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

Derby City Council (202424232)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424232

Derby City Council

21 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:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 1-bedroom bungalow, since 2011. The resident has vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.
  2. For context, in February 2019, the landlord informed the resident that it had made the decision to restrict his contact. It said:
    1. This was because he continued to send “inappropriate” and “unmanageable amounts” of communication, despite having received a warning about the contact in November 2018.
    2. To manage the communication and support him moving forward, it had allocated him an appointment slot every Friday morning at 10am at the local housing office. He was able to attend the appointment with an advocate if he wished to do so.
    3. It reminded him what it categorised as ASB, and housing management issues.
    4. It asked him to refrain from sending it any emails, as it would not respond to him via this method.
  3. Between 2011 and 2024, the resident reported a range of ASB related issues to the landlord. This included allegations of:
    1. One of his neighbours (‘Neighbour A’):
      1. Causing issues with the communal gate.
      2. Pouring faeces and urine into his greenhouse.
      3. Causing damage to his car.
      4. Throwing paper and food waste onto his property and the communal grass area.
      5. Catapulting moss, slugs, snails, worms, caterpillars, and earwigs onto his property.
    2. Another neighbour (‘Neighbour B’) operating a business from their property.
  4. On 16 September 2024, the resident contacted this Service. He said the landlord was “not doing [its] job properly” as it had ignored his reports of ASB for 11 years. This included reports of Neighbour A “trying to kill [him] off” by recently attempting to set his recycling bin on fire, which was located next to a copper gas mains pipe.
  5. As such, we contacted the landlord on 12 December 2024 and requested that it open a formal complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and its complaint handling delays. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 December 2024. It said that it would not accept his formal complaint because he had not reported any instances of ASB (as per the contact agreement) within the previous 12 months. It also reminded the resident of the terms of the contact agreement.
  6. In August 2025, the resident informed this Service that he was no longer experiencing any ASB issues from his neighbours.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As mentioned earlier, the available records indicate that between 2011 and 2024, the resident reported a range of ASB related issues to the landlord. The fact that the issues were recurring is not disputed, but the evidence suggests they were not continuous. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions from September 2023 onwards. This is in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Scheme, which states that we may not consider matters that were not brough to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period (usually 12 months from the matter arising). However, as the case involves a high level of communication, it has not been possible to detail and assess every event within this report.
  2. The Ombudsman has not considered the reasonableness of the landlord’s decision to initially apply its unacceptable customer behaviour policy. This is because the resident did not raise the matter within his complaint. If the resident is unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with such issues, he may choose to make a further complaint about this, then refer it to this Service for separate investigation if he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. However, we will consider the restrictions after September 2023 within the ASB and complaint handling sections of this report.
  3. The resident has described how he feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue has negatively impacted his health. While we do not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Handling of ASB 

