Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202302163)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302163

Kirklees Council

11 August 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident reported a noise disturbance from her neighbour in September 2021. The landlord opened an ASB case. The landlord visited the resident’s neighbour in March 2022 to give them a warning about the alleged noise disturbance. The landlord also offered the resident additional security measures at her property (known as target hardening) around that time. It is unclear if the resident accepted the offer.
  2. The local authority environmental health team installed noise monitoring equipment at the resident’s property in April 2022. This was because the resident continued to report regular noise disturbance from her neighbour. The landlord completed a joint visit to the neighbour with the police in May 2022, and issued them with a further warning letter. The landlord wrote to the resident in October 2022 and said it was closing the ASB case.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 10 January 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, and it was “dismissive” of her concerns. She asked it to rehouse her.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 25 January 2023. It explained it had closed the ASB case due to a lack of evidence. It said it had reviewed its communication with her and found it to be appropriate. It apologised if the resident felt it was “dismissive”. It said it did not have evidence to indicate an immediate transfer was warranted, and gave advice about bidding on the local authority choice based lettings system. It apologised it had not provided further diary sheets as she had requested, in October 2022, and for a delay in responding to an email.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 5 February 2023. She said she was unhappy it had not met with her to discuss the complaint.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 February 2023 to report further concerns of ASB. She reported there was a “major” noise disturbance throughout the night on 10 February 2023. She also reported the neighbour continued to “watch and monitor” her. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 February 2023 and said it had “explored all available” avenues in the case and could take no further action.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 3 March 2023. It explained the resident had updated her contact preference from written response only to include face to face meetings. It explained this was changed after it sent its stage 1 response. It said it was not necessary to meet in order to provide a comprehensive response at stage 1. It accepted by not speaking to the resident it did not give her the opportunity to speak to the officer investigating the complaint. It said it had reminded its staff to ensure contact is made with residents during a complaint investigation. It restated the findings of its stage 1 complaint investigation, and gave further advice about bidding for properties.
  8. The resident contacted us on 17 April 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. She said as an outcome she wanted the landlord to rehouse her.
  9. Following a successful bid on the local authority choice based lettings system, the resident moved to a different property with the same landlord in December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. The resident provided us with a large amount of evidence in support of her complaint. For this investigation we have considered all the evidence sent to us from both the resident and landlord. This report does not reference every document sent to us, as our report focuses on the key information that affected the outcome and determination in this case.
  2. The information available for this investigation shows the resident made further complaints to the landlord in late 2023 and 2024. These complaints related to later incidents of ASB, its handling of data (including CCTV), management of services charges and rent account, repairs, and an asbestos survey. As these complaints were made after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in March 2023 they do not come within the remit of this investigation. The investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and the associated complaint which exhausted its procedure in March 2023. The resident may wish to raise a new case with us if she has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and remains unhappy with its handling of the above issues.
  3. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling the resident’s reports of ASB in the 12 months leading up to her making the stage 1 complaint in January 2023. This approach is taken in line with that mandated by our Scheme and Complaint Handling Code. We acknowledge the landlord opened an ASB case in September 2021. However, this investigation has given greater weight to the landlord’s actions from January 2022 onwards. Any reference to its earlier actions are made to provide context.
  4. Throughout her complaint, and when she asked us to investigate, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her rehousing application. She raised concerns about her ability to bid and offers of accommodation, and that it had not rehoused her.
  5. Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical, or welfare grounds. We can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications.
  6. The resident’s rehousing application falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), and was dealt with by the landlord within its capacity as the local authority. As such, it cannot be reviewed by us, and the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO. The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the LGSCO about the landlord’s handling of her rehousing application if she wishes to pursue this matter further.
  7. The resident also raised concerns with us about the actions of the local authority environmental health team. It is not within our investigate the actions of the local authority’s environmental health department. We are only able to investigate complaints about the actions of local authorities in connection with their housing activities as far as they relate to the provision or management of housing. Complaints related to the actions of a local authority’s environmental health service may be considered by the LGSCO. The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the LGSCO if she remains unhappy with the actions of the local authorities environmental health service.
  8. Throughout her complaint the resident also raised concerns about the actions of the police when she reported ASB. We do not have jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the police. If the resident remains unhappy with the actions of the police in relation to the ASB she may wish to complain to the relevant police force directly, or contact the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
  9. Throughout her complaint the resident raised a concern the ASB was impacting on her health. She said the landlord’s handling of the matter increased the impact. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, unlike a court, we are unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence.
  10. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around damage to her health is beyond the scope of this assessment. We can assess whether the landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she wishes to pursue this matter further
  11. The resident has supplied us with images and videos in support of her claim the ASB was occurring. It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. We have given the evidence provided due consideration and acknowledge the resident does not believe the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. However, it is outside our remit to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether it was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

