke with her on 8 July 2024. The notes state that the resident said that things were quiet at that time, apart from the dog barking and throwing itself against the window. It notes her concern that the dog was malnourished and neglected and the landlord’s response that she could contact the RSPCA with her concerns. The landlord also explained that the dog being in the flat was a tenancy breach and that it would work with the tenancy officer to deal with that.
On 30 July 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident advising it was closing the ASB case again. Whilst we are aware that the resident had said that things “were quiet,” and had not reported any further incidents, or submitted any new diary sheets, the landlord should have reached out to the resident to establish the current situation before it closed the case. Reviewing the case in accordance with its policy to do so “at least once a month,” would have ensured that it was still providing the correct level of support to the resident.
Within just over a week of the closure of the ASB case the resident submitted a transfer request and raised a complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports.
Prior to its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord’s actions increased significantly. It spoke with the environmental protection team and submitted a report to the RSPCA in relation to the issues with the neighbour’s dog. It also spoke with the neighbour and sent him a breach of tenancy letter. It spoke with the resident again, who updated it by email of the latest incidents, and encouraged her to continue to provide evidence. It contacted the Police in relation to the resident’s reported incidents and requested an update on their intended actions.
Whilst the landlord’s actions were appropriate in the circumstances, it is of particular concern that these actions were only completed once a complaint had been raised. The quick succession of these actions meant that in its stage 1 response, on 15 August 2024, the landlord was able to list what it had done to progress the case, but it failed to acknowledge any delay in it taking these actions. It also failed to identify the lengthy period of no contact with the resident between, the case being reopened in, April 2024 and June/July 2024, after she had sought help from her MP in relation to the matter.
The landlord spoke with the police in relation to the resident’s latest interaction with the neighbour and established it intended to offer the neighbour words of advice. In keeping with its commitment in its stage 1 response to contact the neighbour the following week we can see that the landlord drafted an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) between it and the neighbour. Unfortunately, despite the landlord advising that it visited the neighbours address and providing evidence to show that it sent a letter and left a voice message this was not signed by the neighbour by the time it issued its stage 2 response on 6 September 2024.
In its stage 2 response it informed the resident of the police’s intentions and encouraged her to continue to report all instances of verbal abuse/harassment to the police. It also reiterated its position regarding the issues with the dog and provided an update from the RSPCA. It said it and the environmental protection team had reviewed her footage of the dog, but it was unable to take any action as it only showed the dog trying to push the window open.
It also committed to writing to the neighbour with its intention to serve a notice of possession due to the issues and his breach of tenancy, and to speak with other neighbours to gain an understanding of the issues. We have seen evidence that, on 20 September 2024, the landlord fulfilled these commitments by hand serving the notice to the neighbour and completing a mail drop on several neighbouring addresses asking for residents to make contact if they were experiencing ASB.
In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged the residents request and advised her that she should complete a new home finder application. It also provided contact details should she require assistance to complete the application. It also suggested that she could register on house exchange, a free web-based service, aimed at helping tenants to find another tenant to swap homes with. This was appropriate advice and a clear response from the landlord, and it was consistent with the information it had at the time of the resident’s complaint.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she requested that the landlord assist her in her banding assessment due to the issues she was facing. She also separately submitted a review request of her banding to the housing allocations team. The evidence shows that the resident submitted video evidence of the neighbour’s dog’s behaviour and spoke with the landlord on 3 September 2024 and told them she would also be seeking medical evidence to support her move, due to her families’ vulnerabilities.
As set out the Ombudsman cannot consider ‘allocations’ under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, but we can consider management transfers offered by a landlord which sit outside Part 6. Under its allocations policy the landlord has the discretion for the ‘Tenancy Services Manager’ to assess individual cases, which includes the offer of accommodation to an applicant (often referred to as a management transfer). There is no evidence the landlord considered the instance of the behaviour of the neighbour and the impact on the resident’s household together with the household’s needs. This is a minor failing, which can be addressed by the landlord being ordered to consider if the matter meets the threshold for referral to the Tenancy Services Manager.
Overall, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. On the resident’s first report, although the landlord responded immediately, it failed to assess the risk posed to the resident or consider if further interventions or support were needed. The landlord’s communication was not as timely and effective as it should have been which left the resident’s concerns unanswered, even after her MP intervened. This caused time and trouble to the resident, and she was left feeling that her reports were not being taken seriously. It took the resident to raise a complaint before the landlord took proportionate action, and it should have handled the resident’s concerns with more empathy and provided support earlier.
It would not be fair to hold landlords responsible for the actions of its tenants, unless it authorised the behaviour complained of. Our role is to look at the failures and consider the impact on the resident of those. Our compensation awards are to recognise that, due to a failure, the resident is likely to have experienced some negative emotions such as distress, upset, inconvenience and disappointment. Therefore, to recognise the impact of the failures, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation. This is in line with our guidance on remedies where there is likely to have been some significant emotional impact.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request

Throughout the complaints process the resident made it clear that, as a resolution, she was seeking a move because of the ASB she had been reporting.
In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request and advised her that she should complete a new home finder application. It also provided contact details should she require assistance to complete the application. Lastly, it suggested that she could register on house exchange, a free web-based service, aimed at helping tenants to find another tenant to swap homes with. This was appropriate advice and a clear response from the landlord, and it was consistent with the information it had at the time of the resident’s complaint.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she requested that the landlord assist her in her banding assessment due to the issues she was facing. She also separately submitted a review request of her banding to the housing allocations team. The evidence shows that the resident submitted video evidence of the neighbour’s dog’s behaviour and spoke with the landlord on 3 September 2024 and told them she would also be seeking medical evidence to support her move, due to her families’ vulnerabilities.
As set out above, we cannot investigate ‘allocations’ under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. We can, however, consider management transfers or discretion that sits outside of Part 6. We can also assess the neighbourhood manager’s advice.
We cannot fault the advice given because it was in line with the allocations policy. Specifically, for the landlord to award band A priority to residents due to ASB, the landlord must be satisfied that all options to resolve the situation have been exhausted, and a move is recommended for the applicant’s safety by the police. At the point of its stage 2 response there was no evidence that the police recommended a move and possession proceedings were in their initial stages. In any event, the resident had submitted an appeal to the correct department, which could deal with the banding issue which we cannot comment on.
The policy also gives the landlord a discretion for the ‘Tenancy Services Manager’ to assess individual cases, which includes the offer of accommodation to an applicant (often referred to as a management transfer). There is no evidence the landlord considered the instance of the behaviour of the neighbour and the impact on the resident’s household together with their needs cumulatively. However, it is not clear that the resident’s circumstances would have met that threshold, whilst it would have been helpful to have provide some advice on this.
Overall, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents housing request.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s transfer request.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident a total of £600 compensation, in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble she experienced because of the failings by the landlord.
3. contact the resident to establish her current situation in relation to ASB with the neighbour and provide her an update of the status of any action. If there are still ASB issues, the landlord must consider these in line with its ASB policy and decide whether an updated risk assessment, action plan or further interventions are required, and set these out in writing to the resident.
4. provide us evidence that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to establish if her eligibility for a managed move under the ASB and discretion sections of the allocation policy given the current developments.