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened. Instead, our role is to establish if the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in line with its legal and policy obligations, and if its response was fair in all the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as “any act which caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to 1 or more persons not of the same household as the perpetrator”.
  3. The landlord’s unacceptable customer behaviour policy states that it will not tolerate unacceptable behaviour or actions that result in unacceptable or excessive demands on its service. It further states that a demand becomes unacceptable when a customer:
    1. Repeatedly demands a response within an unreasonable timescale.
    2. Makes repeated and unnecessary contact while it is already dealing with an enquiry, investigating a complaint or carrying out a service.
    3. Refuses to accept a decision where explanations for the decision have been provided.
    4. Repeatedly changes the substance of an enquiry or complaint or raises unrelated concerns.
  4. Between 15 September 2023 and 16 December 2024, the resident sent the landlord approximately 185 emails in relation to ASB issues. The emails included new reports of ASB (mainly in relation to, but not limited to, allegations of the neighbour throwing animals onto his property) and referenced historical ASB issues dating back to 2011.
  5. The landlord did not respond to most of the resident’s emails. We have also seen no evidence that it logged his reports of ASB on its internal systems. In normal circumstances, and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, this would have been unacceptable. However, as the landlord had reminded the resident (on 18 September 2023, 23 April 2024, and 28 November 2024) about the terms and restrictions of the contact agreement, we cannot find that it acted inappropriately. Nevertheless, the landlord’s records show that it responded to the resident’s ASB related emails on 4 occasions (23 July 2024, 6 November 2024, 9 January 2025 and 7 March 2025). We find the landlord’s actions in these instances confusing and at odds with the terms it had outlined previously to the resident (in accordance with its unacceptable customer behaviour policy). This was a failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and undoubtedly raised his expectations about its handling of his reports. Landlords should endeavour to be consistent with their communication and handling of such issues.
  6. Within the landlord’s email to the resident on 6 November 2024, it said that he would need to “get in contact with the police [regarding the allegation of the bin being set alight], as it went beyond what [it] would be able to deal with”. It is positive that the landlord signposted the resident to the police, as it was a criminal matter. We also appreciate that the landlord had previously informed the resident that it would not accept reports of ASB via email. However, given the serious nature of his reports, and the fact it had acknowledged his concerns, we find it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident further questions or encourage him to visit its office (as per the contact agreement) to discuss it further. We find the landlord’s dismissive approach in this instance inappropriate.
  7. In August 2025, the resident informed this Service that due to his health conditions, he felt unable to visit the landlord’s office to report ASB (as per the contact restriction). We acknowledge that between September 2023 and November 2024, the resident mentioned his physical health vulnerabilities to the landlord on numerous occasions. However, in mitigation, we have seen no evidence (during the same period) that the resident explicitly stated he was unable to visit the landlord’s office. We have also seen no documentary evidence that shows the resident requested a review of the landlord’s decision to restrict his contact (as the landlord explained he could do on 23 April 2024). We therefore cannot find that the landlord acted inappropriately.
  8. Following the landlord’s refusal to open the resident’s complaint (on 16 December 2024), the resident responded on 23 December 2024. He said that the landlord’s stance was “unacceptable, as [he] had been unwell with chronic blocked airways lung disease and [had] not been able to go out for most of the past 2 years.” Given the nature of the contact restriction the landlord had agreed with the resident (a face-to-face meeting away from his home), we find it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact him to discuss any reasonable adjustments that it needed to make, so he was able to easily report ASB moving forward. As mentioned earlier, we accept that the landlord had told the resident that it would not respond to his emails. However, it told this Service in August 2025 that it “regularly reviewed and monitored [his] emails”. Therefore, it is our opinion that it should have identified that further considerations needed to be made to his case.
  9. Overall, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This is because:
    1. Its communication with the resident, including its application of the contact restriction it told him it had implemented, was inconsistent.
    2. While the resident had not reported ASB via the agreed contact method, the landlord was aware of a potentially serious incident of ASB and failed to take any appropriate action.
    3. It was also aware that the resident was unable to attend the office (from 23 December 2024) and has failed to evidence that it reconsidered how the contact restrictions were impacting his ability to report ASB.
  10. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay him compensation to reflect the failures identified in this report. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s complaints and financial redress policy and our own guidance on remedies.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) became statutory in April 2024. It states that:
    1. A complaint must be defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident of group of residents”.
    2. Landlords must make it easy for residents to complain by providing different channels through which they can make a complaint.
    3. Landlords must consider their duties under the Equality Act 2010 and anticipate the needs and reasonable adjustments of residents who may need to access the complaints process.
    4. Landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. If landlords decide not to accept a complaint, they must be able to evidence their reasoning. Acceptable exclusions include:
      1. The issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 12 months ago.
      2. Legal proceedings have started.
      3. Matters that have previously been considered under the complaints policy.
  2. In addition to the above, the landlord’s complaints and financial redress policy states that it will also not consider a complaint where it has specific arrangements with the customer in line with its “unacceptable customer action” policy (elsewhere called its unacceptable customer behaviour policy).
  3. For context only, the landlord’s internal records show that it previously investigated its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in October 2018 and November 2021. As such, and in accordance with the Code, we would not expect the landlord to reinvestigate its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between 2011 and November 2021. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord explained this to the resident on 16 December 2024. Additionally, its stance that it could only investigate matters that had occurred within the previous 12 months was in accordance with the Code and its complaints policy.
  4. Within the resident’s communication with the landlord about the substantive issue (between September 2023 and September 2024), he mentioned on numerous occasions that he was unhappy with the landlord’s “lack of action”. While we accept that the resident did not explicitly state that he wanted to make a formal complaint, this was an expression of dissatisfaction that should have been identified as a potential complaint. In mitigation, we accept that the landlord had informed the resident that it would not respond to any of his emails.
  5. The landlord’s refusal to open the resident’s formal complaint was in line with its policy (as there were specific arrangements in place with the resident, in line with its unacceptable customer action policy). We also accept that landlords may need effective mechanisms in place to prevent vexatious and persistent complaints. However, as this specific complaint exclusion is not listed as an “acceptable exclusion” within the Code, we find that the landlord’s action in this instance was inappropriate and obstructive. Landlords should ensure that their complaints process is accessible to all residents.
  6. We approached the landlord again on 29 April 2025 and asked it to reconsider opening a complaint about the substantive issue. The landlord reiterated its original position that it would not open a complaint as the resident had not reported any issues via its agreed contact method. However, as mentioned earlier in the report, the resident had informed the landlord (on 23 December 2024) that he could not leave his house due to his health conditions. It is therefore our opinion that the landlord should have reconsidered its position to refuse the resident’s complaint on the basis that it was now aware that he required some reasonable adjustments to access its complaints service.
  7. The landlord’s failure to open a formal complaint also meant that it did not assess its handling of the substantive issue. Had it done so, it may have identified some of the issues highlighted by our investigation and offered the resident compensation in recognition of this.
  8. Overall, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because:
    1. The “exclusion” included in its complaints policy is not compliant with the requirements of the Code. We therefore find that it acted unreasonably when it refused the resident’s request to open a complaint.
    2. It was aware that the resident was unable to attend its office (from 23 December 2024) and has failed to evidence that it reconsidered how the contact restrictions were impacting his ability to make a formal complaint.
  9. To put things right for the resident, the landlord has been ordered to pay him compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s complaints and financial redress policy and our own guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified within this report.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss how his vulnerabilities may affect the current communication restrictions it has in place.
    3. Contact the resident to ask if he would like it to open a formal complaint about the communication restrictions.
    4. Pay the resident £500 compensation. This must be paid directly to him and is made up as follows:
      1. £350 for its handling of his reports of ASB.
      2. £150 for its handling of his formal complaint.