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

  1. The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed, and shared with the complainant.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will keep residents informed about its progress on an ASB case. It says it may refer a resident reporting ASB to a witness and victim support officer and create a bespoke package of support which may include ‘target hardening’. It says it may close a case when there is no further action to take or it has insufficient evidence.
  3. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord conducted a risk assessment or did an ASB action plan, in line with accepted best practice. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, this was inappropriate. This caused the resident an inconvenience as she was left not knowing the actions the landlord planned to take in her case. Nor was she given formal advice about steps she could take. We acknowledge it did provide updates about some actions it was taking, and provided the resident with diary sheets. However, a clear action plan would have helped inform the resident of all the actions it planned to take, and reassure her it was taking her concerns seriously.
  4. We note the landlord’s ASB policy from the time did not include the need to risk assess cases, or complete actions plans. The landlord has since changed its ASB policy to include the need to prioritise cases on a risk basis. We therefore make no further recommendations in relation to its ASB policy.
  5. In March 2022, the resident reported an incident where she alleged her neighbour was verbally abusive and used language of a sexual nature. This incident was evidently distressing for her. It was unreasonable the landlord did not complete a risk assessment at this time, considering the serious nature of the allegations.
  6. The evidence shows the landlord contacted the police about the matter, and explained to the resident it had done so. This was appropriate, as the landlord took action and sought to reassure the resident it was taking her concerns seriously. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord followed up with the resident once it had spoken to the police. This was a failing in its communication. The resident was inconvenienced by not knowing the actions the landlord took.
  7. The resident was evidently distressed after the incident. The lack of proactive follow up from the landlord may have increased the distress she experienced. We acknowledge the landlord asked if the resident was happy for it to visit the neighbour to issue a warning, in March 2022. These actions were appropriate.
  8. The landlord completed a joint visit to the resident’s neighbour with the police, in May 2022. This was appropriate and evidence it took the resident concerns seriously. Again, there was an error in its communication, as it did not explain to the resident it had done so. It missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident that it was taking appropriate actions in relation to her reports of ASB. The resident was inconvenienced by its poor communication about its actions. This further supports the conclusion an ASB action plan would have been appropriate. This would have given the resident relevant information about the actions it was taking. This may have helped reassure her.
  9. The local authority environmental health team installed noise monitoring equipment at the resident’s property in April 2022. This is evidence the landlord sought to work in partnership with the environmental health team. This was appropriate in the circumstances considering the regular reports of noise disturbance it received. We have seen no evidence the landlord was proactive in communicating the outcomes of the noise monitoring at the time. This was a further error in its communication. We acknowledge it did provide a detailed update to the resident’s local councillor, in May 2022. However, the resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise concerns with her local councillor before receiving an update.
  10. The landlord sent an ASB warning letter to the resident’s neighbour in May 2022. This was appropriate in the circumstances considering what the resident was reporting. Again, we have seen no evidence it explained to her it had taken this action. The landlord missed another opportunity to show transparency and explain to the resident it was taking appropriate actions in her case.
  11. The evidence shows the resident completed noise diary sheets between May and September 2022. These documented at least 58 incidents of noise disturbance the resident claimed to experience. We have seen no evidence the landlord considered a further request to the environmental health team to install noise monitoring equipment. Considering the resident continued to report issues of noise disturbance on a regular basis, this was inappropriate.
  12. The landlord closed the ASB case in October 2022. The landlord set out its findings from the period the noise monitoring equipment was installed, which was appropriate. It also acknowledged the resident had submitted further diary logs of alleged noise disturbance. It did not give the resident’s further reports of noise disturbance due consideration before deciding to close the ASB case. It was inappropriate to cite that the further incidents did not amount to a statutory nuisance. Particularly considering the number of reports made after the noise monitoring equipment was removed. We do not seek to determine whether the further reports amounted to a statutory nuisance, as that is not our role. However, the landlord’s comments, without appropriate evidence, were unreasonable.
  13. The resident was evidently distressed at the ASB she claimed she was experiencing. The lack of appropriate consideration of her further concern before closing the case may have increased the distress she experienced. Considering the resident has now moved, we have not made an order for it to meet with her to discuss her concerns about ASB. Had she remained in the property, we would have ordered it to do so.
  14. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response appropriately apologised for shortcomings in its communication and its failure to provide further diary sheets when the resident requested them. This showed learning. It also set out its position the resident did not meet the need for an urgent transfer, and instead gave advice on bidding on its choice based lettings system. This was appropriate in the circumstances. We acknowledge the resident disagreed with its assessment. However, it communicated its position with clarity and consistency in both its complaint responses. As set out above, its response to the resident’s concern about her rehousing application is not within the remit of this investigation.
  15. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to set out actions it had taken specifically related to the ASB case. This lacked transparency. We note it spoke in general terms and said it had handled the case appropriately. The evidence shows the resident felt the landlord had not taken appropriate action in her case. The evidence also shows the landlord had taken actions and investigated the resident’s concerns. By not setting in detail what it had done, it missed an opportunity to show learning and build trust with the resident.
  16. The landlord missed an opportunity to put right the shortcomings of its stage 1 complaint response, in its stage 2 complaint response. We acknowledge it restated the position of its stage 1 response and agreed with the findings. However, it failed to go into further detail about the actions it had taken on the ASB case. It missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident. It is clear the landlord had taken some appropriate actions on the case. To set out in detail what it had done would have helped reassure the resident.
  17. We note the landlord said in its complaint responses it was unable to share details about its visits to the resident’s neighbour due to GDPR (data protection regulations). While appropriate not to go into detail about the visits, it would have been reasonable to explain the actions it had taken, in general terms, in response to her reports of ASB. This is in line with accepted best practice for handling ASB cases.
  18. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately set out its position on why it had not offered a face to face meeting. It also acknowledged the resident missed an opportunity to meet with it and discuss her concerns, and it had reminded its staff to do so. This showed transparency and learning. The landlord identified failings in its communication, in its stage 1 response, and accepted shortcomings in its investigation. It would have been appropriate to offer compensation for its admitted failings. It missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
  19. The landlord’s handling of the resident further reports of ASB, in February 2023, were also unreasonable. The resident had reported further incidents of noise disturbance and a concern her neighbour was monitoring her. She explained she had reported the incident to the police. It was unreasonable the landlord responded to this report the next day to say it could take no further action in the case. The landlord was dismissive of her further reports of ASB, and decided it would take no further action without a meaningful investigation of the new report. This was unreasonable and its dismissive approach may have increased the distress the resident experienced.
  20. Considering the errors identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. Our remedies guidance sets out for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for £250 compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £250 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of her reports of ASB.